Last time I checked, the biggest note issued by the Bank of England was a £50. The Bank of Ireland or Bank of Scotland may do bigger, but they're not legal tender in England IIRC, so we don't see them all that often:)
I'm glad this one turned up on my meta moderation. It's been getting silly recently, what gets moderated up and what down.
Maybe we could go back to having editors doing a big chunk of the moderation for a while to try and improve the quality, then allocate moderator points in proportion to RECENT karma?
I knew it wasn't exactly the most up-to-date code release out there, but something's there and it's certainly better than useless. Which some people seem not to recognise, unfortunately. That's what I was complaining about.
Interesting to see that I'm not the only one fed up with the moderators:) Slashdot tends to be rather less open minded than some people seem to think IME.
I don't want a domain and someone else has already registered slashdot.com - did so back in '96. Given the circumstances, however, it would be nice if they'd at least posted a notice explaining that there was a problem as someone else had registered the domain (though it appears to be a token page and I'd class it as definite cybersquatting.
I resent being told I'm whining like a 2-year old for raising a legitimate query, to be honest. This isn't good and there should at least be an explanation somewhere. But how did this post get to be a 2?
Digital Unix made sense before. It was the Unix that Digital did. Now they don't exist, Digital becomes a descriptive wod rather than a branding, rather impying there's an analogue Unix out there...
Tru64 may not be the best name in the world, but it's accurately showing that this is a proper 64-bit Unix. Which is at least honest.
If you have a look on the left (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread...) there's a code link. It's available.
The truly annoying thing is that we have a company which was sold for a sizeable amount of money to a company's that's about to be listed on the stock market where your primary obligation is to make the most money possible for your shareholders. And what's the domain name? slashdot.org, in the non-profit domain.
If I were Rob I'd have done my level best to sort out a commercial domain some time ago. I were in charge of domain registrations I'd be spitting blood over an obvious abuse of domain names.
If you checked, I linked to an explanation of it. I know what it is, I know that it's originaly a Usenet thing. But, we've certainly had Godwin invoked here before and that was definitely an analogy with Hitler and the NSDAP, so it's liable byu the slashdot extension convention that seems to apply.
How do you think the Nazis pulled it off? Not one worker ever killed Jews en masse: the only thing they did is pull a lever, drive a locomotive, show the Jews to the gas chamber. I'm not saying genocide and censorship are of the same scale; I'm saying that in both cases, institutions promoting them hope everyone involve will say, 'Well, I didn't really do anything.'
Whether or not you say these things aren't on the same scale, this example is too emotive and way too loaded. I'm calling Godwin on you.
If you want a better example, there's plenty. How about South Africa and apartheid - or some states of the US, if you're prepared to go back a little further. Still gets the point across, but nowhere near as loaded for most as mentioning the NSDAP.
Incidentally, is this the shortest thread where Godwin's been invoked?
Greg
Re:About mouse usage with keyboard
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
Surely a custom mouse could do this through shoes?
I'm thinking something in the scale of those foot massagers you sometimes see. Imagine a big version of a laptop joystick for the ball of one foot, then the mouse buttons handled with the other. How you do the scrollwheel I'm not yet sure:)
The obvious problem with this is potential chaos if I start tapping my feet for any reason, but I can see real potential in this as an idea.
Greg
Keyboard design - OK, it's a poor title. Sue me :)
on
Interface Zen
·
· Score: 1
Interesting article. But:
I would truly hate to have to work on that happy hacker's keyboard. I like have a proper row of function keys - they're useful. I like my numeric keypad - as Tom said, I can enter numbers way faster on that than I can on the row at the top, even if I'm just typing a phone number. Don't kill it. I use cAPS lOCK, too. It's nice when you're shouting at someone - saves having to leave a finger wedging a key down. And I like cursor keys...
Let's pull a quote out:
"... the up arrow and the down arrow are directly aligned vertically. Your hand despises this, which is why the rest of the main keyboard has no such configuration on it anywhere. To see what I mean, try using the `j' and `k' keys in rapid succession, back and forth as though you were executing a trill. It's quite easy to go up three, down one, up two, etc. But now try playing your trill on the up and down arrows. Whoops! You have to turn your hand completely sideways, or use the same finger to do both jobs. Either way you play it, you lose."
Actually, no. I'm a trumpetter so I'm well used to playing trills, but I can execute one FAR faster on the arrow keys than I can on j-k. Why? All to do with how the fingers work. Y'see, they don't move quite independently of each other. Sit there for a minute wiggling your fingers and you'll see what I mean. But, if the keys are in a vertical line, I can use my thumb and get entirely independent motion. Try a quick test - thumb on the down arrow, middle finger on the up. you should find that you can get a trill far faster than with fingers alone this way. Besides, stick me on that dreadful Happy Hacker keyboard and I lose them altogether unless I'm willing to use the option shift - which is something Tom's been arguing against from the start to my eyes, and would slow me down considerably.
Now, let's look back at that odd keyboard again. Oops, Escape's next to 1. Tom, for whatever reason, may well like that. But the average user? No way. Far too high a chance of hitting it accidentally. Think Windows for a moment. You can get therapy later if you want:) Tab moves you between elements in a form, escape cancels. Do you really want the two next to each other? And I've still got something to cover the functionality of the Windows keys, as much as Tom may have ranted against them. Incidentally, I rather like them. Being stuck in Windows, it means I can navigate around the abomination that is the start menu VERY quickly.
I'm glad to see you value Ctrl so highly, Tom, but I don't actually use it all that often. I'm happy it's way down there. I wish my left shift were larger, like you, but I'm happy with my Ctrl key.
Spacebars - how many of us do anything other than rest our thumbs on them and hit them when necessary? So how large do they really need to be? Not very. This one's nearly 6 keys long, but that's plenty long enough and certainly no shorter than this ideal keyboard Tom seems to like, despite his protestations that they're too small now.
You talk about the penalty zone - but what would you prefer? If the cursor keys - VERY useful, even if they do give me cramp if I play games on them for too long - are moved in tighter, the chance of my hitting them accidentally and ending up with gibberish increases exponentially. Do I want to to accidentally hit Insert or Delete when I press Enter? Of course not. If you don't seem to like the keys being on the keyboard, surely the 'penalty zone' is the place to put them, so they don't infringe on your keyboard space? And, going back to the Happy Hacker, do I want an Enter key (Return belonging on typewriters, not computers...) that small? Of course not.
