"To say that a device booting into a recovery mode is that same as it being bricked is simply absurd."
Which is why I never said it.
"Heck, the cost of hosting this file can easily be out weighed by the cost of dealing with customers who are calling because they have run into a bug in your firmware, and you don't have an mechanism to correct it."
The ability to "flash" program devices has led to a significant drop in the quality of embedded firmware in recent years. When correcting bugs meant having the customer return a system or having a technician come out to fix it, there was a much greater effort to "do it right the first time".
"To make a device that is unbrickable via a firmware flash, the device simply has to have a minimal firmware in an extra ROM that is enough to boot the device into a flashable state, and a mechanism to make the device boot to the alternate firmware."
Great. The result is that you can run the "minimal firmware" which for most consumers is still a brick. They would have to re-download the original image. It's still adds to maintenance costs.
Re:"consumer products" only
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Here's an alternate theory: Kissing IBM's ass is more productive than kissing Tivo's.
"Look at how hard the Microsoft drones have tried to discredit GPLv3 here."
I suspect that MS has come to the rather obvious conclusion that most people who post on Slashdot are anti-MS and so it would be a waste of time to try to convince them of anything.
Aren't most GNU tools pretty much done? What significant "must have" features are planned for the next few years? What would stop a V2 "community" from examining code from the V3 tree, messaging it a bit so they can't be accused of copying and then putting in their own branch?
In any case, if "free" software is split into two branches, it's only going to make it harder to convince companies to adopt either one.
"All the people who've been saying "MS has something else up it's sleeve; just wait for it..." have just been vindicated, I believe."
It appears that MS had the same thing up its sleeve. I didn't see many people predicting that MS was going to make further agreements with other Linux distributors.
The fact is that if you develop FOSS software as a volunteer, somebody else is profiting from your work and it's only going to get worse. If you're OK with that, fine. If not, welcome to the big, bad, greedy world.
Actually, you can even distribute GPL'd software without caring about RMS's definitions. The GPL is a legal document and as long as you abide by it you're within the law.
"IBM cannot be seen to be paying huge sums to Novell at the moment because it would be seen as a payoff for cooperation in certain ongoing litigation."
So money can't be exchanged between Novell and IBM on a matter unrelated to the SCO case? Get real.
"IBM is the real deal. The are not FOSS's only hero, but they are the biggest and they are committed."
As I've stated here before, not only does IBM continue to profit from proprietary software, but they've killed off at least one software product acquired from another company because it competes with IBM's higher-priced alternatives. You can't even buy a license for the last version. Certainly if IBM was really committed to FOSS, they'd license the legacy product under the GPL or some other FOSS license. They don't because FOSS is just a low cost PR tool to convince the gullible that IBM is on their side.
Thanks for the clarification (sort of). You're still using the word "common" which I think is a bit ambiguous or at least inconclusive. If you don't know what the majority of volunteers believe, wouldn't it be clearer just to say so?
Your analysis is wrong. The BSD license gives more freedom to both customers/users and programmer/coders than does the GPL. Part of that extended freedom is the ability to use BSD'd code, combine it with non-BSD code and release it under any license you wish including the GPL (which GNU has historically taken advantage of). Just as the BSD license has nothing to do GPL'd code derived from BSD'd code, the BSD license has nothing to do with applications that use other licenses even if the code was also derived from BSD'd code.
"RMS has been spending decades explaining "free"."
Perhaps he wouldn't need so much time if he just used the word properly. I'm about the same age as RMS. We never elected him President of the dictionary club so forgive me not giving a rats ass about his personal definition.
"Some call this "correction" of other people's code "code review" and "collaboration"."
I don't see how making uncoordinated unilateral changes to other developer's code qualifies as a code review or collaboration. These latter activities are not enhanced by merging nor impeded by file locking. Control freaks don't like a real code review because they might have to defend their own work.
"If modules are fiefdoms then the project can be severely impacted when the lone developer of a module gets another job."
There's nothing to stop you from rotating responsibility if you fear somebody might leave. Again, you can achieve these goals without the chaos of uncoordinated development.
