> A general BSD-style license would go much further in promoting true Free software.
No. Microsoft would like everyone to believe that, if only so they could continue to rape the "Open Source" community. Microsoft cannot "embrace, extend, and extinguish" GPLed software, as they have tried to do with Kerberos, and other BSD innovations.
The BSD license doesn't *promote* free software, since it allows proprietization of itself, and thus, the creation of proprietary software out of free software. It can be used in its' proprietary form against the free software community, through purposeful incompatibilities, restricted or no access to the modified source, and 150-page EULAs, all on something primarily written by free software coders! So it *IS* free software, but it doesn't *PROMOTE* free software.
The BSD license tries to play nice with Microsoft and the other corporate sharks, which is a quick way to get dead fast, as a community... I just like the fact that if I write something I intend to be free, the GPL ensures it STAYS free, as I, the creator, wanted it to be, forever.
The guy from Atheos (http://www.atheos.cx/) calls Slashdotting " The worst mass attack I have ever seen". Because this seems to be a continual (and somewhat legendary) problem, I think the powers that be (Taco et al) should put a system in place wherein they give sysadmins some sort of warning before they post a slashdot article which could take down their website with a "Friendly DDOS".
As Spiderman says, "With great power comes great responsibility", and Slashdot's power to strain system resources is very great, indeed.
First off, I must confess, I think Drepper's behavior was very unprofessional, especially for someone representing RedHat, the great flagship Linux corporation ("The Linux Standard", my 7.1 box says). *Individuals* can act rashly in public, but my boss would never let me slag other teammates with whom I have differences of opinion, to potential customers in an official document. Ever. I highly doubt Microsoft developers slag each other in public, since they understand the necessity to present themselves as a "unified group of mature professionals" to the people. The Linux guys do not seem to think this as necessary, which is part of the reason corporate interests often think of us as a group of cha0tic haxx0rs with no semblance of order. This image hurts us all, as corporations would rather trust ultra-professional IBM than the gypsy on the streetcorner. So would I. We, as the gypsy, have an excellent offering; but that doesn't matter. As Microsoft has proven, the *image* of "having it all together" is more important than *actually* having it all together.
This kind of personal bickering should remain exactly that - personal. Private. Not Public. The heat that public infighting brings will only fuel the discord, and that hurts everybody in the Linux and FSF community. Drepper shouldn't be using his glibc 2.2.4 Release Notes as a podium for attacking other members of the community, that's what Slashdot's for.;-)
Also, I agree that Stallman is vocal and extreme in his views, but that's because none of the rest of us are. If it were up to most of us developers, Linux would be as proprietary as Windows. Things already seem to be heading that way, as most of the distros are adding in non-GPL stuff to try and get a leg up on the competition. We ARE becoming Microsofts, slowly, and RMS is trying to fight that trend. Look for a distro that uses 100% free software... maybe Debian? Not many out there anymore. *Technology is becoming more important than philosophy, and this is very bad*. Technology should not be amoral. Amoral technology is deadly. Amoral people controlling technology is deadly. But how do you enforce morality on an amoral individual? How do you ensure technology is never used to enslave? The freedom to enslave is NOT a freedom, despite what Gates and Ballmer may say.
Linux isn't *about* the technology, it's about the ideology of freedom. We choose Linux because of the ideas behind it, not because of the technology. Otherwise, we'd all be using BeOS, the BSDs, MacOS, and of course, Windows. Linux isn't technically superior to any of these, and it sure wasn't in the beginning, when developers were drawn to it for only the right reasons! In the beginning, people chose GNU/Linux for the GPL, for the idea that they could contribute to something that would be free forever to all, and could never be subverted. People came because they wanted to contribute and make a difference by doing something noble and pure; giving their labor, talents, and the fruits of their minds to the world, and using the GPL to ensure it would always be free, open, and accessible to all - never to be taken by corporations and bound into a product that does not freely offer anything in return.
People chose it for its philosophy, not its technology. Those who choose it for its technology do not develop the same deep roots as RMS or the other idealists in the community, and thus they're the ones who will try to change the community into a business venture rather than a noble venture. It is because of RMS and his unique license that kids in India, China (no, they didn't use it to make CodeRed), and all over the world (wherever they couldn't afford, couldn't get access to, or chose not to use, Microsoft's offerings) have access to an excellent system like Linux, which promotes freedom, sharing, and community. And it was all offered freely, with the condition that it stay free forever.
