With free software, their is a single leader and a single unified vision. This leader is you.
You are probably rather disappointed by this statement. You want someone else to make the decisions for you. I've heard countless diatribes about people's grandma's who don't want to think about the software they use. They want a system that just works. In addition, the system's that already just works, isn't good enough. I don't understand this--but I'll ignore it for the time being.
But, it is easy to make system's that don't make you think. They have already been built. What you may complain about is that they don't do anything interesting. We've had word processors turning high-priced machines into fancy typewriters for a dozen years now. Connecting to the internet has long turned into a double-click operation.
The truth is, for what you want, its as good as it gets. In all honesty, I don't think you know what you want. For some reason, you want what Microsoft provides without getting it from Microsoft.
Here's what GNU/Linux (thats what its called) provides. It provides all the software you need to build your own system. What? you may ask. Why would I want to build my own system? One reason is that you've used Windows, toyed with the Macintosh, even at one point wrote batch files in DOS. But it wasn't enough. You want something more. Another reason, is that you--like me--don't know what you want. But you'll know it when you see it. Where commercial operating system is about popularity and marketing demographics--GNU/Linux is about empowerment. That the crux of free software. With free software, you are given the power to meet your needs. The cost is that you need to learn more about your system than you'd ever need to learn with Windows, Macintosh, or DOS. But what you'd end up with is not and end-users system but your system.
How do you start? First, write down what you want your system to do. Do you want your entire house equipped with speakers playing music? You want certain songs playing during the morning, certain songs playing during the afternoon, and others playing at night? How about theme songs playing on holidays? Would you like to store appointments and alarms in your computer. As opposed to an alarm clock, you want to store several alarms with different settings for different days of the week. You want alerts for people's birthdays.
How about a graphical clock on your wall, made with a flat screen computer monitor? Expensive, yes. Useful, yes. You can display the date on it as well as the time in three time zones. It can have an icon for when you get email and warn you when your favorite programs are coming on TV.
And...if you get an email by someone important why wait for you to open it? Just have the printer print it.
You can set up a web cam or...even better yet, a web server. Have the computer give an audio alert for when you get a lot of hits.
This is only an example. The possibilities are virtually endless. You just need the money to pay for the hardware and the knowledge--all of which can be provided by books and online manuals. Once you write down what you want your system to do, research on how to achieve this system. Read FAQs and ask newsgroups and mailing lists for advice.
What you end up with is not an end-user's system but a hacker's system. And you are in the captain's chair.
Whats the stigma against public funding? I can only trace it down to certain libertarian leanings.
But a lot of really nice things are funded publically. In the United States the best of it is funded by our local and state governments.
And free software fits this well since developing free software benefits everyone. I know Stallman has advocated a software tax in the past. His reasons are the same.
It seems that after five or so years since free software has made it big, its pretty obvious that the commercial market isn't doing so well with free software. The only thing keeping free software alive are the volunteer hackers.
If free software needs money (which I don't necessarily agree with), the commercial market doesn't seem equipped to provide it.
Public funding seems to make the most sense. If you ask every tax payer that by dedicating a small portion of their taxes to free software and the result would be that they will never have to purchase another version of Windows again, I'm sure they will see it as a bargain. And the publically funded free software can just as easily be used for commercial purposes and for more free software by anyone.
I think software should be seen as a public resource whose only cost is in development.
The answer is a very real fear that GNU will be forgotten. And that even though a GNU-based system exists it wouldn't be known as such. That because the system is called Linux, people would think that it started in 1992 (or whenever Linux began) by a Finnish college student set out to amuse himself. It should be well known that it is the winners who rewrite history and by his own political apathy, Linus could rewrite the GNU Project as a group that contributed the GNU tools--just a couple of common shell utilities.
