How, by going in with a lot of heavily armed agents? I grant you they probably didn't need all of the agents or half of the firepower they had -- but a show of force is almost guaranteed to prevent any resistance. From what we've been told via the news agencies and so forth, they didn't violate any of his rights or use excessive force -- they simply had a lot of heavily armed people there to arrest him or whatever.
One, it's probably SOP in a city like L.A. to go in with way more force than you need.
Two, they probably know that in the end that he'll probably end up with little more than a wrist-slap and they're trying to scare the crap out of him by peforming the raid.
From the response he gave, I think that's just what he needs -- to have the crap scared out of him and make him think.
I don't necessarily disagree with all of his opinions, but obviously he's overstepped his rights of free speech and so forth by committing criminal acts. And, if he wants to stand a chance of persuading anyone with an education beyond the third grade, he needs to learn to write and use a spell-checker. Jeez... He makes most of the Slashdot crowd look like literary giants...
What I fail to understand is how anyone can feel justified in flaming the GPL, or people who use it. It's their choice. The same people who flame the folks who use the GPL (I'm not lumping you in this group) seem to believe in freedom of choice for everyone else except the original developer.
If the BSD theory works for you, cool. I don't really care if a project I work on "takes over the world" but I don't want to see it pop up in a proprietary product. If it never achieves world dominiation, so be it.
Huh? Go back to bed, you're still not making sense.
some petty selfish notion of fairness.
Since when is a notion of fairness petty?
Sorry, but what you're basically arguing is that it's not enough to be generous, you have to be a sucker too.
If the closed source version is a vast improvement that is worth paying for then BSD users get an alternate source for improved functionality at a price.
If the original version was worth developing on top of, why shouldn't the company have to contribute something back?
Please, explain to me why it is selfish to expect others to play by the same rules I set for myself but it's not selfish for for-profit entities to expect to harvest good code without paying anything -- either in code or licensing fees.
Again, no one is forcing you to use the GPL. You like the BSD style license? Use it. But don't bitch because someone else chooses the GPL. Calling a developer who licenses their work under the GPL "selfish" is a bunch of crap. They're giving their work away, but they want to make sure that it stays free.
You seem to have the idea that companies have a inherent right to just take, take, take anything they want but individuals have no right to direct the way the things they create are used or to expect anything in return for their code unless they're selling it. I can't find any logic in that.
If no, then why complain about others doing just that?
Because they are not giving others the same benefits I've given them. To use your bar analogy, it'd be the same thing as me giving away beer at a party and some asshole taking a few cases and then selling them to someone who doesn't know better. If I give something away with the intent that everyone should get it for free, then I do not want someone taking it and restricting other people from getting it for free.
If we limit who can join the party, it is not exactly open nor free nor "Free".
Spoken like a true free-marketroid. Placing code under closed licenses very much limits who can "join the party." The only limit to companies using GPL'ed code is their desire to own the code outright. Their limitation, not mine. Get it straight, no one says that Company A has to build products on GPL'ed code. They can either play under the same rules as everyone else, or do their own work.
It is clear that Stallman and the GPL are not really about freedom.
Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that the GPL and RMS are inseparable. The GPL is about sharing code, and protecting it. RMS may have an agenda that's beyond that, probably, in fact. But, the GPL itself is not viral beyond code already under the GPL.
I really wish that RMS would retire at this point and allow some more reasonable and personable people to further the Free Software cause. I think he may be doing more harm than good at this point.
I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it. If I decide to release code as Free Software, with no real expectation to make money off of it or whatever, then I expect others that want to build on it or redistribute it to give others the same benefits that I've given them. That's the price for using GPL'ed code. If that price isn't acceptible, then they shouldn't look to building on Free Software.
The viral nature of the GPL isn't there as a side effect of trying to protect Open Source.
Right and wrong. The viral nature isn't a side effect -- it's a feature. The GPL's primary goal is to protect the software from being closed, but it is not in and of itself a means to kill off closed-source software. Nothing about the GPL prevents companies from releasing closed-source software, it only prevents them from using the GPL'ed software in those products. Sure, I bet many developers hope that the GPL would be the dominant license, but using the GPL only harms closed source software by providing an alternative and giving people a choice. If closed source software can't compete, oh well.
So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification.
Just lay back and take it, I suppose. Gee, I didn't know Billy G. read Slashdot. This isn't a trivial matter, so don't trivialize it. Most folks that use a BSD license intentionally use it so that businesses can have the option of using it in proprietary software. If they're comfortable with that, so be it. They're not being ripped off if they intentionally allow this.
However, I see nothing that serves the Greater Good in allowing companies to embrace and extend Free Software and having no obligation to contribute. If a company wants to play the proprietary licensing game, then let them pay for 100% of the code that they use, just as they expect their customers to do. They can either pay up to the original developers and convince them to dual-license the software, or write it from scratch. If you went to one of these companies and said "hey, my small business is just getting started and I need 20 licenses for your software to seed my business" they'd tell you "no free lunch. Pay up or fsck off." You should tell them the same.
I've pretty much given up on Ximian. They seem to be focusing on staying two steps behind Microsoft (Evolution, Mono, Gnumeric...) rather than keeping up with Linux (their Red Carpet service is at least one version behind for SuSE, Mandrake, no version for Slackware).
I'd really like to try Evolution, but it's a dependency nightmare from Hell to download package-by-package or from source and the Red Carpet service that's supposed to make life easy is one version behind both of the platforms that I have that I could use it on.
Meanwhile, they're spending their time trying to copy Microsoft crap for Linux with no clear way to make money on it, but giving Microsoft and other proprietary companies ample leeway to steal parts of the code or to release proprietary extensions.
