Agreed and agreed, and the really amazing thing (to me, anyway) is the astonishing speed at which it happened. Oracle dicked around just a little too long and got the rug pulled out from under them. I think it really helped LibreOffice that a lot of people were itching for a chance to get away from the situation we were in with Sun having de facto single vendor control over OpenOffice, so even by the time the Oracle/Sun deal went through, people were ready to jump. Once LibreOffice was announced it was all over but the cryin'.
This is an unqualified win for free software. This is exactly how a situation like this "should" work.
I think you are mistaken in your belief that lack of corporate "ownership" of LibreOffice somehow means no one's going to pony up (in the form of cash and/or paid developers) for it. It's in a lot of companies' interest that LibreOffice continue to succeed. There's no single corporate owner of the Linux kernel, and somehow they seem to do all right.
Someone who breaks into the government's "house" and "vandalizes" it is in fact serving a purpose. It demonstrates that your tax dollars could be much better spent on more competent help.
What specifically is Chromium doing that you dislike?
Nobody's talking about Chromium.
Look at Mozilla's financials: 95% of their revenue is from Google. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, Firefox would be long dead, and the internet would be IE only. Linux would not have a usable web browser.
If Firefox were forced to rely less on corporate money and more on the community (you know, like a real open project), Linux would have a substantially better web browser than it presently does.
I wrote a long post in reply to this. But when I got to the last sentence, I decided that this was really the key point, so I'll save us both some time. Here it is.
When the price of a given item is $0, all kinds of people will "buy" that item who wouldn't even have looked at the same thing for $10 or $12. It's really that simple.
you to claim that you can say with a straight face "the overwhelming majority of people who pirate something would not have paid for it anyway"
You really don't believe that? That's just crazy. That shows such an astonishing ignorance of simple mathematics that I don't even know how to respond to you.
My roommate got stopped, drunk on his bicycle, on the freeway, and walked away with a warning ticket. "No bikes/peds on freeway." We framed it and hung it on the wall:)
Yeah, I know you can get a DUI on a bike. But I wonder if I could be required to stop at a DUI checkpoint.
Now if we got more cyclists to understand that road laws affect them as well, I would be much happier when driving.
At the risk of going offtopic, I largely agree with your sentiment here. Some days I think the biggest threat to my well-being on my bike is actually other bikers who ride like assholes, because they make people in cars assume I'm going to be pulling the same shit. On the other hand, I wish we could get more drivers to understand this too. I can't count the number of times people have yelled out their windows at me or blew me by for obeying the fucking law. Why aren't I on the sidewalk? Because I don't want to kill anyone, you asshole (not you personally, "you" rhetorically). Also, it's against the damn law. Biking on the sidewalk's good for a $90 ticket around here. They only really enforce that downtown, but the downtown cops are really zealous about it.
Actually, you did, when you got your driver's license.
I don't have a driver's license. Nor is my local area very big on checkpoints (you see more further out of town). However, I do ride bike, and under the law, a bicycle counts as a vehicle in almost every way (with a few exceptions like not being allowed on freeways, but for the most part I'm a car).
Could I be made to take a breathalyzer at a checkpoint? Now there's an interesting question.
the dangers of drunk driving have nothing to do with how your eye vibrates or your nystagmus suppresses or whatever.
There isn't some magic booze fairy that comes down and jerks the wheel. These are well-understood biological processes. You said it yourself above, "The danger is with people who are drunk enough to mess with their distance judgment or reflexes." So which is it? Biology or booze fairy?
At least BAC is a proxy that can be understood and everybody agrees is related to alcohol intake.
So what? It's also an arbitrary measurement that can mean wildly different things depending on any number of factors. If I usually have a six pack a day, and today I drank three beers, I'm probably over the limit, but in no way impaired. You obviously know that. So why are you spreading lies?
Not really, I can infer from your statements that you're mostly hot air and Amazon won't notice you're missing because you're never been there. You were never going to buy from Amazon, stop pretending they lost a customer, you were never a customer and weren't ever going to be were you?
