To add insult to injury I had MORE FSCKING spam from them tonight.
URG
Re:Implications of the T-Shirt
on
QuickieWorld
·
· Score: 1
I think we're OK until the 2nd show after ALS.
That's the one where we see Alan Cox in the bronze bikini.
please.. no... My god, it's full of stars....
Re:Thanking Panasonic - a good idea!
on
DVD-RAM Support
·
· Score: 1
It's our responsibility. I flame vendors in as a professional manner as I can when they do something that I don't like. You have to do the opposite and praise them sincerely when they do something good. Anything else is irresponsible.
Positive reinforcement is nothing new.
Re:first post .... .how much is the drive/media?
on
DVD-RAM Support
·
· Score: 1
Who do we email to thank at Panasonic? (besides you - Thank You).
Really? I quite like the idea of murder being illegal.
Let's invoke Godwin's law now if we're really going to go down the path and make the serious error of considering murder and proprietary code on the same scale.
You cannot tell me that you have not found recent behavior as unusual. Not the bickering between GNU about GNU linux or stuff like that. That is growing pains. But situations like the MindCraft test & the ethernet guy, there seems to be more to it.
First of all yes, there is more of a microscope being pointed at Linux, because Linux is making noise about being a threat to Microsoft's dominance in the market. That's to be wholly expected. Your previous post was as far as I can tell really more pointed at Slashdot than at industry resistance.
As for Mindcraft, they're either incompetent, or unethical or both. Unethical/incompetent consultants are NOT anything new or unique to Microsoft. This may be the first time you're seeing them, but they've been there.
I also don't think the dissension in the ranks is anything new. I think that as things move forward then realization of the goals of commercial success are leading us to examine our individual agendas and compare them to our neighbor. The stakes are getting higher, and the details that we could gloss over before are now becoming important details with serious implications.
You doubtless use much software that, at some point in its development, was compiled using gcc. Even egcs-based gcc was bootstrapped using the old gcc. Therefore, you use softare that, while perhaps not containing Stallman code, undoubtedly contains the product of something Stallman helped to write.
Agreed, but that doesn't buy my respect. In my view RMS is a coder who's opted for a promotion to software messiah, and I don't think he does a good job at representing what *I* want done.
The FSF is about a particular agenda, and RMS is the source of that agenda. RMS holds that non-open-source code is immoral, and he's using a legal means to make as much of it illegal as possible.
That's all fine and good, except that I'm not a software racist and I don't respect him for being one no matter how solidly he stands behind his belief.
Has anyone else noticed that the whole open source methodology, the FSF, the GNU license, Linux, Apache, etc. has been under a huge attack lately? That may be a dumb question, but I have been reading slashdot for about 2 years now & I have noticed a number of the discussions being clouded with political crap & a bunch of opinions being presented by people who don't have their facts straight-usually because they DIDN'T read the article. If you ask me, I think that this is Bill Gates & every other major commercial software player's way of attacking the open source movement.
Dude. Let the conspiracy theories go.
I'm beginning to think that the endless Bill-is-behind-this comments is the Free Software community's version of denial that we all don't agree on everything, that we each have our own valued opinions and beliefs that don't always seamlessly and painlessly mesh with our neighbors.
I don't strongly disagree with the GPL because I'm one of Microsoft's minions.
I disagree with the GPL because I DON'T have an axe to grind against proprietary software. I prefer open source but first and foremost I need tools to get my job done, and I don't have a problem with people making money off their code.
The licenses I prefer would be PD, BSDL, Artistic, Gnu, Proprietary in that order. Hardly a Microsoft minion am I? On the other hand that doesn't mean I have to like the FSF/GNU either.
Let's drop the half-informed anti-microsoft rants. Ghandi never defined himself by putting down the competition, he defined himself with the purity of what he had to offer.
RMS is not an extremist for freedom. He is an extremist for free-redistributal-source code. He is an extremist for his views on how everyone should conduct their business in the programming industry. It IS about RMS's personal agenda against binary-only software.
THAT misconception is why people like myself have a problem with the "Free" description.
He also doesn't care for personal credit; he wants credit to go to GNU. A large chunk of the reason new users don't know what GNU is, but know the history of the kernel, is because they know the name is Linux, and assume the kernel is the OS. RMS wants the name GNU/Linux to spread his views, not his personal glory.
GNU and RMS are the same thing. He wrote the manifesto and the GPL. How is spreading his news and branding other's work with his nom de plume any different than spreading his personal glory?