One last thing: saying "Gnu/Linux" is not a nod to RMS, it's an acknowledgement of the philosophy behind the technology. I'm not going to push the "GNU word" on anybody, but I agree with RMS. If people don't say it, people don't think about it, and people forget about it. This system is losing its roots and becoming another Microsoft. Look at Caldera. What a shame. They have nearly abandoned the ideals that brought us this far in favor of a greater potential profit, which I think will never come, since they can't compete directly with Microsoft, and by losing the ideals of Gnu, they alienate much of the Linux community.
And I'm not calling it Gnu/Linux because there's enough content in here for people to grumble about. But normally I do call it Gnu/Linux. To me, it's not the word Gnu so much as understanding the reason for saying the word that counts.
Gill: If you could get a law passed making open-source licenses illegal, would you do it?
That's what I thought. Fair is fair.
I love ESR, but... Microsoft views this as WAR. We normally do not. But that WILL NOT prevent us from being exterminated by Microsoft if they are able. With the GPL applied to probably far less than 5% of all the world's code, ESR shouldn't be worried about Stallman banishing proprietary software, but about Microsoft banishing Free Software. While we try to decapitate our own people, Microsoft, the 800lb. gorilla that *never loses*, is focused, tireless, and efficient in their behind-the-scenes work to discredit the GPL, Linux, and Free Software.
There's only one thing Microsoft is good at, and that's destroying their competition. And from the looks of this article, there's only one thing ESR is good at, and that's destroying Microsoft's competition. Without the GPL covering us, Linux would be BeOS. Except that BeOS is technically better than Linux.
And Linux growing to 95% market share doesn't matter, if it means we have to become the next Microsoft to do it. Selling out is a slippery slope that starts one step at a time. It's time we stop this lame infighting and get to work on our code. Everyone's fighting to control Linux, but there will BE no Linux if we don't stop fighting. I love Linux, but I'm scared as hell of Windows XP. If we don't work fast, we're dead, and all our best coders are fighting about hypotheticals.
Kudos to Cliff for not just taking the anti-MS-at-all-costs FUD from the questioner as gospel.
It's not anti-MS FUD, the guy just wants to know why everybody limits the portability, and therefore possible marketshare, of their games by using platform-limiting products like DirectX. If you have a choice between something portable and forward-thinking, or something tied strongly to one system (even a very widely-used system), the intelligent thing would be to leave all possibilities open and not get tied down yourselves, since it doesn't affect your sales to the larger group and serves the smaller group better as well.
And what's wrong with wanting games on Linux? Developers could be a lot more Linux-friendly simply by using tools which *include*, rather than *exclude*, this rapidly growing market. In my mind, game developers should start using cross-platform tools now, to position themselves for the day when Linux is a major player in the gaming market, even if it's only on the Sony Playstation with the Linux HD addon. Otherwise, we'll have coders who don't know anything but DirectX, and therefore prefer DirectX, because it's what they've been fed for so long, and thus can't get off Windows. Just like how my friend's mom only knows IE because it's what she's been fed by Microsoft, and fearfully refuses to even look at other browsers. If she'd learned Netscape first, she'd be more flexible and ready for change, as Netscape is more cross-platform, and she could take her familiarity with Netscape on Windows to her son's Linux box, for example.
If I choose to spend time developing software that I could have spent playing with my kids, it is not MORALLY WRONG for me to demand compensation for my efforts in a way that does not comply with Free Software standards. I am a Free Software developer. I also write proprietary software.
It's good for you to do both; however, Bill Gates and friends are on their rampage to wipe out Free Software, why not allow the FSF to state their views in return? And what are you saying here; that money is your only interest? That's fine with me, but if your only goal is more and more money, then why do you write both free and proprietary when you could be playing with those children? Let the people with passion for their work write Linux code.
If people's freedoms are limited by the fact that they do not have access to the source code of my proprietary software, they are in no way harmed. They are certainly no worse off than they were before I wrote it, are they?
