Netscape did not lose the browser war. Netscape won when Microsoft made IE available for free. As the philosophers say, once that camel's nose gets into the tent, pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent. Referring to the fact that MS is destined to become Open Source someday, since Gates already made the error of selling his browser for free.
Giving software away for free is the first step toward realizing that Open/Free Source is a superior marketing strategy in the long run...
Netscape's gift to the world was not a browser, but the concept that astounding software could be free.
I'd like to see MSoft _try_ to sell their browser any time soon.
Outlook Express is nice, much nicer than the bloated full version of Outlook, but it doesn't allow me to turn OFF html. I don't like html e-mail, and I don't like security risks in something so basic as an e-mail manager. Can't turn off my html, and if I want help on the issue, I have to wade through MS BS. I use it, but at gunpoint only.
What is compelling about Dan's responses is that he is not cynical. He consistently encourages people to write good code, using language that reveals he knows about coding himself--or at least he reads enough Slashdot to understand the psychology of a coder. He is deeply interested in the causes of programmers, and this preliminary codification of the present condition of Open Source is an impressive foundation for future reference on this topic.
What is nice is the way he piles Free Software folk right into the heap with Open Source folk, quite gracefully smoothing over a trivial politicization within the movement that has been needing to happen for a long time. I also do not make the distinction between the two groups which others make, and use the terms "free" and "open" interchangeably in this context.
Stallman is working very hard to maintain a sense of clarity that he presciently held way back in the 1980s, but the fact is, the point is made. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have gotten his point, and have extended it in many directions. The idea behind the GPL is infused in all the other "free" licenses, and anyone can choose whichever flavor suits them best. No need to say one is "better" than the other, which I think Stallman seems to tend toward. It is what it is. What do we have, about a dozen major free licenses to choose from? I am grateful for this entire FAQ, but most grateful for the closing lines responding to Stallman's question, where an attorney does the opposite of "divide and conquer."
I also enjoyed learning details about the Supremecy Clause. That's good stuff to know about, in many contexts.
We are very sorry to announce that Zico's absence yesterday was due to an extraordinarily complicated perambulation of non-negotiable consolations in the gigantic size, being beyond our ability to comprehend in several dimensions, yet leaving us that one pitiable understanding that the dog ate his homework and so we collaborated on this extensive excuse of an excuse for his absence so that we could pretend to be socially responsible, but actually we are slackers, blah, blah, blah,
Zico's parents.
I.E. Why not use your creativity to do what you're supposed to do, instead of what yer not? Why not simply code BETTER than the GPL'd code, rather than go to all the trouble of disguising the fact that you're stealing someone else's code? Hmmm.
Geez. Drink some coffee or something. Chill out. The story is relevant because of the RIAA link, and stories like this need to be corroborated in detail for those of us who prefer not to believe all rumors. Some of us like facts.
I like that word, apesh. I think you just coined a new word. Don't get apesh about it, though. I think any dictionary that's not apesh oughta carry this word. Apesh. Apesh. Yes, I like this new word. Should it be pronounced "ayp-ish" or "uh-pesh", though. Depends on where yer from, probably. I like this word. Thanks.
Non-profit does not always equal poor and virtuous. NPR is bought, long ago, by Ford Foundation, Archer Daniels Midland, and other huge-money interests. Listen to their mini-advertisements at the end of each hour! They appeal to a "smahter, well-ped" audience who doesn't need the no-brainer car-salesman tactics you'll find on late-night TV. A brief mention at the top of the hour is all ADM requests. They give money to NPR and get a tax break for it--what a scam! NPR is not alternative. It is junkmail like all the rest, even though they did interview Linus Torvalds yesterday.
If you want real news, you have to find it yourself.
