Just for the record, would you be so kind as to provide sources for your claims that (a) Linus hopes to get rich off of proprietary software, and (b) Stallman hates Linus? I just hate jumping to conclusions about a man's character based solely on the word of Anonymous Coward. Thanks in advance,
Actually, more bandwidth shouldn't change the SPECint or SPECfloat scores shown.
Now, when Toms Hardware, Ars Technica and others start posting the FPS of Quake 3 THEN we should see quite a speed up between a 100MHz and 200MHz motherboard.
I think your premise that we the users would not allow another Microsoft to occur in our lifetimes ignores two very influential classes of users: illiterates and IS managers.
The computer illiterates comprise 95% of the total market and they do not want to choose a confusing thingy called an 'OS' any more than 95% percent of the flying population wants to choose between an airliner powered by a Pratt & Whitney engine or a Northrop Grumman engine. The IS managers also would like to avoid a choice between OSes as much as possible. It is just so much simpler and cheaper to have only one OS to worry about and they will almost always choose the least risky (biggest) OS. The fact is that, at the OS level, the vast majority of consumers do not want choice at all.
So, when you say 'users' I think you mean 'computer savvy users'. And we may fear the creation of another monopoly more than the Second Coming but the fact is we have almost no say in the matter since we have almost no buying power in the matter.
As for whether or not we should abhor good software based on proprietary vs. open grounds, my personal response is that yes, we should abhor* it. I'm not saying that the proprietary software is morally or technically bad. I'm just not interested in running code on my machine that I can't see and understand. Even if that code is so wonderful that it would cure cancer. Of course, I speak not as user but as a developer and, like I mentioned earlier, users do not want to choose anything at the OS level: even the openness of the code.
*Actually and I would use the word 'avoid' since I'm really not emotionally terrified of proprietary software. But I'm just using your terms;)
It's ok. You wrote a very good rebuttal. You merely made the mistake of associating with (and defending) a bunch of perfectionists;). Think of the complaining as a sign of personal respect since you have said something worthy of nitpicking.
Oh, and I'm sorry to say that my Dutch is quite horrible but that's US public education for you (sigh).
And thats why old Al (the first guy) found it finnancially viable to hire a Genuine, Certified Star Office Complient Mechanic so that customers like yourself would come to him and not to Billy-Bob. The standards would still exist, they will just be enforced by consumer economics rather than committees.
At least, I think it will. With Linux/BSD servers powering half the web, I guess we'll find out soon enough:)
Unless the mere act of hearing a postion causes you to believe it, he is not shoving his beliefs down your throat. He is just stating his understanding of the relative merits of free code with no single party getting special preference versus free code with one or more parties getting special preference. He thinks the first case is better for the users of that code. Of course individuals and companies may do as they please with their code! No one is suggesting otherwise.
Personally, I think that we can afford to try both ways (GPL and BSD/NPL/APSL) with each programmer choosing their favorite (Mine's the GPL). In a few years, we ought to have a more complete understanding of the merits and faults of both directions based on the status of the different projects under the different licenses.
Which is cheaper? Hiring a local mechanic to customize your truck by adding a sun roof and fog lights or calling General Motors and setting up an appointment with the original engineers of your truck to redesign the body and electrical systems of your car to handle your specific requirements? Clearly, there is a big difference between original design and implemenation of a program and ensuing maintenance of that code. What we are missing in the software industry today is the mechanic class of programming positions and this class is gained by having source open to arbitrary modification.
Assuming normal capatlisitc influences, there should be no reason why we don't start seeing a plauge of Al's Custom Apache Shops in the near future making a buisness of working on your personal code. Sure they might charge an arm and a leg but I'll bet you Bob's down the street will offering a deal on Apache modules next week.
I know you've hinted at this in the past but I wouldn't mind being able to view an image/table free version of Slashdot. A 'Lite' theme if you will. It wouldn't help reduce CPU usage but it could help your T1 saturation woes:)
The article mentions costing 20 bucks over the NT installation. This probably has to do with adding the LinuxCare support contract on top of the Microsoft pricing deal.
Linux is GPLed because Linus wanted to contribute back to the community. Get it? Both RMS and Linus are part of the SAME community so they solved a problem together that they could not have solved apart. This IS the goal RMS was striving for. We, the people, help each other out. The whole beauty of this is that RMS didn't have to personally organize and code a Unix kernel by himself.
Just because Linus' kernel was picked over the Hurd doesn't mean that we somehow cleverly defeated RMS and kept him from world dominiation. We helped him gain the world! And, in the process, we helped ourselves.
While I'm personally against the GNU/Linux name for purely phonetic reasons, I think there are some issues to be resolved before I'd explicitly support the Demon Linux movement.
1) FSF is the largest single contributer of code to Linux. Why must they represent over half the code before they get credit? If they did have over 50%, I'd think it would be more 'fair' to drop Linux and just call it GNU.
