"A taxpayer need not arrange its affairs so as to maximize taxes as long as the transaction has a legitimate business purpose." -- Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20, 1992, aff. of the Tax Court holding in Proctor & Gamble v. Commissioner
Or...
"There is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich and poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." -- Justice Learned Hand
The government wrote the law, Google is just playing by the rules. Don't like it? Change the rules, but don't whine about companies (or individuals) that do what is legal to minimize taxes.
Other options to consider rather than raising personal income tax:
1. Simplify the tax code and close loopholes like the ones that allow Google and other mega-corps to move things around and minimize taxes.
2. Spend less.
History shows that taxes rarely, if ever, go down as a net. Once a politician has your money, they don't give it back. They get addicted to the spending and when the time comes, lo and behold there are more "necessities" that can't be cut from the budget. Necessities that were lived without only a few short years ago. The fiscal discipline you talk about needs to apply equally to the gov't as to the corporations paying taxes.
You argue with accounting logic, and I'm arguing with political logic.:-)
In short, the gov't would find a way to spend the extra, regardless, then continue to tax you and everyone else even more.
If you think, for one minute, that if Google paid every last dime it could in taxes without trying to structure business to avoid them, that YOUR taxes would go down, you're on crack.
Ah, I never had that problem. The only movies I share are DVDs I own the original of. If I loan anything out, it is the original. I don't download a lot of video at the moment.
On the other hand, if you are making a normal "DVD" and not an XviD/DivX then the MPEG-2 rip will go right back on a DVD without issue. After all, that is where it came from in the first place.
You're right that a 533 MHz VIA would have problems with hi-def video. You'd need one of the newer processors to handle that, like the C7. I haven't tried hi-def on my system, yet. (Dual 1 GHz Via C3)
It all depends on what you use the computer for. Do you spend most of your time ripping and transcoding DVDs?
Low power systems like the VIA units are fine for every day tasks. They're even okay for dealing with video and ripping, if you don't spend your life doing it.
The VIA boards have built-in MPEG-2 encoding/decoding, making them very efficient for watching that transcoded DVD.
And a suggestion, if I may. You might want to consider just buying bigger hard drives and not bothering to transcode at all. Just use VOBcopy and rip straight to unencrypted MPEG-2. The files are bigger -- like 5 Gb as opposed to 1.2 or so with XviD -- but ripping a disk takes like 2-3 minutes even with the VIA CPU. The VIA will handle playback without an issue.
Is there a pattern? The article mentions one deleted post, but there are several on the Dell site that are not exactly flattering, to say the least. Lots of people just went off on an anti-Dell rant, and had nothing constructive to say at all.
Dell is right, in that it'll take a lot of work to get everything ready. If they sell it, they have to support it. That means training both sales and support staff; verifying what hardware has Linux drivers; etc. There is a LOT of work for them to do.
I've always thought Dell underestimated the Linux market. I know the last place I worked ordered about 10 Dell rack servers per month, without O/S. Debian was installed when we got them. However, Dell has two options on their order form: "No OS Installed - Microsoft Windows" and "No OS Installed - Red Hat Linux". Both are just there for "counting" purposes, since you don't get either OS with either option. It defaults to the Microsoft option, and I know our ordering personnel never bothered to change it. That skews their stats towards Windows and away from Linux.
Get the degree. The contacts you make in University alone will make it all worthwhile. There are lots of resume bots that will reject you out of hand if you can't tick off the "degree" square on their form.
Certificates will help, but not too much. The A+ don't mean squat. A CCNA/CCIE and CISSP are the good ones to have.
Remember, the people that invented things like TCP/IP, Sun, Cisco and Microsoft all met at University. While some dropped out, they still attended and made contacts there. They don't call it BSD for nothing.
sorry, but i don't understand your point. sure only apple sells macs, does anyone other than dell sell dells? sure only apple sells osx, but does anyone other than Microsoft sell Windows?
Dells are generic machines, 100% replaceable with HP, IBM or any of another vendor's PCs. Clone a drive, swap a few drivers, and you're back in business. With Apple, you have no other alternative for a vendor that'll run OS X.
As for Windows being a sole source, I answered that one a couple of posts back. Check the other replies to the same post your replied to.
Software is different, and they usually specify to an application level not an OS level. If you can meet the criteria with a non-Windows application, they're usually all for it.