The company I work for has been forced by incompatibilities and proprietary formats into sticking with software that has KNOWN backdoors built into it. The company said the backdoors have been closed, yet how are we to trust those who betrayed our trust in the first place? Access to source code would allay our fears. And we would switch to Linux, if only we could without throwing away years of work and starting over.
In spending my own available time, energy, and resources to help other people by writing some proprietary software, yes it's true that I am taking some power over the people I help when I limit the way they use my creation. But that is not morally wrong in itself.
And this is the fundamental difference between the GPL and the BSD license; the GPL DOES restrict the user's ability to proprietize or otherwise subvert the author's intended guidelines for open and free use. However, proprietary software is a LOT more restrictive than the GPL; while the GPL places restrictions on GPLed code in order to preserve free and fair use, proprietary software restricts the user IN FAVOR OF THE CORPORATION. This typically means sharing, examining, modifying, using in innovative ways, or otherwise doing something the company doesn't like.
Comparing proprietary software developers to slave owners is obviously just designed to dramatize the issue, but it's extremely offensive to many of us developers who write both Free and proprietary software.
Sorry, I guess it's because the FSF is a "cancer" that is "Unamerican", just like "Pacman".;^)
Apparently the FSF has decided that rational argument is not as effective as hyperbole.
Rational argument in droves at www.gnu.org. Check it out.
If I ran a halfway house for homeless teenagers, you're damn right I would exert power over them and limit their freedoms, in the interest of ensuring that I could continue to provide a service to help as many of them as possible. If I didn't limit their freedoms, the police would shut the place down and all the kids would be completely free again - but without a place to sleep. Is it morally wrong to run a halfway house?
You're comparing software users to runaway teens who are likely addicted to drugs and haven't yet learned how to survive without help. Many software users, however, CAN survive without corporate help, which is why people want freedom to access source code, and be treated like adults. The GPL does this, proprietary software does not. Customers of your software should be treated with respect at all times. Proprietary software would shackle them in handcuffs and tell them they couldn't leave their rooms, or even look for a way to get out, without punishment coming down on them. GPLed software would tell them they can do as they please, as long as they can guarantee they're not hurting anybody, breaking the rules set to maintain order and equality, and preferably that they report back to the community with how they're doing and the changes they're making. Proprietary is the Nazi Death Camps, GPL is Alcoholics Anonymous. Take your pick. And NO, it's not wrong to run a halfway house "and help your neighbour", but how much can the teens afford to pay you?
Limiting other people's freedoms is not inherently wrong - that's what laws are for. Taking away someone's freedom to steal, rape, and kill is a very good idea.
Exactly the purpose of the GPL- it prevents Microsoft or the other sharks, from stealing, raping or killing GNU/Linux. See Kerberos, or pretty much anyone who deals with Microsoft.
The FSF has made a golden calf of "preserving peoples freedoms" without looking any deeper than that. No wonder they are commonly viewed as extremists. They have turned a blind eye to common sense.
Not really, it's just that many don't understand them, and others understand them and don't want to accept them. I do, and the GPL makes perfect sense - except to Microsoft and others who seek to profit from the works of others without compensating them in any way.
I applaud the FSF and all Free Software developers who have donated their time to the community and have worked to create the wonderful variety of Free software that is available today. But don't tell me that the way I feed my kids is morally wrong.
Programming ISN'T morally wrong. Getting PAID for programming isn't morally wrong. But the proprietary software company you work for IS morally wrong, to my mind anyway, as they operate in secret, withholding code and design/API structure from the very people who buy their product and NEED to have access to the code in order to get the best use out of it. Feeding your kids is great. But you can feed your kids and still promote freedoms, open standards, and fair use of software. I do, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I've been there.
Linux is great, but personally, I'd like to see BeIA or BeOS running on my Slaystation II. The right tool for the right job, and all that. Be is specializing in the convergence thing, and it could be VERY neat to see it all come together (sorry to misquote Hannibal from the A-team).
I thought Sony was supposed to buy Be; they got me all hyped up, and then nothing.:(
Be is SOOO underrated. BeOS is 100% FABULOUS. I was a teenage Linux bigot, preaching to my friends and family like mad, but the usability issues were a brick wall. Now, I can happily recommend BeOS V Personal Edition (free download) to my grandma, knowing she can learn it in about 30 minutes.