Instead of attacking software, Tom attacks people. This is the difference. Instead of composing a well-researched criticism of the licenses that offend him, or of Richard's software which isn't technically suited for its use, or even the foundation's principles which he can't appreciate, he parodies a person and his character.
No, Tom is attacking the FSF not RMS, however RMS is the creator of the GPL. and only-real spokesperson for the FSF. The FSF is an instance of RMS's ideology. The two are practically inseperable.
True. And I'm sure that if Tom had tried debating the issues themselves, he would have gotten a more positive response (hopefully!) than the one he is getting. You don't have to agree with Stallman; many folks don't! But I think the man deserves more respect, at least, than many in the community, and especially Tom, have been giving him.
Tom DOES debate these issues. Check out comp.os.linux.advocacy and gnu.misc.discuss.
As for respecting Stallman, I don't like the GPL, I don't use Emacs, I doubt any piece of my software that I USE is written by Stallman (others in GNU, or who use the GPL yes), and I think he's a lousy advocate for free software due to lack of people skills.
Too many people, and in particular a growing number in the mainstream media, are criticising the FSF because it's perceived as left wing or collectivist. Whether they're doing it because they want to fight collectivism in all its forms, or, like ESR, doing it because they don't want the community to be (in their eyes) tarnished by association with the FSF, it's still damaging.
I can't speak for anyone else but I criticize the FSF for the exact same reason Tom is in the above article. The GPL is not a free software license, it's an mandatory-open-source-copyable-usable or gratis license. There are much free'er licenses out there that don't prance around proclaiming how free they are.
On a side note - I've seen quite a few contentious posts from Tom, however he's always been pleasant in email as has everyone else on gnu.misc.discuss.
If RMS wants to be heard and wants to accomplish his goals then HE needs to work on his delivery instead of asking us to ignore it. People who are a little more moderate and reasonable like Linus and ESR are more successful in their communications for a reason. It's not about collectivism, it's about being reasonable.
To: Hildie Smart From: David Bullock Subject: Patent Infringement by Corel Cc: Jennifer Dulles , Greg Schottland,sales@advancedsw.com, support@advancedsw.com,hr@advancedsw.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Good Morning!
I wanted to contact you to voice my concern over ASTI's lawsuit against Corel and Reed Elsevier for infringement over your 1989/1998 patents covering comparing visual comparison of documents on-screen.
While I strongly support the right of an author to copyright a speciifc work, the use of a patent to cover the fundamental *concept* of a software technique is a practice I found unethical and anticompetitive. Because of this conduct, I am unhappily forced to place ASTI and it's products on the list of products and vendors that I boycott.
In my position as the IT director for my company (approximately 75 employees with 7 internal software developers) I am in a position as a decision maker on software purchases. Since many of my professional aquaintences and personal friends are programmers and IT people, I am BCCing them to encourage them to investigate this story for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
What I find especially disturbing is that neither Corel, nor Reed Elsevier are competitors for your line of Software Development tools. Your attack on a non-competing product line forces me to wonder if my employer (now or future) might be the target of a similar attack at some unknown future date. As such I cannot endorse funding a company that behaves in such a manner.
Should you choose to drop this suit in the immediate future (before Reed Elsevier or Corel has to expend any amount of resources to address or defend it) I will be happy to remove you from my list. As a conscientious member of the software community my only recourse is to vote with my wallet.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Dave Bullock
Re: The point is that Apple IS the innovator here
on
iMac Clone Gets Sued
·
· Score: 1
Give me a break - Apple IS the innovator here with a nice new case design. Apple has always been a strong innovator in the personal computer industry, and much of what we use today is derived from other companies trying to keep pace with Apple's innovations.
The Daewoo machine is a cheap ripoff. Unless they took something mechanically specific and non-obvious like the snap-on-color-shell-replacement stuff that Apple designed, I don't think they did anything illegal. Tacky and Me-Too Yes. Illegal No.
As to the innovativeness of the iMac. Give me a break - it's no more innovative than any other smart terminal going back 20 years. Apple did the computer equivalent of putting the VCR inside the TV.
Besides - It has no expansion slots and therefore is Evil.:)
It's hard to treat windows with any amount of decency when your WinNT machine (at work) decides to reboot itself. I'm glad I'm moving to a dept that uses Solaris! (woohoo - no more bluescreens)
Based on my experience this is LARGELY due to incompetent admins configuring and administering the boxes. We have some 90 NT boxes at the office. The servers DON'T BSOD, and neither do the workstations (although one or two may act weird every blue moon - a reboot usually fixes that).