I buy mp3s from Amazon all the time.
You live in a hippie fantasy world where everyone just does stuff because the commune wants to do it.
I live in a world where I own the things I buy. That's as capitalist as it gets.
You just look like a stupid kid who thinks being a pirate is cool cause he's sticking it to the man cause they won't give him exactly what he wants.
I pirate nothing. If an item is not available under terms I'm willing to accept, I don't buy it. It's called voting with your wallet. It's called...capitalism.
As for the rest of your trollish ranting about my age, maturity level, and political opinions, go fuck yourself. Stay on topic or GTFO.
Sometimes I wonder if Stallman has anything positive to say about modern computing and technology. Even if he has valid points a lot of the time, a lot of people eventually become tired of his schtick because he's not willing to compromise, and more importantly, even if you try your best to follow similar ideological standards, odds are you'll have compromised somewhere down the line which means (in his mind) you basically shouldn't have bothered despite your best intentions. That's kinda what irritates me about the man most - he doesn't give out partial credit.
You're damn right no compromise. You're damn right no partial credit. And that's why you can buy DRM free music today, and that's why you will one day be able to buy DRM free ebooks. Because when people like you told people like us to sit down and shut up, we said no. You're welcome.
Why? The 1984 book that was removed because it was copyright infringing.
It was removed from the store, which is their right. It was also removed from devices without their owners' consent, which is not their right. Their recourse in that situation is through litigation against the actual infringer.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed and agreed, and the really amazing thing (to me, anyway) is the astonishing speed at which it happened. Oracle dicked around just a little too long and got the rug pulled out from under them. I think it really helped LibreOffice that a lot of people were itching for a chance to get away from the situation we were in with Sun having de facto single vendor control over OpenOffice, so even by the time the Oracle/Sun deal went through, people were ready to jump. Once LibreOffice was announced it was all over but the cryin'.
This is an unqualified win for free software. This is exactly how a situation like this "should" work.
I think you are mistaken in your belief that lack of corporate "ownership" of LibreOffice somehow means no one's going to pony up (in the form of cash and/or paid developers) for it. It's in a lot of companies' interest that LibreOffice continue to succeed. There's no single corporate owner of the Linux kernel, and somehow they seem to do all right.
Someone who breaks into the government's "house" and "vandalizes" it is in fact serving a purpose. It demonstrates that your tax dollars could be much better spent on more competent help.
9/11 was an unexpected attack
Yeah, it's not like they tried to blow up the same damn building before. Oh wait.
What specifically is Chromium doing that you dislike?
Nobody's talking about Chromium.
Look at Mozilla's financials: 95% of their revenue is from Google. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, Firefox would be long dead, and the internet would be IE only. Linux would not have a usable web browser.
If Firefox were forced to rely less on corporate money and more on the community (you know, like a real open project), Linux would have a substantially better web browser than it presently does.
when they can just contribute back to the original project?
This is Canonical. They don't do that sort of thing.
So this paper that is printed by the Treasury is ultimately good for...returning to the Treasury? That's funnier than hell.
I can tell you think you're really clever, but you just invented money. It's all equally ridiculous.
I wrote a long post in reply to this. But when I got to the last sentence, I decided that this was really the key point, so I'll save us both some time. Here it is.
When the price of a given item is $0, all kinds of people will "buy" that item who wouldn't even have looked at the same thing for $10 or $12. It's really that simple.
you to claim that you can say with a straight face "the overwhelming majority of people who pirate something would not have paid for it anyway"
You really don't believe that? That's just crazy. That shows such an astonishing ignorance of simple mathematics that I don't even know how to respond to you.
Thanks for the total lack of any evidence supporting your completely false claims.
My roommate got stopped, drunk on his bicycle, on the freeway, and walked away with a warning ticket. "No bikes/peds on freeway." We framed it and hung it on the wall :)
Yeah, I know you can get a DUI on a bike. But I wonder if I could be required to stop at a DUI checkpoint.