NPR is bought and sold in the same way. If you've ever been involved in a news event covered by NPR, you'd realize they miss as much as any other outlet newswise. I've been in several, particularly notable was when 10,000 people, an amazing coalition of mutually-exclusive groups: students, punks, teamsters, farmers, and environmental activists, showed up in Washington D.C. to protest the WTO. NPR talked about how punk kids were dressed, forgetting to interview anyone on the actual topic, which was how 10,000 people surrounded a dozen square blocks of Washington D.C. and refused to allow anyone through to the WTO meetings happening inside. All non-violently. Inside the ring formed by protesters was another ring formed by police with weapons and gases. You missed it, but NPR was blasted for their trivialized approach to the matter, and the next day they had a little more material, but if you really wanted to know what was happening, you had to turn to the Independent Media. NPR sold out years ago. Look at their sponsors--huge multinational corporations who delight in news which makes people feel like everything in the world is operating smoothly. NPR is for rich people, or wannabe-rich-people. I listen only when I have no other alternative, praying their condescending tone doesn't seep into my brain...
It is important not to calculate the day of the week for ANY date after February 12, 152,560. It is rumored that knowledge of anything beyond that date rests in the domain of the eternal, and the entire universe will cease to exist if anything is attempted to be known beyond that date, including something so ordinary as the day of the week.
Well, if ya really want to do stupid things with your money, you could eat it. Make sure to shred it well with your teeth, otherwise it gets clumped up in your epifloggital sac.
Gambling... all gambling... is for losers. Even if you win, you lose.
Baugh. I played the lottery once. Lost a dollar. Never played again. Got the point.
No, it wasn't planned. It was Torvald's graceful answering which kept the flow running on this one; she made several mistakes. She did not catch his cryptic reference to FUD--completely ignored it because she was preparing to read her next question, which lots of journalists do. The best journalists know their material so well that they ask questions in such a manner that does not reveal they are ignorant of their material. Don't be so sure that it was planned. As an interviewer, I would never use this technique without clarifying that I _did_ know what I was talking about, like: "Some people think that x is true, and some people think that y is. What is your understanding of x and y?"
In a similar manner, she thought that GPL kept people from making money off of software, but Torvald's answer made the distinction clear: the software can be sold, but its source must be made available.
Given the fact that I count one attitude flaw in your post, I'm still referring to the original which has several salient points.
How to read between the lines
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 1
CTH:
With people in Microsoft's position, you have to be careful as you read between the lines. Note the excess word just in this line quoted from their site:
Microsoft views source code and source code licensing as just one component of an umbrella framework that is the Commercial Software Model.
The sentence would mean the same without the value-laden word just. So look closely at that word. What is it doing? It is targeted directly at Open Source folks. It is implying that source code is not only a small portion, but a rather small portion of Commercial Software.
To any programmer, even closed-source ones, this is a slight. And Microsoft knows that the best programmers in the world are ones dedicated to Open Source. Open Source programmers work for joy, not always for money. Microsoft has a case of sour grapes and is trying to malign the whole profession of programmers, knowing that, even doing so, they can buy the average ones for a dime a dozen: give 'em money, and they'll program for ya. It's a weird tactic, but their language is laced with this kind of condescending tone.
No need to evaluate whether they're sensible or not; the DOJ is still breathing down their nostrils at 'em, so of course they're gonna be sensible. What you want to look for is any sense of repentence from past errors. If that is not present, what real value is in what they have to say?
We must be careful not to INVITE Scientologists to take us on. Why? Because they will, whether we invite them or not. We must not have the hubris to think that we might succeed in a court case because we have many people on our side. No, Scientologists keep secrets, which means they accept the premise that it is permissible to lie. We Open Source folks cannot tolerate lies as easily, and are thus handicapped in the arena populated by attorneys, where lies are fabricated willfully. Scientologists also have nearly inexhaustible financial resources, because they demand money from their followers. They also can be protected in many legal systems as a RELIGION, while Slashdot cannot be so protected. Thus, it may be said that Slashdot _might not_ win any arbitrary court case against them. Thus we should not specifically invite them to sue.
The reality that they will sue us someday is quite tenable. What we must realize is that when Scientologists sue or attack something like Slashdot, they make a LOT of people aware of their faults. This realm of philosophy is where we win; an actual court case may or may not be ours for the taking. The beauty of Open Source is that anyone who criticizes it soon finds that Open Source is a better way than criticism...