It depends if they're ordering general purpose computers or task specific systems. The latter are frequently NOT Windows-based.
For example, even though the general office drones may use MS Windows/Office, CAD/CAE systems are often Unix machines. Software like Cadence, Catia, Mentor Graphics and the like perform better -- and thus are usually run on -- Unix boxes. Manufacturing control software is the same way.
I once ran the IT dept of a manufacturing facility that used:
Windows NT/2000 Servers Linux Servers OS/2 for the PBX Windows 3.1 for a laser cutter written in GW BASIC of all things. AIX on RS/6000 for CATIA (CAD/CAE) Apollo Domain minicomputers for manufacturing line control OS/9000 for manufacturing, ultrasonic cold soldering SCO (German!) from Siemens for pick-and-place equipment Sun Solaris 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 for manufacturing line control (eventually replaced the Apollo stuff) Novell Netware 3.12 for a remote facility CICS on our IBM mainframe that handled the logistics system (via an SNA gateway) CLIX (a version of AT&T Unix SVr3) for old CAD/CAE software Windows NT 4.0/2000 for desktop machines Linux for (two) desktop machines [The IT dept.:-)] Mac OS 9 for (one) desktop machine [The boss was a Mac fanatic]
I might have forgotten something. Those were the systems I actually had to actively support at one time or another.
Many larger corporations and governments are loathe to go with sole-source suppliers. If Dell screws up, there are a dozen other suppliers to get computers from. If Apple screws up, then you're screwed. No one other than Apple sells those machines.
Smaller companies and schools may be able to get away with this, but I'd never recommended it for any large company I was working for.
Now, I'd have no problem recommending OS X if it ran properly and was supported on non-Apple hardware...
Here's a summary of your argument "Networking is hard. We have to lie to sell it to people."
There is an easy way out of this. Stop lying to your customers.
Stop having big, flashing 8 MBPS INTERNET CONNECTION ads with teeny, tiny print on the bottom that says, basically "If you're the only one on, at like 3:05 a.m., if we're not working on something. Oh, and your upload bandwidth is only 384 Kbps."
Don't fucking whine to me how hard it is. You idiots made it hard by LYING YOUR ASSES OFF about what is being sold. You made your bed, lie in it.
[For the record, I'm a telecom engineer for a major equipment manufacturer so I'm intimately familiar with the costs, equipment and issues. I just don't like lying ISPs *cough* Comast *cough*.]
And you broke the law, if you are in the U.S. A stupid law, but a law none-the-less.
Believe it or not, there is a large segment of the public who isn't going to do that. Mostly because they don't know about VLC and can't follow simple instructions, but still...
In either case, companies with money to sue for aren't going to provide VLC without providing a license. Linspire is taking out the entire "find the VLC website, figure out what the hell VLC is, install it, etc." part.
And is it "basic functionality" when you got the entire OS for free? I know OS-X and Windows weren't free, so there is at least a shred of an argument, but Ubuntu and Freespire are.
Because it is still illegal. That may not mean much to you (or me, in this case), but it does to packagers. You know, companies with money to sue for? Linspire -- and now Ubuntu -- have a "legally palatable" solution, whereas Novell, RedHat and others do not. Their is a "nod, nod, wink, wink" and point you to a foreign site to get the files from. Notice the disclaimers they also put on there as well.
It sucks, yes, but it is the law and big companies need to play nice with the law. (At least until they become HUGE companies, then they can go back to flouting it just like they were rebels again -- just with stock options.)
Ubuntu has signed on to use Linspire's Click-N-Run.
Inside CNR are some things like a legally licensed MP3 plug-in and DVD player. I believe the DVD player was a plug-in for Xine and cost $4.95. Click, buy, done. It was really that simple. I was watching DVDs on a Linspire system in minutes and it was worlds ahead of adding DVD playback on Windows.
So, yes. Ubuntu and Linspire both have a very simple framework for dealing with commercial and proprietary software that Fedora and Red Hat do not.
That is a telling thread and validates part of what Eric is saying:
"After thirteen years as a loyal Red Hat and Fedora user, I reached my limit today, when an attempt to upgrade one (1) package pitched me into a four-hour marathon of dependency chasing, at the end of which an attempt to get around a trivial file conflict rendered my system unusable."