In other words, if Microsoft makes things too easy, your fat ass will be out of a job?
No. If the Microsoft trend continues the quality of corporate systems will match the quality of those qualified to maintain them. In other words, they'll be piss-poor.
Those qualified to work with real technology will have their hands tied when saddled with broken operating systems and binary-only distribution that forbids them from making any changes not sanctioned and though of in advance by the drones at Microsoft.
Companies will continue to spend more and more on their licensing fees in the dream that they'll be able to save money on qualified admins while they wonder why reliability and security have gone down the toilet.
I don't know about TV, but most radio stations will give a disclaimer if the program is on a delay, so you should know if a program is being delayed (I think the standard is 7 seconds -- long enough to hit the bleep button if you realize your guest or caller has forgotten what words they "can't" say on radio...).
But, not all live radio is delayed. Generally speaking, I don't see any reason to delay a sports broadcast w/o live callers -- you have to be able to count on the guys in the booth being professional.
There's also a slight delay introduced when you're dealing with a signal that has to bounce off a bird (satellite) first, too. If you're watching a game that's being broadcast nationally on TV, but the radio station is local that would account for some delay.
My point is that, given Microsoft's position, most people see no alternative to buying Windows. You can't argue that most people actually like Windows. Most people just resign themselves to using it because it's what comes pre-loaded on their PC, or because the applications they use only run on Windows. No other business has this kind of predisposition to remain dominant.
Yes, you can go against the stream and use Apple, or Linux, or *BSD on the desktop -- but it's not a simple decision. It isn't an equal comparison -- not because Linux or Apple's OS aren't as good as Windows, but because when you decide to use something else, suddenly you have all these compatibility problems. They're not the result of deficit on the behalf of the MacOS or Linux -- they're the result of the existing dominance of Windows, and the assumption that Windows will continue to be dominant. That's a very hard trend to change. The average customer isn't up to fighting that trend, if they're even aware of the alternatives -- which I would have to say that the majority of people still aren't. Not well-informed, anyway.
Apple is a joke. Not the OS -- the prices for the hardware. The majority of Apple hardware is exactly the same -- the RAM, hard drives, video cards, -- the only real difference these days is the CPU, which is lagging behind x86 by more than 1GHz the last time I checked. Sorry, you're not getting what you pay for, you're getting a lot less these days. It might have been true five years ago when SCSI disks were the standard for Apple and they had a better graphics system, but it's no longer true. Price an Apple machine vs. the same hardware on Dell's site or HP's or Compaq's. Either the folks at Apple are content to remain a marginal part of the computer business or they're idiots. You can't enter a market where your main competitor has >95% and maintain a price point that's much higher than the competition with no real advantage over their product. Then again, I doubt that Apple would live through a price war with Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM and Gateway long enough to gain 10 to 20 percent of the market.
People usually do not choose to buy Microsoft software -- they choose to buy cheaper hardware (PCs) and many people (still) aren't aware that there's any real choice.
I'd like to see a survey of computer buyers where they're asked "how did you decide to buy a Windows PC?" -- The majority would probably say "what, I had a choice?"
On the server side, many companies do choose Sun or IBM or a Linux or *BSD solution. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in that market yet, though they surely covet it.
In short, people will continue to use Microsoft untill something "better" comes out.
The vast majority of Microsoft's business practices are dedicated to snuffing out any competing products that might pose a threat to one of their product lines. Considering their deep pockets and willingness to do anything short of murder (so far...) to protect and extend their monopoly this isn't necessarily true. And you know it. Arguing that "the market will decide" might be true -- if the market ever really got to choose. As it is, Microsoft does everything it can to keep that from truly happening. That isn't the market making a decision, it's a stunted list of options being presented to the market. It's very much like voting in presidential elections, most people suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils rather than voting for someone they really believe in because (like the last election proved so well) the odds of a third-party candidate winning are virtually nil. It's technically a choice, but even people who are aware of Linux and Apple are afraid to invest in an OS that might go the way of OS/2, BeOS, Dr-DOS and so on. Again, that's not really choice.
There's a pretty big difference between McDonald's and Microsoft. McDonald's doesn't hold a monopoly, McDonald's offers choices to its customers -- admittedly, McDonald's still sucks, but you don't have to eat there. They can't force you to eat there. You can order only the items on the menu that you want, and the last time I checked they had plenty of competition.
The only thing they have in common is both companies start with "M" and they both suck.
When Microsoft buys McDonald's then it's REALLY time to worry...
But with that, we'd get no more entertainment from the likes of Bernard Shifman [petemoss.com].
Granted, I think that's funny as hell -- though I'd like to see the same thing happen to the SOBs who keep sending me "investment reports" and all the other SPAM that I get on a regular basis. BS is probably getting more flak than even he deserves...
In truth, I'm probably more annoyed by SPAM than I should be -- but I just can't understand how these SOBs live with themselves knowing how much people hate what they do. And, it is (in a small way) theft. Theft of my resources (I pay for my email account and connectivity. SPAM just raises the cost of those services by putting an extra load on the servers) and my time.
Plus, I remember when getting a piece of SPAM was actually funny because it was so rare. Now the SPAM to wanted email is about 1:10. It's just...wrong.
Typically, members of the DMA aren't the problem. It's some fly-by-night outfit that is advertising Herbal Viagra or Hong Kong Vacation Discounts or whatever -- people who not only annoy the people who receive e-mail, but usually do so illegally by using open relays, obscuring their true IP/Email address and so on.
