Open source will never be able to deliver what our current system is. Just as an example:
The government funds university research. The research starts to show promise. A company is formed and patents everything. The company is sold to a larger company. The larger company starts tests on animals and then humans but goes broke. This company is purchased by a huge company. The results of testing come back favorably.
The end result? I can sport wood until I'm 120 years old. I can sport wood for 36 hours. At age 80 I can make teepees just for fun.
With this 'open' model, how do you expect to see such well focused research that will be aimed at the most important problems man kind faces; my wood.
Electricity in some of these areas is not easy to come by. The valley below Mt Everest shares a hydro electric generator via a community coop. The electricity amounted to slightly over one 60 watt lightbulb per house.
There are computers to be found. They do have Internet all the way to the Everest base camp now. But most of the people in the region are living very simple lives. Collecting yack dung to burn for heat and fertilizer.
Now that open source is becomming more popular, this branding is inevitable. A sign of success. But I hope these efforts stay focused on their target audience.
Maybe its just me. But I'm really getting tired of open source branding efforts. Go ahead and do this stuff but have developer.*.org with none of this. I dont care about branding. I'm interested in the code, the bugs and the developer discussion.
At developer.*.org place the following one click away with no product branding:
source tars cvs information bug reporting developer mail lists and archives.
Fairly simple request. Nobody will go to developer.*.org for binaries.
Consider developers a seperate 'branding' effort. Its my impression the branding efforts how their understand users but not developers. Keep them away.
Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, had a potential disaster in his district when a freight train carrying anhydrous ammonia derailed, releasing a deadly cloud over the city of Minot. When the emergency alert system failed, the police called the town radio stations, six of which are owned by the corporate giant Clear Channel. According to news accounts, no one answered the phone at the stations for more than an hour and a half. Three hundred people were hospitalized, some partially blinded by the ammonia. Pets and livestock were killed.
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000954. ph p
If you sell your coding skills as a service and insist on FOSS licenses on the resulting work, this survey is a trap. It assumes that reusing code you wrote and licensed for reuse is wrong. An interesting result to know would be how many people stopped at question 6.
I'm sure this will show up as more evidence that IBM should be concerned in the SCO case. It appears to be leading that direction. I didnt look beyond q 6.
Before even taking your grain of salt, I recommend you read what Jonathan Swartz has had to say about Linux in other articles. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
I wont even look to see what it is. Until that guy is out of the picture, Sun is not playing right.
SCO's plan here is to show up to Googles IPO and fart ruining the 'record one day pop.' Nice threat. Here are a couple reasons it wont work.
1) This blows up in their face. They told the courts that they are not threatening redhat customers. Google is a Redhat customer.
2) Google is in a unique position. Unlike even the respectable IPO's of the dot gone days, google is being essentially forced to go public. They don't need the investment banking and other frills. They have to IPO for accounting reasons.
Linux was never a threat to their core biz. They IPO'd as a Linux company.
Their mistake was they lost the trust of those who would be purchasing their services. They had some great people and could have made a nice clean play on Linux but like it or not, they always had that odor lingering that suggested they would revert to SysV mentality.
Their second mistake was to taint the reputation of their unixware/open unix with the litigation. No matter how many times they change their name now, purchase decision makers will get a snarl on their lip everytime they talk to someone from SCO.
The takehome for purchase decision makers now is "if you sign something with SCO they _will_ use it against you."
In a different outcome, Novell + SCO would be a big comeback play.
MadDog understands the issues as well as anyone. When he says "take the software" he is implying violating the intent of the GPL.
Certain companies, for instance, have been caught trying to distribute modified Linux kernels with networking equipment and not offering the source to kernel developers that both purchased the products and developed the original code in question.
In this context, you can not take the code, add a few lines and then sell it to make a huge profit.
The Apple II C's may be perfectly fine for a high school physics lab. The MECC (Minnesota Educational Computer Consortium) produced hundreds of programs for the Apple II C that probably still have use.
Mercedes does not give you the car free of charge. The Linux kernel is not given out without compensation either.
Hate to point this out to you but copyright law is intended to give people a chance to recieve compensation for their works. In return they share their works in hopes that it promotes arts and science.
The compensation that is requested in this case is the code to derivative works should be licensed in the same fashion. The derivative works are defined in the license. If you don't like the license, then don't agree to it. If you don't agree to the license you have no right to use the works.
The GPL has other issues that will be tested over time but it is very reasonable under copyright law to specify compensation for using copyright material.
