"However, in common parlance one comes across the idea of nature separate from nurture."
The phrase "nature vs. nurture" was created as much for its alliterative value as anyting else. It should really be "genetic vs. environmental" with an understanding that neither exist outside nature.
My point is that any observed human behavior is "natural". Some people try to narrow the definition of "natural" and then promote their personal moral values by pointing to this incomplete definition. I don't buy it.
"Now if you are claiming that most free software (or open source) is funded by nonfree (or proprietary) software, I will not hold my breath on any substantiation for it."
The GP was suggesting that closed source projects are supporting an ecosystem of programmers some of whom contribute to open source projects on their own time, not that the open source projects are directly funded by closed source projects. On the other hand, companies like IBM sell a lot of closed source software as well as contributing to open source projects, so in those cases it would be reasonable to speculate that the closed source may indeed be supporting that portion of the open source projects not written by volunteers.
"Every company that is competing with Apple is staffed managers, engineers, and other people who have spent their entire lives working with Windows and ugly ass beige x86 machines at home and work."
So I guess you're saying that good cross-compilers aren't available for Apple computers? After all it's not as if most non-iPod mp3 players are running Windows on an x86 processor.
Seriously, threads are just an OS or VM abstraction. There are plenty of C-based high-performance embedded systems out there working fine. You don't need threads to take advantage of multi-core processors.
Well, as it's been noted before, IBM and MS probably already have cross-licensing agreements given their long partnership. In addition the "Linux community" isn't a real organization that holds patents and has standing to sue anybody. If MS is sued for patent infringement, it's going to have to be by specific patent holders, not vague groups of people.
There's a difference between having a discussion and having a consensus conclusion. If you were really so sure that FOSS was destiny, you wouldn't have bothered to post at all. The fact is that you're still trying to convince people in 2007, you're just using a very poor argument to do it.
As you know there's a big difference between numbers and percentages. For example, there was a time when MS only had a tiny amount of DOS customers. There was never a time when MS had only 1% of the OS market for IBM PCs.
I also wouldn't make too much of the "emerging market" theory. If Linux PC sales took off, Dell's competitors could roll out their own offerings very quickly. It's not as if there's any secret Dell technology that competitors would have to duplicate, everything is readily available.
Since they continue to make big bucks off their patents, either their motivation isn't what you think it is, or it isn't making a big difference after all. If they're really serious, why not take the billions they make on patents and use it to support candidates who want to reform the patent system?
Here's what the article stated about how Torvalds handles patent issues:
"Linux founder and leader Linus Torvalds has taken that approach. Finding patent infringement has always been a responsibility of the patent holders," he said in a 2003 interview. "It is a fact that I do not encourage engineers to look up patent information."
Here's what I said:
"But I thought Linus made a point of not investigating possible patent problems with Linux so that he couldn't be accused of deliberately violating them."
So I call BS on all this "you didn't read Torvalds" crap. If you guys had a real argument you would have made it a long time ago, so this is where I'm going to stop.
Well, we can't read IBM's mind, but we know for a fact that they make billions off their patents each year. So unless you subscribe to the theory that a company can make billions year after year by accident, I think it's pretty obvious that making money was their intent. Why resist the simple and direct explanation?
Slashdot Mirror
"However, in common parlance one comes across the idea of nature separate from nurture."
The phrase "nature vs. nurture" was created as much for its alliterative value as anyting else. It should really be "genetic vs. environmental" with an understanding that neither exist outside nature.
My point is that any observed human behavior is "natural". Some people try to narrow the definition of "natural" and then promote their personal moral values by pointing to this incomplete definition. I don't buy it.
Black Tarmac of Death.
I'll agree that the GPL may promote the philosphy of the owner. That's quite different than giving people what they actually want and actually need.
"Now if you are claiming that most free software (or open source) is funded by nonfree (or proprietary) software, I will not hold my breath on any substantiation for it."
The GP was suggesting that closed source projects are supporting an ecosystem of programmers some of whom contribute to open source projects on their own time, not that the open source projects are directly funded by closed source projects. On the other hand, companies like IBM sell a lot of closed source software as well as contributing to open source projects, so in those cases it would be reasonable to speculate that the closed source may indeed be supporting that portion of the open source projects not written by volunteers.
Sure, human selfishness isn't natural. That's why you never see it "in the wild".
The GPL has nothing to do with altruism. Like all licensing, the GPL is intended to protect the interests of the owner.
"Every company that is competing with Apple is staffed managers, engineers, and other people who have spent their entire lives working with Windows and ugly ass beige x86 machines at home and work."
So I guess you're saying that good cross-compilers aren't available for Apple computers? After all it's not as if most non-iPod mp3 players are running Windows on an x86 processor.
Seriously, threads are just an OS or VM abstraction. There are plenty of C-based high-performance embedded systems out there working fine. You don't need threads to take advantage of multi-core processors.
Well, as it's been noted before, IBM and MS probably already have cross-licensing agreements given their long partnership. In addition the "Linux community" isn't a real organization that holds patents and has standing to sue anybody. If MS is sued for patent infringement, it's going to have to be by specific patent holders, not vague groups of people.
Thanks for the straw arguments.
There's a difference between having a discussion and having a consensus conclusion. If you were really so sure that FOSS was destiny, you wouldn't have bothered to post at all. The fact is that you're still trying to convince people in 2007, you're just using a very poor argument to do it.
So, would you agree that for anti-trust purposes MS's market share should have been calculated based on the "overall computing market"?
Well, if one values philosophy over functionality, than one has nothing to complain about if the functionality is unavailable.
"If Dell Linux machines become popular, we won't see all this fucking flash shit all over the place any more."
I think you've got it backwards. If Dell Linux machines can't display common Internet content, they won't become popular.
As you know there's a big difference between numbers and percentages. For example, there was a time when MS only had a tiny amount of DOS customers. There was never a time when MS had only 1% of the OS market for IBM PCs.
I also wouldn't make too much of the "emerging market" theory. If Linux PC sales took off, Dell's competitors could roll out their own offerings very quickly. It's not as if there's any secret Dell technology that competitors would have to duplicate, everything is readily available.
He's the one who decided to use the word "free" in a anthropomorphic way.
This is discussion is going nowhere, so I'll just stop.
Why and compared to what? It's not as if FOSS has passed the "test of time" yet.
Since they continue to make big bucks off their patents, either their motivation isn't what you think it is, or it isn't making a big difference after all. If they're really serious, why not take the billions they make on patents and use it to support candidates who want to reform the patent system?
Which companies have patent protfolios like IBM? What were the years when IBM had lots of patents but wasn't making a lot of money off of them?
Perhaps they should block all promotional movie sites associated with the MPAA and charge them $10,000 to $100,000 per site to reconnect.
Have you noticed that the SCO suit isn't about patents?
Thanks (at last) for a link.
Here's what the article stated about how Torvalds handles patent issues:
"Linux founder and leader Linus Torvalds has taken that approach. Finding patent infringement has always been a responsibility of the patent holders," he said in a 2003 interview. "It is a fact that I do not encourage engineers to look up patent information."
Here's what I said:
"But I thought Linus made a point of not investigating possible patent problems with Linux so that he couldn't be accused of deliberately violating them."
So I call BS on all this "you didn't read Torvalds" crap. If you guys had a real argument you would have made it a long time ago, so this is where I'm going to stop.
Well, we can't read IBM's mind, but we know for a fact that they make billions off their patents each year. So unless you subscribe to the theory that a company can make billions year after year by accident, I think it's pretty obvious that making money was their intent. Why resist the simple and direct explanation?