Mice, I will agree, cause problems. Over at KOSH we actually discussed whether it would be better to fit a left-handed numeric pad and cursor key set, simply to reduce the distance between the edge of the main typing area and the pointing device. Having borrowed a friend's laptop to fix it for them last week, though, I'd be perfectly happy if someone fits one of those little joysticks. Turn the acceleration off and they're lovely.
Quite what posessed Tom to write some of this, I'm not sure. I agree that many current Windows keyboards aren't very well designed, but I hardly see that suggestion as any better. It's worse in many significant ways, to be blunt.
What would I suggest? Well, I rather like the keyboard Commodore used with the Amiga - especially before they shrank the left-hand shift key to give you an extra key down there. It's got a Caps Lock, but it's the same size as an ordinary key, so allows a (smaller) Ctrl key to be fitted in next to it where Tom seems to like them. Who cares that it's small, though - the main shortcut keys are the Amiga keys beside the spacebar. There's that Help key, which most applications actually used - ideal for confused newbies. There's that truly huge spacebar for size queens;) There's the different coloured keys, to help emphasize that not all keys are the same. With the keyboard right on the periphery of your viewing, it means you can see much more easily whether you're on a standard key or a non-printing key without having to move the eyes as much. And there's a lovely soft, smooth action. A truly great keyboard design.
His fist computer was an Amiga, which explains a lot. Like Apple Mac users, a certain percentage of them believe that computers should all be point-and-click and all users should be able to comprehend and use them without any assistance regardless of the complexity of the task. Not all Amiga or Mac users believe this but some do (hell some "PC" users do, but I believe it's more common for "user friendly" computer users to have this attitude).
Actually, my first computer was my Dad's Spectrum, but I didn't consider that relevant to the subject sodidn't mention it. So I'm not just a point-and-click user.
But this does suggest that you haven't spent any significant amount of time using Amigas. Sure, they're more user-friendly than DOS/Windows or *nix, but don't confuse us with Macs. There's very little common ground. There's a very powerful shell and scripting system, it's extremely easy to poke around in the system internals and it's pretty well known by mpost users at least what makes up the internals, if not much more with some. But the Amiga is a very long way from being a Point-and-Click only MacAlike. Part of the reason I still like mine is I think it does an excellent job of being a halfway house between MacOS and Windows, but with many of the benefits of Unix.
Of course I understand that there are always going to be people who want the insurance due to their perception of the risks (incidentally, that's why there's planty of people with comprehensive rathe than third party insurance - they think it'll save them money if they crash) and companies who are plain jumpy. But both of these are still a function of the actual risk - if the risk is minimal to non-existent, then the number who decide to insure themselves against this risk will decline. Yes, there'll be holdouts, but not necessarily very many. Certainly not enough to fund Red Hat assuming they stick with their current business model.
I'm not stupid, despite your apparent low (if uninformed) opinion of Amiga owners past and present. But the fact remains, Red Hat's business model provides them with a financial incentive to write poor code and hold Linux back. And you have failed utterly to convince me to the contrary.
In my experience the slashdot moderation system is fairly effective if you're going with the general wisdom on this site and post fairly early in a thread. Post late or disagree that Linux and GPL/Open source will take over the world and you stand substantially less chance of being moderated up. The moderation system is fairly good, but often just serves to reinforce prejudices by only promoting stuff that people agree with.
If we were all a little more open and would moderate posts based on the quality of their reasoning as well as the degree to which we agreed with their conclusions, I might change my preferences away from -1. Until then, it stays.
Oh grow up. You don't really believe this, do you? We just bought a bunch of Suns and guess what? We paid for a support contract on them. Why? Surely not because Sun makes crappy hardware! It's insurance. Insurance for a fluke in the hardware, or if I do something stupid and need assistance in configuring something.
So, you bought the support contract for:
Insurance against random hardware failure
Insurance against you screwing up the software
Point (1) is entirely irrelevant in this discussion. Hardware is physical and thus subject to potential physical failure. Software (Red Hat's core business last time I checked) is logical and is not. With badly written code an install may degrade so it needs reinstalling after a certain period to provide reliable operation, but this is still not an absolute failure as your disctribution CD is still there. And it's also only an issue with bad code, thus emphasising my point that such a business model provides a financial incentive to write poor code.
Point (2) is only an issue if the software is sufficiently unfriendly as to make that a problem. Well designed software has taken user friendliness into account and so is monumentally unlikely to break. In the event that it does fail, it's properly documented and relatively easily recoverable. In addition, consider my remarks about point (1) - namely, software is logical not physical. If I make a mess of some hardware configuration, it is entirely possible that I may render the hardware unusable and so have to replace it. Short of deliberately destroying the CDs, there is no equivalent with software. So, again, they have an incentive to write poor code.
And, no one makes more money by having their support personnel tied up all the time. The goal is to have more contracts per employee. The only way you can do this is if the actual support is not needed constantly.
Didn't say they did. You make your money by selling the support contracts with the technicians required to make that a reality a running cost. That's a rather simplistic reading of the situation though.
Let's have a quick illustration. When I bought my current computer, it was my first non-Amiga. I had no experience of owning a Wintel box, so I was mildly scared. I had little or no idea of how to fix it if it went wrong, even to set it up in the first place. So, I went to a dealer and got a readymade machine with a support contract. Would I do that again? No, probably not. I've got vastly more confidence now than I had then, so could do the overwhelming majority of the task myself. Now, the same's true with support contracts. When you first buy into a market, you may decide that you want a safety net in case of failure. A few years later, you may observe that your confidence is substantially higher while your safetynet sits getting dusty having never once been used. So do you renew the contract? Probably not, after a while.
While Red Hat (and Linux in general) are growing, there are always going to be green users who will feel they require the safetynet of a support contract. As they gain confidence, this number will decrease. If they are replaced with more new users, the economic model holds. But ultimately, the world will run out of new users. In which case, the only need for support becomes the few users who will never be able to help themselves and the terminally pessimistic. Yes, I understand the concept of children but how many kids who grew up around computers need all that much help with them?
In other words, the support contracts market is dependent on the amount of time the technicians are used for (though with a lag) and will ultimately shrink in relation to the operating systems market, provided the software is relatively stable and easy to use. So, again, Red Hat have a financial incentive to write bad code.
You don't think that your car insurance company makes more money when more people get into wrecks do you?
No, as car insurance is legally required. If I drive down the road without Third Party insurance, I risk a substantial fine and a ban. Hence, this isn't a valid comparison.
Do you honestly believe that Intel and others would have invested in RedHat had they not performed their due diligence and reviewed their books and business plan? If you believe that I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell ya.
