"Rather, GNU is slowly becoming irrelevant as people decide to release free software on their own terms." NOT!
A quick search on sourceforge finds 12,038 of 25,460 projects use the GPL. The developers choice, mostly. So their so-called "own terms" is the GPL in the overwhelming majority of cases. The remaining 13000+ projects are divided amongst a bunch of different licenses, none of which comes close to the GPL's 12,000.
GNU is far far far from irrelevant. Get your facts straight before splattering mis-truths about.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but to me (and yes, I use the GPL for my projects) I kindof equate releasing code under the GPL with supporting the GNU project, at least it's ideals of software freedom.
First, Let me say that I have an agenda: I've had a war on, since 1998, with the authors of
a crappy little program for Linux called linuxcad. This is a several
hundred dollar (yes it _does_ cost more than $99 to get all the stuff, trust me) piece of junk
that, in addition to not being worth anything like the price (can you say "rip-off"), they are
constant newsgroup spammers.
Now it amazes me that, for as long as I can remember visiting linuxapps, this program has been in the #6 "Most popular
today" position. I notice that kind of thing. Now a quick search around and you'll only find
this program at one other site, SAL, which may not know any better. I've written to
linuxapps.com suggesting they remove it to keep Linuxers from getting ripped off (I've got a
number of emails to back that), but it's still there. It sure is suspicious to me.
Ok, maybe the list isn't updated, but then again, I have seen it change. So it seems to me, that
they're playing a similar game here (the game of deception) to make you think lcad is a popular
program, probably for pay from the lcad authors (I emphasize probably), and get you ripped-off, too.
Please don't forget the three Apollo 1 astronauts who died on the launchpad. That brings the total to 10 US astronauts who have given their lives.
Your comparisons to the Russian program are not entirely fair. Only the Apollo 1 deaths are comparable. The Russians have never built anything close to a space shuttle (although they did steal the designs and try to clone it once, or something like that).
However, their main rocket, the Soyuz, is awesome and I think better than any US counterpart. Korolev, the visionary and principle designer was just plain brilliant. Not only has it stood the test of time as a great design, they got to this current design through moderate upgrades over the years, not a complete redesign. Very cost effective. Nasa should have been watching (and learning) as they did that:).
So what does this mean? It means with a brilliant designer, great things can happen, even on a shoestring budget.
I've got a _really_ nice rack I bought in an electronics surplus shop in Albuquerque, NM. It came from Sandia (I can tell by the colors). It has a good power distribution system (power strips) in it, a nice quiet fan and good sturdy wheels with a solid lock down thingy that locks/unlocks easily with your foot. Originally it cost several thousand dollars and I got it for $60 IIRC. I looked a long time before I found it, and I'm glad I was persistant and waited.
I'd been toying with setting up a BSD system - even got the box to run it on together. Then M$ came along and blessed BSD - now that box is running Vector Linux 1.5.
The way they are handling this shows a tacky, tasteless company. I will never buy, nor use, any adobe products again, as far as I have control of it. And I will discreetly recommend against them to all of my clients. If I succeed, that alone should cost them over $2000 in the next year. We have incredible influence over many buying decisions. If we all do the same, we should be able to make this cost them many many times that amount. (Just don't cut off your nose to spite your face).
Slashdot Mirror
I did get my facts straight. And I didn't even come close to saying that all GPL'd software is GNU software. But that wasn't the topic, now was it?
I even qualified my comment by stating my own bias. You're just looking to pick a fight, aren't you?
"Rather, GNU is slowly becoming irrelevant as people decide to release free software on their own terms." NOT!
A quick search on sourceforge finds 12,038 of 25,460 projects use the GPL. The developers choice, mostly. So their so-called "own terms" is the GPL in the overwhelming majority of cases. The remaining 13000+ projects are divided amongst a bunch of different licenses, none of which comes close to the GPL's 12,000.
GNU is far far far from irrelevant. Get your facts straight before splattering mis-truths about.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but to me (and yes, I use the GPL for my projects) I kindof equate releasing code under the GPL with supporting the GNU project, at least it's ideals of software freedom.
First, Let me say that I have an agenda: I've had a war on, since 1998, with the authors of a crappy little program for Linux called linuxcad. This is a several hundred dollar (yes it _does_ cost more than $99 to get all the stuff, trust me) piece of junk that, in addition to not being worth anything like the price (can you say "rip-off"), they are constant newsgroup spammers.
Now it amazes me that, for as long as I can remember visiting linuxapps, this program has been in the #6 "Most popular today" position. I notice that kind of thing. Now a quick search around and you'll only find this program at one other site, SAL, which may not know any better. I've written to linuxapps.com suggesting they remove it to keep Linuxers from getting ripped off (I've got a number of emails to back that), but it's still there. It sure is suspicious to me.
Ok, maybe the list isn't updated, but then again, I have seen it change. So it seems to me, that they're playing a similar game here (the game of deception) to make you think lcad is a popular program, probably for pay from the lcad authors (I emphasize probably), and get you ripped-off, too.
Please don't forget the three Apollo 1 astronauts who died on the launchpad. That brings the total to 10 US astronauts who have given their lives.
:).
Your comparisons to the Russian program are not entirely fair. Only the Apollo 1 deaths are comparable. The Russians have never built anything close to a space shuttle (although they did steal the designs and try to clone it once, or something like that).
However, their main rocket, the Soyuz, is awesome and I think better than any US counterpart. Korolev, the visionary and principle designer was just plain brilliant. Not only has it stood the test of time as a great design, they got to this current design through moderate upgrades over the years, not a complete redesign. Very cost effective. Nasa should have been watching (and learning) as they did that
So what does this mean? It means with a brilliant designer, great things can happen, even on a shoestring budget.
I've got a _really_ nice rack I bought in an electronics surplus shop in Albuquerque, NM. It came from Sandia (I can tell by the colors). It has a good power distribution system (power strips) in it, a nice quiet fan and good sturdy wheels with a solid lock down thingy that locks/unlocks easily with your foot. Originally it cost several thousand dollars and I got it for $60 IIRC. I looked a long time before I found it, and I'm glad I was persistant and waited.
I'd been toying with setting up a BSD system - even got the box to run it on together. Then M$ came along and blessed BSD - now that box is running Vector Linux 1.5.
The way they are handling this shows a tacky, tasteless company. I will never buy, nor use, any adobe products again, as far as I have control of it. And I will discreetly recommend against them to all of my clients. If I succeed, that alone should cost them over $2000 in the next year. We have incredible influence over many buying decisions. If we all do the same, we should be able to make this cost them many many times that amount. (Just don't cut off your nose to spite your face).