In closed source, you usually see an extra step in this process. Money is demanded in compensation which in some cases is used to produce more code under the same license. The law does not specify what type of compensation you must ask for.
Someone at AOL should be hung for placing the fine print in a gif. Not only is it illegable even after magnifying it in a graphics program, it discriminates against visually impaired people.
What do they think that agreement looks like in a braille reader? Oh right... AOL, think. My bad.
"- Bicyclists don't need Continuously Variable Transmissions : human legs are incredibly efficient over a range of speeds from 0 to 13/140 RPM"
As a retro biker that does it smart going on 40 I suggest you rethink this.
Hold on their young one. Any 17 year old can do 0-140 rpm but as the joints get older, you need to keep the rpms higher and the impact lower. 90rpm would be about right for all times.
You can crank for 30 years at 5 rpm but I'd rather let the gears do the work and sleep at night without arthritic knee pains.
Take for example elderly people who are not in full control. Perhaps the family is trying to allow them to live as independantly as possible. They recieve a phone call from someone willing to talk to them while others are at work or running the children to soccer games.
This new friend sells some Sears siding to the elderly person for $10,000 after talking to them about the voices on TV. The elderly person hangs up and says something about "that was such a nice boy."
The sales person just earned his $10 and picks up the next autodialed number.
Now the family will only let that happen once before the number is put on the no call list. Is this what the telemarketers want?
They will be sharing that phone number with questionable charities and other sales groups.
Slashdot Mirror
The same problem was mentioned last year.
Dupe!
Open source will never be able to deliver what our current system is. Just as an example:
The government funds university research. The research starts to show promise. A company is formed and patents everything. The company is sold to a larger company. The larger company starts tests on animals and then humans but goes broke. This company is purchased by a huge company. The results of testing come back favorably.
The end result? I can sport wood until I'm 120 years old. I can sport wood for 36 hours. At age 80 I can make teepees just for fun.
With this 'open' model, how do you expect to see such well focused research that will be aimed at the most important problems man kind faces; my wood.
The wayback machine will have archives of tuxia.org if you are interested.
archive.org for tuxia.org
Handy place when you are looking for prior art.
>>
What kind of a retard thinks this kind of business model will work? Sof
Don't you hate it when your printer runs out of ink in mid thought?
Electricity in some of these areas is not easy to come by. The valley below Mt Everest shares a hydro electric generator via a community coop. The electricity amounted to slightly over one 60 watt lightbulb per house.
There are computers to be found. They do have Internet all the way to the Everest base camp now. But most of the people in the region are living very simple lives. Collecting yack dung to burn for heat and fertilizer.
Great people if you ever get a chance to visit.
In 1993 we did have big hopes and eyes.
I think you are confusing the promise that miggie and many others saw with the implementation we all struggled with.
From this hope came gtk,gnome,gimp,qt,kde,...
Now that open source is becomming more popular, this branding is inevitable. A sign of success. But I hope these efforts stay focused on their target audience.
Maybe its just me. But I'm really getting tired of open source branding efforts. Go ahead and do this stuff but have developer.*.org with none of this. I dont care about branding. I'm interested in the code, the bugs and the developer discussion.
At developer.*.org place the following one click away with no product branding:
source tars
cvs information
bug reporting
developer mail lists and archives.
Fairly simple request. Nobody will go to developer.*.org for binaries.
Consider developers a seperate 'branding' effort.
Its my impression the branding efforts how their understand users but not developers. Keep them away.
Cute bird. have fun.
Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, had a potential disaster in his district when a freight train carrying anhydrous ammonia derailed, releasing a deadly cloud over the city of Minot. When the emergency alert system failed, the police called the town radio stations, six of which are owned by the corporate giant Clear Channel. According to news accounts, no one answered the phone at the stations for more than an hour and a half. Three hundred people were hospitalized, some partially blinded by the ammonia. Pets and livestock were killed.
http://www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/000954
Another project where the creators don't event know how to pronounce the name of the project? I run into this all the time.
If you sell your coding skills as a service and insist on FOSS licenses on the resulting work, this survey is a trap. It assumes that reusing code you wrote and licensed for reuse is wrong. An interesting result to know would be how many people stopped at question 6.
I'm sure this will show up as more evidence that IBM should be concerned in the SCO case. It appears to be leading that direction. I didnt look beyond q 6.
Before even taking your grain of salt, I recommend you read what Jonathan Swartz has had to say about Linux in other articles. With friends like this, who needs enemies?
I wont even look to see what it is. Until that guy is out of the picture, Sun is not playing right.