Most DMA members understand that opt-in is the best way to keep a happy customer, though some companies might occasionally make mistakes or require opt-out instead, they're not as bad as the ones who won't be affected by this in the slightest. It may not be 100%, but those companies really aren't the biggest problem. I doubt any of the companies who have harvested my email address on Yahoo! and send pr0n spam (with pictures) are members of the DMA.
I think a death penalty for spammers is a good place to start.
MS's biggest market is the corporate world, so that's who they listen to the most.
They do? The corporate admins have been begging for more stability and security for quite some time. I don't recall ANYONE asking for.Not.
It may not be perfect, I'll give you that, but neither is your *nix.
It's a damn sight better than Windows, though. No OS is perfect -- very, very, very true. Microsoft, however (or at least various people at M$) have admitted that perfection isn't even a goal. In fact, it's contrary to their number one goal, which is ever-increasing profits.
If you are a Microsoft customer, you have to understand that the goals of M$ are totally contrary to the goals of any of their customers -- the goal of any IT department should be to implement solutions that are stable, secure and cost-effective while solving the problems that they're using computers for and doing so as cheaply as possible without compromising the other goals. Microsoft's goal is to continue to sell more and more and more and more -- which is directly contrary to the goals of IT.
I'd also rather spend money on personnel than software licenses any day. Anyone looking for dumbed-down solutions is either a wanna-be admin who doesn't have the chops to do *nix, or a PHB who wants to hire cheaper help.
And my favorite feature:
The fact that I don't have to compile source code when I download any upgrades/patches/software....
My least favorite feature:
The fact that I can't get source code for Microsoft systems.
Most of the world does, because we want to buy a ready solution, not something we need to put further effort into.
Which is exactly why someone like you should not be in charge of a corporation's computers. Ready-made solutions are great for simple problems, but they also dumb down things to the point where it's nearly impossible to do anything other than what the vendor (in this case, M$) thought you might want to do -- or should do. Very few companies are happy with the constraints that using Windows puts on them, which is why Linux has gone as far as it has.
If you're too stupid or lazy (or both) to compile software, get a job in marketing. I wouldn't let someone with your attitude near my computers.
Enterprise computing shouldn't be dumbed down. I'm not saying it should be needlessly complicated, but with so much riding on corporate computer systems the emphasis should be on being completely secure, stable, and well-documented. While I grant you that no OS is 100% there, no one is farther behind than Microsoft.
Are you saying they *shouldn't* be doing what they want to do? Should they do what you want them to do?
If he's a Microsoft customer, yes.
Microsoft is very unusual in the sense that it doesn't follow the adage that the customer is always right. If any normal (read -- business that doesn't have a monopoly and can rest on the fact that >95% of the home users and >40% of businesses will buy their products because they see no alternative) business employed Microsoft's attitude, they'd soon be out of business.
Say you went down to your local grocery store to buy some Extra-Triple Fudge Fatty Ice Cream and they said "no, we're only going to let you buy plain Neopolitian -- and by the way, we're going to be changing the policy here, if you want ice cream, you'll take it whenever we want to sell it to you and we'll be instituting annual billing for 52 Gallons of ice cream a year. Oh, and if you want to give your kids some, you'll have to buy extra containers for them, only one user per container. Oh, and our profit margins are below what our shareholders are used to, so we'll be raising the price every few months and thinking of new ways to require that you only buy Microsoft Ice Cream."
How long would you remain a customer? In effect, this is what M$ is doing and as a customer you can't do a damn thing about it as long as you continue using Windows.
It isn't normal for the majority of a businesses customers to hate the product that make, but have to accept it anyway.
Security and stability are things that Microsoft's customers have been screaming for for years, so yes -- they should be doing it whether it's something that they want to do or not.
Unfortunately, the main focus of their development has been to add features that lock people into the Microsoft platform.
Security is only becoming a focus now because the biggest potential Microsoft lock-ins won't be adopted unless Microsoft can convince the public that they are secure. I don't think this is a genuine effort, except on the part of the PR department -- it's a sincere effort to convince everyone that they're going to be more secure, but I don't believe that it's going to happen -- well, they may become *more* secure, but that won't take much.
which includes the particularly onerous Advertising Clause:
Why, exactly, is this onerous? You should expect to get code that you can basically do anything you want with it and being required to acknowledge the people who gave it to you is too much? I bet you never wrote thank-you notes to your grandparents for your presents, either.
The current BSD license may not contain this, and there's nothing wrong with that either -- but I don't understand how this is unreasonable.
I wish M$ was required to print an acknowledgement on every Windows box that mentions that their TCP stack is derived from BSD instead of putting on like they're the only company that's every produced useful software.
Agreed, but even if 95% of 3,072 people do want your flyer (and, no offense, that still sounds high but I'll take your word on it) I'd bet that the other 99% of the bulk mail that they get is unwanted.
Also, if your flyer runs $.34 per to send to 3,072 people that means that you spend $1,044.48 per month to send a flyer. Also, you reinforce my point -- you're a small business person, sending out something people want, but you pay full rate. Marketing companies that slap together those coupon/flyer things that include everything from carpet cleaning to pizza coupons that usually get trashed -- they send them at a lower rate. Why should they get a lower rate than a business that is sending flyers that are wanted?
You didn't specify what kind of flyer it is, so I have no idea what the production cost is for it, so let's just double the cost of postage -- you spend $2,088.96 per month to send out a flyer to increase your business. (I sincerely hope that you'd continue to have patrons without the flyer...)