Interesting example considering my country sold your London Bridge...;)
Seriously, I'm not entirely sure what posessed Intel to invest. Red Hat probably have several years of growth left in them (assuming Linux can continue its current growth across market sectors, which is a BIG assumption) but long-term, forget it. This business model just isn't viable in a stable market, AFAICS.
You're being silly and I'm begining to think that you're doing so deliberately. The only sense in which the GPL is "hurting the blind" is in that the code cannot be used in a proprietary project, correct? But exactly the same would be true for code released under a proprietary licence. But you don't seem to be screaming at Brett that his proprietary browser-for-the-blind project is hurting the blind, deaf, claustrophobics, or anyone else who might benefit from a project that his proprietary code can't be used in.
No, I assure you I'm not playing Devil's Advicate here.
I accept absolutely that Brett's (likely) refusal to release his code is harming other communities, but there didn't seem much point in screaming at the guy any more than he's been already. There comes a point where one extra abusive voice simply won't make a difference.
The point, though, is that for many developers, GPL source is entirely irrelevant. If you make a business decision that you cannot GPL your work - which, right or not, is a separate debate - then the GPL source having been published is useless. It's off-limits. Now, I fully understand why it's off-limits and why people want it to be so, but it seems that many people don't truly understand that this is the consequence.
You seem to approve of his actions, you say "They may well be wrong, but that's their belief. It may well prove to be bad, it may well sell in low numbers and be dropped by its author. But they're trying and they cannot harm the market by trying." But the authors of GPL code are trying to do something too, and somehow you feel that they are doing harm where the proprietary authors aren't, why is that?
I assure you I do not think the proprietary code developers are doing any less harm than the GPL developers. But they're not claiming any great altruism, whereas GPL coders are. That's the issue here.
While we're here, you refer to "GPL coders". Does anyone know of a GPL project to produce such a program? I have no use for one myself, but its existence (or not) is certainly relevant to this discussion, as we have a commercial developer who is trying but no current evidence of such effort from the GNU community.
Of course, he might voluntarily consent to his code being used in those projects and not be subject to the normal restrcitions, but the authors of GPL'd code can do that too if they wish to. In what sense is the GPL "hurting the blind"?
By both holding back a project that would be useful to them and failing to provide an alternative.
This isn't really about the merits of the GPL versus closed commercial development, though - it's about the merits of the GPL versus other open licenses. If Lynx had been placed under a BSD-style license, it wouldn't be an issue.
You might as well turn your comments around and say that next time people publish code under a BSD licence they should consider that they might be fostering proprietary projects that impose much greater restrictions on their code and thereby "hurt the blind" and wonder whether this is what they want.
No, that's just being silly.
The crucial difference here is that BSD-licensed development is promoting a generic codepool for all programmers to use in all projects, whereas GPL development is promoting a generic codepool for other GPL developers. In this respect, GPL development is essentially no different from corporate, closed development with the exception that the corporation concerned is the FSF and that anyone can choose to work for them if they're prepared to support their ideals. So which is truly freer?
Make no mistake, this post (and my other posts to this thread) is not an attack on the GPL. As I said elsewhere, all are welcome to release their code under any conditions they wish until their control of the code represents an unjust control over a particular area computer use. But many fail to understand that the GPL's idealism can have consequences which they may not actually want. This is one such example.
B*******. I've actually had first-hand experience with these kinds of browsers. For instance, I remember one that came out a few years ago, it was a Windows only program that interfaced to a speech synthesizer. It was 'designed for the visual impaired'. It was proprietary and cost $150. It was also a piece of ****.
It took a few months for the thing to actually work properly (despite the fact we paid for it long ago). In the end, it was hopeless to use, and we ended up trying Lynx on DOS instead-- which was much better, not to mention $150 cheaper.
So you had one bad experience with this sort of software and automatically assume that this is the case for all commercial development in this field? That's crazy.
Oh, and sorry to have edited your post but I'm not having language like that in my name.
There is a need for a decent speech interface browser, but I think an open development is the only way to go. You have to accept the fact that you're not going to get rich selling web browsers to the blind, and it would be better to have the greatest number of contributors (i.e. open source) than try to get a few people to work on it in secret and not make any money anyway.
You miss the point of what I was saying.
I agree that he probably won't get rich in this market. I agree there's every chance they'll fail. But they're trying. And is there a GPL-based project out there to develop such a product? If there is, it's awfully quiet.
Y'see, the problem here is that programmers tend to want to work on fun or visible projects if they're going to work for free. I don't blame them, I would. But Mozilla hit this problem and so would a speaking web browser, as is rather suggested by the (apparent) absence of such a project.
If someone wants to make a non-proprietary browser for the blind, all power to them. Until some kind souls decide to do such work, however, the GPL is harming the market as there is a developer who is willing to do this work but unwilling to do it without pay, which means they believes the GPL cannot be used. They may well be wrong, but that's their belief. It may well prove to be bad, it may well sell in low numbers and be dropped by its author. But they're trying and they cannot harm the market by trying.
I repeat, having seen no sensible arguments to the contrary, my assertion that, in this case, the GPL is harming blind users. Think about this sort of scenario next time you release a new program, please. And think whether this was really what you wanted when you chose the GPL on any previous releases.
In other words, he seems to feel that his altruism should be forced on others. Rather different.
No, I think you are turning it around here. He's saying that you (or whoever) would be wrong to believe that he should be forced to give away his code using a license that he does not agree with. In other words, that he should not use the GPL and should use a license which you (or whoever) believes to be more "free." His reason for saying that he would be "happy to point out where you went wrong" seems to center on the fact that you (or whoever) don't want to give your modifications back to him and the community and instead want to take the code proprietary. In effect, you (or whoever) is taking but not giving back. In fact you (or whoever) wants to charge for the results of you using "free" code. How can that be right?
It's probably safer if we agree to disagree on this one:) You say you're right, I say I'm right, let's leave it at that.
I wasn't actually talking about the morality of taking code into a closed product, though. That's up to the coder to decide upon. My simple point was that shouting regularly that nothing is freer than GPL is wrong. GPL may keep the code free (according to FSF definitions) but it certainly imposes restrictions on your use of the code. And since RMS (IIRC) has said: 'Good programmers write good code; great programmers re-use good code' (to paraphrase, I haven't got the exact quote in front of me) that's not allowing great coding.