Now if we got more cyclists to understand that road laws affect them as well, I would be much happier when driving.
At the risk of going offtopic, I largely agree with your sentiment here. Some days I think the biggest threat to my well-being on my bike is actually other bikers who ride like assholes, because they make people in cars assume I'm going to be pulling the same shit. On the other hand, I wish we could get more drivers to understand this too. I can't count the number of times people have yelled out their windows at me or blew me by for obeying the fucking law. Why aren't I on the sidewalk? Because I don't want to kill anyone, you asshole (not you personally, "you" rhetorically). Also, it's against the damn law. Biking on the sidewalk's good for a $90 ticket around here. They only really enforce that downtown, but the downtown cops are really zealous about it.
Actually, you did, when you got your driver's license.
I don't have a driver's license. Nor is my local area very big on checkpoints (you see more further out of town). However, I do ride bike, and under the law, a bicycle counts as a vehicle in almost every way (with a few exceptions like not being allowed on freeways, but for the most part I'm a car).
Could I be made to take a breathalyzer at a checkpoint? Now there's an interesting question.
You've never drank in your life, have you?
First of all, if casually observing someone driving was enough to determine sobriety, the police would hardly have an incentive to run checkstops.
Sure they do. It's a great way to find other violations.
And how's that working out for you?
the dangers of drunk driving have nothing to do with how your eye vibrates or your nystagmus suppresses or whatever.
There isn't some magic booze fairy that comes down and jerks the wheel. These are well-understood biological processes. You said it yourself above, "The danger is with people who are drunk enough to mess with their distance judgment or reflexes." So which is it? Biology or booze fairy?
At least BAC is a proxy that can be understood and everybody agrees is related to alcohol intake.
So what? It's also an arbitrary measurement that can mean wildly different things depending on any number of factors. If I usually have a six pack a day, and today I drank three beers, I'm probably over the limit, but in no way impaired. You obviously know that. So why are you spreading lies?
I can't stand drunk driving apologists.
I can't stand ad hominems.
I did not agree to any such thing.
The claim that everyone that downloads would never have paid were that the only way to get it is also a lie.
"Everyone?" No, probably not. "The overwhelming majority?" Obviously, yes. It's not complicated.
I support America by running a real American OS: Debian.
Not really, I can infer from your statements that you're mostly hot air and Amazon won't notice you're missing because you're never been there. You were never going to buy from Amazon, stop pretending they lost a customer, you were never a customer and weren't ever going to be were you?
I buy mp3s from Amazon all the time.
You live in a hippie fantasy world where everyone just does stuff because the commune wants to do it.
I live in a world where I own the things I buy. That's as capitalist as it gets.
You just look like a stupid kid who thinks being a pirate is cool cause he's sticking it to the man cause they won't give him exactly what he wants.
I pirate nothing. If an item is not available under terms I'm willing to accept, I don't buy it. It's called voting with your wallet. It's called...capitalism.
As for the rest of your trollish ranting about my age, maturity level, and political opinions, go fuck yourself. Stay on topic or GTFO.
I'm sorry, do you have a rebuttal or not? Is there a hole in my logic? Out with it.
Sometimes I wonder if Stallman has anything positive to say about modern computing and technology. Even if he has valid points a lot of the time, a lot of people eventually become tired of his schtick because he's not willing to compromise, and more importantly, even if you try your best to follow similar ideological standards, odds are you'll have compromised somewhere down the line which means (in his mind) you basically shouldn't have bothered despite your best intentions. That's kinda what irritates me about the man most - he doesn't give out partial credit.
You're damn right no compromise. You're damn right no partial credit. And that's why you can buy DRM free music today, and that's why you will one day be able to buy DRM free ebooks. Because when people like you told people like us to sit down and shut up, we said no. You're welcome.
Why? The 1984 book that was removed because it was copyright infringing.
It was removed from the store, which is their right. It was also removed from devices without their owners' consent, which is not their right. Their recourse in that situation is through litigation against the actual infringer.