"Nonsense. Who is fighting for my freedom? The troops? They're fighting because they have orders. "
Fuck you are stupid.
This is understandable because you had never experienced anything worse than spanking from your mama or possibly some heat from bunch of bullies.
You don't know how bad it is out there and you have no fucking idea how insecure your ass is in this world.
"But then again we would never have had to have gotten involved if we hadn't been so good at financing and arming both sides of the conflict. "
You are truly stupid, I kid you not.
I won't even go into why.. you won't understand anyway.
"the impending turmoil has inspired the greedy, bloodsucking bastards in the oil industry to use this panic and disorder as a fucking feeble excuse to juice up their profits"
Sad.
Our tragedy has inspired various lowlifes and other activist to use this panic and disorder to take nasty shoots at some industries accusing them collectively of nasty deeds committed by few individuals.
That is your problem not ours.
Some people get through this the way you described, others by praying.
Praying is NOT an act of people who don't know better, the same way yoga is not an act of weird individuals who like to spend ours sitting in a strange position.
If it helps them who are you to judge it ?
"This Poland proceeded to do, by attacking Germany with tiny cross border raids, and by instituting new pogroms against the German population in Poland. "
You are nuts.
"Hitler's only territorial claims were Danzig, which was not Poland's anyway, and road and rail connections across Poland connecting East Prussia with the rest of Germany "
Yeah, right. Please read his "Main Kampf" and tell me if his "only teritorial claims" were Danzig. You are either blind or stupid.
Again, the difference is that your ass won't be executed for bitching about Bush or anyone else you happened not to like.
You might be arrested for plotting to kill somebody but that is fine with me.
The difference is that if you happened not to believe "the media", you will be able to voice your doubts and not face firing squad.
A huge difference , if you ask me.
Frankly, if your target audience is business community, arguing with Microsoft will always be very hard.
After all, on one side you have accomplished businessman running one of the biggest and most successful corporations in the world, and on the other side bunch of people who have not yet proved that OS model is even profitable.
"...be guaranteed a nice salary with perks and maybe a stock option or two, but certainly no glory."
Why then limit this to software developers. I am sure engineers who design cars or even lawn movers would love to have their jobs glorified just like you are attempting to do it here.
"It de-commodities software and commodifies it at the same time: the actual text of a program is now free, but the person who developed that killer-app is now worth more; the software is now commodified, but the coin is not gold, it is more and better software. "
Well, GPL simply does not provide enough protection in some specific cases.
Image you develop new sorting algorithm. Sure your value as a professional will go up but if you publish this new stuff under GPL you will not be able to directly benefit from it.
On the other hand, if this new software is available for free (GPL) with no restriction attached what kind of incentive commercial entities have to hire you? None. Having you on board provides NO direct benefit for them since whatever you publish will be available to everybody else. They might as well join everybody else in scavenging whatever new stuff you come up with.
"If this is so, then what chance does the other honor system, where enterprises make improvements to the intellectual commons but then contribute back to it, have? "
Well, having something on the market , even without any chance of other people learning about inner-workings of this product, is already a contribution for you and millions of other people are able to enjoy benefits of using it.
Why this suspicion and negativity about private enterprise?
Remember, so far all other attempts at implementing social and economical system different than capitalism failed rather terribly (or in this context, they all turned out to be much less effective at stimulating progress.)
"However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. "
Adding value to the product directed at hackers is very much about technical excellence. After all, I suspect that 99% of them are much more interested in technology and achieving excellence there than anything else.
Remember, this is Slashdot , a forum for people interested in technology.
"it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers."
I was trying to refute this part of his post where he claims that GPL is not about money but about technical excellence ( if we talk about adding value for a hacker audience one can safely assume we are in technical waters now.)
"I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. "
Are you sure ? Remember, we are talking here about social goal which has little to do with any technical issues (browse thru ww.gnu.org and tell me if it is more about technical excellence or "freedom"?)
After all, there are excellent Unix like operating system available which were and still are working just fine ( Solaris, IRIX etc..) The only problem with these is that you have to PAY for the product and even then you don't get the same rights as people who created that software have.
GPL is not about technology, it is about social change.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
". Yes, it does mean that I cannot follow the proprietary software business model of forcing people to pay to get software, but it does mean I can charge people, for example, for the convenience of the software in a box with a manual, etc. "
Of course you can. What are we talking here is promotion of completely new and unproven system of selling goods.
