Good thing RMS fucking agrees with you. In fact, he advocates charging as much for software as the market will bear.
So you think that swearing at me will somehow change the facts in your favor? RMS claims to agree with me, but in practice he does not. The GPL clearly states that any recipient of my work may redistribute it however they like. Including *free*. So I could potentially sell one copy and never see another nickel of proceeds again. How very caring of Mr. RMS.
Now if you approach it from the perspective of "we can help each other out by working together on this software", then the GPL can make a lot of sense. And the ability to sell the software comes in handy as a tool to provide services centered around that cooperation. e.g. I can sell GCC on CDRom for those who don't have a fast enough connection or would prefer to have a hard-copy backup.
That is _not_ what RMS advocates. Please read his philosophy straight from his very own website: gnu.org.
_Yes_ it is. Please read his philosphy straight from his very own website: the GPL
3) You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above
In short, there's no idealogical problem with selling free software.
I didn't say there was. I said that RMS's viewpoint is that free redistribution is a required right. That means that I may only ever see one sale. After that, everyone can share my software to their heart's content. Contrast that with traditional copyright which gives me the protection that others may *not* redistribute my software. That includes my source code if I feel generous enough to offer it with my product.
You can end up in jail if you use someone else's software in the wrong way, without permission: look at Dmitry Skylarov.
And yet, none of what RMS has promoted would have stopped this from happening. Having the source code to Adobe, and even free rights to the patents, would not have stopped him from being found in violation of a law intended to protect the right of someone to secure their software.
No, I am not saying that the DMCA is a good law. It's actually a very poorly written law. But it was the law and it transcended software.
Although you do bring up an interesting point. Where was RMS when Dmitry was in jail? Was he lobbying the government to release him? Was he rallying the troops over the injustice? Hmm...
Who's the real bullies here: the IP monopolists, who jail people who expressing new ideas, because they're built out of old ideas, or the people (like Stallman) who suggest that the IP monopolists are on the wrong track?
The problem with the article, is that RMS is beating up on fairly defenseless individuals. He should be lobbying the government to block/repeal bad computing laws. He should be working with the public to educate them on what is good business practice. He should be trying to meet people on their terms to help them understand his position. And he should be listening to feedback on why developers can't release their software for unfettered redistribution.
What is he doing instead? Beating up on a small businessman who has spent considerable time, money, and energy to bring a good product to the world. Because, you know, it's all McVoy's fault that the world works the way it does. Way to strike a blow for FREEDOM! Why should it matter who gets hurt?
I finally decided to mark you as a foe, because... drumroll please... YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!!!
Good for you. If I'm not pissing someone off, then I'm probably not saying anything worthwhile.
No, seriously, the OP just said he liked RMS. He made absolutely no speculation about anything you drummed up out of your dumb ass.
And seriously, he did. He unconditionally agreed with RMS, which made him liable for the views in the article.
I like RMS too. I often don't agree with him, but I sure as hell respect the guy and even, *gasp* like him.
And you are free to feel that way. I have no problem with people holding opinions. The ones who annoy me are the people who blindly follow.
FWIW, I have reversed the foe marking now that the original poster has stated an actual opinion. That brings me to a grand total of having a dozen or so freaks (like yourself) and no foes.
Really? Maybe you could give a example of him bullying in the article?
You do realize that mockery is a very powerful method of bullying someone into submission? And what does RMS do in this article? Mock McVoy for making the horrible mistake of *selling* non-libre software.
Don't act like the me-too attitude is limited to the FSM.
Indeed. As you say, it's always harder to hold an opinion because you will be persecuted for that opinion. Just look at the mod-war taking place in my original post for an example.
Don't be sorry. I understand your point completely. Especially since I do understand the whole source/no-source issue.