NT can be very stable if you follow best business practices. If you just cowboy your NT boxes with cheap hardware, and the install-the-app-of-the-day routine that so many power users love, then you'll end up with a fruity box. We use stable drivers, we don't allow user-supplied software, and we test new software in the IS dept for a week or so before it's deployed. We use plain VGA drivers on servers and absolutely minimize console operations. We also don't allow all those damn little programs that come in through email to be run on the boxes. (Oh and we use NetWare for file services - the ACL's blow NT out of the water for configurability)
I drive the guys who work for me nuts with my rules, but they don't complain because they see the reliability pay-off.
This is entirely the point of the essay. The idea is that we should spend less time on rhetoric and more time on code. Granted, ESR does indulge himself slightly when describing the successes of linux et al. as being the successes of OSI. Also granted, he defeats himself slightly spewing doctrine to the effect of "don't spew doctrine."
ESR is not taking credit for the success of Linux et al. ESR is saying that if RMS's approach to preaching the ideals wasn't so offensive to so many people, that OSI would not be needed, and that we'd have been here already 10 years ago.
There is a huge difference between being responsible for the success, and being not being responsible for causing failure.
Open Source has received some media attention recently because of the _products_. Apache and Perl are too good examples of programs that have a proven track record of working; working without any hype from ESR or the OSI.
Apache is not GPL. Perl is not GPL. Both are Open Source.
From the perl.com website:
Perl is Open Source software. It's free for you to download and use as you wish. Perl's license is called the Artistic license. Read it if you aren't sure what you can or can't do. The bottom line is that this is a kinder and gentler version of the GNU license -- one that doesn't infect your work if you care to borrow from Perl or package up pieces of it as part of a commercial product!
GNU takes away people's rights to give more rights to software. Because of this, Perl's license is actually more free than the GNU license. To quote a post I read a couple of days ago "The only truely free license is the one that says 'Do whatever you want with this software'". THAT is what I find disingenuous about GNU's license, and why I don't support the GPL.
Re:Agreeing with Christ != Being Christ
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
RMS putting himself in the same league as Christ is too much.
It's exactly like the corollary of comparing your opponent to Hitler.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, that's showing that the COMMUTATIVE property doesn't always apply, not the additive property.
(sigh)
Then why is NSI spamming me?
(sigh)
There is no honor among government monopolies.
To add insult to injury I had MORE FSCKING spam from them tonight.
URG
I think we're OK until the 2nd show after ALS.
That's the one where we see Alan Cox in the bronze bikini.
please.. no...
My god, it's full of stars....
It's our responsibility. I flame vendors in as a professional manner as I can when they do something that I don't like. You have to do the opposite and praise them sincerely when they do something good. Anything else is irresponsible.
Positive reinforcement is nothing new.
Who do we email to thank at Panasonic? (besides you - Thank You).
Dave
OUCH
No wonder the heads are sore - you hit them on it.
Really? I quite like the idea of murder being illegal.
Let's invoke Godwin's law now if we're really going to go down the path and make the serious error of considering murder and proprietary code on the same scale.
You cannot tell me that you have not found recent behavior as unusual. Not the bickering between GNU about GNU linux or stuff like that. That is growing pains. But situations like the MindCraft test & the ethernet guy, there seems to be more to it.
First of all yes, there is more of a microscope being pointed at Linux, because Linux is making noise about being a threat to Microsoft's dominance in the market. That's to be wholly expected. Your previous post was as far as I can tell really more pointed at Slashdot than at industry resistance.
As for Mindcraft, they're either incompetent, or unethical or both. Unethical/incompetent consultants are NOT anything new or unique to Microsoft. This may be the first time you're seeing them, but they've been there.
I also don't think the dissension in the ranks is anything new. I think that as things move forward then realization of the goals of commercial success are leading us to examine our individual agendas and compare them to our neighbor. The stakes are getting higher, and the details that we could gloss over before are now becoming important details with serious implications.
Dave
You doubtless use much software that, at some point in its development, was compiled using gcc. Even egcs-based gcc was bootstrapped using the old gcc. Therefore, you use softare that, while perhaps not containing Stallman code, undoubtedly contains the product of something Stallman helped to write.
Agreed, but that doesn't buy my respect. In my view RMS is a coder who's opted for a promotion to software messiah, and I don't think he does a good job at representing what *I* want done.
The FSF is about a particular agenda, and RMS is the source of that agenda. RMS holds that non-open-source code is immoral, and he's using a legal means to make as much of it illegal as possible.
That's all fine and good, except that I'm not a software racist and I don't respect him for being one no matter how solidly he stands behind his belief.