Sure, there is RedHat and perhaps couple other companies like that but , imho, they have been on this market definitely too short to pass any sort of positive judgment on this new model.
In other words, while we KNOW FOR SURE that there are companies that did make tons of money using old and true system , we have no clue if what RedHat is attempting to do will work in the long run.
Re:Selling but not demanding payment
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
"True, but many of us (including RMS, myself, and a few hundred thousand other nerds out there) have built quite a structure on such distinctions. It's what technocrates do; or at least, it's what I do: In a very real sense, I pick nits for a living."
Fine with me. Just don't forget that all this freedom ( and means) to enjoy your small utopian world is brought to you courtesy of commercial IT industry where most of us go to earn our living.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you until you are 100% sure that there is something to replace it.
Re:OT, was Re:Selling but not demanding payment
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 1
Hmm. Trying to simply slow down growth of the government ( not cut down, just slow down) is considered extremist these days...
BTW. He did no hide his plans for a tax cut, nor his plans for various reforms.
Correct. It almost sounds like an advice "sure you can sell it but , huhuh, since you can't demand payment for it... good luck"
All I am saying this clause is there to discourage any sort of monetary payment.GPL advocates might claim otherwise but anyone with any common sense will admit that it is incredibly hard to sell stuff when people are not required to pay for it.
More important issue here is that, in my opinion, widespread use of GPL will simply destroy any sort of commercial interest in developing software. Of course, this is highly unlikely since I firmly believe most software dev. professionals are not about to commit professional equivalent of a suicide.
Slashdot Mirror
"Nonsense. Who is fighting for my freedom? The troops? They're fighting because they have orders. "
.. you won't understand anyway.
Fuck you are stupid.
This is understandable because you had never experienced anything worse than spanking from your mama or possibly some heat from bunch of bullies.
You don't know how bad it is out there and you have no fucking idea how insecure your ass is in this world.
"But then again we would never have had to have gotten involved if we hadn't been so good at financing and arming both sides of the conflict. "
You are truly stupid, I kid you not.
I won't even go into why
Who gives a fuck what you think. ...
You are some powerless dude venting off your hatred to America
Get lost.
"the impending turmoil has inspired the greedy, bloodsucking bastards in the oil industry to use this panic and disorder as a fucking feeble excuse to juice up their profits"
Sad.
Our tragedy has inspired various lowlifes and other activist to use this panic and disorder to take nasty shoots at some industries accusing them collectively of nasty deeds committed by few individuals.
"And, buddy, I don't pray to anyone. "
That is your problem not ours.
Some people get through this the way you described, others by praying.
Praying is NOT an act of people who don't know better, the same way yoga is not an act of weird individuals who like to spend ours sitting in a strange position.
If it helps them who are you to judge it ?
A voice of sanity.
Heh, you blaim Microsoft for other people failures?
Everyone had a shot at this. Some companies even had a head start and still lost.
"This Poland proceeded to do, by attacking Germany with tiny cross border raids, and by instituting new pogroms against the German population in Poland. "
You are nuts.
"Hitler's only territorial claims were Danzig, which was not Poland's anyway, and road and rail connections across Poland connecting East Prussia with the rest of Germany "
Yeah, right. Please read his "Main Kampf" and tell me if his "only teritorial claims" were Danzig. You are either blind or stupid.
And Shrek is not a predictable Hollywood flick ?
Get a clue.
Hmm, so are you saying that average European is much more intelligent and vigilant than average American?
I was born in Europe, spend my first 20 years there and , heh, they are just as stupid, if not more, than people here in US.
"all the anti-china warmongering garbage coming out of the US state department and Hollywood. "
Frankly, with all their faults these outlets have much better record than Chinese goverment.
Internet is not more hazardous place than your average catalog company etc ...
Again, the difference is that your ass won't be executed for bitching about Bush or anyone else you happened not to like.
You might be arrested for plotting to kill somebody but that is fine with me.
The difference is that if you happened not to believe "the media", you will be able to voice your doubts and not face firing squad.
A huge difference , if you ask me.
Frankly, if your target audience is business community, arguing with Microsoft will always be very hard.
After all, on one side you have accomplished businessman running one of the biggest and most successful corporations in the world, and on the other side bunch of people who have not yet proved that OS model is even profitable.