Unfortunately, it ALWAYS gets confused because part of what RMS advocates is the free redistribution of software. His claim is that it is required to have totally free software (i.e. forkability) in order to be able to properly use any software. Unfortunately, the side effects of this thinking could lead to an economic collapse if taken to the extreme of which RMS advocates. The current balance works quite well, and is being championed by far more important entities than RMS. (e.g. Linus, Apache, *BSD, etc.)
My original post was actually just meant to be a "conversation starter". (Read flamebait.:) )
And here we have the reason why you were foed.:-) I never foe anyone, mod them down, or encourage that they be modded down for stating an intelligent opinion. Your reply achieves what your original post failed to do.
At the end of the day, the computer is a tool for me to accomplish whatever task is important to me. There should be no financial barriers to those tasks.
The computer is a tool. But it does not entitle you to people's hard work. It entitles you to use it however you like. If there's something you need to do with your computer than you're free to write instructions to accomplish that task. However, if you wish to have someone else use their time and energy to accomplish your task, then you need to be ready to compensate that person or entity.
In the case of commercial software the transaction is extremely simple. One person does the work and others who need it pay for that work. In the case of free software its a case of helping each other out. i.e. I have great software that does X, so I release it hoping that others will help me improve it and/or decide to release their software as well. That's fine.
Where we get into trouble is in the idea that the former model is somehow "evil" or "bad" and that the later model is "good" or "the one true way of the long bearded Jedi". That's nonsense. Freedom means that everyone should be able to do whatever they please with their own property. If that means sell it for a profit, then good luck to them.
I'll reconsider the foe thing. I hate keeping foes.
Microsoft were not "secretly developing" NT, as NT is what M$ renamed OS/2 3.0 after the split.
Survey says... No.
NT was a ground up rewrite of a kernel based on VMS designs. The userland was a mish-mash of Win3.1 and OS/2 technology. Anyone who told you otherwise didn't know what they were talking about.
I always hate it when people mark me as a foe and don't explain why, so I'll explain to you why I just marked you as a foe.
I'm afraid that your post smacks heavily of a "me too!" syndrome that is pervasive in the "Free Software Movement". The fact that the economy needs to run and that people should be compensated for their work seems to go right past your head. McVoy apparently did good work in both creating and marketing his product. Thus he is receiving compensation in the form of product sales. Whatever squabbles there are about a Linux version, there is nothing wrong with selling software. In fact, the sale of software is a cog that keeps our economy running.
RMS's comments are childish, and extremely self-serving. I take no issue with his goals of making all software free, as long as he's willing to write, finance, or support others in writing that software. But I do take issue with him attempting to bully others into accepting his idea of how software should be handled.
Remember, they have no problem with that "Open OS" from the other member of "The Unholly Alliance".
That makes no bloody sense. What does Microsoft have to do with an OS that Sun has been developing for over two decades? It's none of their business, and Sun would likely sue if Microsoft got in the way.
OS/2, OTOH, was a joint development project between Microsoft and IBM. They set about developing an ultra-advanced version of Windows that was supposed to be the next in line after Win3.1. However, Microsoft was secretly developing Windows NT and was planning to use OS/2 as a stop-gap measure while they built their true "next OS". Then a couple of MS engineers managed to get protected mode working for the Win3.1 code, and Microsoft shifted development to Win95, thus leaving OS/2 in the dustbin of Microsoft history.
More bullocks. For example, there is a well known issue with USB Microsoft Intellimice that causes them to lock up after a while. This appears to be caused by the poor state of the USB subsystem. The same subsystem that was added years ago and never properly fixed. (I used to have fun poking at Linux users because they took forever to get USB, while FreeBSD had it not long after Windows added it. And when Linux did finally get USB, it was an extremely poor rendition that in no way compared to the robustness of the FreeBSD implementation.)
With open source software the coder and their work is exposed to public review by their peers, which provides great incentive to produce neat clean code (if it isn't it will soon get replaced by some one elses code that is).
One would *think* it would work that way, but the truth is that this is another unsubstantiated assumption. There is a LOT of Linux code in the kernel that is just plain butt ugly. OTOH, I have seen a few cases proprietary code that is extremely well written.