Flat out, that should have never been allowed to happen. The fact that it can, and did, highlights what is a fundamental problem with package management on Fedora/Red Hat.
To demonstrate to the general public that it works with the vehicles they drive. Small pickup trucks are very popular and have lots of uses. It is a good way to show the public they don't need to drive some California-left-winger-little-wind-up-toy vehicle. Like it or not, that is the perception many people have hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles. It is a lot easier to simply say "no, it's a pickup truck" than try and educate everyone and change their tastes.
I believe this is fairly common in Europe. I remember movies like Red Dawn and one of the Rocky pictures either being forbidden or having to be re-edited for viewing in Germany.
I've always found it strange that the U.S. has such conflicted a conflicted attitude towards sex, with numerous "morals" laws and restrictions, yet a massive hard- and soft-porn industry. Contrast that with the pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards violence which the American public seems to revel in.
I don't mind them limiting the hours it can be shown, but I would have a problem with them trying to ban it totally. As is, I refuse to watch a lot of television because of the levels of violence. I just don't want to see that stuff and don't find it entertaining at all.
For the same reasons I won't go watch movies like Saw or Hannibal Rising. Silence of the Lambs was good, but Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising were nothing more than an excuse to see how disturbing they could get.
However, the last point, not 100%. Trying to tell people what they *should* want as opposed to what they *really* want CAN be important.
For example, I *really* want everything for free. But that is not sustainable economically. People providing me everything for free will go broke themselves and eventually be unable to supply all the stuff I want.
What I *should* want is for stuff to be cheap enough that I can afford it comfortably, but still can provide the economic stability so the producers can stay in business.
Yes, Stallman can be high handed, holier-than-thou and self-righteous. But, I believe his fundamental point is correct. BSD is self-limiting because there is no compelling reason for people to contribute. GPL requires you to contribute back, and thus mandates an ecosystem. "A rising tide floats all boats." GPL mandates you play in the same pool, so the tide will lift everyone. BSD says you can take the water and go off to your own pool.
Some problems are too big to be solved by a group of part-time developers saying "I have an itch to scratch". To get things like good wifi and video drivers, you need to have enough of a base to go to a hardware developer and say "if you can provide specs, we can order 10,000".
No, "there are X-thousand of geeks running FreeBSD who could potentially buy our stuff if we make it open" isn't going to work. "Hi, I'd like to place an order for 10,000 pieces. What? No FOSS drivers? Sorry, let me call your competitor." will work.
To get to that point, you need leverage. The GPL levers things up to that point, the BSD-license doesn't.
Still, many of the "luminaries" can be rather abrasive.:-)
GPL can be summed up as "I'll share if you will, I won't if you won't." BSD can be summed up as "I'll share."
As far as the no strings attached, that isn't *quite* true. Look at what happened with OpenSSH late last year with the OpenBSD community up in arms that all those major corporations were taking their code and giving nothing in return. Even though that is exactly what the BSD license is for, they were incensed, verbally and publicly attacking several companies IBM and Sun to name two.
At that point I came to realize the BSD license is for idealists and the GPL for realists. The BSD people believe they shouldn't HAVE TO tell others to share back, because it is the right thing to do. Lead by example. However, most of the world doesn't work that way. The GPL people understand there is a large part of the population that will just continue to take and take until the day they die, not giving one thing back. No one is forcing you to use GPL software, but if you want to stand on our shoulders to get to the top of the mountain, you're going to pull us up with you -- not step on our face and leave us below.
Each has their place, but my personal preference is for GPL. If you aren't willing to share back, write your own damn code.
Verizon's FIOS is the only thing that comes close. AT&T's UVerse might offer an option, but again it will be upload limited to about 1 Mbps.
Cablevision, Comcast and Time Warner all have the same two problems: abysmal upload speeds in the neighborhood of 384 - 768 Kbps, and heavy oversubscription.
I don't consider "6 Mbps" to mean 384 Kbps upstream.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you're wrong.
"A taxpayer need not arrange its affairs so as to maximize taxes as long as the transaction has a legitimate business purpose." --
Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20, 1992, aff. of the Tax Court holding in Proctor & Gamble v. Commissioner
Or...
"There is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich and poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." -- Justice Learned Hand
The government wrote the law, Google is just playing by the rules. Don't like it? Change the rules, but don't whine about companies (or individuals) that do what is legal to minimize taxes.