Who can criticise one who publicizes all criticism?
I believe this is why Jesus kept no secrets; he knew that he would die because of his teachings, but that his teachings would live forever, because he never taught in secret.
We are into Open Source for the nobility of idea alone, not for the supremecy of the mortal courtroom. Thus, we, like all martyrs, must be willing to die for our ideas, that our ideas might live forever. They live longer depending on how purely we held to the idea of "No Secrets." For when the carrier of No Secrets dies, the idea is reborn in a thousand new forms, made durable by yet another death of innocence and purity, that one single thing which causes all men to weep.
Yes. The American Way is to tolerate even the intolerable.
See, we recognized a few generations ago that SOMEtimes the intolerable is actually the better way. In this case, Scientology hides behind so many secrets that it is pretty clear they have little new to offer the world.
Yet we must tolerate them, or else we become intolerable, just like them.
If we do it any other way, we regress, not progress. It's logic which is fuzzy to non-Americans. Why? Something peculiar has come over the waters to America: nearly every single person living in America is a descendent of someone who wanted a better life. And is a descendent of someone who was oppressed by racism as soon as he arrived, but overcame it with hard work and faith in a better future...
FACT: There are make-believe Christians.
FACT: There are true Christians.
Discerning the difference between the two is easier made by non-Christians. They all know that we are told to love our neighbors.
Islam is not a make-believe religion. It's as real as Christianity. See what the Koran says about Jesus Christ and John the Baptist: Jesus is who he said he is, and he's coming back like he said he would. And John the Baptist, whom the Koran called "Yahya", is described as fulfilling the prophecy at the end of Malachi, just like Christians believe.
You may want to consider refining your definition of the word 'make-believe'. It doesn't quite hold up to the strength of the rest of your sentence.
Slashdot Mirror
Inheriting, not ripping off! Inheritance!
Outlook Express is nice, much nicer than the bloated full version of Outlook, but it doesn't allow me to turn OFF html. I don't like html e-mail, and I don't like security risks in something so basic as an e-mail manager. Can't turn off my html, and if I want help on the issue, I have to wade through MS BS. I use it, but at gunpoint only.
nice analogy.
What is nice is the way he piles Free Software folk right into the heap with Open Source folk, quite gracefully smoothing over a trivial politicization within the movement that has been needing to happen for a long time. I also do not make the distinction between the two groups which others make, and use the terms "free" and "open" interchangeably in this context.
Stallman is working very hard to maintain a sense of clarity that he presciently held way back in the 1980s, but the fact is, the point is made. Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have gotten his point, and have extended it in many directions. The idea behind the GPL is infused in all the other "free" licenses, and anyone can choose whichever flavor suits them best. No need to say one is "better" than the other, which I think Stallman seems to tend toward. It is what it is. What do we have, about a dozen major free licenses to choose from? I am grateful for this entire FAQ, but most grateful for the closing lines responding to Stallman's question, where an attorney does the opposite of "divide and conquer."
I also enjoyed learning details about the Supremecy Clause. That's good stuff to know about, in many contexts.
I like that word, apesh. I think you just coined a new word. Don't get apesh about it, though. I think any dictionary that's not apesh oughta carry this word. Apesh. Apesh. Yes, I like this new word. Should it be pronounced "ayp-ish" or "uh-pesh", though. Depends on where yer from, probably. I like this word. Thanks.
If you want real news, you have to find it yourself.
Sigh.
Tuesday, of course.
Ummm, didn't you see that Slashdot is "news for nerds?" It didn't say "Open Source nerds," it sed "nerds." Geez. Don't be a nerd, ya geek!
Do you even remember what dirt smells like anymore?
It was Tuesday, the 42nd of May. Didn't you read the hitchhikers guide?
Gambling... all gambling... is for losers. Even if you win, you lose.
Baugh. I played the lottery once. Lost a dollar. Never played again. Got the point.
I refuse to use anything which operates outside of binary holes in a card. Well, that and an abacus.