The problem is that the quality of the code again depends upon the quality of the individual writing it. Good programmer just naturally write better code than poor programmers. But to get *really* good code, you must go the way of the FreeBSD project: i.e. Require code reviews before check-in.
Those who disagree can take solace in the fact that my harsh opinion has been modded safely out of view as a "troll."
Well that's rather rude. Mods, please correct the great-grandparent's modding. "Troll" is only appropriate when someone is actually trolling. Same with "flamebait". Overrated may be used to bounce someone back to +1 if they yell too much, but it should never be used to push them below that. And if you just disagree with the poster, then you should just leave it alone.
I think you're being a bit harsh. It wasn't laugh-out-loud funny, but it was amusing. The only point I take issue with is that they really are not clear about what the alternative is supposed to be. They just keep waxing on and on and on about how horrible tapes are. I kept waiting for them to say something about network storage or some new optical media. It's almost like they're afraid they'll make fun of the solution as well.
P.S. Very Important! Do not click the third button! It will cause a blue screen of DEATH!
Am I wrong or would anything that explodes be a pretty useless weapon in a vacuum.
You're wrong. Do you know the difference between a concussion grenade (which does little to no damage) and a regular grendae (which is EXTREMELY dangerous)? If you said "shrapnel", pat yourself on the back.
All that energy from the explosion has to go somewhere. Oxygen/Nitrogen is probably the least effective projectile particle. Lacing the explosive with something harder (like lead or tungsten) is going to cause a LOT more damage to the intended target.
Why the fixation on the browser plugin? It's not a very useful thing to have. Core Java support is far more important for running applications and servers.
If you really need the plugin, then you need to go to the development branch. i.e. Blackdown.:-)
Drives need atmosphere to work. I think it has something to do with the heads
The head floats on a molecule thick cushion of air. While it needs that air to prevent the head from smashing into the drive platter, I think that modern drives are completely sealed. Thus they have their own atmosphere and don't need to be exposed to nasty particles and bacteria that could cause drive crashes. (Or vacuum for that matter.)
Also, they could not be cooled, but I don't think that is the main issue.
Cooling is provided by the surface area of the drive. Heat is transmitted through the metal case and radiated away. In space this is slightly more problematic as there are no cool particles to help radiate the heat away. That means that the heat will have to be lost through inefficient infrared coversion.
I'm sure that others can provide a few more details.
Better idea. Go read the Honor Harrington series. (Go to baen.com, click on Free Library, and select "On Basilisk Station".) While they have hyperdrives and gravity propulsion, space battles are heavily dependent on orbital vectors, base velocities, missile loadouts, and missile counter-defenses. The author (David Weber) does a really good job of showing how a space battle might play out. Oh, and it is quite exciting.:-)
I thought you just said that 1.4 doesn't work on AMD64?
*Mac version is 1.4
So?
*No java plugin on 1.5 for amd64
But how does not using 1.5 fix that?
*Eclipse's stable version needs 1.4
It should work just fine with 1.5. The 1.4 source level means that the IDE is setup to work with the 1.4 language features and that it won't support stuff like Generics.
*Java 1.5 sucks, because of bad implementations of stuff like generics. See here for info.
So ignore it.
You seem to be under the impression that 1.5 is incompatible with 1.4. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
What's wrong with 1.5? It should be fully compatible with 1.4. Just make sure you're looking in the 1.4 JavaDocs. Also, you may need to add "-target 1.4 -source 1.4" to the javac parameters.
Got 'ya. The way it was phrased, I thought you were saying that the money was coming from DMCA enforcement. I hereby retract my comment about "FUD" and offer an apology.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing RMS fucking agrees with you. In fact, he advocates charging as much for software as the market will bear.