I'm perfectly happy that there are people out there who subscribe to the FSFs ideals. But, make no mistake, those ideals are anticapitalist and their code is not as free as it might be as its reuse is extremely tightly controlled. There are too many people (such as our original poster) who don't recognise that to be the case, overstate their altruism in releasing their code under the GPL or feel hurt that others don't share their ideals. Or, worse (though rare and I'm not suggesting it was the case here) flame people for not sharing their ideals.
For some to argue that no one should use the GPL seems a little selfish, no?
Certainly, that's a silly position. But it's equally silly for people to get all religious about the GPL or to assume that GPLing your code is the best way to give something to the computing community.
If you are going to force us to "repeat" your labor for the enhancements you make to our code, then why shouldn't you be forced to do the same? I don't see the logic in it. Why do I think it necessary to "force" you to release your code if you happen to use mine? History. Plus, you (or whoever) flat out say that you won't release your code back to me and that you want to take it proprietary! (until you have a "stranglehold" over the market that is, oh, how altruistic is that!)
Er, not what I meant at all...
My argument here is relatively simple: GPL isn't as free as it might be. I'm not demanding the right to your code without reciprocal action on my part by any means: I'm merely illustrating that true altruism doesn't require the reciprocal action, which some people seem to have missed. Along with a side effect of the GPL in that a potentially useful project is harmed due to a lack of altruism.
To go back to the speaking web browser thing, while the Lynx authors are free to insist that it's only used by the owners of Daffodils for all I care, their stipulation in the license that it may not be used by anyone who will not release it under the same license has hurt this project. They feel that it isn't in their business interest to release GPL code, which is their judgement and they're entitled to it right or wrong. So, they have a large pile of code to re-implement which takes time and costs money. This delays the final product and increases its cost, but wouldn't have been an issue if a freer license (such as a BSD-style license) had been chosen. Lynx's authors are entitled to their choice of license, but this is the end result. There could be a GPL browser made this way, but that would require a community effort to develop such a product despite it being notably unglamorous, a well-known problem with GPL development.
As for the stranglehold bit, perhaps I explained myself badly there. My view is that almost no-one should have restrictions placed on how they can license their software. The exception is where a stranglehold has developed: at that point, standard licensing rules no longer apply and it is clear to me that there should be restrictions placed on how your code is licensed, otherwise the developer (if commercial) has the effective right to tax the relevant market. One possible solution would be to open the code - and by open I mean entirely open, in the public domain. One other solution would be a solution similar to that we are setting up with KOSH - make the company the property of the communities who depend on their products, at which point management's just not going to go for the sort of screwy business practices some have or they lose their jobs. Unfortunately, I understand neither is permitted by US law, which I regard as a real pity and extremely strange.
The main point to note, though, is that I was not suggesting that this should be a voluntary process - I was suggesting compulsion, whether that was what I actually said or not;)
I don't understand why people have a problem with this licence who have no problem with closed source licences, it makes no sense.
I have a problem with many closed licenses myself, but the reason for my particular dislike of the GPL is that its proponents will claim it is the ultimate in free licenses. It isn't. The most free out there is to release your code into the public domain, followed by a BSD-style license which doesn't restrict use.
snip - you can just look up:)
But he's not, he's claiming the same right to licence his code how he chooses as others have to licence theirs, what's the problem?
Simple - if you re-read his original post (or my quote of it, for that matter), you'll see that he said:
If you would care to put forth an argument as to why I should be forced to give you my code, when you aren't willing to give me yours, I'd be happy to point out where you went wrong
In other words, he seems to feel that his altruism should be forced on others. Rather different.
I'm happy for the GPL to exist and for people to release their software under it if they so choose, but do I like the license or think it's a particularly good, community-friendly license? No.
"True altruism should be what the GPL and associated movements are promoting - that is, selflessly giving to others without expecting anything in return."
Why "should" it be? Is this what Corel "should" also be about doing? If you want to encourage True Altruism TM then go ahead, why do you feel that others "should" be promoting your philosophy instead of their own? And no, the GPL doesn't compel others to follow its philosophy it just proposes a bargain that they can enter into or reject as they choose.
It "should" be about true altruism as opposed to compulsion. Some seem to feel that the GPL is all that should be allowed, which is what I was arguing against.
I agree that the GPL doesn't force you to follow its philosophy BTW, but it's not creating this open-code paradise that some seem to want as it forces people to reimplement code if they don't want their work covered by the GPL. And I can't see that that's true freedom or a truly useful bit of work as it's forcing them to repeat someone else's labour. A BSD-style license does not do this and so should be considered freer.
Yes, definitely. IIRC it's on their Northern border and the wind at the time was from the south, so most of the radiation wasy dumped on Belarus. Same place then, but not now.
Business is accepting GNU/Linux as it's visible, a headline-grabber and (currently) appears to be superior in the things they care about to *BSD. Cost is also a factor, but not a huge one as purchase price is a pretty small fraction of TCO.
Business is actually very nicely served by BSD, simply as it allows them to release their own version. There is, after all, closed-source commercial software with a BSD-licensed base.
Business doesn't prefer the GPL as a license in the main, it's simply that they've heard of this strange system called Linux, which is rapidly developing a network effect. But how many have heard of BSD?
In fact, by stamping the GPL onto their code, they have forfeited any hope of compensation for their efforts.
I'm sure this will come as a great surprise to the many people who work for Red Hat, and take home paychecks every day by writing software to be licensed under the GPL.
And how simplistic is this?
Red Hat software are a short-term phenomenon. They can afford to pay people to write GPL software simply as they hold a strong enough market position that they can still benefit financially from advancing the community as a whole. Were their market share to drop substantially then this would cease to be the case - their programmers work would start to cost more than its benefit to Red Hat.
So how do they make their money? Support? Come on, don't be silly. Support revenues are dependent on the amount of time the support technicians are used for by the client. In other words, the harder the software is to use and the less reliable it is, the more they make. Yet reliability is reckoned to me a major advantage of GPL (heck, any open-source) code, due to the ease of peer review. So, they have a financial incentive to write worse code... And with ease of use, if you want GNU/Linux on the desktop (most seem to) it is not going to be pushed forwards by a company which has a financial incentive to holding back one of the main things stopping this movement - ease of use.
Red Hat and the other commercial vendors can survive simply as the market is in rapid growth due to infancy. The Linux distribution market will, by definition, ultimately stabilise. At which point the current business model is extremely likely to founder.
The moral and ethical thing to do would be to get a job actually doing something and work on your browser enhancements in your spare time. That way, you could do the blind community a great service and still be able to support your family.
Come on, we all know this is ludicrous...
Coding is "doing something". Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar, insanely talented or has never written a line of code in their lives.