2) The number of lines of code does not reflect the actual value of the code. Specifically, things like gcc are worth far more than its LOC value since it begets almost all the other code. Besides, I thought a good programmer was one that did much with few lines of code. This chart _could_ mean that the FSF represents 70% of the core functionality with only 10% of the code.
3) The whole purpose of the FSF is to help the community and is thus a very altruistic organization. Now oddly enough, this group of people has a human as their leader and even more strange is that this human appears to be less than perfect. I can understand not being completly enamoured with the FSF's leader but does that really force us to actively attack the organization he happens to run? Why are we trying to snub a group of people who are trying to help?
4) There are no compeling technical reasons for replacing all the work that the FSF has contributed to Linux. Their code is, above all, free code. Also of importance, I find a great deal of their code to be valuable. Now, if I have complete control of my own code (they gave it to me) and no one can take that right from me, it makes no sense for me to rewrite it from scratch. Instead, when I've got a problem, It would be much more effective for me to work with the existing code. Of couse this obvious as it is the foundation of Open Source software. But what this does mean is that Demon Linux is a purely political movement not based on reason but emotions.
focusing itself on software and not trying to do both software and hardware. 25% is a large enough investment to encourage the company to continued to deliver software for the Netwinder. I see this as a good thing assuming HCC is a half-way decent company. Just my guess.
Hopefully, nVidia's (perceptive) release of open source drivers will translate into real pressure on 3Dfx to follow suit. Like the databases did in '98 and like the OEMs will do in '99.
Generally yes, Stalin was very good at removing his best generals from command and poorly using the men he had. But the fact is that most of those who died were not in the Russian army. Apparently, Hitler had ordered a purge of all Russian towns and villages (ethnic cleansing. hmmm. sounds familiar.). I saw photos of entire cities completely leveled with chimneys being the only exception.
This American recently saw a WW2 exhibit from the eyes of Russians. I was amazed (and shocked) at the enormous cost The Great Patriotic War was on the Russian people. I am now MUCH more appreciative of the price of that victory.
For those that care, Russia's casualties topped 27 million (18 million were civilians!), more than everyone else combined.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for the record, would you be so kind as to provide sources for your claims that (a) Linus hopes to get rich off of proprietary software, and (b) Stallman hates Linus? I just hate jumping to conclusions about a man's character based solely on the word of Anonymous Coward. Thanks in advance,
-jcc
sorry... I've working since 5am.
My guess: there name would make for a reasonably secure password.
Actually, more bandwidth shouldn't change the SPECint or SPECfloat scores shown.
;)
Now, when Toms Hardware, Ars Technica and others start posting the FPS of Quake 3 THEN we should see quite a speed up between a 100MHz and 200MHz motherboard.
(Assuming HD access is non-exisistent of course
I think your premise that we the users would not allow another Microsoft to occur in our lifetimes ignores two very influential classes of users: illiterates and IS managers.
;)
The computer illiterates comprise 95% of the total market and they do not want to choose a confusing thingy called an 'OS' any more than 95% percent of the flying population wants to choose between an airliner powered by a Pratt & Whitney engine or a Northrop Grumman engine. The IS managers also would like to avoid a choice between OSes as much as possible. It is just so much simpler and cheaper to have only one OS to worry about and they will almost always choose the least risky (biggest) OS. The fact is that, at the OS level, the vast majority of consumers do not want choice at all.
So, when you say 'users' I think you mean 'computer savvy users'. And we may fear the creation of another monopoly more than the Second Coming but the fact is we have almost no say in the matter since we have almost no buying power in the matter.
As for whether or not we should abhor good software based on proprietary vs. open grounds, my personal response is that yes, we should abhor* it. I'm not saying that the proprietary software is morally or technically bad. I'm just not interested in running code on my machine that I can't see and understand. Even if that code is so wonderful that it would cure cancer. Of course, I speak not as user but as a developer and, like I mentioned earlier, users do not want to choose anything at the OS level: even the openness of the code.
*Actually and I would use the word 'avoid' since I'm really not emotionally terrified of proprietary software. But I'm just using your terms
It's ok. You wrote a very good rebuttal. You merely made the mistake of associating with (and defending) a bunch of perfectionists ;). Think of the complaining as a sign of personal respect since you have said something worthy of nitpicking.
Oh, and I'm sorry to say that my Dutch is quite horrible but that's US public education for you (sigh).
Does anyone know if the FSF is asking for complete ownership or are they willing to offer a piece of the profits from the dead tree copies?
:)
I wonder if it would be appropriate to send in the documentation in Word format
This sig is intentionally left blank.
And thats why old Al (the first guy) found it finnancially viable to hire a Genuine, Certified Star Office Complient Mechanic so that customers like yourself would come to him and not to Billy-Bob. The standards would still exist, they will just be enforced by consumer economics rather than committees.