So you think that swearing at me will somehow change the facts in your favor? RMS claims to agree with me, but in practice he does not. The GPL clearly states that any recipient of my work may redistribute it however they like. Including *free*. So I could potentially sell one copy and never see another nickel of proceeds again. How very caring of Mr. RMS.
Now if you approach it from the perspective of "we can help each other out by working together on this software", then the GPL can make a lot of sense. And the ability to sell the software comes in handy as a tool to provide services centered around that cooperation. e.g. I can sell GCC on CDRom for those who don't have a fast enough connection or would prefer to have a hard-copy backup.
_Yes_ it is. Please read his philosphy straight from his very own website: the GPL
In short, there's no idealogical problem with selling free software.
I didn't say there was. I said that RMS's viewpoint is that free redistribution is a required right. That means that I may only ever see one sale. After that, everyone can share my software to their heart's content. Contrast that with traditional copyright which gives me the protection that others may *not* redistribute my software. That includes my source code if I feel generous enough to offer it with my product.
You can end up in jail if you use someone else's software in the wrong way, without permission: look at Dmitry Skylarov.
And yet, none of what RMS has promoted would have stopped this from happening. Having the source code to Adobe, and even free rights to the patents, would not have stopped him from being found in violation of a law intended to protect the right of someone to secure their software.
No, I am not saying that the DMCA is a good law. It's actually a very poorly written law. But it was the law and it transcended software.
Although you do bring up an interesting point. Where was RMS when Dmitry was in jail? Was he lobbying the government to release him? Was he rallying the troops over the injustice? Hmm...
Who's the real bullies here: the IP monopolists, who jail people who expressing new ideas, because they're built out of old ideas, or the people (like Stallman) who suggest that the IP monopolists are on the wrong track?
The problem with the article, is that RMS is beating up on fairly defenseless individuals. He should be lobbying the government to block/repeal bad computing laws. He should be working with the public to educate them on what is good business practice. He should be trying to meet people on their terms to help them understand his position. And he should be listening to feedback on why developers can't release their software for unfettered redistribution.
What is he doing instead? Beating up on a small businessman who has spent considerable time, money, and energy to bring a good product to the world. Because, you know, it's all McVoy's fault that the world works the way it does. Way to strike a blow for FREEDOM! Why should it matter who gets hurt?
I finally decided to mark you as a foe, because...
drumroll please...
YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE!!!
Good for you. If I'm not pissing someone off, then I'm probably not saying anything worthwhile.
No, seriously, the OP just said he liked RMS. He made absolutely no speculation about anything you drummed up out of your dumb ass.
And seriously, he did. He unconditionally agreed with RMS, which made him liable for the views in the article.
I like RMS too. I often don't agree with him, but I sure as hell respect the guy and even, *gasp* like him.
And you are free to feel that way. I have no problem with people holding opinions. The ones who annoy me are the people who blindly follow.
FWIW, I have reversed the foe marking now that the original poster has stated an actual opinion. That brings me to a grand total of having a dozen or so freaks (like yourself) and no foes.
Really? Maybe you could give a example of him bullying in the article?
You do realize that mockery is a very powerful method of bullying someone into submission? And what does RMS do in this article? Mock McVoy for making the horrible mistake of *selling* non-libre software.
Don't act like the me-too attitude is limited to the FSM.
Indeed. As you say, it's always harder to hold an opinion because you will be persecuted for that opinion. Just look at the mod-war taking place in my original post for an example.
Don't be sorry. I understand your point completely. Especially since I do understand the whole source/no-source issue.
Unfortunately, it ALWAYS gets confused because part of what RMS advocates is the free redistribution of software. His claim is that it is required to have totally free software (i.e. forkability) in order to be able to properly use any software. Unfortunately, the side effects of this thinking could lead to an economic collapse if taken to the extreme of which RMS advocates. The current balance works quite well, and is being championed by far more important entities than RMS. (e.g. Linus, Apache, *BSD, etc.)