Other options to consider rather than raising personal income tax:
:-)
1. Simplify the tax code and close loopholes like the ones that allow Google and other mega-corps to move things around and minimize taxes.
2. Spend less.
History shows that taxes rarely, if ever, go down as a net. Once a politician has your money, they don't give it back. They get addicted to the spending and when the time comes, lo and behold there are more "necessities" that can't be cut from the budget. Necessities that were lived without only a few short years ago. The fiscal discipline you talk about needs to apply equally to the gov't as to the corporations paying taxes.
You argue with accounting logic, and I'm arguing with political logic.
In short, the gov't would find a way to spend the extra, regardless, then continue to tax you and everyone else even more.
If you think, for one minute, that if Google paid every last dime it could in taxes without trying to structure business to avoid them, that YOUR taxes would go down, you're on crack.
Ah, I never had that problem. The only movies I share are DVDs I own the original of. If I loan anything out, it is the original. I don't download a lot of video at the moment.
On the other hand, if you are making a normal "DVD" and not an XviD/DivX then the MPEG-2 rip will go right back on a DVD without issue. After all, that is where it came from in the first place.
You're right that a 533 MHz VIA would have problems with hi-def video. You'd need one of the newer processors to handle that, like the C7. I haven't tried hi-def on my system, yet. (Dual 1 GHz Via C3)
It all depends on what you use the computer for. Do you spend most of your time ripping and transcoding DVDs?
Low power systems like the VIA units are fine for every day tasks. They're even okay for dealing with video and ripping, if you don't spend your life doing it.
The VIA boards have built-in MPEG-2 encoding/decoding, making them very efficient for watching that transcoded DVD.
And a suggestion, if I may. You might want to consider just buying bigger hard drives and not bothering to transcode at all. Just use VOBcopy and rip straight to unencrypted MPEG-2. The files are bigger -- like 5 Gb as opposed to 1.2 or so with XviD -- but ripping a disk takes like 2-3 minutes even with the VIA CPU. The VIA will handle playback without an issue.
No, you get the little AC adaptor power bricks like laptops have and plug into that. http://www.logicsupply.com/index.php/cPath/40_64
I know. :-) It is a tough one. Good luck.
Is there a pattern? The article mentions one deleted post, but there are several on the Dell site that are not exactly flattering, to say the least. Lots of people just went off on an anti-Dell rant, and had nothing constructive to say at all.
Dell is right, in that it'll take a lot of work to get everything ready. If they sell it, they have to support it. That means training both sales and support staff; verifying what hardware has Linux drivers; etc. There is a LOT of work for them to do.
I've always thought Dell underestimated the Linux market. I know the last place I worked ordered about 10 Dell rack servers per month, without O/S. Debian was installed when we got them. However, Dell has two options on their order form: "No OS Installed - Microsoft Windows" and "No OS Installed - Red Hat Linux". Both are just there for "counting" purposes, since you don't get either OS with either option. It defaults to the Microsoft option, and I know our ordering personnel never bothered to change it. That skews their stats towards Windows and away from Linux.
Get the degree. The contacts you make in University alone will make it all worthwhile. There are lots of resume bots that will reject you out of hand if you can't tick off the "degree" square on their form.
Certificates will help, but not too much. The A+ don't mean squat. A CCNA/CCIE and CISSP are the good ones to have.
Remember, the people that invented things like TCP/IP, Sun, Cisco and Microsoft all met at University. While some dropped out, they still attended and made contacts there. They don't call it BSD for nothing.
Charles
Network Integration Engineer
sorry, but i don't understand your point. sure only apple sells macs, does anyone other than dell sell dells? sure only apple sells osx, but does anyone other than Microsoft sell Windows?
Dells are generic machines, 100% replaceable with HP, IBM or any of another vendor's PCs. Clone a drive, swap a few drivers, and you're back in business. With Apple, you have no other alternative for a vendor that'll run OS X.
As for Windows being a sole source, I answered that one a couple of posts back. Check the other replies to the same post your replied to.
They don't.
:-)]
Software is different, and they usually specify to an application level not an OS level. If you can meet the criteria with a non-Windows application, they're usually all for it.
It depends if they're ordering general purpose computers or task specific systems. The latter are frequently NOT Windows-based.