:)
At least, I think it will. With Linux/BSD servers powering half the web, I guess we'll find out soon enough
Unless the mere act of hearing a postion causes you to believe it, he is not shoving his beliefs down your throat. He is just stating his understanding of the relative merits of free code with no single party getting special preference versus free code with one or more parties getting special preference. He thinks the first case is better for the users of that code. Of course individuals and companies may do as they please with their code! No one is suggesting otherwise.
Personally, I think that we can afford to try both ways (GPL and BSD/NPL/APSL) with each programmer choosing their favorite (Mine's the GPL). In a few years, we ought to have a more complete understanding of the merits and faults of both directions based on the status of the different projects under the different licenses.
Which is cheaper? Hiring a local mechanic to customize your truck by adding a sun roof and fog lights or calling General Motors and setting up an appointment with the original engineers of your truck to redesign the body and electrical systems of your car to handle your specific requirements?
Clearly, there is a big difference between original design and implemenation of a program and ensuing maintenance of that code. What we are missing in the software industry today is the mechanic class of programming positions and this class is gained by having source open to arbitrary modification.
Assuming normal capatlisitc influences, there should be no reason why we don't start seeing a plauge of Al's Custom Apache Shops in the near future making a buisness of working on your personal code. Sure they might charge an arm and a leg but I'll bet you Bob's down the street will offering a deal on Apache modules next week.
I know you've hinted at this in the past but I wouldn't mind being able to view an image/table free version of Slashdot. A 'Lite' theme if you will. It wouldn't help reduce CPU usage but it could help your T1 saturation woes :)
I don't know where you find 99 dollars extra.
The article mentions costing 20 bucks over the NT installation. This probably has to do with adding the LinuxCare support contract on top of the Microsoft pricing deal.
Look, this is really not that complex.
Linux is GPLed because Linus wanted to contribute back to the community. Get it? Both RMS and Linus are part of the SAME community so they solved a problem together that they could not have solved apart. This IS the goal RMS was striving for. We, the people, help each other out. The whole beauty of this is that RMS didn't have to personally organize and code a Unix kernel by himself.
Just because Linus' kernel was picked over the Hurd doesn't mean that we somehow cleverly defeated RMS and kept him from world dominiation. We helped him gain the world! And, in the process, we helped ourselves.
While I'm personally against the GNU/Linux name for purely phonetic reasons, I think there are some issues to be resolved before I'd explicitly support the Demon Linux movement.
1) FSF is the largest single contributer of code to Linux. Why must they represent over half the code before they get credit? If they did have over 50%, I'd think it would be more 'fair' to drop Linux and just call it GNU.
2) The number of lines of code does not reflect the actual value of the code. Specifically, things like gcc are worth far more than its LOC value since it begets almost all the other code. Besides, I thought a good programmer was one that did much with few lines of code. This chart _could_ mean that the FSF represents 70% of the core functionality with only 10% of the code.
3) The whole purpose of the FSF is to help the community and is thus a very altruistic organization. Now oddly enough, this group of people has a human as their leader and even more strange is that this human appears to be less than perfect. I can understand not being completly enamoured with the FSF's leader but does that really force us to actively attack the organization he happens to run? Why are we trying to snub a group of people who are trying to help?
4) There are no compeling technical reasons for replacing all the work that the FSF has contributed to Linux. Their code is, above all, free code. Also of importance, I find a great deal of their code to be valuable. Now, if I have complete control of my own code (they gave it to me) and no one can take that right from me, it makes no sense for me to rewrite it from scratch. Instead, when I've got a problem, It would be much more effective for me to work with the existing code. Of couse this obvious as it is the foundation of Open Source software. But what this does mean is that Demon Linux is a purely political movement not based on reason but emotions.
focusing itself on software and not trying to do both software and hardware. 25% is a large enough investment to encourage the company to continued to deliver software for the Netwinder. I see this as a good thing assuming HCC is a half-way decent company. Just my guess.
Hopefully, nVidia's (perceptive) release of open source drivers will translate into real pressure on 3Dfx to follow suit. Like the databases did in '98 and like the OEMs will do in '99.
Generally yes, Stalin was very good at removing his best generals from command and poorly using the men he had. But the fact is that most of those who died were not in the Russian army. Apparently, Hitler had ordered a purge of all Russian towns and villages (ethnic cleansing. hmmm. sounds familiar.). I saw photos of entire cities completely leveled with chimneys being the only exception.
This American recently saw a WW2 exhibit from the eyes of Russians. I was amazed (and shocked) at the enormous cost The Great Patriotic War was on the Russian people. I am now MUCH more appreciative of the price of that victory.
For those that care, Russia's casualties topped 27 million (18 million were civilians!), more than everyone else combined.