But by continuing this debate, we are already raising awareness of the GNU Project and its goals. I have a question. Of all of you, if RMS submitted in the beginning and said "You know, we'll just call it Linux," who would know anything more about the GNU Project than it being a bunch of shell utilities? But because of your own awareness of GNU, ideas explore your mind that you would never have fathomed otherwise. The idea that software *should* be free. And now in your mind are a number of challenges to intellectual property, copyright, and closed unhackable systems. Agree or disagree, the GNU Project has opened your mind to a different way of thinking of software.
This is why I call it GNU/Linux. Because Linux isn't whole without it.
Thats the question. You have a computer. What do you want it to do?
It sounds like you don't have any sophisticated needs. Some of us have sophisticated needs for computing. Things that 99% of the rest of us never have to bother with. These people are really what computers are for. Then there's the rest of us who enjoy messing with the software. I suppose some of see GNU/Linux as hope that at last the computer can do things the way I want it to do it.
Frankly, I don't understand what you are getting at:
"On the other hand, I neither have the skills nor the inclination (yet) to spend hours tweaking and reprogramming config files so that I can get something up and running. I like that it works. I like that I can do what I want with it, and I don't have to tinker with it incessantly."
I don't know what you are talking about. You sound like you have a perception problem. You may have read someone else's trials with getting their system up and running after they changed something that might have made you afraid of the effort.
But in contrast to postmodernism, perception isn't the same as reality. Config files are usually no big deal, unless your needs are exotic. Other than a few exceptions, config files involve no programming.
So...this is the task that confronts people like us. Decide what we want the computer to do for you; install a flexible and powerful system on your computer like GNU/Linux; and set your course.
But you sound like Apple is so much of a better company to turn to than Microsoft. Just because Microsoft is in a position to exploit its monopoly doesn't mean that any other proprietary software company wouldn't do the same thing if put in the same position.
And quite frankly, I am not talking about for-profit software at all. When I say free software, I am talking about freedom not price.
And restrictive software is the fundamental problem I see here. Do you think any other proprietary software vendor will stop enforcing their licensing? That's pretty much what you mean by bullying.
As far as GNU/Linux being unproven with education, that's not much of an argument. It won't be proven until its used in education. Its catch-22.
And I am sympathetic to the demands of education. But, I am skeptical on the needs of computing. In my hands I have a book titled "Oversold & Underused" which has been my experience with the use of computers in highschool. The book says that computers are being used mostly as souped-up typewritersp--which is mostly the case.
The GNU/Linux operating system can make for a good typewriter--just as well as Macintosh systems can, just as well as Windows can. The difference is licensing. And free software has fundamental advantages compared to any proprietary software. Such as students can take the software they use at school home and do their computer homework there, just as they do now with textbooks.
Now, I think computers should be used for more things than typewriters in education. And their are some decent gaps. Such as most textbooks distribute software to use as well--which typically only works Windows. Which doesn't make Apple anymore of a competitor than GNU/Linux.
But their are projects to create educational software on the GNU platform. Included are GNU & Education Project (www.gnu.org/education), the Debian Jr. Project (www.debian.org/devel/debian-jr/index), and the KDE Edutainment Project (edu.kde.org/).
The clouds comment was based upon your appraisal of Apple which doesn't even seem to solve the fundamental problem. This, I attributed to a certain amount zealousness on your part. The hope was that you'd come back to earth.
(sorry about the rambling of this post but I think I got all my points across)
"BTW, if you took an OS design class, you would learn about file systems, virtual memory, swapping, program execution... what the kernel does. The rest is apps and libs that run on the OS."
Fine. You can call an OS anything you want. With these same guidelines, Mac OS X is just a derivative of the BSD operating system.
But then, what use is using the concept of OS in discussing things anyway?
"Free software advocates claim that this kind of software is morally superior. Open source advocates claim that this kind of software will likely (in fact, inevitably) end up better quality and provide more benefits to both the user and the developer. I say that both of these are true, and therefore I support both. I don't feel a need to identify with one of these exclusively or even to prioritize one over the other, since both ends are achieved by the same means. My position is just to be happy that there are two important benefits from this kind of software!"