I don't know this guy or his work in detail, but from the crash course in this thread, the GPL is clearly harming the blind community. Were the relevant code released under a BSD-style license or as true FD/PD, they could take it, build in the necesssary bits for the blind users and release it. As it is, they're having to reimplement the GPL'd sections. Net result? More work, so the blind community has to wait longer and pay more for the software they need to fulfil a task we take for granted.
Yes, he could work on this in his spare time but it would take how long? Y'know, some people do have lives. Could I (or anyone else, for that matter) seriously spend as long on a project in my spare time as I could if I was being employed full-time? No way. I need to sleep, eat and do certain household tasks. If I want to stay sane I hae to relax periodically. I'm lucky if I can devote a few hours a day to this sort of thing, frankly.
What Brett appears to be attempting is entirely legitimate. The GPL, for all its claims of promoting freedom, is holding him back in this endeavour and is forcing higher costs on to a disadvataged minority's information access. To be blunt, in this case and from what has been said in this thread, the GPL is hurting the blind.
Insisting that the other person give up his or her livelihood... is not sharing; it is confiscation.
Of course it isn't. Just as it isn't sharing to insist the the mugger in front of me not take my wallet, or to force a rapist off the streets.
You seriously compare the release of closed-source software to violence and theft? Ouch. Do you care to explain exactly how I am harming you by releasing software as binary only? I make no compulsion on you to accept the license or purchase the software.
Note that I fully understand that this argument falls over very quickly for something where a network effect has kicked in such as Windows. But that's an exception - there are millions of software developments out there and Windows is one of only a handful where this problem exists.
In order for you to claim an inherent "right" to do what you currently do for a living, you must first show that it is inherently right for you to be doing it in the first place.
Certainly. I claim the right to profit from my knowledge and experience based on the fact that until such a time as my software becomes sufficiently ubiquitous to allow me to exert control over a given market, its release cannot by definition harm anyone. If and when ubiquity for any of my software is reached, I will consider releasing it in such a way as to remove any stranglehold I may posess over a market. But until such a time, harm is not possible. Were I to try and exert unreasonable control over a market in which reasonable competition still existed, I would lose market share.
Note that I'm not currently a commercial developer so this is all in abstract. Also note my support for KOSH, showing that my preferred model is the mutual cooperative society, controlled by and profiting those who have given it market position - users, developers and retailers. Which I consider far fairer than the abstract freedoms many seem to desire.
This is not to say that it isn't right, but you certainly haven't shown that it is inherently right. If you would care to put forth an argument as to why I should be forced to give you my code, when you aren't willing to give me yours, I'd be happy to point out where you went wrong.
And here lies the flaw in your argument - you seem to feel that your altruism in releasing your code should be forced on others. True altruism should be what the GPL and associated movements are promoting - that is, selflessly giving to others without expecting anything in return.
I saw nothing in the original post suggesting that you be compelled to release your code - indeed, quite the reverse. I would make no such demand until very exceptional circumstances had developed - as I outlined above. Under those circumstances I would happily call for unilateral forced release but until such a time, that is simply not sensible.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked, the biggest note issued by the Bank of England was a £50. The Bank of Ireland or Bank of Scotland may do bigger, but they're not legal tender in England IIRC, so we don't see them all that often :)
Greg
A little confused? Sure. Flamebait? No way.
I'm glad this one turned up on my meta moderation. It's been getting silly recently, what gets moderated up and what down.
Maybe we could go back to having editors doing a big chunk of the moderation for a while to try and improve the quality, then allocate moderator points in proportion to RECENT karma?
Greg
I knew it wasn't exactly the most up-to-date code release out there, but something's there and it's certainly better than useless. Which some people seem not to recognise, unfortunately. That's what I was complaining about.
:) Slashdot tends to be rather less open minded than some people seem to think IME.
Interesting to see that I'm not the only one fed up with the moderators
Greg
I don't want a domain and someone else has already registered slashdot.com - did so back in '96. Given the circumstances, however, it would be nice if they'd at least posted a notice explaining that there was a problem as someone else had registered the domain (though it appears to be a token page and I'd class it as definite cybersquatting.
I resent being told I'm whining like a 2-year old for raising a legitimate query, to be honest. This isn't good and there should at least be an explanation somewhere. But how did this post get to be a 2?
Greg
No, you couldn't have thin windows...
Y'see, thin windows let in noise and break easily. They're aiming for thick uPVC triple glazing if you believe the marketting.
Or maybe it'd be a good name after all...
Greg
Actually...
Digital Unix made sense before. It was the Unix that Digital did. Now they don't exist, Digital becomes a descriptive wod rather than a branding, rather impying there's an analogue Unix out there...
Tru64 may not be the best name in the world, but it's accurately showing that this is a proper 64-bit Unix. Which is at least honest.
Greg
If you have a look on the left (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread...) there's a code link. It's available.
The truly annoying thing is that we have a company which was sold for a sizeable amount of money to a company's that's about to be listed on the stock market where your primary obligation is to make the most money possible for your shareholders. And what's the domain name? slashdot.org, in the non-profit domain.
If I were Rob I'd have done my level best to sort out a commercial domain some time ago. I were in charge of domain registrations I'd be spitting blood over an obvious abuse of domain names.
Greg
Oh, I hope that whoever moderated this one down is truly ashamed of themselves. A perfectly sensible post, an entirely legitimate question.
Anyone got moderator points to move that one back up?
Greg
If you checked, I linked to an explanation of it. I know what it is, I know that it's originaly a Usenet thing. But, we've certainly had Godwin invoked here before and that was definitely an analogy with Hitler and the NSDAP, so it's liable byu the slashdot extension convention that seems to apply.
:P
So
;)
Greg
If you want a better example, there's plenty. How about South Africa and apartheid - or some states of the US, if you're prepared to go back a little further. Still gets the point across, but nowhere near as loaded for most as mentioning the NSDAP.
Incidentally, is this the shortest thread where Godwin's been invoked?
Greg
Surely a custom mouse could do this through shoes?
:)
I'm thinking something in the scale of those foot massagers you sometimes see. Imagine a big version of a laptop joystick for the ball of one foot, then the mouse buttons handled with the other. How you do the scrollwheel I'm not yet sure
The obvious problem with this is potential chaos if I start tapping my feet for any reason, but I can see real potential in this as an idea.
Greg
Interesting article. But:
:) Tab moves you between elements in a form, escape cancels. Do you really want the two next to each other? And I've still got something to cover the functionality of the Windows keys, as much as Tom may have ranted against them. Incidentally, I rather like them. Being stuck in Windows, it means I can navigate around the abomination that is the start menu VERY quickly.