Has anyone else noticed that the whole open source methodology, the FSF, the GNU license, Linux, Apache, etc. has been under a huge attack lately? That may be a dumb question, but I have been reading slashdot for about 2 years now & I have noticed a number of the discussions being clouded with political crap & a bunch of opinions being presented by people who don't have their facts straight-usually because they DIDN'T read the article. If you ask me, I think that this is Bill Gates & every other major commercial software player's way of attacking the open source movement.
Dude. Let the conspiracy theories go.
I'm beginning to think that the endless Bill-is-behind-this comments is the Free Software community's version of denial that we all don't agree on everything, that we each have our own valued opinions and beliefs that don't always seamlessly and painlessly mesh with our neighbors.
I don't strongly disagree with the GPL because I'm one of Microsoft's minions.
I disagree with the GPL because I DON'T have an axe to grind against proprietary software.
I prefer open source but first and foremost I need tools to get my job done, and I don't have a problem with people making money off their code.
The licenses I prefer would be PD, BSDL, Artistic, Gnu, Proprietary in that order. Hardly a Microsoft minion am I? On the other hand that doesn't mean I have to like the FSF/GNU either.
Let's drop the half-informed anti-microsoft rants. Ghandi never defined himself by putting down the competition, he defined himself with the purity of what he had to offer.
RMS is not an extremist for freedom. He is an extremist for free-redistributal-source code. He is an extremist for his views on how everyone should conduct their business in the programming industry. It IS about RMS's personal agenda against binary-only software.
THAT misconception is why people like myself have a problem with the "Free" description.
He also doesn't care for personal credit; he wants credit to go to GNU. A large chunk of the reason new users don't know what GNU is, but know the history of the kernel, is because they know the name is Linux, and assume the kernel is the OS. RMS wants the name GNU/Linux to spread his views, not his personal glory.
GNU and RMS are the same thing. He wrote the manifesto and the GPL. How is spreading his news and branding other's work with his nom de plume any different than spreading his personal glory?
Instead of attacking software, Tom attacks people. This is the difference. Instead of composing a well-researched criticism of the licenses that offend him, or of Richard's software which isn't technically suited for its use, or even the foundation's principles which he can't appreciate, he parodies a person and his character.
No, Tom is attacking the FSF not RMS, however RMS is the creator of the GPL. and only-real spokesperson for the FSF. The FSF is an instance of RMS's ideology. The two are practically inseperable.
True. And I'm sure that if Tom had tried debating the issues themselves, he would have gotten a more positive response (hopefully!) than the one he is getting. You don't have to agree with Stallman; many folks don't! But I think the man deserves more respect, at least, than many in the community, and especially Tom, have been giving him.
Tom DOES debate these issues. Check out comp.os.linux.advocacy and gnu.misc.discuss.
As for respecting Stallman, I don't like the GPL, I don't use Emacs, I doubt any piece of my software that I USE is written by Stallman (others in GNU, or who use the GPL yes), and I think he's a lousy advocate for free software due to lack of people skills.
Too many people, and in particular a growing number in the mainstream media, are criticising the FSF because it's perceived as left wing or collectivist. Whether they're doing it because they want to fight collectivism in all its forms, or, like ESR, doing it because they don't want the community to be (in their eyes) tarnished by association with the FSF, it's still damaging.
I can't speak for anyone else but I criticize the FSF for the exact same reason Tom is in the above article. The GPL is not a free software license, it's an mandatory-open-source-copyable-usable or gratis license. There are much free'er licenses out there that don't prance around proclaiming how free they are.
On a side note - I've seen quite a few contentious posts from Tom, however he's always been pleasant in email as has everyone else on gnu.misc.discuss.
If RMS wants to be heard and wants to accomplish his goals then HE needs to work on his delivery instead of asking us to ignore it. People who are a little more moderate and reasonable like Linus and ESR are more successful in their communications for a reason. It's not about collectivism, it's about being reasonable.
My $.04 (I value my own opinion)
,sales@advancedsw.com,
To: Hildie Smart
From: David Bullock
Subject: Patent Infringement by Corel
Cc: Jennifer Dulles ,
Greg Schottland
support@advancedsw.com,hr@advancedsw.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Good Morning!
I wanted to contact you to voice my concern over ASTI's lawsuit against Corel and Reed Elsevier
for infringement over your 1989/1998 patents covering comparing visual comparison of documents on-screen.