That means that, rounding the cost up to $2,100 per month, you need to sell 350 movie tickets (you said small town, so I'm figuring $6 per ticket...I live in Denver, so I'm out of touch with small town movie prices but I figure that's about average these days...) to recoup the cost of the flyer.
If you're a savvy business-person, you wouldn't have continued doing this unless the flyer brings in far more business than the cost of doing the flyer itself, so I'm guessing that those 3,072 flyers generate (on average) at least two ticket sales per flyer -- meaning that you probably sell at least 6,144 tickets a month based on the flyer reminding someone that there's a movie that they want to see, and they might not have come otherwise. At $6 a pop, that's $36,864 per flyer run -- and it doesn't count popcorn or soda that those folks might purchase while seeing a movie.
After deducting the cost of the flyer, that leaves you with about $34,755.04 added income thanks to the direct mail ad.
So, I'm guessing that it would be worth the cost at twice the price to continue sending the flyer.
But, most companies who send direct mail do so to lists purchased from other companies or gathered through other means -- and a good response rate on a direct mail campaign is about 10%, less for some markets. Your response rate is probably much higher.
My point here is that you'd probably continue to do these mailings even at a higher cost. Many of the companies who send unwanted direct mail would have to discontinue at a higher cost.
Why is that a good thing?
1. Less junk in my (and your) mail box.
2. Fewer trees killed to send an ad that I won't read. (My apartment complex has a trash can right next to the mailboxes, and they pretty much have to empty it every day...)
3. Lower costs for the post office.
I asked about them when I was at the local Post Office about two months ago...
The response I got was that none of the money to run the Post Office comes from tax dollars, and they were paying for the space. This is part of the semi-privatization of the Post Office, apparently.
It's not long until we're going to be seeing AOL and Microsoft stamps, probably...
I guess one corporate strategy is to sue people when your product can't compete in the market. Netscape chose a different path for the evolution of their product, and it appears it was the wrong one.
Yes, Netscape made a huge mistake in trying to sell popular software that ran on Windows. They happened to create a market that a larger company with no scruples, and deep pockets, coveted and for that they were squashed.
I don't hear you complaining about Microsoft suing other companies trying to enter the market. (Lindows)
they have the capability to make sure that the news you see, both online and on TV, comes from a single source.
Perhaps, if you only get your news from AOL-TW's sources. They can't keep you from watching your local news, reading your local newspaper or looking for news online from a site that isn't controlled or owned by AOL.
I do share concern that AOL-TW controls too many news sources, but AOL's control of the media pales in comparison to Microsoft's control of the average computer user.
AOL isn't the nicest corporation in the world, but Microsoft deserves to be punished for their actions here. They did abuse their monopoly of the desktop to limit choice of software. Make no mistake, they should not be punished merely for having the desktop monopoly, but they are engaging in illegal pracices to maintain that monopoly and extend it. They will continue to do so to push their MSN,.Net and other "services" until they are stopped.
This suit is one way of doing so, and I wish AOL all the best in winning it.
I think that you mean the ISO/CD-ROM image layout. From the FAQ:
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else to just grab OpenBSD and make their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy, it is up to you to determine this for yourself. We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option.
I don't think that the layout of the filesystem itself (/,/etc,/home, and so forth...) is under copyright.
The actual name would be under trademark, and I would imagine that someone else would be unable to use the trademark to distribute a derivative of OpenBSD. Linux is the name of the kernel for Linux distros, bsd is the name of OpenBSD's kernel. The use of Linux as a trademark should technically be approved by Linus or whomever manages that for him.
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else to just grab OpenBSD and make their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy, it is up to you to determine this for yourself. We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option.
I guess if you want to distribute an ISO you need to make sure you build it yourself and make sure that it is different from the CD-ROM's.
I think it's kind of silly to say that the layout is copyrighted, but no sillier than Amazon having a patent on "one-click" shopping...possibly less.
It's a shame that Theo has to resort to this kind of thing to get people who are using the OS to actually buck up a few dollars for CDs.
I'd really love to be able to get Eerie and Creepy back issues in PDF... I wonder if it'd be possible to resurrect those titles? They had some truly weird, but fun, stories.
When it comes to the kernel, not quite. The Red Hat CEO doesn't have diddly to say about what goes on with the Linux kernel, except the kernel that Red Hat ships.
Alan Cox, OTOH has a lot of influence over the direction of the kernel. He has the right to express his opinions, it doesn't matter if you agree with him. Frankly, I'm glad to see someone who's willing to leave a company if it goes in a direction that's contrary to his ethics or political stance. The world would be in a lot better shape if more people were willing to stand up for their ideals rather than sucking it up and letting corporations do what they please.
Alan also has the stones to sign his name to his opinions, what's your excuse?
that the deal is about Red Hat's Linux assets, anyway?
Red Hat has some pretty nice embedded stuff going on, and a big name in the market. AOL may very well want Red Hat to provide some type of embedded Internet appliance that will allow them to bypass M$.
Think about this:
AOLinux/Red Hat appliance that uses a Mozilla front-end (like the OEOne device) to connect to Sun Liberty Alliance systems and utilizes Sun's Star Office and stores files on AOL servers (powered by Sun or Linux...).
Alan doesn't figure highly into such a plan, but eCos and other Red Hat technologies would.
Slashdot Mirror
They're blowing things way out of proportion.
How, by going in with a lot of heavily armed agents? I grant you they probably didn't need all of the agents or half of the firepower they had -- but a show of force is almost guaranteed to prevent any resistance. From what we've been told via the news agencies and so forth, they didn't violate any of his rights or use excessive force -- they simply had a lot of heavily armed people there to arrest him or whatever.