This quote fits very well GPL and FSF ideals.
They do put software and freedom of using/modifying it above rights of a programmer.
"The U.S. Government is known to publish at least 30% of the hate magazines published in this country. "
Could you elaborate a bit on that ?
Possibly some URLs with more information on that subject ?
" ...be guaranteed a nice salary with perks and maybe a stock option or two, but certainly no glory."
Why then limit this to software developers. I am sure engineers who design cars or even lawn movers would love to have their jobs glorified just like you are attempting to do it here.
"It de-commodities software and commodifies it at the same time: the actual text of a program is now free, but the person who developed that killer-app is now worth more; the software is now commodified, but the coin is not gold, it is more and better software. "
Well, GPL simply does not provide enough protection in some specific cases.
Image you develop new sorting algorithm. Sure your value as a professional will go up but if you publish this new stuff under GPL you will not be able to directly benefit from it.
On the other hand, if this new software is available for free (GPL) with no restriction attached what kind of incentive commercial entities have to hire you? None. Having you on board provides NO direct benefit for them since whatever you publish will be available to everybody else. They might as well join everybody else in scavenging whatever new stuff you come up with.
"If this is so, then what chance does the other honor system, where enterprises make improvements to the intellectual commons but then contribute back to it, have? "
Well, having something on the market , even without any chance of other people learning about inner-workings of this product, is already a contribution for you and millions of other people are able to enjoy benefits of using it.
Why this suspicion and negativity about private enterprise?
Remember, so far all other attempts at implementing social and economical system different than capitalism failed rather terribly (or in this context, they all turned out to be much less effective at stimulating progress.)
"However, looking at it from another angle (the one the GNU people likely look at it from,) I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. "
Adding value to the product directed at hackers is very much about technical excellence. After all, I suspect that 99% of them are much more interested in technology and achieving excellence there than anything else.
Remember, this is Slashdot , a forum for people interested in technology.
"it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers."
I was trying to refute this part of his post where he claims that GPL is not about money but about technical excellence ( if we talk about adding value for a hacker audience one can safely assume we are in technical waters now.)
"I would submit that while not being able to enforce payment on a product that may be sold may not be in the best interest of profitable commerce, it is in the best interest of adding value to the product for a target audience, in this case Hackers. "
..) The only problem with these is that you have to PAY for the product and even then you don't get the same rights as people who created that software have.
Are you sure ? Remember, we are talking here about social goal which has little to do with any technical issues (browse thru ww.gnu.org and tell me if it is more about technical excellence or "freedom"?)
After all, there are excellent Unix like operating system available which were and still are working just fine ( Solaris, IRIX etc
GPL is not about technology, it is about social change.
". Yes, it does mean that I cannot follow the proprietary software business model of forcing people to pay to get software, but it does mean I can charge people, for example, for the convenience of the software in a box with a manual, etc. "
Of course you can. What are we talking here is promotion of completely new and unproven system of selling goods.
Sure, there is RedHat and perhaps couple other companies like that but , imho, they have been on this market definitely too short to pass any sort of positive judgment on this new model.
In other words, while we KNOW FOR SURE that there are companies that did make tons of money using old and true system , we have no clue if what RedHat is attempting to do will work in the long run.
"True, but many of us (including RMS, myself, and a few hundred thousand other nerds out there) have built quite a structure on such distinctions. It's what technocrates do; or at least, it's what I do: In a very real sense, I pick nits for a living."
Fine with me. Just don't forget that all this freedom ( and means) to enjoy your small utopian world is brought to you courtesy of commercial IT industry where most of us go to earn our living.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you until you are 100% sure that there is something to replace it.
Hmm. Trying to simply slow down growth of the government ( not cut down, just slow down) is considered extremist these days ...
BTW. He did no hide his plans for a tax cut, nor his plans for various reforms.
Correct. It almost sounds like an advice "sure you can sell it but , huhuh, since you can't demand payment for it ... good luck"
All I am saying this clause is there to discourage any sort of monetary payment.GPL advocates might claim otherwise but anyone with any common sense will admit that it is incredibly hard to sell stuff when people are not required to pay for it.
More important issue here is that, in my opinion, widespread use of GPL will simply destroy any sort of commercial interest in developing software. Of course, this is highly unlikely since I firmly believe most software dev. professionals are not about to commit professional equivalent of a suicide.