"Marketing involves half-truths, white lies, one-sided comparisons with competitors, massive amplififcation of small features, and a big dose of out-and-out bullshit. "
A this is different than a typical geek argument on Slashdot in what way?
"They've been using Windows on their desktop for quite a while now, mostly due to both my predecessors being totally incompetent and windows being the status-quo."
Sure. I'll bet all the people who disagree with you are incompetent.
You're assuming that knowing UNIX somehow means you automatically know about how to configure network equipment in a way that Windows Admins would not. There's no connection.
If one is going to lay a trap, one should at least have a vague idea of how the victim is going to trigger it. What exactly is the action you believe MS is going to be suckered into doing?
"... or that some clause of the license is ruled abusive, default copyright protection applies, which means no distribution (by anyone other that the author(s) )."
If some clause of the license is ruled abusive, that doesn't necessarily mean that the license is null and void (triggering default copyright protection). A court has the option of ruling that the remaining clauses of the license are still in force. This "all or nothing" theory of the GPL is bunk.
I'd say that in most cases UNIX admins would bumble their way through unfamiliar Windows GUIs in much the same way that Windows admins would bumble their way through unfamiliar console commands.
But my original post was mocking the idea that only non-Windows admins would care about routers. That wasn't your point (unless you were the AC), but it was his.
"Believe it or not, some real tech geeks rather than windows-using wannabees still read slashdot (though not typically the commments, I'm just on a day off). Some of us might want to preemptively throttle UDP to avoid similar problems as Halo takeup ramps up."
Sure, it's not as if Windows admins use routers or anything like that. Apparently only "real tech geeks" do (whoever they are).
Sure, just tell your potential investors that you're using the "bragging rights" business model. We aren't going to make any money, but everybody will know who we are.
The problem is that sometimes the "fix" introduces a bug. Working code shouldn't be "fixed" until all the bugs have been corrected first. The criteria for "crap" code is often more religious than objective anyway.
So the theory here is that paying programmers a poor wage leads to bad code, but paying them nothing leads to good code? Please explain the economic model you base that on.
"This article is based on the assumption that all closed source software is poorly coded and that open sourcing a software project will ultimately result in clean code."
And of course, since the author hasn't seen the vast majority of closed source code, there really isn't anyway he could prove that assumption anyway.
"The only people who might know that the code wasn't beautiful are the developers, and who listens to them? To the rest of the company, it doesn't matter if clicking on a button causes some message passing to happen in some elegant MVC architecture, or if it yanks a string tied to the tail of a gerbil on a wheel."
I'd go even further. If you are a professional developer (i.e. someone who develops real products - not just an academic) the value of an "elegant MVC architecture" entirely depends on the needs of your business. Doing additional work to make your software "elegant" without a business case is a bad trait in a developer. Now you may do it to make future enhancements easier to make and that's a valid reason as long as you've determined that's a reasonably likely scenario, but it shouldn't be done blindly just because somebody who knows nothing about your business says it's a "best practice".
"And when Linux means that their laptop costs 1/2 as much, all of a sudden everyone will be recommending packages out of Ubuntu."
Based on the current OEM price for Windows, that would be a about $60 for a laptop. I guess that will happen about the time a 15 inch flat-panel HDTV costs $10.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rationalizing" in this context. Sure, a bug fix that is made very early after GPL'ing the code may not be a problem, but it's more likely that a bug will be found later and the fix may no longer appropriate to the original code or may require the inclusion of third-party code that wasn't dual-licensed. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that the vast majority of GPL'd code (regardless of its origins) is never dual-licensed with BSD.
In any case, I think a bug fix is a pretty narrow interpretation of "giving back". I'm sure a lot of commercial companies who don't use GPL'd code would be willing to if all they were required to do was to distribute any bug fixes they made to the original code.
We're going around in circles. Back to the original point: C++ doesn't have to code through a "discovery" process to determine which data is collectable.
That's only a theoretical scenario (how often does this actually happen?) and one that is unlikely to be practical for more than a short time. Once the GPL'd code diverges from the orginal BSD, changes will be dependent on GPL'd code written by third parties and consequently it would be a GPL violation to back port them to the original BSD code base.
BSD code is already available to everyone forever. What the GPL does do is force new code created by others to be licensed under the GPL if it is added to the original GPL'd code.
We can debate the merits of this approach, but it is incorrect (and possibly dishonest) to state that putting BSD code under the GPL increases the freedom of the original code in any way.
Right! Even if developers license their code under the GPL, they should realize that people are going to take advantage of them to a certain extent while giving nothing in return. If that's a problem, they should keep their software closed.
Because it's a well known best practice in business that if you've invested a lot of money developing a product and it gets a slow start in the market, you should get rid of it so you can make sure that you can reduce revenue from it all the way down to zero dollars. And of course, think of the greater confidence investors would have if you stated that your flagship product sucks!
The difference is that if a C++ program is well-written, memory may be released sooner, so the peak memory use is potentially less. In other words, there's no such thing as unneeded data hanging around: it's either needed or it's gone.
I think this "freedom of the code" idea is nonsense. Both the GPL and the BSD allow the original work to be freely available. The primary difference between the licenses is how they treat changes or additions made to the original code. BSD doesn't require new work to be licensed under it and the GPL does. No anthropomorphism is required to understand the difference, although the creation of a non-existent "moral" issue might have some propaganda value.
Slashdot Mirror
"Marketing involves half-truths, white lies, one-sided comparisons with competitors, massive amplififcation of small features, and a big dose of out-and-out bullshit. "
A this is different than a typical geek argument on Slashdot in what way?