Then you believe in Free Software. Because Free Software supports both of these goals. "Open Source" was created as a rebranding attempt to distance the movement from the word "free". Since then the Open Source Movement evolved to support only the more business-friendly pragramic side of software.
This, in itself, is fine. But look what happened. Without ethical considerations, we would be running KDE with the proprietary Qt toolkit. And there would be no real defense against Microsoft's Shared Source concept. But only with free software principles, do we have a completely free operating system. And only by seeing freedom as software with no strings attached, do we see Microsoft's Shared Source for the puppet it is.
Soundbite, soundbite, let us tell what to think tonight.
What is an RMS?
RMS is a legendary hacker who wants us to give GNU credit for the Linux OS written by Linus Torvalds who everone likes.
What is an RMS?
Crazy ego guy who is disruptive at programmer gatherings and smells bad.
What is an RMS?
Man on an ideological mission to turn programming into a communist art and wants everyone to agree with him.
Okay, what is an RMS, really?
www.gnu.org, www.stallman.org -- get the truth from the horses mouth. Really, all of the above are more false than true and if you learn of him from someone else, you're likely to get a grand misconception of him. The most soundbite-like and accurate statement of him I can make is that he has introduced and broadly defended the sentiment that software should be free. Everything he does, including the GNU/Linux nominclature, is entirely for that goal.
Perhaps it is disturbing that software can be under ethical consideration. But that doesn't make the statement not true.
Thats the thing. Them millions will only switch to another OS when forced to. If forced to, then moving to GNU/Linux rather than Windows XP isn't so much of a problem.
As far as "User Friendly" goes, I say screw it. There's a certain point where you need a logical and consistant interface to the computer--but the fact is that computers aren't for everyone. Certain applications that are likely to be used by them millions of casual users should probably be made as easy as possible. But other applications don't need to bow down to that level.
As far as GNU/Linux developers coding for the Technology minded, an article by one of the leading GNOME developers provides a good counterargument to your statement (http://www.advogato.org/article/462.html). In fact, it proves your statement false. Developers are *consciously* aware of human-computer interactions (of course, only when developing interfaces). It just takes time to both get all the interface up to spec and to educate other and new developers to usability techniques. Both of these concerns are addressed in the above article.
What free applications are not compatible with other platforms and in what fashion? In fact, of all portable applications I am sure you will find an enormous majority of them are free software. Why? Because we are free to port them.
Well, first--its already not allowed. Copyright is exclusive to the creator of the work except for fair use.
"I can only imagine what he means by this is more complex than he's letting on."
You're right. More information can be found at http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/.
The more I think about it, the more balanced I become. If you want to overturn copyright laws, there are means to do so but in this democracy the majority wins and you loose. But with existing law, you shouldn't allowed to distribute whole works that are under copyright. But we still need fair use. And thats the problem in my point of view. Without fair use, we loose far too much of our freedom and I would be blatantly opposed to it.
So be a good fella and delete all them copyrighted songs that you haven't rights to off your disks or change the law.
Actually, Microsoft has every right to dislike its greatest threat.
The Linux kernal is more than just a better mouse trap. Its free software.
I believe we are seeing the beginnings of the third and last stage of software. An age where software is largely mutually beneficial to everyone. Much as math and sciences are today and have been for a long time now.
This stage is an unfortunate stage for software businesses. Because they can not continue to exist.
And its not just the threat of GNU and the large body of free software either. Its economics. Even though software isn't scarce, lets assume it is for benefit of argument.
What do you do when everyone has the software they need? This is the burden Microsoft has had for a while. So they play every trick in the book. Changing file formats -- more restrictive licensing -- regular upgrades -- huge marketing -- and the creation of new technologies. The hope is to obsolete the previous version of software.
Problem is that this provides almost zero benefit for the customer. Sure -- every so often someone gets a fringe benefit from a new technology. But usually, people are happy with the software they have now.