She loves the GUI. She loves the Matrix Code screensaver. She loves that she can easily hack NASA and be 100% Microsoft free, too. *KIDDING*
>This is where I have a big problem with your post. Yes, MS products in the past have had really shoddy stability. But NT 4 works well, and 2000 is even better. If you are using 95 or 98 in the office, you deserve to have to reboot it every day.
Well, the company I work at was advised to "upgrade" to Win 3.11 - then 95 - then 98 - then NT 4 Workstation - and now Win2000. $$Thousands later, our office is STILL hoping desperately that Whistler will deliver the time-dishonored Microsoft promise, "It actually works." That's all we want. We were hoodwinked about the suitability of every piece of M$ software since about 1994. We can't switch over because the industrial apps we use will never be available for Linux/Unix/BSD/Mac, (thatnks to M$ dominance) and even if there WAS software, it would have to communicate "seamlessly" (as the M$ people say) with everyone else running these proprietary formats.
*We're trapped in hell*. THAT'S harm to the customer. In order to secure their profits, Microsoft STEALS ours. Endless hardware and software upgrades based on the promise that the new and improved version delivers what was promised last time. Our choice: use Microsoft or go broke. Hobson would be proud.
P.S. At best, Microsoft is like the "hot babe" who, once married, lets him / herself go so damn bad you can't stand looking at them, but there's nothing you can do since YOU'RE LOCKED IN WITH NO WAY OUT. EVER.
I think "The Road Ahead" is paved with phony "upgrades".
Neither. If the RIAA were at all realistic, they'd see this kind of file swapping as an opportunity, like radio or whatever. I know, I know, radio generates revenue by ads, blah blah.
I've never paid anything to listen to radio. The difference is that Napster / MP3 allows users CONTROL over what they listen to. Despite the untoward death of good music commercially, album sales are sky-high. Napster is opening people up to new and old music that DOESN'T suck. I am one of the many who say "I've bought a million CD's because of MP3's" - none which I've ever seen a video for, or heard on the radio.
However, Napster is theoretically for legitimate (legal) music swapping. What if the RIAA's true intent is not to stifle the swapping of pirated MP3's, as everyone can see Napster actually increases sales, but to control the spread of the independent artists, who are not giving anything back to the mainstream music industry?
Say "Purple Floyd" was a little unsigned band making MP3's on their Protools Mac studio. If they were to succeed, the record industry would not be required any longer, as Floyd proved it could be done without them, right? Is this what they're really afraid of? Not the loss of sales (there isn't any), but rather the loss of control? If Floyd was an independent, I'd ditch my Britney forever and say goodbye to big label records, just like I said goodbye to big-label software (guess who?)
Anyway, at any rate, the big companies will NEVER stop piracy; they should embrace the idea of MP3 sharing as a way of creating excitement for a product, much like a movie trailer. The trailers I get off Apples Quicktime website are a MAJOR factor in what I see every weekend.
Sorry again for Mister Binkles hitting submit prematurely.
>Who should the RIAA prosecute: users or Napster?
Neither. If the RIAA were at all realistic, they'd see this kind of file swapping as an opportunity, like radio or whatever. I know, I know, radio generates revenue by ads, blah blah, I've never paid anything to listen to radio. The difference is that Napster / MP3 allows users CONTROL
"Smart ads", I like it. Many of the ads spammed at me miss the mark WILDLY, but the ones that DO interest me, I don't mind at all. That's how I found Linux. And I've got a lot of bookmarks I found through good banners. My wallet is open - if you know how to sell me.
I guess my claim to fame is spending way over $5000 on Linux / BSD / BeOS books, CD's, donations, and other stuff. I'm not an idiot, I'm just willing to pay for my freedom from you-know-who and support something better. And if your banner ad has Pamela Anderson offering me a Linux bathmat, I'm reaching for my VISA.
Slashdot Mirror
> A general BSD-style license would go much further in promoting true Free software.
No. Microsoft would like everyone to believe that, if only so they could continue to rape the "Open Source" community. Microsoft cannot "embrace, extend, and extinguish" GPLed software, as they have tried to do with Kerberos, and other BSD innovations.
The BSD license doesn't *promote* free software, since it allows proprietization of itself, and thus, the creation of proprietary software out of free software. It can be used in its' proprietary form against the free software community, through purposeful incompatibilities, restricted or no access to the modified source, and 150-page EULAs, all on something primarily written by free software coders! So it *IS* free software, but it doesn't *PROMOTE* free software.
