The Free Software movement needs more people like Linus and fewer like RMS, this is yet another proof of that.
You could not possibly be more wrong.
OK, thanks Linus for the beginnings of the kernel and your management of it since then. But we definitely need more people, who are more vigilant, against the threat from proprietary interests (SCO anyone?) to free/open source software.
We need fewer "too cool for school" Linus-like people who say "hey, I don't care about the legal or business side of stuff, I just do this for fun." Because, guess what? A lot of people have committed their entire businesses and livelihoods to this "fun" stuff. Linus plays a role, but don't ever think that Stallman doesn't play an extremely, critically important role in this movement.
The movement could use more of both kinds, but most definitely Stallman is more important in the larger scheme of things.
What makes software so special? Is he also against people getting paid for painting, drawing, making movies, music, or writing books? All these things, software included, share a fundamental characteristic: they are all forms of art - a personal expression of the author that can be appreciated and enjoyed by others for nothing more than what other people perceive that it adds to their own life.
Software is quite different indeed. In some senses, for many of us, it's an extension of our bodies and minds, not a mere amusement or preoccupation. This doesn't just apply to technical people either - people who depend on computers to do their work, on cell phones to communicate, societies whose banking and military defense rely on computers - software is an integral part of the process of modern life. It's quite wise to make sure you don't hand over that kind of control to proprietary interests.
Next time, when RMS warns about things like this, I for sure am going to listen carefully.
I think the world will be surprised at how many of the "extremist", "paranoid", "ideological", "smelly hippy" ideas that Stallman has put forth will come true just as he has predicted them.
the guy's a visionary on a level that even much of today's technical crowd can't fully grasp.
Ditto of your ditto. This version starts in under two seconds on my Linux box. I no longer hesitate and ponder whether it's worth the start-up time before starting OOo.
This is a huge win, amplified by the fact that MS underbid and *still* lost the contract.
However, I hope that Linux is indeed up to the task in Munich. If not, this publicity coup could boomerang, and the headlines could read "Paid $11M more for Linux and it still couldn't do the job..."
Here's hoping for competent admins, open-minded end-users, and a rational roll-out plan. if they pull this off it could be the shot heard round the world.
I pretty much guessed as much when the DMV in our state issued everyone new license plates. The primary difference was that the new kind are many times more reflective than the old ones, making them ideal for tracking via camera at lengthy distances.
User-funded software and ESCROW
on
Funding Open Source?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A considerable barrier to funding by individuals is the notion that they're throwing their money away if a lot of other people don't contribute too. A reliable escrow system would help a lot with this.
The escrow balance provides a clear marker as to where the donations are, and can have a positive effect on contributions. Consider the Blender situation.
Contributors can give what they think it's worth to them to have a project (or project milestone) completed, without doing a calculus as to how their donation fits into the overall picture of getting work done.
Contributors are assured that they will receive their cash back from the escrow account if the project is not completed.
Developers are relieved from the burden of managing contributions
Talented developers in developing countries with a spotty track record wrt respect for contract law are not impeded by this reputaton.
Developers see a concrete pile of cash in an escrow account just waiting for them if they complete the project. There's no ambiguity about getting paid or not.
Funding for Open Source projects is a very interesting subject, IMO. As Free/Open Source software continues its inexorable march into the mainstream, I think it will be crucial to find GRASS-ROOTS methods of funding so that development is not overly influenced by corporate interests and "IP" issues.
But, you know, it's not a cut-and-dried issue; you can make arguments for both sides. The plaintiffs in this aren't trying to copyright laws--their copyright existed BEFORE the laws were enacted.
As far as I'm concerned, as soon as I'm legally obligated to follow a set of laws, I should have the right to own a copy of those laws free of charge, regardless of whether they stem from something that someone holds a copyright to.
I may not be able to photocopy the original documents, but I sure should be able to photocopy the law texts in full, retype them into a document, and distribute them freely.
Re:Here's an interesting quote
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
These sorts of laws were allowed to be copyrighted in the past because they are generally drafted by large national engineering bodies, who tend to put a lot of work and resources into them. Charging for copies to the people who actually use them offsets much of that cost. It will be interesting to see how this decision affects things the next time the codes are up for review.
It sounds almost as if you're suggesting that copyrightable law text is reasonable. It's got to be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
Re:Here's an interesting quote
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Heck, it sort of infers that P2P is legal, especially with copywrighted works.
No, it doesn't. Copyright provides public access to authors' works precisely by protecting it, much in the same way that patents are supposed to protect inventions (despite the patent system being hopelessly broken and ransacked by large corporate interests).
It permits authors to publish stuff - i.e., make it public - without fear of being ripped off.
I had to call them on 6 separate occasions because of changed hardware, two of which were apparent "maintenance" downtimes during which they could not verify my installation. I had to call back on the following business day and not use my PC until then. Irritating, but not a real deal breaker. I may have just had bad luck.
The thought of having to call my software vendor so they can "allow" me to use my computer makes me physically ill.
never, never, never. i will never do that. i will give up computing before i do that.
To claim that Gates has no interest in charity is plain wrong.
Oh sure, Gates has an interest in charity. It's just an odd coincidence that's he's been so phenomenally wealthy for so long, and only discovered his deep love for charity after he realized how important public relations and image are during high-profile trials.
This geek uses Gnome Evolution. I would think Evolution would make a lot more sense for an organiation than Mozilla's mail client. Most organizations are going to be predominantly addicted to Outlook.