My original post was actually just meant to be a "conversation starter". (Read flamebait. :) )
:-) I never foe anyone, mod them down, or encourage that they be modded down for stating an intelligent opinion. Your reply achieves what your original post failed to do.
And here we have the reason why you were foed.
At the end of the day, the computer is a tool for me to accomplish whatever task is important to me. There should be no financial barriers to those tasks.
The computer is a tool. But it does not entitle you to people's hard work. It entitles you to use it however you like. If there's something you need to do with your computer than you're free to write instructions to accomplish that task. However, if you wish to have someone else use their time and energy to accomplish your task, then you need to be ready to compensate that person or entity.
In the case of commercial software the transaction is extremely simple. One person does the work and others who need it pay for that work. In the case of free software its a case of helping each other out. i.e. I have great software that does X, so I release it hoping that others will help me improve it and/or decide to release their software as well. That's fine.
Where we get into trouble is in the idea that the former model is somehow "evil" or "bad" and that the later model is "good" or "the one true way of the long bearded Jedi". That's nonsense. Freedom means that everyone should be able to do whatever they please with their own property. If that means sell it for a profit, then good luck to them.
I'll reconsider the foe thing. I hate keeping foes.
Microsoft were not "secretly developing" NT, as NT is what M$ renamed OS/2 3.0 after the split.
Survey says... No.
NT was a ground up rewrite of a kernel based on VMS designs. The userland was a mish-mash of Win3.1 and OS/2 technology. Anyone who told you otherwise didn't know what they were talking about.
I always hate it when people mark me as a foe and don't explain why, so I'll explain to you why I just marked you as a foe.
I'm afraid that your post smacks heavily of a "me too!" syndrome that is pervasive in the "Free Software Movement". The fact that the economy needs to run and that people should be compensated for their work seems to go right past your head. McVoy apparently did good work in both creating and marketing his product. Thus he is receiving compensation in the form of product sales. Whatever squabbles there are about a Linux version, there is nothing wrong with selling software. In fact, the sale of software is a cog that keeps our economy running.
RMS's comments are childish, and extremely self-serving. I take no issue with his goals of making all software free, as long as he's willing to write, finance, or support others in writing that software. But I do take issue with him attempting to bully others into accepting his idea of how software should be handled.
Well, they did practically invent Algebra, so I guess it's of interest from a historical perspective.
Remember, they have no problem with that "Open OS" from the other member of "The Unholly Alliance".
That makes no bloody sense. What does Microsoft have to do with an OS that Sun has been developing for over two decades? It's none of their business, and Sun would likely sue if Microsoft got in the way.
OS/2, OTOH, was a joint development project between Microsoft and IBM. They set about developing an ultra-advanced version of Windows that was supposed to be the next in line after Win3.1. However, Microsoft was secretly developing Windows NT and was planning to use OS/2 as a stop-gap measure while they built their true "next OS". Then a couple of MS engineers managed to get protected mode working for the Win3.1 code, and Microsoft shifted development to Win95, thus leaving OS/2 in the dustbin of Microsoft history.
exposure to other 'stuff' helps expand your horizons.
Right you are. Now go install Plan 9.
More bullocks. For example, there is a well known issue with USB Microsoft Intellimice that causes them to lock up after a while. This appears to be caused by the poor state of the USB subsystem. The same subsystem that was added years ago and never properly fixed. (I used to have fun poking at Linux users because they took forever to get USB, while FreeBSD had it not long after Windows added it. And when Linux did finally get USB, it was an extremely poor rendition that in no way compared to the robustness of the FreeBSD implementation.)
With open source software the coder and their work is exposed to public review by their peers, which provides great incentive to produce neat clean code (if it isn't it will soon get replaced by some one elses code that is).
One would *think* it would work that way, but the truth is that this is another unsubstantiated assumption. There is a LOT of Linux code in the kernel that is just plain butt ugly. OTOH, I have seen a few cases proprietary code that is extremely well written.