One, it's probably SOP in a city like L.A. to go in with way more force than you need.
Two, they probably know that in the end that he'll probably end up with little more than a wrist-slap and they're trying to scare the crap out of him by peforming the raid.
From the response he gave, I think that's just what he needs -- to have the crap scared out of him and make him think.
I don't necessarily disagree with all of his opinions, but obviously he's overstepped his rights of free speech and so forth by committing criminal acts. And, if he wants to stand a chance of persuading anyone with an education beyond the third grade, he needs to learn to write and use a spell-checker. Jeez... He makes most of the Slashdot crowd look like literary giants...
What I fail to understand is how anyone can feel justified in flaming the GPL, or people who use it. It's their choice. The same people who flame the folks who use the GPL (I'm not lumping you in this group) seem to believe in freedom of choice for everyone else except the original developer.
If the BSD theory works for you, cool. I don't really care if a project I work on "takes over the world" but I don't want to see it pop up in a proprietary product. If it never achieves world dominiation, so be it.
a selfish kind of freedom
Huh? Go back to bed, you're still not making sense.
some petty selfish notion of fairness.
Since when is a notion of fairness petty?
Sorry, but what you're basically arguing is that it's not enough to be generous, you have to be a sucker too.
If the closed source version is a vast improvement that is worth paying for then BSD users get an alternate source for improved functionality at a price.
If the original version was worth developing on top of, why shouldn't the company have to contribute something back?
Please, explain to me why it is selfish to expect others to play by the same rules I set for myself but it's not selfish for for-profit entities to expect to harvest good code without paying anything -- either in code or licensing fees.
Again, no one is forcing you to use the GPL. You like the BSD style license? Use it. But don't bitch because someone else chooses the GPL. Calling a developer who licenses their work under the GPL "selfish" is a bunch of crap. They're giving their work away, but they want to make sure that it stays free.
You seem to have the idea that companies have a inherent right to just take, take, take anything they want but individuals have no right to direct the way the things they create are used or to expect anything in return for their code unless they're selling it. I can't find any logic in that.
If no, then why complain about others doing just that?
Because they are not giving others the same benefits I've given them. To use your bar analogy, it'd be the same thing as me giving away beer at a party and some asshole taking a few cases and then selling them to someone who doesn't know better. If I give something away with the intent that everyone should get it for free, then I do not want someone taking it and restricting other people from getting it for free.
If we limit who can join the party, it is not exactly open nor free nor "Free".
Spoken like a true free-marketroid. Placing code under closed licenses very much limits who can "join the party." The only limit to companies using GPL'ed code is their desire to own the code outright. Their limitation, not mine. Get it straight, no one says that Company A has to build products on GPL'ed code. They can either play under the same rules as everyone else, or do their own work.
It is clear that Stallman and the GPL are not really about freedom.
Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that the GPL and RMS are inseparable. The GPL is about sharing code, and protecting it. RMS may have an agenda that's beyond that, probably, in fact. But, the GPL itself is not viral beyond code already under the GPL.
I really wish that RMS would retire at this point and allow some more reasonable and personable people to further the Free Software cause. I think he may be doing more harm than good at this point.
I have no beef with the BSD-style licenses, but I wouldn't use one for a project if my life depended on it. If I decide to release code as Free Software, with no real expectation to make money off of it or whatever, then I expect others that want to build on it or redistribute it to give others the same benefits that I've given them. That's the price for using GPL'ed code. If that price isn't acceptible, then they shouldn't look to building on Free Software.
The viral nature of the GPL isn't there as a side effect of trying to protect Open Source.
Right and wrong. The viral nature isn't a side effect -- it's a feature. The GPL's primary goal is to protect the software from being closed, but it is not in and of itself a means to kill off closed-source software. Nothing about the GPL prevents companies from releasing closed-source software, it only prevents them from using the GPL'ed software in those products. Sure, I bet many developers hope that the GPL would be the dominant license, but using the GPL only harms closed source software by providing an alternative and giving people a choice. If closed source software can't compete, oh well.
So what if someone tries to rip off your BSD software and do a closed modification.
Just lay back and take it, I suppose. Gee, I didn't know Billy G. read Slashdot. This isn't a trivial matter, so don't trivialize it. Most folks that use a BSD license intentionally use it so that businesses can have the option of using it in proprietary software. If they're comfortable with that, so be it. They're not being ripped off if they intentionally allow this.
However, I see nothing that serves the Greater Good in allowing companies to embrace and extend Free Software and having no obligation to contribute. If a company wants to play the proprietary licensing game, then let them pay for 100% of the code that they use, just as they expect their customers to do. They can either pay up to the original developers and convince them to dual-license the software, or write it from scratch. If you went to one of these companies and said "hey, my small business is just getting started and I need 20 licenses for your software to seed my business" they'd tell you "no free lunch. Pay up or fsck off." You should tell them the same.
I've pretty much given up on Ximian. They seem to be focusing on staying two steps behind Microsoft (Evolution, Mono, Gnumeric...) rather than keeping up with Linux (their Red Carpet service is at least one version behind for SuSE, Mandrake, no version for Slackware).
I'd really like to try Evolution, but it's a dependency nightmare from Hell to download package-by-package or from source and the Red Carpet service that's supposed to make life easy is one version behind both of the platforms that I have that I could use it on.
Meanwhile, they're spending their time trying to copy Microsoft crap for Linux with no clear way to make money on it, but giving Microsoft and other proprietary companies ample leeway to steal parts of the code or to release proprietary extensions.
Something's very wrong with this picture.
In other words, if Microsoft makes things too easy, your fat ass will be out of a job?
