Me being me I'd probably just go to a commandline and type something like man apt-get or Google for it. That's not what my Mom would do or my sister or most of the people who sit in the same office as me. They're not techies, they just want something that works, they just want to be able to put a CD in their machine and wait for the window to open that will install the software for them if they click a few buttons.
But then again, would they be as likely as you to all of a sudden decide they want "the latest version of the gimp"? Nobody pretends that downloading and compiling complex apps from source is an activity for novice users. That's why most distributions have some sort of package management system, typically clearly described in the user manual. Seems to me it's the best of both worlds -- simple installs of stable software for novices, and the power to do anything you want with the software for power users.
Okay, I'll make SCO an offer -- you tell me which parts of this GNU/Linux distribution are your Copyrighted material, and I'll stop distributing those parts. Oh wait, I'm not distributing it now, I'm only using it. And I got it from you, with a GPL license. I guess you really don't have a beef with me, do you?
Do you realize that 99.999% of American citizens went their whole lives without ever hearing a word their presidents said? Even radio is new. The country went for over a century without that.
Wow. 99.999%? So for every American who has heard a President's voice, there were 99,999 who never did? Let's say there are 250 million Americans now (a low estimate) and let's say only half of them have heard George Bush's voice (gotta be a low estimate too, wouldn't you think?). That would mean there have been 12.5 trillion Americans who never heard a President's voice -- more than 2000 times the current population of the world. Where were they all hiding?
Not to be pedantic, but the US really didn't elect Bush, rather the Supreme Court appointed him.
Be pedantic if you want, just don't lie. Bush was elected by a majority vote of the electors, chosen from the several States in the manner provided by the legislatures of those States. The US Supreme Court settled a dispute having to do with recount provisions in the election laws of one State -- they did not appoint Mr. Bush President.
The EETimes article makes several mentions of SCO's "Unix patents", as if patent infringement were at the core of this controversy. I was under the impression from the other articles I've read that the issues were 1) breach of contract (with respect to IBM) and 2) copyright infringement (with respect to everyone else, including the 1500 recipients of letters from SCO). This is the first mention I've heard of patents. Is it really about patents, or is Charles J. Murray (the article's author) deserving of an AssHat Award too?
A key to Linux's success was that its license (dubbed a "copyleft" instead of a "copyright") required users also to give away their own modifications to the software for free.
As I'm sure most Slashdot readers know, the GPL requires no such thing. Users are not required to distribute their modifications at all, but if they do, they are required to distribute them under the same terms as the original software -- with source code and the freedom to make modified versions. They can charge money for their modifications, but they cannot prevent their customers from re-distributing them at lower or zero charge. This typically has the economic effect of driving the market price of the software down, of course (often down to zero), but there is no requirement that modifications must be distributed "for free".
Chander snubs the GPL by not mentioning it by name, leaving the impression that it was Linus's idea, then compounds the insult by misstating its terms. I can understand Chander's desire not to overcomplicate the issues, but he has instead oversimplified. If this were written for USA Today, it might be understandable, but FindLaw.com's readership deserves better. He does refer several times to "copyleft" licenses, but I really think he should have specifically referenced the GPL. It's this kind of thing that probably makes RMS think he's not being strident enough.
Take a look here, and scroll down to the two paragraphs that begin with "carefully read the following terms and conditions" in upper-case. (The lameness filter won't let me quote it here, even in a blockquote.) It seems to contradict what you say, and seems to conflict with the GPL. I'm not a lawyer, but I do read English.
If you're running a binary-only package from some ISV that is not agile enough to track Red Hat's releases, you're probably better off with the Enterprise version's longer life cycle -- unless, of course, you're not at all concerned about updates and patches becoming unavailable for your OS. On the other hand, if you're running only Free Software, you're probably better off tracking Red Hat's mainline releases (but not too closely).
I've had opportunities to call Red Hat tech support and Microsoft tech support. On the whole, I've felt much more insulted by Microsoft tech support. I find the tedious exercise of going through some phone jockey's troubleshooting script highly insulting -- to my intelligence, and to the value of my time. Red Hat was much quicker to connect me with a human who had some real technical knowledge, and wasn't just following a script. If such a tech had said something along the lines of "...if you were an idiot and did 'x'..." I would have taken it in the spirit it was offered. I'd rather have quick, clear, correct answers than sympathetic but incompetent hand-holding.
This is probably Microsoft's last chance to turn the tide and take mindset and market share from FOSS.
I'm pretty high up in the IT food chain in a medium-sized (300 PC users, half-billion USD annual revenue) company. We've been using Linux in several mission-critical roles for over five years, and I'd love to cut Microsoft loose altogether, but I just don't think I can do it yet. A few of the reasons:
There's still no match for the Exchange/Outlook combination for integrated email, directory, shared folders and calendaring.