So, in economics, if the customer gets no benefit from a product, they won't buy it--right? And thats the future as I see it. "Piracy" is the least of their worries. Their business model is about to collapse upon itself.
And the GNU/Linux operating system represents this collapse all too vividly. Microsoft, there is no hope for you.
I wonder how (or if) reasonable people can see any claims of software piracy and intellectual property. It simply doesn't make sense.
The idea that I am hurting someone by copying software.
The idea that the creator of a work has significantly greater rights than the user or borrower of that work. (note: not in the legal sense, but in a political sense)
Common terms such as "software piracy" and "intellectual property" are merely propagandas used instead of rational argument. I suspect that these propagandas would not hold to rational argument.
Can you imagine a world where copyright was much stronger than it is now? At least we have some of our fair use rights. Do we have fair use rights for software? I'm not sure. And when we buy a DVD, isn't it fair use to play it on a computer--even if it runs only GNU/Linux?
No, the reason why you won't read what he has to say is because you always post before reading the article. Perhaps if you did, you'd understand the context of what he said.
Here's a far fetched idea for the extremely paranoid. I call it a message in a bottle.
You say telephone lines can be tracked. But what if you won't be communicating over wire. Thats right--wireless.
A system could be set up such that anyone who is in reach of your wireless node pick up an encrypted message. They walk off until they encounter another wireless node and this message is sent to everyone else at this node. This continues until many many nodes have your message. Eventually you get the message and since you are the only one with the key, only you can retrieve the message. Complete anonymity.
(I am far less than a security expert--but its an idea.)
"We agree with the philosophy of free software," said Valencia Garcia. "We'll use the money we save in the city's social programs. The slogan of our mayor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is 'for the good of all, the poor must come first.'"
I'd suggest you read the entire short article for more information. Also according to another article, " The Mexican government is installing the free Linux operating system in 140,000 computer labs of elementary and middle schools."
``We decided to go with Linux because it would have been too expensive for all the proprietary software licenses,'' said Arturo Espinosa Aldama, the project's leader from the University of Mexico in Mexico City. The popularity of Linux, as an option to Microsoft Windows, is internationally expanding, while many of its former problems are disappearing.
Frankly, there's no need for Red Hat or Calderal or any business to do anything. You see, to get Free Software, you have get out of the iron triangle of technology, business, and money. You have to include other rather foriegn concepts like community and freedom. So whats my bid? Linux User Groups.
From this page I count eleven LUGs that mexicans can contact to help get their schools and organizations technologically up to par. Of course they'll need plenty of other things but the software is all right their ready to download of the internet, to share on CD's, and to modify to their needs. Of course Microsoft won't have for any of that sharing software thing--how can they compete?
Now...all this information I gathered from google, a brilliant search engine that even you can use to answer your own questions.
A lot of free software has had their copyright assigned to the FSF including a lot of GNU software. I am sure glibc has copyright by the FSF since they funded its development for a while and probably Bash, the GNU file utilities and text utilities, and gcc. The reason a lot of this software has had copyright assigned to the FSF is so that the FSF could enforce the GPL.
By calling their OS "Lindows" most of us assume that Linux is used as the kernal of the operating system which is licensed by the GPL. In addition, most of KDE is licensed under the GPL. In fact, most GNU/Linux software is licensed under a GNU license.
While I agree that they should release software code to those they distribute binaries to, whether they label it "binary" or not, I would avoid being vitriolic or mean about it.
Because it seem that their intentions are good. They want to distribute free software and make it easy for windows users to transition to a free operating system and this is a good thing to do. And they do have every intention on releasing the final software as free software. So it seems they do want to give their users freedom, they are just being lazy about it.
Slashdot Mirror
With free software, their is a single leader and a single unified vision. This leader is you.