No. If the Microsoft trend continues the quality of corporate systems will match the quality of those qualified to maintain them. In other words, they'll be piss-poor.
Those qualified to work with real technology will have their hands tied when saddled with broken operating systems and binary-only distribution that forbids them from making any changes not sanctioned and though of in advance by the drones at Microsoft.
Companies will continue to spend more and more on their licensing fees in the dream that they'll be able to save money on qualified admins while they wonder why reliability and security have gone down the toilet.
I don't know about TV, but most radio stations will give a disclaimer if the program is on a delay, so you should know if a program is being delayed (I think the standard is 7 seconds -- long enough to hit the bleep button if you realize your guest or caller has forgotten what words they "can't" say on radio...).
But, not all live radio is delayed. Generally speaking, I don't see any reason to delay a sports broadcast w/o live callers -- you have to be able to count on the guys in the booth being professional.
There's also a slight delay introduced when you're dealing with a signal that has to bounce off a bird (satellite) first, too. If you're watching a game that's being broadcast nationally on TV, but the radio station is local that would account for some delay.
My point is that, given Microsoft's position, most people see no alternative to buying Windows. You can't argue that most people actually like Windows. Most people just resign themselves to using it because it's what comes pre-loaded on their PC, or because the applications they use only run on Windows. No other business has this kind of predisposition to remain dominant.
Yes, you can go against the stream and use Apple, or Linux, or *BSD on the desktop -- but it's not a simple decision. It isn't an equal comparison -- not because Linux or Apple's OS aren't as good as Windows, but because when you decide to use something else, suddenly you have all these compatibility problems. They're not the result of deficit on the behalf of the MacOS or Linux -- they're the result of the existing dominance of Windows, and the assumption that Windows will continue to be dominant. That's a very hard trend to change. The average customer isn't up to fighting that trend, if they're even aware of the alternatives -- which I would have to say that the majority of people still aren't. Not well-informed, anyway.
Apple is a joke. Not the OS -- the prices for the hardware. The majority of Apple hardware is exactly the same -- the RAM, hard drives, video cards, -- the only real difference these days is the CPU, which is lagging behind x86 by more than 1GHz the last time I checked. Sorry, you're not getting what you pay for, you're getting a lot less these days. It might have been true five years ago when SCSI disks were the standard for Apple and they had a better graphics system, but it's no longer true. Price an Apple machine vs. the same hardware on Dell's site or HP's or Compaq's. Either the folks at Apple are content to remain a marginal part of the computer business or they're idiots. You can't enter a market where your main competitor has >95% and maintain a price point that's much higher than the competition with no real advantage over their product. Then again, I doubt that Apple would live through a price war with Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM and Gateway long enough to gain 10 to 20 percent of the market.
People usually do not choose to buy Microsoft software -- they choose to buy cheaper hardware (PCs) and many people (still) aren't aware that there's any real choice.
I'd like to see a survey of computer buyers where they're asked "how did you decide to buy a Windows PC?" -- The majority would probably say "what, I had a choice?"
On the server side, many companies do choose Sun or IBM or a Linux or *BSD solution. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in that market yet, though they surely covet it.
In short, people will continue to use Microsoft untill something "better" comes out.
The vast majority of Microsoft's business practices are dedicated to snuffing out any competing products that might pose a threat to one of their product lines. Considering their deep pockets and willingness to do anything short of murder (so far...) to protect and extend their monopoly this isn't necessarily true. And you know it. Arguing that "the market will decide" might be true -- if the market ever really got to choose. As it is, Microsoft does everything it can to keep that from truly happening. That isn't the market making a decision, it's a stunted list of options being presented to the market. It's very much like voting in presidential elections, most people suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils rather than voting for someone they really believe in because (like the last election proved so well) the odds of a third-party candidate winning are virtually nil. It's technically a choice, but even people who are aware of Linux and Apple are afraid to invest in an OS that might go the way of OS/2, BeOS, Dr-DOS and so on. Again, that's not really choice.
Excuse me, but you just described MacDonald's ...
There's a pretty big difference between McDonald's and Microsoft. McDonald's doesn't hold a monopoly, McDonald's offers choices to its customers -- admittedly, McDonald's still sucks, but you don't have to eat there. They can't force you to eat there. You can order only the items on the menu that you want, and the last time I checked they had plenty of competition.
The only thing they have in common is both companies start with "M" and they both suck.
When Microsoft buys McDonald's then it's REALLY time to worry...
But with that, we'd get no more entertainment from the likes of Bernard Shifman [petemoss.com].
Granted, I think that's funny as hell -- though I'd like to see the same thing happen to the SOBs who keep sending me "investment reports" and all the other SPAM that I get on a regular basis. BS is probably getting more flak than even he deserves...
In truth, I'm probably more annoyed by SPAM than I should be -- but I just can't understand how these SOBs live with themselves knowing how much people hate what they do. And, it is (in a small way) theft. Theft of my resources (I pay for my email account and connectivity. SPAM just raises the cost of those services by putting an extra load on the servers) and my time.
Plus, I remember when getting a piece of SPAM was actually funny because it was so rare. Now the SPAM to wanted email is about 1:10. It's just...wrong.
Typically, members of the DMA aren't the problem. It's some fly-by-night outfit that is advertising Herbal Viagra or Hong Kong Vacation Discounts or whatever -- people who not only annoy the people who receive e-mail, but usually do so illegally by using open relays, obscuring their true IP/Email address and so on.