Of course, there is that teensy tiny detail that EVOLUTION DOESN'T RUN ON WINDOWS.
Evolution might make sense if you're lucky enough to work in a non-Windows environment, though.
all the Outlook users are saying "WTF is this dragon head on my desktop"
Hehehhee..... it was even better when i first installed mozilla on our users' desktops: one of the release candidates for 1.0 - that squiggly little blue lizard that absolutely no one could identify.
Slashdot Mirror
Where he gets most of his information - straight out of his ass.
That's the best sig reply i've ever seen :-)
I'm talking about the users, not the creators, of the work. I thought that was clear from the context of my message.
You could not possibly be more wrong.
OK, thanks Linus for the beginnings of the kernel and your management of it since then. But we definitely need more people, who are more vigilant, against the threat from proprietary interests (SCO anyone?) to free/open source software.
We need fewer "too cool for school" Linus-like people who say "hey, I don't care about the legal or business side of stuff, I just do this for fun." Because, guess what? A lot of people have committed their entire businesses and livelihoods to this "fun" stuff. Linus plays a role, but don't ever think that Stallman doesn't play an extremely, critically important role in this movement.
The movement could use more of both kinds, but most definitely Stallman is more important in the larger scheme of things.
Software is quite different indeed. In some senses, for many of us, it's an extension of our bodies and minds, not a mere amusement or preoccupation. This doesn't just apply to technical people either - people who depend on computers to do their work, on cell phones to communicate, societies whose banking and military defense rely on computers - software is an integral part of the process of modern life. It's quite wise to make sure you don't hand over that kind of control to proprietary interests.
I think the world will be surprised at how many of the "extremist", "paranoid", "ideological", "smelly hippy" ideas that Stallman has put forth will come true just as he has predicted them.
the guy's a visionary on a level that even much of today's technical crowd can't fully grasp.
They call it that because the very thought of it makes them go number two.
Ditto of your ditto. This version starts in under two seconds on my Linux box. I no longer hesitate and ponder whether it's worth the start-up time before starting OOo.
However, I hope that Linux is indeed up to the task in Munich. If not, this publicity coup could boomerang, and the headlines could read "Paid $11M more for Linux and it still couldn't do the job..."
Here's hoping for competent admins, open-minded end-users, and a rational roll-out plan. if they pull this off it could be the shot heard round the world.
Then for the love of god we must find the name for that thing!
That punch-line drum thing is called a "rimshot".
I pretty much guessed as much when the DMV in our state issued everyone new license plates. The primary difference was that the new kind are many times more reflective than the old ones, making them ideal for tracking via camera at lengthy distances.
- The escrow balance provides a clear marker as to where the donations are, and can have a positive effect on contributions. Consider the Blender situation.
- Contributors can give what they think it's worth to them to have a project (or project milestone) completed, without doing a calculus as to how their donation fits into the overall picture of getting work done.
- Contributors are assured that they will receive their cash back from the escrow account if the project is not completed.
- Developers are relieved from the burden of managing contributions
- Talented developers in developing countries with a spotty track record wrt respect for contract law are not impeded by this reputaton.
- Developers see a concrete pile of cash in an escrow account just waiting for them if they complete the project. There's no ambiguity about getting paid or not.
Funding for Open Source projects is a very interesting subject, IMO. As Free/Open Source software continues its inexorable march into the mainstream, I think it will be crucial to find GRASS-ROOTS methods of funding so that development is not overly influenced by corporate interests and "IP" issues.As far as I'm concerned, as soon as I'm legally obligated to follow a set of laws, I should have the right to own a copy of those laws free of charge, regardless of whether they stem from something that someone holds a copyright to.
I may not be able to photocopy the original documents, but I sure should be able to photocopy the law texts in full, retype them into a document, and distribute them freely.
It sounds almost as if you're suggesting that copyrightable law text is reasonable. It's got to be one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
No, it doesn't. Copyright provides public access to authors' works precisely by protecting it, much in the same way that patents are supposed to protect inventions (despite the patent system being hopelessly broken and ransacked by large corporate interests).
It permits authors to publish stuff - i.e., make it public - without fear of being ripped off.
The thought of having to call my software vendor so they can "allow" me to use my computer makes me physically ill.
never, never, never. i will never do that. i will give up computing before i do that.
Oh sure, Gates has an interest in charity. It's just an odd coincidence that's he's been so phenomenally wealthy for so long, and only discovered his deep love for charity after he realized how important public relations and image are during high-profile trials.
So did Robin Hood, and he's a hero.
Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Gates steals from the stupid and gives to the public-relations-convenient.
Great, I just finished a delicious Mexican dinner, and you made me projectile-vomit with that statement.
that's what i used to think, but if you stare at it long enough - it's a gecko!
http://www.animalsforawareness.org/images/gecko.jp g
if a picture of that goatse.cx guy's prolapsed rectum does not end up on that t-shirt, it will validate my deepest conspiracy theories.
Of course, there is that teensy tiny detail that EVOLUTION DOESN'T RUN ON WINDOWS.
Evolution might make sense if you're lucky enough to work in a non-Windows environment, though.
Hehehhee..... it was even better when i first installed mozilla on our users' desktops: one of the release candidates for 1.0 - that squiggly little blue lizard that absolutely no one could identify.
I think I saw that mpg.