I think you're confused about the time-line. The idea would be that IBM would provide the cash before Novell had done anything that FOSS supporters hate it for. Of course, I don't believe that the "devil" (MS) made them do it, nor do I believe that IBM is going to be the hero of any scenario. I wasn't disingenuous, but I was mocking the fan-boy line about IBM.
I agree with you, I was just repeating the wishful thinking line. I agree that Novell is neither stupid enough to see IBM saving them nor is it stupid enough to follow MS's advice and put patent violations in their code (and it would require MS to be very stupid also).
Then it would be more appropriate to say the "spirit of GNU" or the "spirit of free software".
I suspect that the reason that the phrase "spirit of the GPL" is used is to try to suggest that by agreeing to the terms of the license you somehow have an obligation to follow other non-GPL rules that the GPL "framers" would prefer you to follow. I find a "bait and switch" quality to this argument.
I also think that "marketing" concerns have driven the terms of the GPL to not fully embrace the "spirit of free software". The fact that source code for modifications doesn't have to be made available unless the software is distributed seems to be inconsistent with the "software wants to be free" concept.
"One might infer that Microsoft wants to be involved with Novel's design and development efforts so that Novel will unwittingly infringe upon as many Microsoft patents as possible."
If you really think that Novell is that dumb, than why do you care what they do? Actually MS would have to be incredibly dumb to do this as well. All it would take is one whistle blower to create another round of anti-trust hell for MS; probably on a criminal rather than civil basis this time.
If that's really the case (tin foil hat donned for the sake of argument) why didn't they just appeal to FOSS hero IBM for a bailout? Isn't the idea that IBM is going to swoop in and save everyone from MS the default argument these days?
Or better yet, just reject anything from an author that doesn't share their beliefs. It's not as if communication of ideas has as much to do with their business as enforcing a politically-correct philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
"To say that a device booting into a recovery mode is that same as it being bricked is simply absurd."
Which is why I never said it.
"Heck, the cost of hosting this file can easily be out weighed by the cost of dealing with customers who are calling because they have run into a bug in your firmware, and you don't have an mechanism to correct it."
The ability to "flash" program devices has led to a significant drop in the quality of embedded firmware in recent years. When correcting bugs meant having the customer return a system or having a technician come out to fix it, there was a much greater effort to "do it right the first time".
There are many government documents that you can't get access to and it has nothing to do with file formats.
"The more they over think the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
"I think it's a common myth to assume that everyone on Slashdot is a Linux fan."
I wouldn't know, since I never said it.
"To make a device that is unbrickable via a firmware flash, the device simply has to have a minimal firmware in an extra ROM that is enough to boot the device into a flashable state, and a mechanism to make the device boot to the alternate firmware."
Great. The result is that you can run the "minimal firmware" which for most consumers is still a brick. They would have to re-download the original image. It's still adds to maintenance costs.
Here's an alternate theory: Kissing IBM's ass is more productive than kissing Tivo's.
"Look at how hard the Microsoft drones have tried to discredit GPLv3 here."
I suspect that MS has come to the rather obvious conclusion that most people who post on Slashdot are anti-MS and so it would be a waste of time to try to convince them of anything.
Aren't most GNU tools pretty much done? What significant "must have" features are planned for the next few years? What would stop a V2 "community" from examining code from the V3 tree, messaging it a bit so they can't be accused of copying and then putting in their own branch?
In any case, if "free" software is split into two branches, it's only going to make it harder to convince companies to adopt either one.
"All the people who've been saying "MS has something else up it's sleeve; just wait for it..." have just been vindicated, I believe."
It appears that MS had the same thing up its sleeve. I didn't see many people predicting that MS was going to make further agreements with other Linux distributors.
The fact is that if you develop FOSS software as a volunteer, somebody else is profiting from your work and it's only going to get worse. If you're OK with that, fine. If not, welcome to the big, bad, greedy world.
There is a way to profit from open source. Make a Linux distro and then make an agreement with MS. Sweet.
Actually, you can even distribute GPL'd software without caring about RMS's definitions. The GPL is a legal document and as long as you abide by it you're within the law.
"IBM cannot be seen to be paying huge sums to Novell at the moment because it would be seen as a payoff for cooperation in certain ongoing litigation."
So money can't be exchanged between Novell and IBM on a matter unrelated to the SCO case? Get real.