Most DMA members understand that opt-in is the best way to keep a happy customer, though some companies might occasionally make mistakes or require opt-out instead, they're not as bad as the ones who won't be affected by this in the slightest. It may not be 100%, but those companies really aren't the biggest problem. I doubt any of the companies who have harvested my email address on Yahoo! and send pr0n spam (with pictures) are members of the DMA.
I think a death penalty for spammers is a good place to start.
MS's biggest market is the corporate world, so that's who they listen to the most.
.Not.
They do? The corporate admins have been begging for more stability and security for quite some time. I don't recall ANYONE asking for
It may not be perfect, I'll give you that, but neither is your *nix.
It's a damn sight better than Windows, though. No OS is perfect -- very, very, very true. Microsoft, however (or at least various people at M$) have admitted that perfection isn't even a goal. In fact, it's contrary to their number one goal, which is ever-increasing profits.
If you are a Microsoft customer, you have to understand that the goals of M$ are totally contrary to the goals of any of their customers -- the goal of any IT department should be to implement solutions that are stable, secure and cost-effective while solving the problems that they're using computers for and doing so as cheaply as possible without compromising the other goals. Microsoft's goal is to continue to sell more and more and more and more -- which is directly contrary to the goals of IT.
I'd also rather spend money on personnel than software licenses any day. Anyone looking for dumbed-down solutions is either a wanna-be admin who doesn't have the chops to do *nix, or a PHB who wants to hire cheaper help.
And my favorite feature:
The fact that I don't have to compile source code when I download any upgrades/patches/software....
My least favorite feature:
The fact that I can't get source code for Microsoft systems.
Most of the world does, because we want to buy a ready solution, not something we need to put further effort into.
Which is exactly why someone like you should not be in charge of a corporation's computers. Ready-made solutions are great for simple problems, but they also dumb down things to the point where it's nearly impossible to do anything other than what the vendor (in this case, M$) thought you might want to do -- or should do. Very few companies are happy with the constraints that using Windows puts on them, which is why Linux has gone as far as it has.
If you're too stupid or lazy (or both) to compile software, get a job in marketing. I wouldn't let someone with your attitude near my computers.
Enterprise computing shouldn't be dumbed down. I'm not saying it should be needlessly complicated, but with so much riding on corporate computer systems the emphasis should be on being completely secure, stable, and well-documented. While I grant you that no OS is 100% there, no one is farther behind than Microsoft.
Are you saying they *shouldn't* be doing what they want to do? Should they do what you want them to do?
If he's a Microsoft customer, yes.
Microsoft is very unusual in the sense that it doesn't follow the adage that the customer is always right. If any normal (read -- business that doesn't have a monopoly and can rest on the fact that >95% of the home users and >40% of businesses will buy their products because they see no alternative) business employed Microsoft's attitude, they'd soon be out of business.
Say you went down to your local grocery store to buy some Extra-Triple Fudge Fatty Ice Cream and they said "no, we're only going to let you buy plain Neopolitian -- and by the way, we're going to be changing the policy here, if you want ice cream, you'll take it whenever we want to sell it to you and we'll be instituting annual billing for 52 Gallons of ice cream a year. Oh, and if you want to give your kids some, you'll have to buy extra containers for them, only one user per container. Oh, and our profit margins are below what our shareholders are used to, so we'll be raising the price every few months and thinking of new ways to require that you only buy Microsoft Ice Cream."
How long would you remain a customer? In effect, this is what M$ is doing and as a customer you can't do a damn thing about it as long as you continue using Windows.
It isn't normal for the majority of a businesses customers to hate the product that make, but have to accept it anyway.
Security and stability are things that Microsoft's customers have been screaming for for years, so yes -- they should be doing it whether it's something that they want to do or not.
Unfortunately, the main focus of their development has been to add features that lock people into the Microsoft platform.
Security is only becoming a focus now because the biggest potential Microsoft lock-ins won't be adopted unless Microsoft can convince the public that they are secure. I don't think this is a genuine effort, except on the part of the PR department -- it's a sincere effort to convince everyone that they're going to be more secure, but I don't believe that it's going to happen -- well, they may become *more* secure, but that won't take much.
which includes the particularly onerous Advertising Clause:
Why, exactly, is this onerous? You should expect to get code that you can basically do anything you want with it and being required to acknowledge the people who gave it to you is too much? I bet you never wrote thank-you notes to your grandparents for your presents, either.
The current BSD license may not contain this, and there's nothing wrong with that either -- but I don't understand how this is unreasonable.
I wish M$ was required to print an acknowledgement on every Windows box that mentions that their TCP stack is derived from BSD instead of putting on like they're the only company that's every produced useful software.
Not all "junk mail" is junk.
Agreed, but even if 95% of 3,072 people do want your flyer (and, no offense, that still sounds high but I'll take your word on it) I'd bet that the other 99% of the bulk mail that they get is unwanted.
Also, if your flyer runs $.34 per to send to 3,072 people that means that you spend $1,044.48 per month to send a flyer. Also, you reinforce my point -- you're a small business person, sending out something people want, but you pay full rate. Marketing companies that slap together those coupon/flyer things that include everything from carpet cleaning to pizza coupons that usually get trashed -- they send them at a lower rate. Why should they get a lower rate than a business that is sending flyers that are wanted?
You didn't specify what kind of flyer it is, so I have no idea what the production cost is for it, so let's just double the cost of postage -- you spend $2,088.96 per month to send out a flyer to increase your business. (I sincerely hope that you'd continue to have patrons without the flyer...)
That means that, rounding the cost up to $2,100 per month, you need to sell 350 movie tickets (you said small town, so I'm figuring $6 per ticket...I live in Denver, so I'm out of touch with small town movie prices but I figure that's about average these days...) to recoup the cost of the flyer.