A lot of needed third-party software is still Windows-only (think UPS WorldShip, ADP, etc.).
A lot of web sites, including several we must use because of business relationships, are IE-only.
Many of our users live and die by Excel, which means macros, which means VBA.
Word.doc format is still lingua franca for business, and the FOSS alternatives aren't quite there yet.
I'm sure no fan of Microsoft's licensing terms and general business practices, but I sure don't see them as being on their last legs. As much as I hate "Embrace, Extend and Eliminate", I have to admit it works, and my job is to keep the business running, not to fight political battles.
You're right, the page does say that Sears sent him a check -- don't know how I missed that part. Still, even if you had an SMTP server running on a dialup line, and routed all your mail directly to your printer, it's still quite a stretch to say that everyone who sends you an email is knowingly sending to "a telephone facsimile machine". Sears blew it on this one. But then again, this is the same company that could have made money in the dot-com boom, but instead sold off Prodigy, Discover, and its catalog business just as it was starting.
I think the judge screwed up here, and this will likely be reversed on appeal. Even if you accept that Mark's computer qualifies as a "telephone facsimile machine" under the terms of this act, it's pretty tough to make the argument that what Sears did was "to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine". They sent an email message to an SMTP server, which stored it in Mark's mailbox. Using his fax modem to dial his ISP and retrieve the message was Mark's choice. Printing it out was Mark's choice. I'm very surprised that the Sears lawyers didn't slam-dunk this one.
So, you're saying "since some people don't steal music over the Internet, then the RIAA has no right to take their money from them"
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard.
You should get around more. I'm betting you could "hear" a couple dozen sillier things just on Slashdot today.
Perhaps you are familiar with another system that works like this; we usually refer to it here as taxation. You, the user, turn over a certain portion of your earnings to the government and, in return, recieve services from them proportional to your need. There is nothing morally wrong with this - you are helping out the poor and disadvantaged by doing so.
I pay taxes to a government that represents me and my fellow citizens, and that we control through free elections. I will not pay taxes to a private enterprise in which I have no representation. Seems to me that was well settled in the 18th century.
Similarly, through paying this fee to the RIAA, you will be able to continue to enjoy the music that you listen to. What would happen if the major record labels ended up going bankrupt? You certainly wouldn't be able to get music anymore. Odds are, you would be a lot more pissed off than you were when you found out you just had to pay a fee to compensate for the crimes committed by others.
If all the major record labels went bankrupt today, we would certainly not lack for music. I'm a halfway decent piano player myself, and I can sing well enough to entertain myself and annoy my neighbors (not unlike playing an Eminem CD). Frankly, if they did all go bankrupt, I'd say "good riddance". Maybe the new companies that would inevitably spring up to replace them would actually put out some halfway decent product at a reasonable price.
From Lessig's article, where he proposes his legislation...
If there's a way to buy something from the spammer, there's a way to charge the spammer if you catch him.
Amen to that. Doesn't matter where the spam originates -- if there's a way for the spammer to take my money in the USA, then there's a way for me to take his money in the USA too.
Public domain is NOT the same as Free software. It's nowhere NEAR Free software. With public domain, anyone can take my code and change the license and sell it to me with a restrictive license.
IANAL etc...
We're not talking about your code here, we're talking about code developed in government research. After it's released into the public domain, anybody can take it, modify it, and release their modified version under a restrictive license, as you say. But at the same time, you could take the code, modify it, and release your modified version under the GPL.
I don't have a problem with a federal policy requiring the fruits of new research being released into the public domain (or under an MIT/BSD style license). But I would have a problem with a policy that would disallow federal participation in existing GPL projects. Why should the government be forced to re-invent the wheel when there are perfectly serviceable GPL wheels out there?
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I'll make SCO an offer -- you tell me which parts of this GNU/Linux distribution are your Copyrighted material, and I'll stop distributing those parts. Oh wait, I'm not distributing it now, I'm only using it. And I got it from you, with a GPL license. I guess you really don't have a beef with me, do you?
Be pedantic if you want, just don't lie. Bush was elected by a majority vote of the electors, chosen from the several States in the manner provided by the legislatures of those States. The US Supreme Court settled a dispute having to do with recount provisions in the election laws of one State -- they did not appoint Mr. Bush President.
The EETimes article makes several mentions of SCO's "Unix patents", as if patent infringement were at the core of this controversy. I was under the impression from the other articles I've read that the issues were 1) breach of contract (with respect to IBM) and 2) copyright infringement (with respect to everyone else, including the 1500 recipients of letters from SCO). This is the first mention I've heard of patents. Is it really about patents, or is Charles J. Murray (the article's author) deserving of an AssHat Award too?