You are probably rather disappointed by this statement. You want someone else to make the decisions for you. I've heard countless diatribes about people's grandma's who don't want to think about the software they use. They want a system that just works. In addition, the system's that already just works, isn't good enough. I don't understand this--but I'll ignore it for the time being.
But, it is easy to make system's that don't make you think. They have already been built. What you may complain about is that they don't do anything interesting. We've had word processors turning high-priced machines into fancy typewriters for a dozen years now. Connecting to the internet has long turned into a double-click operation.
The truth is, for what you want, its as good as it gets. In all honesty, I don't think you know what you want. For some reason, you want what Microsoft provides without getting it from Microsoft.
Here's what GNU/Linux (thats what its called) provides. It provides all the software you need to build your own system. What? you may ask. Why would I want to build my own system? One reason is that you've used Windows, toyed with the Macintosh, even at one point wrote batch files in DOS. But it wasn't enough. You want something more. Another reason, is that you--like me--don't know what you want. But you'll know it when you see it. Where commercial operating system is about popularity and marketing demographics--GNU/Linux is about empowerment. That the crux of free software. With free software, you are given the power to meet your needs. The cost is that you need to learn more about your system than you'd ever need to learn with Windows, Macintosh, or DOS. But what you'd end up with is not and end-users system but your system.
How do you start? First, write down what you want your system to do. Do you want your entire house equipped with speakers playing music? You want certain songs playing during the morning, certain songs playing during the afternoon, and others playing at night? How about theme songs playing on holidays? Would you like to store appointments and alarms in your computer. As opposed to an alarm clock, you want to store several alarms with different settings for different days of the week. You want alerts for people's birthdays.
How about a graphical clock on your wall, made with a flat screen computer monitor? Expensive, yes. Useful, yes. You can display the date on it as well as the time in three time zones. It can have an icon for when you get email and warn you when your favorite programs are coming on TV.
And...if you get an email by someone important why wait for you to open it? Just have the printer print it.
You can set up a web cam or...even better yet, a web server. Have the computer give an audio alert for when you get a lot of hits.
This is only an example. The possibilities are virtually endless. You just need the money to pay for the hardware and the knowledge--all of which can be provided by books and online manuals. Once you write down what you want your system to do, research on how to achieve this system. Read FAQs and ask newsgroups and mailing lists for advice.
What you end up with is not an end-user's system but a hacker's system. And you are in the captain's chair.
Whats the stigma against public funding? I can only trace it down to certain libertarian leanings.
But a lot of really nice things are funded publically. In the United States the best of it is funded by our local and state governments.
And free software fits this well since developing free software benefits everyone. I know Stallman has advocated a software tax in the past. His reasons are the same.
It seems that after five or so years since free software has made it big, its pretty obvious that the commercial market isn't doing so well with free software. The only thing keeping free software alive are the volunteer hackers.
If free software needs money (which I don't necessarily agree with), the commercial market doesn't seem equipped to provide it.
Public funding seems to make the most sense. If you ask every tax payer that by dedicating a small portion of their taxes to free software and the result would be that they will never have to purchase another version of Windows again, I'm sure they will see it as a bargain. And the publically funded free software can just as easily be used for commercial purposes and for more free software by anyone.
I think software should be seen as a public resource whose only cost is in development.
The answer is a very real fear that GNU will be forgotten. And that even though a GNU-based system exists it wouldn't be known as such. That because the system is called Linux, people would think that it started in 1992 (or whenever Linux began) by a Finnish college student set out to amuse himself. It should be well known that it is the winners who rewrite history and by his own political apathy, Linus could rewrite the GNU Project as a group that contributed the GNU tools--just a couple of common shell utilities.
But by continuing this debate, we are already raising awareness of the GNU Project and its goals. I have a question. Of all of you, if RMS submitted in the beginning and said "You know, we'll just call it Linux," who would know anything more about the GNU Project than it being a bunch of shell utilities? But because of your own awareness of GNU, ideas explore your mind that you would never have fathomed otherwise. The idea that software *should* be free. And now in your mind are a number of challenges to intellectual property, copyright, and closed unhackable systems. Agree or disagree, the GNU Project has opened your mind to a different way of thinking of software.