The BSD license tries to play nice with Microsoft and the other corporate sharks, which is a quick way to get dead fast, as a community... I just like the fact that if I write something I intend to be free, the GPL ensures it STAYS free, as I, the creator, wanted it to be, forever.
From the "Real Dirt" FAQ:
> What we will make work: We will make Konqueror and Mozilla work as well as Netscape.
Ohhhh shit. Terrorists.
This site seems to be slashdotted.
The guy from Atheos (http://www.atheos.cx/) calls Slashdotting " The worst mass attack I have ever seen". Because this seems to be a continual (and somewhat legendary) problem, I think the powers that be (Taco et al) should put a system in place wherein they give sysadmins some sort of warning before they post a slashdot article which could take down their website with a "Friendly DDOS".
As Spiderman says, "With great power comes great responsibility", and Slashdot's power to strain system resources is very great, indeed.
First off, I must confess, I think Drepper's behavior was very unprofessional, especially for someone representing RedHat, the great flagship Linux corporation ("The Linux Standard", my 7.1 box says). *Individuals* can act rashly in public, but my boss would never let me slag other teammates with whom I have differences of opinion, to potential customers in an official document. Ever. I highly doubt Microsoft developers slag each other in public, since they understand the necessity to present themselves as a "unified group of mature professionals" to the people. The Linux guys do not seem to think this as necessary, which is part of the reason corporate interests often think of us as a group of cha0tic haxx0rs with no semblance of order. This image hurts us all, as corporations would rather trust ultra-professional IBM than the gypsy on the streetcorner. So would I. We, as the gypsy, have an excellent offering; but that doesn't matter. As Microsoft has proven, the *image* of "having it all together" is more important than *actually* having it all together.
;-)
This kind of personal bickering should remain exactly that - personal. Private. Not Public. The heat that public infighting brings will only fuel the discord, and that hurts everybody in the Linux and FSF community. Drepper shouldn't be using his glibc 2.2.4 Release Notes as a podium for attacking other members of the community, that's what Slashdot's for.
Also, I agree that Stallman is vocal and extreme in his views, but that's because none of the rest of us are. If it were up to most of us developers, Linux would be as proprietary as Windows. Things already seem to be heading that way, as most of the distros are adding in non-GPL stuff to try and get a leg up on the competition. We ARE becoming Microsofts, slowly, and RMS is trying to fight that trend. Look for a distro that uses 100% free software... maybe Debian? Not many out there anymore. *Technology is becoming more important than philosophy, and this is very bad*. Technology should not be amoral. Amoral technology is deadly. Amoral people controlling technology is deadly. But how do you enforce morality on an amoral individual? How do you ensure technology is never used to enslave? The freedom to enslave is NOT a freedom, despite what Gates and Ballmer may say.
Linux isn't *about* the technology, it's about the ideology of freedom. We choose Linux because of the ideas behind it, not because of the technology. Otherwise, we'd all be using BeOS, the BSDs, MacOS, and of course, Windows. Linux isn't technically superior to any of these, and it sure wasn't in the beginning, when developers were drawn to it for only the right reasons! In the beginning, people chose GNU/Linux for the GPL, for the idea that they could contribute to something that would be free forever to all, and could never be subverted. People came because they wanted to contribute and make a difference by doing something noble and pure; giving their labor, talents, and the fruits of their minds to the world, and using the GPL to ensure it would always be free, open, and accessible to all - never to be taken by corporations and bound into a product that does not freely offer anything in return.
People chose it for its philosophy, not its technology. Those who choose it for its technology do not develop the same deep roots as RMS or the other idealists in the community, and thus they're the ones who will try to change the community into a business venture rather than a noble venture. It is because of RMS and his unique license that kids in India, China (no, they didn't use it to make CodeRed), and all over the world (wherever they couldn't afford, couldn't get access to, or chose not to use, Microsoft's offerings) have access to an excellent system like Linux, which promotes freedom, sharing, and community. And it was all offered freely, with the condition that it stay free forever.