For example, even though the general office drones may use MS Windows/Office, CAD/CAE systems are often Unix machines. Software like Cadence, Catia, Mentor Graphics and the like perform better -- and thus are usually run on -- Unix boxes. Manufacturing control software is the same way.
I once ran the IT dept of a manufacturing facility that used:
Windows NT/2000 Servers
Linux Servers
OS/2 for the PBX
Windows 3.1 for a laser cutter written in GW BASIC of all things.
AIX on RS/6000 for CATIA (CAD/CAE)
Apollo Domain minicomputers for manufacturing line control
OS/9000 for manufacturing, ultrasonic cold soldering
SCO (German!) from Siemens for pick-and-place equipment
Sun Solaris 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 for manufacturing line control (eventually replaced the Apollo stuff)
Novell Netware 3.12 for a remote facility
CICS on our IBM mainframe that handled the logistics system (via an SNA gateway)
CLIX (a version of AT&T Unix SVr3) for old CAD/CAE software
Windows NT 4.0/2000 for desktop machines
Linux for (two) desktop machines [The IT dept.
Mac OS 9 for (one) desktop machine [The boss was a Mac fanatic]
I might have forgotten something. Those were the systems I actually had to actively support at one time or another.
Many larger corporations and governments are loathe to go with sole-source suppliers. If Dell screws up, there are a dozen other suppliers to get computers from. If Apple screws up, then you're screwed. No one other than Apple sells those machines.
Smaller companies and schools may be able to get away with this, but I'd never recommended it for any large company I was working for.
Now, I'd have no problem recommending OS X if it ran properly and was supported on non-Apple hardware...
Here's a summary of your argument "Networking is hard. We have to lie to sell it to people."
There is an easy way out of this. Stop lying to your customers.
Stop having big, flashing 8 MBPS INTERNET CONNECTION ads with teeny, tiny print on the bottom that says, basically "If you're the only one on, at like 3:05 a.m., if we're not working on something. Oh, and your upload bandwidth is only 384 Kbps."
Don't fucking whine to me how hard it is. You idiots made it hard by LYING YOUR ASSES OFF about what is being sold. You made your bed, lie in it.
[For the record, I'm a telecom engineer for a major equipment manufacturer so I'm intimately familiar with the costs, equipment and issues. I just don't like lying ISPs *cough* Comast *cough*.]
And you broke the law, if you are in the U.S. A stupid law, but a law none-the-less.
Believe it or not, there is a large segment of the public who isn't going to do that. Mostly because they don't know about VLC and can't follow simple instructions, but still...
In either case, companies with money to sue for aren't going to provide VLC without providing a license. Linspire is taking out the entire "find the VLC website, figure out what the hell VLC is, install it, etc." part.
And is it "basic functionality" when you got the entire OS for free? I know OS-X and Windows weren't free, so there is at least a shred of an argument, but Ubuntu and Freespire are.
Because it is still illegal. That may not mean much to you (or me, in this case), but it does to packagers. You know, companies with money to sue for? Linspire -- and now Ubuntu -- have a "legally palatable" solution, whereas Novell, RedHat and others do not. Their is a "nod, nod, wink, wink" and point you to a foreign site to get the files from. Notice the disclaimers they also put on there as well.
It sucks, yes, but it is the law and big companies need to play nice with the law. (At least until they become HUGE companies, then they can go back to flouting it just like they were rebels again -- just with stock options.)
I understand you're trying to be funny, but a torrent for a 30k plugin? Damn, man. The tracker file would be bigger than the actual code!
Announced only a couple weeks ago. You're right, it is an interesting development.
http://www.ubuntu.com/news/LinspirePartnership
Ubuntu has signed on to use Linspire's Click-N-Run.
Inside CNR are some things like a legally licensed MP3 plug-in and DVD player. I believe the DVD player was a plug-in for Xine and cost $4.95. Click, buy, done. It was really that simple. I was watching DVDs on a Linspire system in minutes and it was worlds ahead of adding DVD playback on Windows.
So, yes. Ubuntu and Linspire both have a very simple framework for dealing with commercial and proprietary software that Fedora and Red Hat do not.
Yeah, and two replies deep -- after one anti-socialist rant -- gets you to this:
/ 2007-February/msg01083.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list
That is a telling thread and validates part of what Eric is saying:
"After thirteen years as a loyal Red Hat and Fedora user, I reached my
limit today, when an attempt to upgrade one (1) package pitched me
into a four-hour marathon of dependency chasing, at the end of which
an attempt to get around a trivial file conflict rendered my system
unusable."