This is why I call it GNU/Linux. Because Linux isn't whole without it.
Do you not think that recognition for the GNU project is important?
I agree. You'd think that if RMS was really ego-driven about this OS, he'd just alter his first name a bit and call it that.
Thats the question. You have a computer. What do you want it to do?
It sounds like you don't have any sophisticated needs. Some of us have sophisticated needs for computing. Things that 99% of the rest of us never have to bother with. These people are really what computers are for. Then there's the rest of us who enjoy messing with the software. I suppose some of see GNU/Linux as hope that at last the computer can do things the way I want it to do it.
Frankly, I don't understand what you are getting at:
"On the other hand, I neither have the skills nor the inclination (yet) to spend hours tweaking and reprogramming config files so that I can get something up and running. I like that it works. I like that I can do what I want with it, and I don't have to tinker with it incessantly."
I don't know what you are talking about. You sound like you have a perception problem. You may have read someone else's trials with getting their system up and running after they changed something that might have made you afraid of the effort.
But in contrast to postmodernism, perception isn't the same as reality. Config files are usually no big deal, unless your needs are exotic. Other than a few exceptions, config files involve no programming.
So...this is the task that confronts people like us. Decide what we want the computer to do for you; install a flexible and powerful system on your computer like GNU/Linux; and set your course.
There's nothing hackerish about it.
Cool there boy. Lisp is already on the system...its also on your system. At least guile, probably umb-scheme, librep, and emacs.
Lisp rules. Get over it.
Sorry that you don't like my tone.
But you sound like Apple is so much of a better company to turn to than Microsoft. Just because Microsoft is in a position to exploit its monopoly doesn't mean that any other proprietary software company wouldn't do the same thing if put in the same position.
And quite frankly, I am not talking about for-profit software at all. When I say free software, I am talking about freedom not price.
And restrictive software is the fundamental problem I see here. Do you think any other proprietary software vendor will stop enforcing their licensing? That's pretty much what you mean by bullying.
As far as GNU/Linux being unproven with education, that's not much of an argument. It won't be proven until its used in education. Its catch-22.
And I am sympathetic to the demands of education. But, I am skeptical on the needs of computing. In my hands I have a book titled "Oversold & Underused" which has been my experience with the use of computers in highschool. The book says that computers are being used mostly as souped-up typewritersp--which is mostly the case.
The GNU/Linux operating system can make for a good typewriter--just as well as Macintosh systems can, just as well as Windows can. The difference is licensing. And free software has fundamental advantages compared to any proprietary software. Such as students can take the software they use at school home and do their computer homework there, just as they do now with textbooks.
Now, I think computers should be used for more things than typewriters in education. And their are some decent gaps. Such as most textbooks distribute software to use as well--which typically only works Windows. Which doesn't make Apple anymore of a competitor than GNU/Linux.
But their are projects to create educational software on the GNU platform. Included are GNU & Education Project (www.gnu.org/education), the Debian Jr. Project (www.debian.org/devel/debian-jr/index), and the KDE Edutainment Project (edu.kde.org/).
The clouds comment was based upon your appraisal of Apple which doesn't even seem to solve the fundamental problem. This, I attributed to a certain amount zealousness on your part. The hope was that you'd come back to earth.
(sorry about the rambling of this post but I think I got all my points across)
"BTW, if you took an OS design class, you would learn about file systems, virtual memory, swapping, program execution... what the kernel does. The rest is apps and libs that run on the OS."
Fine. You can call an OS anything you want. With these same guidelines, Mac OS X is just a derivative of the BSD operating system.
But then, what use is using the concept of OS in discussing things anyway?
Problem: Overly restrictive licensing of educational software.
Not-a-solution: Buying alternative software that is just-as or perhaps even more restrictive. In addition, migrate all hardware.