"They've been using Windows on their desktop for quite a while now, mostly due to both my predecessors being totally incompetent and windows being the status-quo."
Sure. I'll bet all the people who disagree with you are incompetent.
You're assuming that knowing UNIX somehow means you automatically know about how to configure network equipment in a way that Windows Admins would not. There's no connection.
If one is going to lay a trap, one should at least have a vague idea of how the victim is going to trigger it. What exactly is the action you believe MS is going to be suckered into doing?
"... or that some clause of the license is ruled abusive, default copyright protection applies, which means no distribution (by anyone other that the author(s) )."
If some clause of the license is ruled abusive, that doesn't necessarily mean that the license is null and void (triggering default copyright protection). A court has the option of ruling that the remaining clauses of the license are still in force. This "all or nothing" theory of the GPL is bunk.
I'd say that in most cases UNIX admins would bumble their way through unfamiliar Windows GUIs in much the same way that Windows admins would bumble their way through unfamiliar console commands.
But my original post was mocking the idea that only non-Windows admins would care about routers. That wasn't your point (unless you were the AC), but it was his.
"The problem with that is, most companies don't "train" their employees on Windows or Office. "
You're right. Most companies require their employess to already know how to use Windows and Office and may test that knowledge before hiring them.
"Believe it or not, some real tech geeks rather than windows-using wannabees still read slashdot (though not typically the commments, I'm just on a day off). Some of us might want to preemptively throttle UDP to avoid similar problems as Halo takeup ramps up."
Sure, it's not as if Windows admins use routers or anything like that. Apparently only "real tech geeks" do (whoever they are).
"So advertisements in general are a no-no for investors?"
No, but advertisements for products that can be cloned for free because you gave away the source have no value.
Sure, just tell your potential investors that you're using the "bragging rights" business model. We aren't going to make any money, but everybody will know who we are.
The problem is that sometimes the "fix" introduces a bug. Working code shouldn't be "fixed" until all the bugs have been corrected first. The criteria for "crap" code is often more religious than objective anyway.
"You hire crappy budget programmers"
So the theory here is that paying programmers a poor wage leads to bad code, but paying them nothing leads to good code? Please explain the economic model you base that on.
"This article is based on the assumption that all closed source software is poorly coded and that open sourcing a software project will ultimately result in clean code."
And of course, since the author hasn't seen the vast majority of closed source code, there really isn't anyway he could prove that assumption anyway.
"The only people who might know that the code wasn't beautiful are the developers, and who listens to them? To the rest of the company, it doesn't matter if clicking on a button causes some message passing to happen in some elegant MVC architecture, or if it yanks a string tied to the tail of a gerbil on a wheel."
I'd go even further. If you are a professional developer (i.e. someone who develops real products - not just an academic) the value of an "elegant MVC architecture" entirely depends on the needs of your business. Doing additional work to make your software "elegant" without a business case is a bad trait in a developer. Now you may do it to make future enhancements easier to make and that's a valid reason as long as you've determined that's a reasonably likely scenario, but it shouldn't be done blindly just because somebody who knows nothing about your business says it's a "best practice".
IBM will license this patent for free to the open source community.
"And when Linux means that their laptop costs 1/2 as much, all of a sudden everyone will be recommending packages out of Ubuntu."
Based on the current OEM price for Windows, that would be a about $60 for a laptop. I guess that will happen about the time a 15 inch flat-panel HDTV costs $10.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rationalizing" in this context. Sure, a bug fix that is made very early after GPL'ing the code may not be a problem, but it's more likely that a bug will be found later and the fix may no longer appropriate to the original code or may require the inclusion of third-party code that wasn't dual-licensed. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that the vast majority of GPL'd code (regardless of its origins) is never dual-licensed with BSD.
In any case, I think a bug fix is a pretty narrow interpretation of "giving back". I'm sure a lot of commercial companies who don't use GPL'd code would be willing to if all they were required to do was to distribute any bug fixes they made to the original code.
We're going around in circles. Back to the original point: C++ doesn't have to code through a "discovery" process to determine which data is collectable.
That's only a theoretical scenario (how often does this actually happen?) and one that is unlikely to be practical for more than a short time. Once the GPL'd code diverges from the orginal BSD, changes will be dependent on GPL'd code written by third parties and consequently it would be a GPL violation to back port them to the original BSD code base.
BSD code is already available to everyone forever. What the GPL does do is force new code created by others to be licensed under the GPL if it is added to the original GPL'd code.
We can debate the merits of this approach, but it is incorrect (and possibly dishonest) to state that putting BSD code under the GPL increases the freedom of the original code in any way.
Right! Even if developers license their code under the GPL, they should realize that people are going to take advantage of them to a certain extent while giving nothing in return. If that's a problem, they should keep their software closed.
Because it's a well known best practice in business that if you've invested a lot of money developing a product and it gets a slow start in the market, you should get rid of it so you can make sure that you can reduce revenue from it all the way down to zero dollars. And of course, think of the greater confidence investors would have if you stated that your flagship product sucks!
The difference is that if a C++ program is well-written, memory may be released sooner, so the peak memory use is potentially less. In other words, there's no such thing as unneeded data hanging around: it's either needed or it's gone.
So what happens if your application exceeds the limit with data that you still need? That doesn't sound like a very good solution to me.
"GPL protects the freedom of the code"
I think this "freedom of the code" idea is nonsense. Both the GPL and the BSD allow the original work to be freely available. The primary difference between the licenses is how they treat changes or additions made to the original code. BSD doesn't require new work to be licensed under it and the GPL does. No anthropomorphism is required to understand the difference, although the creation of a non-existent "moral" issue might have some propaganda value.