The problem is that the quality of the code again depends upon the quality of the individual writing it. Good programmer just naturally write better code than poor programmers. But to get *really* good code, you must go the way of the FreeBSD project: i.e. Require code reviews before check-in.
Those who disagree can take solace in the fact that my harsh opinion has been modded safely out of view as a "troll."
:-)
Well that's rather rude. Mods, please correct the great-grandparent's modding. "Troll" is only appropriate when someone is actually trolling. Same with "flamebait". Overrated may be used to bounce someone back to +1 if they yell too much, but it should never be used to push them below that. And if you just disagree with the poster, then you should just leave it alone.
Thank you.
I think you're being a bit harsh. It wasn't laugh-out-loud funny, but it was amusing. The only point I take issue with is that they really are not clear about what the alternative is supposed to be. They just keep waxing on and on and on about how horrible tapes are. I kept waiting for them to say something about network storage or some new optical media. It's almost like they're afraid they'll make fun of the solution as well.
P.S. Very Important! Do not click the third button! It will cause a blue screen of DEATH!
Am I wrong or would anything that explodes be a pretty useless weapon in a vacuum.
You're wrong. Do you know the difference between a concussion grenade (which does little to no damage) and a regular grendae (which is EXTREMELY dangerous)? If you said "shrapnel", pat yourself on the back.
All that energy from the explosion has to go somewhere. Oxygen/Nitrogen is probably the least effective projectile particle. Lacing the explosive with something harder (like lead or tungsten) is going to cause a LOT more damage to the intended target.
No, I understood perfectly. I was just providing a bit of info on the origin of the name. :-)
Why the fixation on the browser plugin? It's not a very useful thing to have. Core Java support is far more important for running applications and servers.
:-)
If you really need the plugin, then you need to go to the development branch. i.e. Blackdown.
Allow me:
David Weber - On Basilisk Station
Read Online
HTML Zip
MS Reader Zip
Palm / Win CE / Psion Zip (Mobipocket)
Rocket / REB1100 Zip
Rich Text Format Zip
Drives need atmosphere to work. I think it has something to do with the heads
The head floats on a molecule thick cushion of air. While it needs that air to prevent the head from smashing into the drive platter, I think that modern drives are completely sealed. Thus they have their own atmosphere and don't need to be exposed to nasty particles and bacteria that could cause drive crashes. (Or vacuum for that matter.)
Also, they could not be cooled, but I don't think that is the main issue.
Cooling is provided by the surface area of the drive. Heat is transmitted through the metal case and radiated away. In space this is slightly more problematic as there are no cool particles to help radiate the heat away. That means that the heat will have to be lost through inefficient infrared coversion.
I'm sure that others can provide a few more details.
Better idea. Go read the Honor Harrington series. (Go to baen.com, click on Free Library, and select "On Basilisk Station".) While they have hyperdrives and gravity propulsion, space battles are heavily dependent on orbital vectors, base velocities, missile loadouts, and missile counter-defenses. The author (David Weber) does a really good job of showing how a space battle might play out. Oh, and it is quite exciting. :-)
*1.4 works fine.
I thought you just said that 1.4 doesn't work on AMD64?
*Mac version is 1.4
So?
*No java plugin on 1.5 for amd64
But how does not using 1.5 fix that?
*Eclipse's stable version needs 1.4
It should work just fine with 1.5. The 1.4 source level means that the IDE is setup to work with the 1.4 language features and that it won't support stuff like Generics.
*Java 1.5 sucks, because of bad implementations of stuff like generics. See here for info.
So ignore it.
You seem to be under the impression that 1.5 is incompatible with 1.4. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
What's wrong with 1.5? It should be fully compatible with 1.4. Just make sure you're looking in the 1.4 JavaDocs. Also, you may need to add "-target 1.4 -source 1.4" to the javac parameters.
Got 'ya. The way it was phrased, I thought you were saying that the money was coming from DMCA enforcement. I hereby retract my comment about "FUD" and offer an apology.