If you're a savvy business-person, you wouldn't have continued doing this unless the flyer brings in far more business than the cost of doing the flyer itself, so I'm guessing that those 3,072 flyers generate (on average) at least two ticket sales per flyer -- meaning that you probably sell at least 6,144 tickets a month based on the flyer reminding someone that there's a movie that they want to see, and they might not have come otherwise. At $6 a pop, that's $36,864 per flyer run -- and it doesn't count popcorn or soda that those folks might purchase while seeing a movie.
After deducting the cost of the flyer, that leaves you with about $34,755.04 added income thanks to the direct mail ad.
So, I'm guessing that it would be worth the cost at twice the price to continue sending the flyer.
But, most companies who send direct mail do so to lists purchased from other companies or gathered through other means -- and a good response rate on a direct mail campaign is about 10%, less for some markets. Your response rate is probably much higher.
My point here is that you'd probably continue to do these mailings even at a higher cost. Many of the companies who send unwanted direct mail would have to discontinue at a higher cost.
Why is that a good thing?
1. Less junk in my (and your) mail box.
2. Fewer trees killed to send an ad that I won't read. (My apartment complex has a trash can right next to the mailboxes, and they pretty much have to empty it every day...)
3. Lower costs for the post office.
Maybe we need to add "separation of corporation and state" to our "separation of church and state" in the constitution?
Since most of the reps in office seem to worship large corporations anyway, maybe the existing amendment would do?
Probably not. But I'd sure as hell support an Amendment to this effect.
We should double the cost of bulk-rate advertisements, rather than giving them a cut-rate. Why subsidize mail that no one wants?
I asked about them when I was at the local Post Office about two months ago...
The response I got was that none of the money to run the Post Office comes from tax dollars, and they were paying for the space. This is part of the semi-privatization of the Post Office, apparently.
It's not long until we're going to be seeing AOL and Microsoft stamps, probably...
I guess one corporate strategy is to sue people when your product can't compete in the market. Netscape chose a different path for the evolution of their product, and it appears it was the wrong one.
.Net and other "services" until they are stopped.
Yes, Netscape made a huge mistake in trying to sell popular software that ran on Windows. They happened to create a market that a larger company with no scruples, and deep pockets, coveted and for that they were squashed.
I don't hear you complaining about Microsoft suing other companies trying to enter the market. (Lindows)
they have the capability to make sure that the news you see, both online and on TV, comes from a single source.
Perhaps, if you only get your news from AOL-TW's sources. They can't keep you from watching your local news, reading your local newspaper or looking for news online from a site that isn't controlled or owned by AOL.
I do share concern that AOL-TW controls too many news sources, but AOL's control of the media pales in comparison to Microsoft's control of the average computer user.
AOL isn't the nicest corporation in the world, but Microsoft deserves to be punished for their actions here. They did abuse their monopoly of the desktop to limit choice of software. Make no mistake, they should not be punished merely for having the desktop monopoly, but they are engaging in illegal pracices to maintain that monopoly and extend it. They will continue to do so to push their MSN,
This suit is one way of doing so, and I wish AOL all the best in winning it.
I think that you mean the ISO/CD-ROM image layout. From the FAQ:
/etc, /home, and so forth...) is under copyright.
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else to just grab OpenBSD and make their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy, it is up to you to determine this for yourself. We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option.
I don't think that the layout of the filesystem itself (/,
The actual name would be under trademark, and I would imagine that someone else would be unable to use the trademark to distribute a derivative of OpenBSD. Linux is the name of the kernel for Linux distros, bsd is the name of OpenBSD's kernel. The use of Linux as a trademark should technically be approved by Linus or whomever manages that for him.
I guess this would be OpenBSDarren...
From the OpenBSD FAQ:
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else to just grab OpenBSD and make their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy, it is up to you to determine this for yourself. We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option.
I guess if you want to distribute an ISO you need to make sure you build it yourself and make sure that it is different from the CD-ROM's.
I think it's kind of silly to say that the layout is copyrighted, but no sillier than Amazon having a patent on "one-click" shopping...possibly less.
It's a shame that Theo has to resort to this kind of thing to get people who are using the OS to actually buck up a few dollars for CDs.
I'd really love to be able to get Eerie and Creepy back issues in PDF... I wonder if it'd be possible to resurrect those titles? They had some truly weird, but fun, stories.
When it comes to the kernel, not quite. The Red Hat CEO doesn't have diddly to say about what goes on with the Linux kernel, except the kernel that Red Hat ships.
Alan Cox, OTOH has a lot of influence over the direction of the kernel. He has the right to express his opinions, it doesn't matter if you agree with him. Frankly, I'm glad to see someone who's willing to leave a company if it goes in a direction that's contrary to his ethics or political stance. The world would be in a lot better shape if more people were willing to stand up for their ideals rather than sucking it up and letting corporations do what they please.
Alan also has the stones to sign his name to his opinions, what's your excuse?
that the deal is about Red Hat's Linux assets, anyway?
Red Hat has some pretty nice embedded stuff going on, and a big name in the market. AOL may very well want Red Hat to provide some type of embedded Internet appliance that will allow them to bypass M$.
Think about this:
AOLinux/Red Hat appliance that uses a Mozilla front-end (like the OEOne device) to connect to Sun Liberty Alliance systems and utilizes Sun's Star Office and stores files on AOL servers (powered by Sun or Linux...).
Alan doesn't figure highly into such a plan, but eCos and other Red Hat technologies would.