Solution: Free software.
Please, get your head out of the clouds for just a little bit. Thank you.
"Free software advocates claim that this kind of software is morally superior. Open source advocates claim that this kind of software will likely (in fact, inevitably) end up better quality and provide more benefits to both the user and the developer. I say that both of these are true, and therefore I support both. I don't feel a need to identify with one of these exclusively or even to prioritize one over the other, since both ends are achieved by the same means. My position is just to be happy that there are two important benefits from this kind of software!"
Then you believe in Free Software. Because Free Software supports both of these goals. "Open Source" was created as a rebranding attempt to distance the movement from the word "free". Since then the Open Source Movement evolved to support only the more business-friendly pragramic side of software.
This, in itself, is fine. But look what happened. Without ethical considerations, we would be running KDE with the proprietary Qt toolkit. And there would be no real defense against Microsoft's Shared Source concept. But only with free software principles, do we have a completely free operating system. And only by seeing freedom as software with no strings attached, do we see Microsoft's Shared Source for the puppet it is.
Soundbite, soundbite, let us tell what to think tonight.
What is an RMS?
RMS is a legendary hacker who wants us to give GNU credit for the Linux OS written by Linus Torvalds who everone likes.
What is an RMS?
Crazy ego guy who is disruptive at programmer gatherings and smells bad.
What is an RMS?
Man on an ideological mission to turn programming into a communist art and wants everyone to agree with him.
Okay, what is an RMS, really?
www.gnu.org, www.stallman.org -- get the truth from the horses mouth. Really, all of the above are more false than true and if you learn of him from someone else, you're likely to get a grand misconception of him. The most soundbite-like and accurate statement of him I can make is that he has introduced and broadly defended the sentiment that software should be free. Everything he does, including the GNU/Linux nominclature, is entirely for that goal.
Perhaps it is disturbing that software can be under ethical consideration. But that doesn't make the statement not true.
Thats the thing. Them millions will only switch to another OS when forced to. If forced to, then moving to GNU/Linux rather than Windows XP isn't so much of a problem.
As far as "User Friendly" goes, I say screw it. There's a certain point where you need a logical and consistant interface to the computer--but the fact is that computers aren't for everyone. Certain applications that are likely to be used by them millions of casual users should probably be made as easy as possible. But other applications don't need to bow down to that level.
As far as GNU/Linux developers coding for the Technology minded, an article by one of the leading GNOME developers provides a good counterargument to your statement (http://www.advogato.org/article/462.html). In fact, it proves your statement false. Developers are *consciously* aware of human-computer interactions (of course, only when developing interfaces). It just takes time to both get all the interface up to spec and to educate other and new developers to usability techniques. Both of these concerns are addressed in the above article.
What free applications are not compatible with other platforms and in what fashion? In fact, of all portable applications I am sure you will find an enormous majority of them are free software. Why? Because we are free to port them.
Please, don't troll me.
Stampede GNU/Linux
Sorceror GNU/Linux
Linus didn't right the whole OS, you know. You think he is some kind of a GOD?
Well, first--its already not allowed. Copyright is exclusive to the creator of the work except for fair use.
.
"I can only imagine what he means by this is more complex than he's letting on."
You're right. More information can be found at http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/
The more I think about it, the more balanced I become. If you want to overturn copyright laws, there are means to do so but in this democracy the majority wins and you loose. But with existing law, you shouldn't allowed to distribute whole works that are under copyright. But we still need fair use. And thats the problem in my point of view. Without fair use, we loose far too much of our freedom and I would be blatantly opposed to it.
So be a good fella and delete all them copyrighted songs that you haven't rights to off your disks or change the law.
Actually, Microsoft has every right to dislike its greatest threat.
The Linux kernal is more than just a better mouse trap. Its free software.
I believe we are seeing the beginnings of the third and last stage of software. An age where software is largely mutually beneficial to everyone. Much as math and sciences are today and have been for a long time now.