In a similar manner, she thought that GPL kept people from making money off of software, but Torvald's answer made the distinction clear: the software can be sold, but its source must be made available.
Given the fact that I count one attitude flaw in your post, I'm still referring to the original which has several salient points.
With people in Microsoft's position, you have to be careful as you read between the lines. Note the excess word just in this line quoted from their site:
The sentence would mean the same without the value-laden word just. So look closely at that word. What is it doing? It is targeted directly at Open Source folks. It is implying that source code is not only a small portion, but a rather small portion of Commercial Software.
To any programmer, even closed-source ones, this is a slight. And Microsoft knows that the best programmers in the world are ones dedicated to Open Source. Open Source programmers work for joy, not always for money. Microsoft has a case of sour grapes and is trying to malign the whole profession of programmers, knowing that, even doing so, they can buy the average ones for a dime a dozen: give 'em money, and they'll program for ya. It's a weird tactic, but their language is laced with this kind of condescending tone.
No need to evaluate whether they're sensible or not; the DOJ is still breathing down their nostrils at 'em, so of course they're gonna be sensible. What you want to look for is any sense of repentence from past errors. If that is not present, what real value is in what they have to say?
Whoa, dude. Slow down on the TV a bit. Such things don't happen in real life...
Your version is mostly hearsay. Give me some facts, please. I'm from Missouri.
We must be careful not to INVITE Scientologists to take us on. Why? Because they will, whether we invite them or not. We must not have the hubris to think that we might succeed in a court case because we have many people on our side. No, Scientologists keep secrets, which means they accept the premise that it is permissible to lie. We Open Source folks cannot tolerate lies as easily, and are thus handicapped in the arena populated by attorneys, where lies are fabricated willfully. Scientologists also have nearly inexhaustible financial resources, because they demand money from their followers. They also can be protected in many legal systems as a RELIGION, while Slashdot cannot be so protected. Thus, it may be said that Slashdot _might not_ win any arbitrary court case against them. Thus we should not specifically invite them to sue.
The reality that they will sue us someday is quite tenable. What we must realize is that when Scientologists sue or attack something like Slashdot, they make a LOT of people aware of their faults. This realm of philosophy is where we win; an actual court case may or may not be ours for the taking. The beauty of Open Source is that anyone who criticizes it soon finds that Open Source is a better way than criticism...
Who can criticise one who publicizes all criticism?
I believe this is why Jesus kept no secrets; he knew that he would die because of his teachings, but that his teachings would live forever, because he never taught in secret.
We are into Open Source for the nobility of idea alone, not for the supremecy of the mortal courtroom. Thus, we, like all martyrs, must be willing to die for our ideas, that our ideas might live forever. They live longer depending on how purely we held to the idea of "No Secrets." For when the carrier of No Secrets dies, the idea is reborn in a thousand new forms, made durable by yet another death of innocence and purity, that one single thing which causes all men to weep.
See, we recognized a few generations ago that SOMEtimes the intolerable is actually the better way. In this case, Scientology hides behind so many secrets that it is pretty clear they have little new to offer the world.
Yet we must tolerate them, or else we become intolerable, just like them.
If we do it any other way, we regress, not progress. It's logic which is fuzzy to non-Americans. Why? Something peculiar has come over the waters to America: nearly every single person living in America is a descendent of someone who wanted a better life. And is a descendent of someone who was oppressed by racism as soon as he arrived, but overcame it with hard work and faith in a better future...
FACT: There are make-believe Christians.
FACT: There are true Christians.
Discerning the difference between the two is easier made by non-Christians. They all know that we are told to love our neighbors.
Islam is not a make-believe religion. It's as real as Christianity. See what the Koran says about Jesus Christ and John the Baptist: Jesus is who he said he is, and he's coming back like he said he would. And John the Baptist, whom the Koran called "Yahya", is described as fulfilling the prophecy at the end of Malachi, just like Christians believe.
You may want to consider refining your definition of the word 'make-believe'. It doesn't quite hold up to the strength of the rest of your sentence.