;) There's the different coloured keys, to help emphasize that not all keys are the same. With the keyboard right on the periphery of your viewing, it means you can see much more easily whether you're on a standard key or a non-printing key without having to move the eyes as much. And there's a lovely soft, smooth action. A truly great keyboard design.
I would truly hate to have to work on that happy hacker's keyboard. I like have a proper row of function keys - they're useful. I like my numeric keypad - as Tom said, I can enter numbers way faster on that than I can on the row at the top, even if I'm just typing a phone number. Don't kill it. I use cAPS lOCK, too. It's nice when you're shouting at someone - saves having to leave a finger wedging a key down. And I like cursor keys...
Let's pull a quote out:
"... the up arrow and the down arrow are directly aligned vertically. Your hand despises this, which is why the rest of the main keyboard has no such configuration on it anywhere. To see what I mean, try using the `j' and `k' keys in rapid succession, back and forth as though you were executing a trill. It's quite easy to go up three, down one, up two, etc. But now try playing your trill on the up and down arrows. Whoops! You have to turn your hand completely sideways, or use the same finger to do both jobs. Either way you play it, you lose."
Actually, no. I'm a trumpetter so I'm well used to playing trills, but I can execute one FAR faster on the arrow keys than I can on j-k. Why? All to do with how the fingers work. Y'see, they don't move quite independently of each other. Sit there for a minute wiggling your fingers and you'll see what I mean. But, if the keys are in a vertical line, I can use my thumb and get entirely independent motion. Try a quick test - thumb on the down arrow, middle finger on the up. you should find that you can get a trill far faster than with fingers alone this way. Besides, stick me on that dreadful Happy Hacker keyboard and I lose them altogether unless I'm willing to use the option shift - which is something Tom's been arguing against from the start to my eyes, and would slow me down considerably.
Now, let's look back at that odd keyboard again. Oops, Escape's next to 1. Tom, for whatever reason, may well like that. But the average user? No way. Far too high a chance of hitting it accidentally. Think Windows for a moment. You can get therapy later if you want
I'm glad to see you value Ctrl so highly, Tom, but I don't actually use it all that often. I'm happy it's way down there. I wish my left shift were larger, like you, but I'm happy with my Ctrl key.
Spacebars - how many of us do anything other than rest our thumbs on them and hit them when necessary? So how large do they really need to be? Not very. This one's nearly 6 keys long, but that's plenty long enough and certainly no shorter than this ideal keyboard Tom seems to like, despite his protestations that they're too small now.
You talk about the penalty zone - but what would you prefer? If the cursor keys - VERY useful, even if they do give me cramp if I play games on them for too long - are moved in tighter, the chance of my hitting them accidentally and ending up with gibberish increases exponentially. Do I want to to accidentally hit Insert or Delete when I press Enter? Of course not. If you don't seem to like the keys being on the keyboard, surely the 'penalty zone' is the place to put them, so they don't infringe on your keyboard space? And, going back to the Happy Hacker, do I want an Enter key (Return belonging on typewriters, not computers...) that small? Of course not.
Mice, I will agree, cause problems. Over at KOSH we actually discussed whether it would be better to fit a left-handed numeric pad and cursor key set, simply to reduce the distance between the edge of the main typing area and the pointing device. Having borrowed a friend's laptop to fix it for them last week, though, I'd be perfectly happy if someone fits one of those little joysticks. Turn the acceleration off and they're lovely.
Quite what posessed Tom to write some of this, I'm not sure. I agree that many current Windows keyboards aren't very well designed, but I hardly see that suggestion as any better. It's worse in many significant ways, to be blunt.
What would I suggest? Well, I rather like the keyboard Commodore used with the Amiga - especially before they shrank the left-hand shift key to give you an extra key down there. It's got a Caps Lock, but it's the same size as an ordinary key, so allows a (smaller) Ctrl key to be fitted in next to it where Tom seems to like them. Who cares that it's small, though - the main shortcut keys are the Amiga keys beside the spacebar. There's that Help key, which most applications actually used - ideal for confused newbies. There's that truly huge spacebar for size queens
Greg
But this does suggest that you haven't spent any significant amount of time using Amigas. Sure, they're more user-friendly than DOS/Windows or *nix, but don't confuse us with Macs. There's very little common ground. There's a very powerful shell and scripting system, it's extremely easy to poke around in the system internals and it's pretty well known by mpost users at least what makes up the internals, if not much more with some. But the Amiga is a very long way from being a Point-and-Click only MacAlike. Part of the reason I still like mine is I think it does an excellent job of being a halfway house between MacOS and Windows, but with many of the benefits of Unix.
Of course I understand that there are always going to be people who want the insurance due to their perception of the risks (incidentally, that's why there's planty of people with comprehensive rathe than third party insurance - they think it'll save them money if they crash) and companies who are plain jumpy. But both of these are still a function of the actual risk - if the risk is minimal to non-existent, then the number who decide to insure themselves against this risk will decline. Yes, there'll be holdouts, but not necessarily very many. Certainly not enough to fund Red Hat assuming they stick with their current business model.
I'm not stupid, despite your apparent low (if uninformed) opinion of Amiga owners past and present. But the fact remains, Red Hat's business model provides them with a financial incentive to write poor code and hold Linux back. And you have failed utterly to convince me to the contrary.
Greg
In my experience the slashdot moderation system is fairly effective if you're going with the general wisdom on this site and post fairly early in a thread. Post late or disagree that Linux and GPL/Open source will take over the world and you stand substantially less chance of being moderated up. The moderation system is fairly good, but often just serves to reinforce prejudices by only promoting stuff that people agree with.
If we were all a little more open and would moderate posts based on the quality of their reasoning as well as the degree to which we agreed with their conclusions, I might change my preferences away from -1. Until then, it stays.
Greg
Just a thought:
Is this a record for latest first post claim? I mean, we're used to 2 or 3, but 73?
Oh well...
Greg
- Insurance against random hardware failure
- Insurance against you screwing up the software
Point (1) is entirely irrelevant in this discussion. Hardware is physical and thus subject to potential physical failure. Software (Red Hat's core business last time I checked) is logical and is not. With badly written code an install may degrade so it needs reinstalling after a certain period to provide reliable operation, but this is still not an absolute failure as your disctribution CD is still there. And it's also only an issue with bad code, thus emphasising my point that such a business model provides a financial incentive to write poor code.Point (2) is only an issue if the software is sufficiently unfriendly as to make that a problem. Well designed software has taken user friendliness into account and so is monumentally unlikely to break. In the event that it does fail, it's properly documented and relatively easily recoverable. In addition, consider my remarks about point (1) - namely, software is logical not physical. If I make a mess of some hardware configuration, it is entirely possible that I may render the hardware unusable and so have to replace it. Short of deliberately destroying the CDs, there is no equivalent with software. So, again, they have an incentive to write poor code.