While I strongly support the right of an author to copyright a speciifc work, the use of a patent to cover the fundamental *concept* of a software technique is a practice I found unethical and anticompetitive. Because of this conduct, I am unhappily forced to place ASTI and it's products on the list of products and vendors that I boycott.
In my position as the IT director for my company (approximately 75 employees with 7 internal software developers) I am in a position as a decision maker on software purchases. Since many of my professional aquaintences and personal friends are programmers and IT people, I am BCCing them to encourage them to investigate this story for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
What I find especially disturbing is that neither Corel, nor Reed Elsevier are competitors for your line of Software Development tools. Your attack on a non-competing product line forces me to wonder if my employer (now or future) might be the target of a similar attack at some unknown future date. As such I cannot endorse funding a company that behaves in such a manner.
Should you choose to drop this suit in the immediate future (before Reed Elsevier or Corel has to expend any amount of resources to address or defend it) I will be happy to remove you from my list. As a conscientious member of the software community my only recourse is to vote with my wallet.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Dave Bullock
Give me a break - Apple IS the innovator here with a nice new case design. Apple has always been a strong innovator in the personal computer industry, and much of what we use today is derived from other companies trying to keep pace with Apple's innovations.
:)
The Daewoo machine is a cheap ripoff. Unless they took something mechanically specific and non-obvious like the snap-on-color-shell-replacement stuff that Apple designed, I don't think they did anything illegal. Tacky and Me-Too Yes. Illegal No.
As to the innovativeness of the iMac. Give me a break - it's no more innovative than any other smart terminal going back 20 years. Apple did the computer equivalent of putting the VCR inside the TV.
Besides - It has no expansion slots and therefore is Evil.
It's hard to treat windows with any amount of decency when your WinNT machine (at work) decides to reboot itself. I'm glad I'm moving to a dept that uses Solaris! (woohoo - no more bluescreens)
Based on my experience this is LARGELY due to incompetent admins configuring and administering the boxes. We have some 90 NT boxes at the office. The servers DON'T BSOD, and neither do the workstations (although one or two may act weird every blue moon - a reboot usually fixes that).
NT can be very stable if you follow best business practices. If you just cowboy your NT boxes with cheap hardware, and the install-the-app-of-the-day routine that so many power users love, then you'll end up with a fruity box. We use stable drivers, we don't allow user-supplied software, and we test new software in the IS dept for a week or so before it's deployed. We use plain VGA drivers on servers and absolutely minimize console operations. We also don't allow all those damn little programs that come in through email to be run on the boxes. (Oh and we use NetWare for file services - the ACL's blow NT out of the water for configurability)
I drive the guys who work for me nuts with my rules, but they don't complain because they see the reliability pay-off.
Dave
I'm not fat, I'm festively plump :)
I don't consider myself an adult. Everyone else around me does.
No longer trustable... I'm 30.
Dude, can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these things?
I think you're referring to the invention I just filed my patent for. I call it a Book(tm)
(Grin)
This is entirely the point of the essay. The idea is that we should spend less time on rhetoric and more time on code. Granted, ESR does indulge himself slightly when describing the successes of linux et al. as being the successes of OSI. Also granted, he defeats himself slightly spewing doctrine to the effect of "don't spew doctrine."
ESR is not taking credit for the success of Linux et al. ESR is saying that if RMS's approach to preaching the ideals wasn't so offensive to so many people, that OSI would not be needed, and that we'd have been here already 10 years ago.
There is a huge difference between being responsible for the success, and being not being responsible for causing failure.
ESR is not trying to lay claim on the success of anything. He's publically acknowledged the debt that the community has to GNU.
I believe ESR is trying to convince RMS to go back to work coding, and leave the advocacy to people who don't alienate their audience.
Open Source has received some media attention recently because of the _products_. Apache and Perl are too good examples of programs that have a proven track record of working; working without any hype from ESR or the OSI.
Apache is not GPL. Perl is not GPL. Both are Open Source.
From the perl.com website:
Perl is Open Source software. It's free for you to download and use as you wish. Perl's license is called the Artistic license. Read it if you aren't sure what you can or can't do. The bottom line is that this is a kinder and gentler version of the GNU license -- one that doesn't infect your work if you care to borrow from Perl or package up pieces of it as part of a commercial product!
GNU takes away people's rights to give more rights to software. Because of this, Perl's license is actually more free than the GNU license. To quote a post I read a couple of days ago "The only truely free license is the one that says 'Do whatever you want with this software'". THAT is what I find disingenuous about GNU's license, and why I don't support the GPL.
RMS putting himself in the same league as Christ is too much.
It's exactly like the corollary of comparing your opponent to Hitler.