This stage is an unfortunate stage for software businesses. Because they can not continue to exist.
And its not just the threat of GNU and the large body of free software either. Its economics. Even though software isn't scarce, lets assume it is for benefit of argument.
What do you do when everyone has the software they need? This is the burden Microsoft has had for a while. So they play every trick in the book. Changing file formats -- more restrictive licensing -- regular upgrades -- huge marketing -- and the creation of new technologies. The hope is to obsolete the previous version of software.
Problem is that this provides almost zero benefit for the customer. Sure -- every so often someone gets a fringe benefit from a new technology. But usually, people are happy with the software they have now.
So, in economics, if the customer gets no benefit from a product, they won't buy it--right? And thats the future as I see it. "Piracy" is the least of their worries. Their business model is about to collapse upon itself.
And the GNU/Linux operating system represents this collapse all too vividly. Microsoft, there is no hope for you.
I wonder how (or if) reasonable people can see any claims of software piracy and intellectual property. It simply doesn't make sense.
The idea that I am hurting someone by copying software.
The idea that the creator of a work has significantly greater rights than the user or borrower of that work. (note: not in the legal sense, but in a political sense)
Common terms such as "software piracy" and "intellectual property" are merely propagandas used instead of rational argument. I suspect that these propagandas would not hold to rational argument.
Can you imagine a world where copyright was much stronger than it is now? At least we have some of our fair use rights. Do we have fair use rights for software? I'm not sure. And when we buy a DVD, isn't it fair use to play it on a computer--even if it runs only GNU/Linux?
If you can't tell already, IANAL.
No, the reason why you won't read what he has to say is because you always post before reading the article. Perhaps if you did, you'd understand the context of what he said.
But then you'd feel like a moron.
"Once and for all - GPL is good, it protects people's work and creativity and prevents bustards from steeling ideas."
How do you steal an idea?
I always thought that the GPL was meant to prevent people from locking away ideas from public use.
Here's a far fetched idea for the extremely paranoid. I call it a message in a bottle.
You say telephone lines can be tracked. But what if you won't be communicating over wire. Thats right--wireless.
A system could be set up such that anyone who is in reach of your wireless node pick up an encrypted message. They walk off until they encounter another wireless node and this message is sent to everyone else at this node. This continues until many many nodes have your message. Eventually you get the message and since you are the only one with the key, only you can retrieve the message. Complete anonymity.
(I am far less than a security expert--but its an idea.)
Then we can all go on freenet and use anonymous identities. Its supposed to be resistant from attack by the government.
If the "eMexico" package is merely a cut-down on license fees, then free software has them beat.
In a Wired Story we get the following quote.
I'd suggest you read the entire short article for more information. Also according to another article, " The Mexican government is installing the free Linux operating system in 140,000 computer labs of elementary and middle schools."
Frankly, there's no need for Red Hat or Calderal or any business to do anything. You see, to get Free Software, you have get out of the iron triangle of technology, business, and money. You have to include other rather foriegn concepts like community and freedom. So whats my bid? Linux User Groups.
From this page I count eleven LUGs that mexicans can contact to help get their schools and organizations technologically up to par. Of course they'll need plenty of other things but the software is all right their ready to download of the internet, to share on CD's, and to modify to their needs. Of course Microsoft won't have for any of that sharing software thing--how can they compete?
Now...all this information I gathered from google, a brilliant search engine that even you can use to answer your own questions.
I'm dead serious too.
What don't you have now with emacs that you would get with a KDE port?
Personally, I would avoid being quite so hostile.
While I agree that they should release software code to those they distribute binaries to, whether they label it "binary" or not, I would avoid being vitriolic or mean about it.
Because it seem that their intentions are good. They want to distribute free software and make it easy for windows users to transition to a free operating system and this is a good thing to do. And they do have every intention on releasing the final software as free software. So it seems they do want to give their users freedom, they are just being lazy about it.