Look, Katz, it doesn't matter if people believe they have a right to the mp3's they have accumulated - stolen is stolen. Just because I have become used to making pirated copies of all of my favorite Jon Katz material out there doesn't mean it's right.
As for Metallica's suit being against the idea of Open Software, you just don't get it, do you? It's open source when you a) use open source in your product, or b) CHOOSE to make it open source. Metallica did NOT CHOOSE to give their music away.
However, I believe that in the spirit of open source, from now on EVERYTHING YOU EVER DO should be considered fair game for free redistribution. What do you think?
Jon, the article was interesting. Leaving filters off certainly does expose the reader to more interesting stuff than he/she might see otherwise.
However, when you say (concerning anyone or anything) "They have the right to be heard, to exist on websites" you are absolutely wrong. They do NOT have the right to be heard, any more than I have the right to go to CBS, or CNN, or Public Radio, or Slashdot, and demand that they broadcast whatever drivel I spout.
You have the right of free speech, not the right to be heard. TMD
I understand the desire to remain part of an exclusive club - the "unix guru." I understand that having to learn something the hard way may lead to a deeper comprehension of the subject. And I know that everyone likes to play "kick the newbie" once they are beyond that stage themselves. But...
What the author of the article seems to have overlooked is that a lot of what is driving many users towards Linux (FreeBSD, etc) is NEED. Think about it - the reason that comp. industry jobs in general are exploding is because more and more companies NEED the solutions that computers provide. Companies don't buy a computer just to have cool machinery, or to join a community - they just want their database to run.
So if there is a tremendous need for a stable OS, and an insufficient number of people out there that can cope with the really powerful, cryptic stuff, then there is a tremendous NEED for easier stuff. Look at NT - it didn't succeed JUST because of marketing - it went most of the way to providing services that TONS of people needed but couldn't do themselves with existing products.
So yes, there is a place for a complex, difficult, powerful, and rewarding distro of linux. But don't look down on people for needing something easier - there aren't enough people like the author of the article to hire that are skilled enough (even if grumpy) to fulfill the NEED of the market out there. So maybe there are some joiners out there trying out linux just because it is cool - but the rest of us just want to get the job done. Easier distro's do that - I learned on Red Hat, now I am tackling Solaris , maybe tomorrow Be (if they ever get the apps I need) or W2K.
So I guess what I am saying is that the right tool for the job can be the one you can deploy the fastest, or the easiest, or the most reliably, or at the lowest cost, or... you get the idea. The author makes a good beginning at an interesting argument but needs to de-simplify some of his own reasoning to make it stronger.
Slashdot Mirror
As for Metallica's suit being against the idea of Open Software, you just don't get it, do you? It's open source when you a) use open source in your product, or b) CHOOSE to make it open source. Metallica did NOT CHOOSE to give their music away.
However, I believe that in the spirit of open source, from now on EVERYTHING YOU EVER DO should be considered fair game for free redistribution. What do you think?
Jon, the article was interesting. Leaving filters off certainly does expose the reader to more interesting stuff than he/she might see otherwise.
However, when you say (concerning anyone or anything) "They have the right to be heard, to exist on websites" you are absolutely wrong. They do NOT have the right to be heard, any more than I have the right to go to CBS, or CNN, or Public Radio, or Slashdot, and demand that they broadcast whatever drivel I spout.
You have the right of free speech, not the right to be heard.
TMD
I understand the desire to remain part of an exclusive club - the "unix guru." I understand that having to learn something the hard way may lead to a deeper comprehension of the subject. And I know that everyone likes to play "kick the newbie" once they are beyond that stage themselves. But...
What the author of the article seems to have overlooked is that a lot of what is driving many users towards Linux (FreeBSD, etc) is NEED. Think about it - the reason that comp. industry jobs in general are exploding is because more and more companies NEED the solutions that computers provide. Companies don't buy a computer just to have cool machinery, or to join a community - they just want their database to run.
So if there is a tremendous need for a stable OS, and an insufficient number of people out there that can cope with the really powerful, cryptic stuff, then there is a tremendous NEED for easier stuff. Look at NT - it didn't succeed JUST because of marketing - it went most of the way to providing services that TONS of people needed but couldn't do themselves with existing products.
So yes, there is a place for a complex, difficult, powerful, and rewarding distro of linux. But don't look down on people for needing something easier - there aren't enough people like the author of the article to hire that are skilled enough (even if grumpy) to fulfill the NEED of the market out there. So maybe there are some joiners out there trying out linux just because it is cool - but the rest of us just want to get the job done. Easier distro's do that - I learned on Red Hat, now I am tackling Solaris , maybe tomorrow Be (if they ever get the apps I need) or W2K.
So I guess what I am saying is that the right tool for the job can be the one you can deploy the fastest, or the easiest, or the most reliably, or at the lowest cost, or... you get the idea. The author makes a good beginning at an interesting argument but needs to de-simplify some of his own reasoning to make it stronger.