Didn't say they did. You make your money by selling the support contracts with the technicians required to make that a reality a running cost. That's a rather simplistic reading of the situation though.
Let's have a quick illustration. When I bought my current computer, it was my first non-Amiga. I had no experience of owning a Wintel box, so I was mildly scared. I had little or no idea of how to fix it if it went wrong, even to set it up in the first place. So, I went to a dealer and got a readymade machine with a support contract. Would I do that again? No, probably not. I've got vastly more confidence now than I had then, so could do the overwhelming majority of the task myself. Now, the same's true with support contracts. When you first buy into a market, you may decide that you want a safety net in case of failure. A few years later, you may observe that your confidence is substantially higher while your safetynet sits getting dusty having never once been used. So do you renew the contract? Probably not, after a while.
While Red Hat (and Linux in general) are growing, there are always going to be green users who will feel they require the safetynet of a support contract. As they gain confidence, this number will decrease. If they are replaced with more new users, the economic model holds. But ultimately, the world will run out of new users. In which case, the only need for support becomes the few users who will never be able to help themselves and the terminally pessimistic. Yes, I understand the concept of children but how many kids who grew up around computers need all that much help with them?
In other words, the support contracts market is dependent on the amount of time the technicians are used for (though with a lag) and will ultimately shrink in relation to the operating systems market, provided the software is relatively stable and easy to use. So, again, Red Hat have a financial incentive to write bad code.
No, as car insurance is legally required. If I drive down the road without Third Party insurance, I risk a substantial fine and a ban. Hence, this isn't a valid comparison.
Interesting example considering my country sold your London Bridge...
Seriously, I'm not entirely sure what posessed Intel to invest. Red Hat probably have several years of growth left in them (assuming Linux can continue its current growth across market sectors, which is a BIG assumption) but long-term, forget it. This business model just isn't viable in a stable market, AFAICS.
Greg
I accept absolutely that Brett's (likely) refusal to release his code is harming other communities, but there didn't seem much point in screaming at the guy any more than he's been already. There comes a point where one extra abusive voice simply won't make a difference.
The point, though, is that for many developers, GPL source is entirely irrelevant. If you make a business decision that you cannot GPL your work - which, right or not, is a separate debate - then the GPL source having been published is useless. It's off-limits. Now, I fully understand why it's off-limits and why people want it to be so, but it seems that many people don't truly understand that this is the consequence.
I assure you I do not think the proprietary code developers are doing any less harm than the GPL developers. But they're not claiming any great altruism, whereas GPL coders are. That's the issue here.
While we're here, you refer to "GPL coders". Does anyone know of a GPL project to produce such a program? I have no use for one myself, but its existence (or not) is certainly relevant to this discussion, as we have a commercial developer who is trying but no current evidence of such effort from the GNU community.
By both holding back a project that would be useful to them and failing to provide an alternative.
This isn't really about the merits of the GPL versus closed commercial development, though - it's about the merits of the GPL versus other open licenses. If Lynx had been placed under a BSD-style license, it wouldn't be an issue.
No, that's just being silly.
The crucial difference here is that BSD-licensed development is promoting a generic codepool for all programmers to use in all projects, whereas GPL development is promoting a generic codepool for other GPL developers. In this respect, GPL development is essentially no different from corporate, closed development with the exception that the corporation concerned is the FSF and that anyone can choose to work for them if they're prepared to support their ideals. So which is truly freer?
Make no mistake, this post (and my other posts to this thread) is not an attack on the GPL. As I said elsewhere, all are welcome to release their code under any conditions they wish until their control of the code represents an unjust control over a particular area computer use. But many fail to understand that the GPL's idealism can have consequences which they may not actually want. This is one such example.
Greg
Oh, and sorry to have edited your post but I'm not having language like that in my name.
You miss the point of what I was saying.
I agree that he probably won't get rich in this market. I agree there's every chance they'll fail. But they're trying. And is there a GPL-based project out there to develop such a product? If there is, it's awfully quiet.
Y'see, the problem here is that programmers tend to want to work on fun or visible projects if they're going to work for free. I don't blame them, I would. But Mozilla hit this problem and so would a speaking web browser, as is rather suggested by the (apparent) absence of such a project.
If someone wants to make a non-proprietary browser for the blind, all power to them. Until some kind souls decide to do such work, however, the GPL is harming the market as there is a developer who is willing to do this work but unwilling to do it without pay, which means they believes the GPL cannot be used. They may well be wrong, but that's their belief. It may well prove to be bad, it may well sell in low numbers and be dropped by its author. But they're trying and they cannot harm the market by trying.
I repeat, having seen no sensible arguments to the contrary, my assertion that, in this case, the GPL is harming blind users. Think about this sort of scenario next time you release a new program, please. And think whether this was really what you wanted when you chose the GPL on any previous releases.
Greg
I wasn't actually talking about the morality of taking code into a closed product, though. That's up to the coder to decide upon. My simple point was that shouting regularly that nothing is freer than GPL is wrong. GPL may keep the code free (according to FSF definitions) but it certainly imposes restrictions on your use of the code. And since RMS (IIRC) has said: 'Good programmers write good code; great programmers re-use good code' (to paraphrase, I haven't got the exact quote in front of me) that's not allowing great coding.
I'm perfectly happy that there are people out there who subscribe to the FSFs ideals. But, make no mistake, those ideals are anticapitalist and their code is not as free as it might be as its reuse is extremely tightly controlled. There are too many people (such as our original poster) who don't recognise that to be the case, overstate their altruism in releasing their code under the GPL or feel hurt that others don't share their ideals. Or, worse (though rare and I'm not suggesting it was the case here) flame people for not sharing their ideals.
Certainly, that's a silly position. But it's equally silly for people to get all religious about the GPL or to assume that GPLing your code is the best way to give something to the computing community.
Er, not what I meant at all...
My argument here is relatively simple: GPL isn't as free as it might be. I'm not demanding the right to your code without reciprocal action on my part by any means: I'm merely illustrating that true altruism doesn't require the reciprocal action, which some people seem to have missed. Along with a side effect of the GPL in that a potentially useful project is harmed due to a lack of altruism.