One last thing: saying "Gnu/Linux" is not a nod to RMS, it's an acknowledgement of the philosophy behind the technology. I'm not going to push the "GNU word" on anybody, but I agree with RMS. If people don't say it, people don't think about it, and people forget about it. This system is losing its roots and becoming another Microsoft. Look at Caldera. What a shame. They have nearly abandoned the ideals that brought us this far in favor of a greater potential profit, which I think will never come, since they can't compete directly with Microsoft, and by losing the ideals of Gnu, they alienate much of the Linux community.
And I'm not calling it Gnu/Linux because there's enough content in here for people to grumble about. But normally I do call it Gnu/Linux. To me, it's not the word Gnu so much as understanding the reason for saying the word that counts.
Goodbye, sweet karma...
Gill: If you could get a law passed making open-source licenses illegal, would you do it?
That's what I thought. Fair is fair.
I love ESR, but... Microsoft views this as WAR. We normally do not. But that WILL NOT prevent us from being exterminated by Microsoft if they are able. With the GPL applied to probably far less than 5% of all the world's code, ESR shouldn't be worried about Stallman banishing proprietary software, but about Microsoft banishing Free Software. While we try to decapitate our own people, Microsoft, the 800lb. gorilla that *never loses*, is focused, tireless, and efficient in their behind-the-scenes work to discredit the GPL, Linux, and Free Software.
There's only one thing Microsoft is good at, and that's destroying their competition. And from the looks of this article, there's only one thing ESR is good at, and that's destroying Microsoft's competition. Without the GPL covering us, Linux would be BeOS. Except that BeOS is technically better than Linux.
And Linux growing to 95% market share doesn't matter, if it means we have to become the next Microsoft to do it. Selling out is a slippery slope that starts one step at a time. It's time we stop this lame infighting and get to work on our code. Everyone's fighting to control Linux, but there will BE no Linux if we don't stop fighting. I love Linux, but I'm scared as hell of Windows XP. If we don't work fast, we're dead, and all our best coders are fighting about hypotheticals.
I've been getting those for a couple days, too. I switched from Opera to Netscape, and it seems to work okay.
But, as always, YMMV.
(Your Mileage May Vary)
It's not anti-MS FUD, the guy just wants to know why everybody limits the portability, and therefore possible marketshare, of their games by using platform-limiting products like DirectX. If you have a choice between something portable and forward-thinking, or something tied strongly to one system (even a very widely-used system), the intelligent thing would be to leave all possibilities open and not get tied down yourselves, since it doesn't affect your sales to the larger group and serves the smaller group better as well.
And what's wrong with wanting games on Linux? Developers could be a lot more Linux-friendly simply by using tools which *include*, rather than *exclude*, this rapidly growing market. In my mind, game developers should start using cross-platform tools now, to position themselves for the day when Linux is a major player in the gaming market, even if it's only on the Sony Playstation with the Linux HD addon. Otherwise, we'll have coders who don't know anything but DirectX, and therefore prefer DirectX, because it's what they've been fed for so long, and thus can't get off Windows. Just like how my friend's mom only knows IE because it's what she's been fed by Microsoft, and fearfully refuses to even look at other browsers. If she'd learned Netscape first, she'd be more flexible and ready for change, as Netscape is more cross-platform, and she could take her familiarity with Netscape on Windows to her son's Linux box, for example.
It's good for you to do both; however, Bill Gates and friends are on their rampage to wipe out Free Software, why not allow the FSF to state their views in return? And what are you saying here; that money is your only interest? That's fine with me, but if your only goal is more and more money, then why do you write both free and proprietary when you could be playing with those children? Let the people with passion for their work write Linux code.
If people's freedoms are limited by the fact that they do not have access to the source code of my proprietary software, they are in no way harmed. They are certainly no worse off than they were before I wrote it, are they?
The company I work for has been forced by incompatibilities and proprietary formats into sticking with software that has KNOWN backdoors built into it. The company said the backdoors have been closed, yet how are we to trust those who betrayed our trust in the first place? Access to source code would allay our fears. And we would switch to Linux, if only we could without throwing away years of work and starting over.
In spending my own available time, energy, and resources to help other people by writing some proprietary software, yes it's true that I am taking some power over the people I help when I limit the way they use my creation. But that is not morally wrong in itself.