If Sun and IBM work on an Open Source Java, I'll work at merging the project I maintain with their efforts.
http://www.rxtx.org
Sun's license issues have been problematic for our project. I look forward to an Open Source Java.
If I'm not mistaken the former head of the RIAA is 'helping' Iraq with its new constitution.
And how are his merry men selected?
SCO's plan here is to show up to Googles IPO and fart ruining the 'record one day pop.' Nice threat. Here are a couple reasons it wont work.
1) This blows up in their face. They told the courts that they are not threatening redhat customers. Google is a Redhat customer.
2) Google is in a unique position. Unlike even the respectable IPO's of the dot gone days, google is being essentially forced to go public. They don't need the investment banking and other frills. They have to IPO for accounting reasons.
Another company that had to do this? Microsoft.
Linux was never a threat to their core biz. They IPO'd as a Linux company.
Their mistake was they lost the trust of those who would be purchasing their services. They had some great people and could have made a nice clean play on Linux but like it or not, they always had that odor lingering that suggested they would revert to SysV mentality.
Their second mistake was to taint the reputation of their unixware/open unix with the litigation. No matter how many times they change their name now, purchase decision makers will get a snarl on their lip everytime they talk to someone from SCO.
The takehome for purchase decision makers now is "if you sign something with SCO they _will_ use it against you."
In a different outcome, Novell + SCO would be a big comeback play.
MadDog understands the issues as well as anyone. When he says "take the software" he is implying violating the intent of the GPL.
Certain companies, for instance, have been caught trying to distribute modified Linux kernels with networking equipment and not offering the source to kernel developers that both purchased the products and developed the original code in question.
In this context, you can not take the code, add a few lines and then sell it to make a huge profit.
The Apple II C's may be perfectly fine for a high school physics lab. The MECC (Minnesota Educational Computer Consortium) produced hundreds of programs for the Apple II C that probably still have use.
A poor mechanic blames his tools.
Mercedes does not give you the car free of charge. The Linux kernel is not given out without compensation either.
Hate to point this out to you but copyright law is intended to give people a chance to recieve compensation for their works. In return they share their works in hopes that it promotes arts and science.
The compensation that is requested in this case is the code to derivative works should be licensed in the same fashion. The derivative works are defined in the license. If you don't like the license, then don't agree to it. If you don't agree to the license you have no right to use the works.
The GPL has other issues that will be tested over time but it is very reasonable under copyright law to specify compensation for using copyright material.
In closed source, you usually see an extra step in this process. Money is demanded in compensation which in some cases is used to produce more code under the same license. The law does not specify what type of compensation you must ask for.
Someone at AOL should be hung for placing the fine print in a gif. Not only is it illegable even after magnifying it in a graphics program, it discriminates against visually impaired people.
What do they think that agreement looks like in a braille reader? Oh right... AOL, think. My bad.
Yahoo's "oddly enough" section had Taiwan glow fish going on sale overseas as pets months ago.
This is from the UK obviously but I suspect the Yahoo article was at the same time. I'm just too lazy to look harder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/30261
This news is just free advertising for the US company.
Thank You.
"- Bicyclists don't need Continuously Variable Transmissions : human legs are incredibly efficient over a range of speeds from 0 to 13/140 RPM"
As a retro biker that does it smart going on 40 I suggest you rethink this.
Hold on their young one. Any 17 year old can do 0-140 rpm but as the joints get older, you need to keep the rpms higher and the impact lower. 90rpm would be about right for all times.
You can crank for 30 years at 5 rpm but I'd rather let the gears do the work and sleep at night without arthritic knee pains.
I find it incredulous for companies to publish software like this and call it free. The consumer gives up information.
Do companies just assume that the consumers information has no value? If so, what exactly is their business plan?
Not only are these 'fee software' claims misleading, they are a lie.
Consumers have money, information and power. When consumers give up any of these tangible assets it should be clearly marked as such.
It's not spyware, it's theftware.
It is never that simple.
Take for example elderly people who are not in full control. Perhaps the family is trying to allow them to live as independantly as possible. They recieve a phone call from someone willing to talk to them while others are at work or running the children to soccer games.
This new friend sells some Sears siding to the elderly person for $10,000 after talking to them about the voices on TV. The elderly person hangs up and says something about "that was such a nice boy."
The sales person just earned his $10 and picks up the next autodialed number.
Now the family will only let that happen once before the number is put on the no call list. Is this what the telemarketers want?
They will be sharing that phone number with questionable charities and other sales groups.