Chander snubs the GPL by not mentioning it by name, leaving the impression that it was Linus's idea, then compounds the insult by misstating its terms. I can understand Chander's desire not to overcomplicate the issues, but he has instead oversimplified. If this were written for USA Today, it might be understandable, but FindLaw.com's readership deserves better. He does refer several times to "copyleft" licenses, but I really think he should have specifically referenced the GPL. It's this kind of thing that probably makes RMS think he's not being strident enough.
Take a look here, and scroll down to the two paragraphs that begin with "carefully read the following terms and conditions" in upper-case. (The lameness filter won't let me quote it here, even in a blockquote.) It seems to contradict what you say, and seems to conflict with the GPL. I'm not a lawyer, but I do read English.
If you're running a binary-only package from some ISV that is not agile enough to track Red Hat's releases, you're probably better off with the Enterprise version's longer life cycle -- unless, of course, you're not at all concerned about updates and patches becoming unavailable for your OS. On the other hand, if you're running only Free Software, you're probably better off tracking Red Hat's mainline releases (but not too closely).
I've had opportunities to call Red Hat tech support and Microsoft tech support. On the whole, I've felt much more insulted by Microsoft tech support. I find the tedious exercise of going through some phone jockey's troubleshooting script highly insulting -- to my intelligence, and to the value of my time. Red Hat was much quicker to connect me with a human who had some real technical knowledge, and wasn't just following a script. If such a tech had said something along the lines of "...if you were an idiot and did 'x'..." I would have taken it in the spirit it was offered. I'd rather have quick, clear, correct answers than sympathetic but incompetent hand-holding.
I'm pretty high up in the IT food chain in a medium-sized (300 PC users, half-billion USD annual revenue) company. We've been using Linux in several mission-critical roles for over five years, and I'd love to cut Microsoft loose altogether, but I just don't think I can do it yet. A few of the reasons:
- There's still no match for the Exchange/Outlook combination for integrated email, directory, shared folders and calendaring.
- A lot of needed third-party software is still Windows-only (think UPS WorldShip, ADP, etc.).
- A lot of web sites, including several we must use because of business relationships, are IE-only.
- Many of our users live and die by Excel, which means macros, which means VBA.
- Word
.doc format is still lingua franca for business, and the FOSS alternatives aren't quite there yet.
I'm sure no fan of Microsoft's licensing terms and general business practices, but I sure don't see them as being on their last legs. As much as I hate "Embrace, Extend and Eliminate", I have to admit it works, and my job is to keep the business running, not to fight political battles.Actually, it's more "Romeo, why do you have to be Romeo?" more than "Romeo, why are you here?"
You're right, the page does say that Sears sent him a check -- don't know how I missed that part. Still, even if you had an SMTP server running on a dialup line, and routed all your mail directly to your printer, it's still quite a stretch to say that everyone who sends you an email is knowingly sending to "a telephone facsimile machine". Sears blew it on this one. But then again, this is the same company that could have made money in the dot-com boom, but instead sold off Prodigy, Discover, and its catalog business just as it was starting.
I think the judge screwed up here, and this will likely be reversed on appeal. Even if you accept that Mark's computer qualifies as a "telephone facsimile machine" under the terms of this act, it's pretty tough to make the argument that what Sears did was "to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine". They sent an email message to an SMTP server, which stored it in Mark's mailbox. Using his fax modem to dial his ISP and retrieve the message was Mark's choice. Printing it out was Mark's choice. I'm very surprised that the Sears lawyers didn't slam-dunk this one.
You should get around more. I'm betting you could "hear" a couple dozen sillier things just on Slashdot today.
I pay taxes to a government that represents me and my fellow citizens, and that we control through free elections. I will not pay taxes to a private enterprise in which I have no representation. Seems to me that was well settled in the 18th century.
If all the major record labels went bankrupt today, we would certainly not lack for music. I'm a halfway decent piano player myself, and I can sing well enough to entertain myself and annoy my neighbors (not unlike playing an Eminem CD). Frankly, if they did all go bankrupt, I'd say "good riddance". Maybe the new companies that would inevitably spring up to replace them would actually put out some halfway decent product at a reasonable price.
Amen to that. Doesn't matter where the spam originates -- if there's a way for the spammer to take my money in the USA, then there's a way for me to take his money in the USA too.
...to realize you were talking about Role-Playing Games and not IBM mainframe programming. I should have known better.
I don't have a problem with a federal policy requiring the fruits of new research being released into the public domain (or under an MIT/BSD style license). But I would have a problem with a policy that would disallow federal participation in existing GPL projects. Why should the government be forced to re-invent the wheel when there are perfectly serviceable GPL wheels out there?
Text apps can also be run via ssh over slow links with good performance, and without any tricky X configuration.