And this is the fundamental difference between the GPL and the BSD license; the GPL DOES restrict the user's ability to proprietize or otherwise subvert the author's intended guidelines for open and free use. However, proprietary software is a LOT more restrictive than the GPL; while the GPL places restrictions on GPLed code in order to preserve free and fair use, proprietary software restricts the user IN FAVOR OF THE CORPORATION. This typically means sharing, examining, modifying, using in innovative ways, or otherwise doing something the company doesn't like.
Comparing proprietary software developers to slave owners is obviously just designed to dramatize the issue, but it's extremely offensive to many of us developers who write both Free and proprietary software.
Sorry, I guess it's because the FSF is a "cancer" that is "Unamerican", just like "Pacman". ;^)
Apparently the FSF has decided that rational argument is not as effective as hyperbole.
Rational argument in droves at www.gnu.org. Check it out.
If I ran a halfway house for homeless teenagers, you're damn right I would exert power over them and limit their freedoms, in the interest of ensuring that I could continue to provide a service to help as many of them as possible. If I didn't limit their freedoms, the police would shut the place down and all the kids would be completely free again - but without a place to sleep. Is it morally wrong to run a halfway house?
You're comparing software users to runaway teens who are likely addicted to drugs and haven't yet learned how to survive without help. Many software users, however, CAN survive without corporate help, which is why people want freedom to access source code, and be treated like adults. The GPL does this, proprietary software does not. Customers of your software should be treated with respect at all times. Proprietary software would shackle them in handcuffs and tell them they couldn't leave their rooms, or even look for a way to get out, without punishment coming down on them. GPLed software would tell them they can do as they please, as long as they can guarantee they're not hurting anybody, breaking the rules set to maintain order and equality, and preferably that they report back to the community with how they're doing and the changes they're making. Proprietary is the Nazi Death Camps, GPL is Alcoholics Anonymous. Take your pick. And NO, it's not wrong to run a halfway house "and help your neighbour", but how much can the teens afford to pay you?
Limiting other people's freedoms is not inherently wrong - that's what laws are for. Taking away someone's freedom to steal, rape, and kill is a very good idea.
Exactly the purpose of the GPL- it prevents Microsoft or the other sharks, from stealing, raping or killing GNU/Linux. See Kerberos, or pretty much anyone who deals with Microsoft.
The FSF has made a golden calf of "preserving peoples freedoms" without looking any deeper than that. No wonder they are commonly viewed as extremists. They have turned a blind eye to common sense.
Not really, it's just that many don't understand them, and others understand them and don't want to accept them. I do, and the GPL makes perfect sense - except to Microsoft and others who seek to profit from the works of others without compensating them in any way.
I applaud the FSF and all Free Software developers who have donated their time to the community and have worked to create the wonderful variety of Free software that is available today. But don't tell me that the way I feed my kids is morally wrong.
Programming ISN'T morally wrong. Getting PAID for programming isn't morally wrong. But the proprietary software company you work for IS morally wrong, to my mind anyway, as they operate in secret, withholding code and design/API structure from the very people who buy their product and NEED to have access to the code in order to get the best use out of it. Feeding your kids is great. But you can feed your kids and still promote freedoms, open standards, and fair use of software. I do, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I've been there.
Linux is great, but personally, I'd like to see BeIA or BeOS running on my Slaystation II. The right tool for the right job, and all that. Be is specializing in the convergence thing, and it could be VERY neat to see it all come together (sorry to misquote Hannibal from the A-team).
:(
I thought Sony was supposed to buy Be; they got me all hyped up, and then nothing.
Be is SOOO underrated. BeOS is 100% FABULOUS. I was a teenage Linux bigot, preaching to my friends and family like mad, but the usability issues were a brick wall. Now, I can happily recommend BeOS V Personal Edition (free download) to my grandma, knowing she can learn it in about 30 minutes.
She loves the GUI. She loves the Matrix Code screensaver. She loves that she can easily hack NASA and be 100% Microsoft free, too. *KIDDING*
>This is where I have a big problem with your post. Yes, MS products in the past have had really shoddy stability. But NT 4 works well, and 2000 is even better. If you are using 95 or 98 in the office, you deserve to have to reboot it every day.
/Unix /BSD /Mac, (thatnks to M$ dominance) and even if there WAS software, it would have to communicate "seamlessly" (as the M$ people say) with everyone else running these proprietary formats.