Flat out, that should have never been allowed to happen. The fact that it can, and did, highlights what is a fundamental problem with package management on Fedora/Red Hat.
To demonstrate to the general public that it works with the vehicles they drive. Small pickup trucks are very popular and have lots of uses. It is a good way to show the public they don't need to drive some California-left-winger-little-wind-up-toy vehicle. Like it or not, that is the perception many people have hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles. It is a lot easier to simply say "no, it's a pickup truck" than try and educate everyone and change their tastes.
Switzerland? You poor, sad, fool.
They've had mandatory data retention laws and the like for some time now. They aren't as bad as what Germany is proposing, but give them time.
I believe this is fairly common in Europe. I remember movies like Red Dawn and one of the Rocky pictures either being forbidden or having to be re-edited for viewing in Germany.
I've always found it strange that the U.S. has such conflicted a conflicted attitude towards sex, with numerous "morals" laws and restrictions, yet a massive hard- and soft-porn industry. Contrast that with the pretty much "anything goes" attitude towards violence which the American public seems to revel in.
I don't mind them limiting the hours it can be shown, but I would have a problem with them trying to ban it totally. As is, I refuse to watch a lot of television because of the levels of violence. I just don't want to see that stuff and don't find it entertaining at all.
For the same reasons I won't go watch movies like Saw or Hannibal Rising. Silence of the Lambs was good, but Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising were nothing more than an excuse to see how disturbing they could get.
I'll agree with you on most of that.
:-)
However, the last point, not 100%. Trying to tell people what they *should* want as opposed to what they *really* want CAN be important.
For example, I *really* want everything for free. But that is not sustainable economically. People providing me everything for free will go broke themselves and eventually be unable to supply all the stuff I want.
What I *should* want is for stuff to be cheap enough that I can afford it comfortably, but still can provide the economic stability so the producers can stay in business.
Yes, Stallman can be high handed, holier-than-thou and self-righteous. But, I believe his fundamental point is correct. BSD is self-limiting because there is no compelling reason for people to contribute. GPL requires you to contribute back, and thus mandates an ecosystem. "A rising tide floats all boats." GPL mandates you play in the same pool, so the tide will lift everyone. BSD says you can take the water and go off to your own pool.
Some problems are too big to be solved by a group of part-time developers saying "I have an itch to scratch". To get things like good wifi and video drivers, you need to have enough of a base to go to a hardware developer and say "if you can provide specs, we can order 10,000".
No, "there are X-thousand of geeks running FreeBSD who could potentially buy our stuff if we make it open" isn't going to work. "Hi, I'd like to place an order for 10,000 pieces. What? No FOSS drivers? Sorry, let me call your competitor." will work.
To get to that point, you need leverage. The GPL levers things up to that point, the BSD-license doesn't.
Still, many of the "luminaries" can be rather abrasive.
GPL can be summed up as "I'll share if you will, I won't if you won't." BSD can be summed up as "I'll share."
As far as the no strings attached, that isn't *quite* true. Look at what happened with OpenSSH late last year with the OpenBSD community up in arms that all those major corporations were taking their code and giving nothing in return. Even though that is exactly what the BSD license is for, they were incensed, verbally and publicly attacking several companies IBM and Sun to name two.
At that point I came to realize the BSD license is for idealists and the GPL for realists. The BSD people believe they shouldn't HAVE TO tell others to share back, because it is the right thing to do. Lead by example. However, most of the world doesn't work that way. The GPL people understand there is a large part of the population that will just continue to take and take until the day they die, not giving one thing back. No one is forcing you to use GPL software, but if you want to stand on our shoulders to get to the top of the mountain, you're going to pull us up with you -- not step on our face and leave us below.
Each has their place, but my personal preference is for GPL. If you aren't willing to share back, write your own damn code.
Verizon's FIOS is the only thing that comes close. AT&T's UVerse might offer an option, but again it will be upload limited to about 1 Mbps.
Cablevision, Comcast and Time Warner all have the same two problems: abysmal upload speeds in the neighborhood of 384 - 768 Kbps, and heavy oversubscription.
I don't consider "6 Mbps" to mean 384 Kbps upstream.