To go back to the speaking web browser thing, while the Lynx authors are free to insist that it's only used by the owners of Daffodils for all I care, their stipulation in the license that it may not be used by anyone who will not release it under the same license has hurt this project. They feel that it isn't in their business interest to release GPL code, which is their judgement and they're entitled to it right or wrong. So, they have a large pile of code to re-implement which takes time and costs money. This delays the final product and increases its cost, but wouldn't have been an issue if a freer license (such as a BSD-style license) had been chosen. Lynx's authors are entitled to their choice of license, but this is the end result. There could be a GPL browser made this way, but that would require a community effort to develop such a product despite it being notably unglamorous, a well-known problem with GPL development.
As for the stranglehold bit, perhaps I explained myself badly there. My view is that almost no-one should have restrictions placed on how they can license their software. The exception is where a stranglehold has developed: at that point, standard licensing rules no longer apply and it is clear to me that there should be restrictions placed on how your code is licensed, otherwise the developer (if commercial) has the effective right to tax the relevant market. One possible solution would be to open the code - and by open I mean entirely open, in the public domain. One other solution would be a solution similar to that we are setting up with KOSH - make the company the property of the communities who depend on their products, at which point management's just not going to go for the sort of screwy business practices some have or they lose their jobs. Unfortunately, I understand neither is permitted by US law, which I regard as a real pity and extremely strange.
The main point to note, though, is that I was not suggesting that this should be a voluntary process - I was suggesting compulsion, whether that was what I actually said or not
Greg
snip - you can just look up
Simple - if you re-read his original post (or my quote of it, for that matter), you'll see that he said:
If you would care to put forth an argument as to why I should be forced to give you my code, when you aren't willing to give me yours, I'd be happy to point out where you went wrong
In other words, he seems to feel that his altruism should be forced on others. Rather different.
I'm happy for the GPL to exist and for people to release their software under it if they so choose, but do I like the license or think it's a particularly good, community-friendly license? No.
It "should" be about true altruism as opposed to compulsion. Some seem to feel that the GPL is all that should be allowed, which is what I was arguing against.
I agree that the GPL doesn't force you to follow its philosophy BTW, but it's not creating this open-code paradise that some seem to want as it forces people to reimplement code if they don't want their work covered by the GPL. And I can't see that that's true freedom or a truly useful bit of work as it's forcing them to repeat someone else's labour. A BSD-style license does not do this and so should be considered freer.
Greg
Yes, definitely. IIRC it's on their Northern border and the wind at the time was from the south, so most of the radiation wasy dumped on Belarus. Same place then, but not now.
Greg
Interesting title :)
Business is accepting GNU/Linux as it's visible, a headline-grabber and (currently) appears to be superior in the things they care about to *BSD. Cost is also a factor, but not a huge one as purchase price is a pretty small fraction of TCO.
Business is actually very nicely served by BSD, simply as it allows them to release their own version. There is, after all, closed-source commercial software with a BSD-licensed base.
Business doesn't prefer the GPL as a license in the main, it's simply that they've heard of this strange system called Linux, which is rapidly developing a network effect. But how many have heard of BSD?
Greg
Red Hat software are a short-term phenomenon. They can afford to pay people to write GPL software simply as they hold a strong enough market position that they can still benefit financially from advancing the community as a whole. Were their market share to drop substantially then this would cease to be the case - their programmers work would start to cost more than its benefit to Red Hat.
So how do they make their money? Support? Come on, don't be silly. Support revenues are dependent on the amount of time the support technicians are used for by the client. In other words, the harder the software is to use and the less reliable it is, the more they make. Yet reliability is reckoned to me a major advantage of GPL (heck, any open-source) code, due to the ease of peer review. So, they have a financial incentive to write worse code... And with ease of use, if you want GNU/Linux on the desktop (most seem to) it is not going to be pushed forwards by a company which has a financial incentive to holding back one of the main things stopping this movement - ease of use.
Red Hat and the other commercial vendors can survive simply as the market is in rapid growth due to infancy. The Linux distribution market will, by definition, ultimately stabilise. At which point the current business model is extremely likely to founder.
Greg
Coding is "doing something". Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar, insanely talented or has never written a line of code in their lives.
I don't know this guy or his work in detail, but from the crash course in this thread, the GPL is clearly harming the blind community. Were the relevant code released under a BSD-style license or as true FD/PD, they could take it, build in the necesssary bits for the blind users and release it. As it is, they're having to reimplement the GPL'd sections. Net result? More work, so the blind community has to wait longer and pay more for the software they need to fulfil a task we take for granted.
Yes, he could work on this in his spare time but it would take how long? Y'know, some people do have lives. Could I (or anyone else, for that matter) seriously spend as long on a project in my spare time as I could if I was being employed full-time? No way. I need to sleep, eat and do certain household tasks. If I want to stay sane I hae to relax periodically. I'm lucky if I can devote a few hours a day to this sort of thing, frankly.
What Brett appears to be attempting is entirely legitimate. The GPL, for all its claims of promoting freedom, is holding him back in this endeavour and is forcing higher costs on to a disadvataged minority's information access. To be blunt, in this case and from what has been said in this thread, the GPL is hurting the blind.
Greg
Note that I fully understand that this argument falls over very quickly for something where a network effect has kicked in such as Windows. But that's an exception - there are millions of software developments out there and Windows is one of only a handful where this problem exists.
Certainly. I claim the right to profit from my knowledge and experience based on the fact that until such a time as my software becomes sufficiently ubiquitous to allow me to exert control over a given market, its release cannot by definition harm anyone. If and when ubiquity for any of my software is reached, I will consider releasing it in such a way as to remove any stranglehold I may posess over a market. But until such a time, harm is not possible. Were I to try and exert unreasonable control over a market in which reasonable competition still existed, I would lose market share.
Note that I'm not currently a commercial developer so this is all in abstract. Also note my support for KOSH, showing that my preferred model is the mutual cooperative society, controlled by and profiting those who have given it market position - users, developers and retailers. Which I consider far fairer than the abstract freedoms many seem to desire.
And here lies the flaw in your argument - you seem to feel that your altruism in releasing your code should be forced on others. True altruism should be what the GPL and associated movements are promoting - that is, selflessly giving to others without expecting anything in return.
I saw nothing in the original post suggesting that you be compelled to release your code - indeed, quite the reverse. I would make no such demand until very exceptional circumstances had developed - as I outlined above. Under those circumstances I would happily call for unilateral forced release but until such a time, that is simply not sensible.
Greg