Well, the company I work at was advised to "upgrade" to Win 3.11 - then 95 - then 98 - then NT 4 Workstation - and now Win2000. $$Thousands later, our office is STILL hoping desperately that Whistler will deliver the time-dishonored Microsoft promise, "It actually works." That's all we want. We were hoodwinked about the suitability of every piece of M$ software since about 1994. We can't switch over because the industrial apps we use will never be available for Linux
*We're trapped in hell*. THAT'S harm to the customer. In order to secure their profits, Microsoft STEALS ours. Endless hardware and software upgrades based on the promise that the new and improved version delivers what was promised last time. Our choice: use Microsoft or go broke. Hobson would be proud.
P.S. At best, Microsoft is like the "hot babe" who, once married, lets him / herself go so damn bad you can't stand looking at them, but there's nothing you can do since YOU'RE LOCKED IN WITH NO WAY OUT. EVER.
I think "The Road Ahead" is paved with phony "upgrades".
Yup, you should read about Da Vinci.
All these "Renaissance Men" (sorry for the spelling) were very well-rounded; poetry, art, mathematics, astronomy, medicine!
If Van Gogh were alive today he'd be moderating Slashdot while composing a sonata on his iMac and getting that Mir problem fixed.
Here's to well-rounded humanity, may we find evidence of it in the modern world.
Sorry, the cat hit submit.
Here's what I was ranting.
>Who should the RIAA prosecute: users or Napster?
Neither. If the RIAA were at all realistic, they'd see this kind of file swapping as an opportunity, like radio or whatever. I know, I know, radio generates revenue by ads, blah blah.
I've never paid anything to listen to radio. The difference is that Napster / MP3 allows users CONTROL over what they listen to. Despite the untoward death of good music commercially, album sales are sky-high. Napster is opening people up to new and old music that DOESN'T suck. I am one of the many who say "I've bought a million CD's because of MP3's" - none which I've ever seen a video for, or heard on the radio.
However, Napster is theoretically for legitimate (legal) music swapping. What if the RIAA's true intent is not to stifle the swapping of pirated MP3's, as everyone can see Napster actually increases sales, but to control the spread of the independent artists, who are not giving anything back to the mainstream music industry?
Say "Purple Floyd" was a little unsigned band making MP3's on their Protools Mac studio. If they were to succeed, the record industry would not be required any longer, as Floyd proved it could be done without them, right? Is this what they're really afraid of? Not the loss of sales (there isn't any), but rather the loss of control? If Floyd was an independent, I'd ditch my Britney forever and say goodbye to big label records, just like I said goodbye to big-label software (guess who?)
Anyway, at any rate, the big companies will NEVER stop piracy; they should embrace the idea of MP3 sharing as a way of creating excitement for a product, much like a movie trailer. The trailers I get off Apples Quicktime website are a MAJOR factor in what I see every weekend.
Sorry again for Mister Binkles hitting submit prematurely.
>Who should the RIAA prosecute: users or Napster? Neither. If the RIAA were at all realistic, they'd see this kind of file swapping as an opportunity, like radio or whatever. I know, I know, radio generates revenue by ads, blah blah, I've never paid anything to listen to radio. The difference is that Napster / MP3 allows users CONTROL
"Smart ads", I like it. Many of the ads spammed at me miss the mark WILDLY, but the ones that DO interest me, I don't mind at all. That's how I found Linux. And I've got a lot of bookmarks I found through good banners. My wallet is open - if you know how to sell me.
I guess my claim to fame is spending way over $5000 on Linux / BSD / BeOS books, CD's, donations, and other stuff. I'm not an idiot, I'm just willing to pay for my freedom from you-know-who and support something better. And if your banner ad has Pamela Anderson offering me a Linux bathmat, I'm reaching for my VISA.
Bill Gates just called me about something he found on my HD called X-Windows. If anybody can contribute, I think I might owe him $100 million.
And the Apple guys didn't like what was in my lunch today.
It's Pizza and OS/2 from now on.
No. Although your logic is good, and actually may be viable in this instance, Microsoft did what they always do; they bought the other guys out....
u s5 .html
http://www.zdnet.com/yil/content/mag/9901/dubio
Microsoft WON a case. hah. you're funny.