"IBM is the real deal. The are not FOSS's only hero, but they are the biggest and they are committed."
As I've stated here before, not only does IBM continue to profit from proprietary software, but they've killed off at least one software product acquired from another company because it competes with IBM's higher-priced alternatives. You can't even buy a license for the last version. Certainly if IBM was really committed to FOSS, they'd license the legacy product under the GPL or some other FOSS license. They don't because FOSS is just a low cost PR tool to convince the gullible that IBM is on their side.
Thanks for the clarification (sort of). You're still using the word "common" which I think is a bit ambiguous or at least inconclusive. If you don't know what the majority of volunteers believe, wouldn't it be clearer just to say so?
Your analysis is wrong. The BSD license gives more freedom to both customers/users and programmer/coders than does the GPL. Part of that extended freedom is the ability to use BSD'd code, combine it with non-BSD code and release it under any license you wish including the GPL (which GNU has historically taken advantage of). Just as the BSD license has nothing to do GPL'd code derived from BSD'd code, the BSD license has nothing to do with applications that use other licenses even if the code was also derived from BSD'd code.
"RMS has been spending decades explaining "free"."
Perhaps he wouldn't need so much time if he just used the word properly. I'm about the same age as RMS. We never elected him President of the dictionary club so forgive me not giving a rats ass about his personal definition.
Given the many, many, many times this has been corrected on Slashdot, I suspect that your "not caring about the truth" theory is the correct one.
"That's pretty common amongst Vietnam vets who are largely convinced Vietnam was winnable had the politicians not hamstrung them at every turn."
If you're saying that most Vietnam vets believe that the Vietnam war was winnable, I think you need to do more research.
"Increasing the number of Western occupying soldiers to 400,000, .... will transform Iraq into a prosperous, liberal Western nation.
Wow, it only takes 400,000 soldiers to move Iraq West? How many dump trucks does it take?
"Some call this "correction" of other people's code "code review" and "collaboration"."
I don't see how making uncoordinated unilateral changes to other developer's code qualifies as a code review or collaboration. These latter activities are not enhanced by merging nor impeded by file locking. Control freaks don't like a real code review because they might have to defend their own work.
"If modules are fiefdoms then the project can be severely impacted when the lone developer of a module gets another job."
There's nothing to stop you from rotating responsibility if you fear somebody might leave. Again, you can achieve these goals without the chaos of uncoordinated development.
I think you're confused about the time-line. The idea would be that IBM would provide the cash before Novell had done anything that FOSS supporters hate it for. Of course, I don't believe that the "devil" (MS) made them do it, nor do I believe that IBM is going to be the hero of any scenario. I wasn't disingenuous, but I was mocking the fan-boy line about IBM.
I agree with you, I was just repeating the wishful thinking line. I agree that Novell is neither stupid enough to see IBM saving them nor is it stupid enough to follow MS's advice and put patent violations in their code (and it would require MS to be very stupid also).
Then it would be more appropriate to say the "spirit of GNU" or the "spirit of free software".
I suspect that the reason that the phrase "spirit of the GPL" is used is to try to suggest that by agreeing to the terms of the license you somehow have an obligation to follow other non-GPL rules that the GPL "framers" would prefer you to follow. I find a "bait and switch" quality to this argument.
I also think that "marketing" concerns have driven the terms of the GPL to not fully embrace the "spirit of free software". The fact that source code for modifications doesn't have to be made available unless the software is distributed seems to be inconsistent with the "software wants to be free" concept.
"One might infer that Microsoft wants to be involved with Novel's design and development efforts so that Novel will unwittingly infringe upon as many Microsoft patents as possible."
If you really think that Novell is that dumb, than why do you care what they do? Actually MS would have to be incredibly dumb to do this as well. All it would take is one whistle blower to create another round of anti-trust hell for MS; probably on a criminal rather than civil basis this time.
If that's really the case (tin foil hat donned for the sake of argument) why didn't they just appeal to FOSS hero IBM for a bailout? Isn't the idea that IBM is going to swoop in and save everyone from MS the default argument these days?
Or better yet, just reject anything from an author that doesn't share their beliefs. It's not as if communication of ideas has as much to do with their business as enforcing a politically-correct philosophy.