Where does he come from? I paid $300 for my monitor, does it mean that oh I shouldn't pay them, I better keep the money to myself?
Can you get a monitor which can do everything you need to do for nothing? If so, you don't need to pay somebody else for one. I think the point he is making is that you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on an OS these days. I personally believe that for more and more people that is true.
I've been repeating myself about this for a couple of years now, but I could have predicted that your eight year old would take to it quicker than your fifteen year old. Any person who is given a set of SW to run and who is not in the habit of changing very much on the setup will happily adapt to Linux (or anything else for that matter). For such people (and there are a lot of them in businesses), what OS is run on the desktop will become a matter of cost and reliability. And we all know who will win in the x86 market.
As a general rule, up until you reach the true geek category, the more sophisticated a user, the *more* difficulty they will have switching to Linux.
Didn't you read the article? The point is that the United Linux partners are free to choose their own pricing model. Caldera want to do per-seat licensing. This article says that SuSE don't want to do that. There's nothing about United Linux that requires per-seat licensing. It's the decision of each partner how they want to charge.
Judging from what the United Linux partners have said, there wouldn't be any restriction on SuSE saying this. As far as I understand, SuSE, Caldera and the rest will sell distros which are "powered" by United Linux. The idea being, presumably, that software updates/packages for one UL-based distro will be compatible with all UL-based distros. However, the companies will all have independent contents, pricing, marketing etc. Therefore, SuSE is just saying what their pricing approach will be. What SuSE chooses to say about selling their UL-powered distro is no business of the other partners.
> And the room full of MS millionaires will laugh and end the meeting. > > This is a stupid response.
Two points:
(a) My comment was a joke and, if I say so myself, rather a funny one.
(b) If you're going to call someone's post "stupid", put your handle at the top and stand up for your opinion like an adult. Otherwise people will think you are a fucking idiot.
Contratry to popular belief, the GPL does not give you utter freedom. It too has restrictions to protect the work of others (which is a good thing) but it can never be called totally free.
The point I was trying to make was that there's not much point in debating the FSF meaning of "free" in the context of the dictionary meaning of "free". At least, not in this community. I believe it makes sense to make your own definition of "free" if you like, and say that this is "better", in some sense that you might define, than RMS's definition of "free". But it's a bit pointless to say that your definition of "free" is closer to what the dictionary means by "free", because no-one cares what the dictionary means in this context. "Free" now has its own meaning when talking about software, and I believe that the dictionary meaning is irrelevant.
Now, you may argue that your definition is "better" in some other sense than being closer to what the dictionary intends. And I don't doubt your right to do that if you wish. But RMS has twenty years on you, and has GCC and EMACS (inter alia) to back up his claim!
Please note that I'm not disputing your definition, or your right to define the word in your own terms. I'm just saying that the dictionary definition of "free" isn't especially important any more, at least in this context.
I'm not embarassed by anything I wrote. Your post:
Wrong... In that role, he has fought for what he thinks is the complete freedom of software. Not everyone agrees with his viewpoint that GPLed software is the only truly free software available, or is even free software in the first place.
... implies that RMS's definition of free isn't shared by everyone. You even say that some people don't think of it as free. I assumed that you were one of those people. Why don't you try to give your definition, instead of trying to pick an argument with me? What is it about RMS's definition of free that you think is not free?
Wrong... In that role, he has fought for what he thinks is the complete freedom of software. Not everyone agrees with his viewpoint that GPLed software is the only truly free software available, or is even free software in the first place.
Of course he has fought for free software in his own terms. At least he has taken the trouble to define his interpretation of "free". By contrast, you simply say that what he thinks of as free is not free. Care to give us your definition?
I've often felt that Linux is ideal for jobs where only one application is run. Then you don't need to worry about training people to use Linux, because all they see is the application. If it's simple enough (eg barcode scanning prices), the user doesn't know what OS is running anyway. I know it's stating the obvious, but this is true of servers of all kinds too; they do one thing (OK each service running on the server does one thing) and the user has no idea how that is happening.
What will be interesting is how the support structure pans out. Everyone knows that you need staff to support your servers. So if they're running Linux, you need someone who is competent in that. But since you've got to have this person anyway, surely they could do some support of the desktop machines. For example, those which are only used for word processing. So long as the user isn't going to be installing new software, or switching between multiple applications, who cares what OS your WP program runs on?
The odd thing about this is that people say that Linux is OK for sophisticated users and not for the newbies. I'm inclined to think that it's the other way around. So long as your user has to use the same application every day, and doesn't get the opportunity to change things, Linux has to be better (file formats permitting of course), because it's cheaper. So it's the unsophisticated users who can be switched to Linux first (as proved by the POS successes; you don't get any more unsophisticated than swiping past a barcode reader), because they see less of the OS than the sophisticated users.
He declines and explains why he declined, namely the issue of calling the OS Linux or GNU/Linux
He gets called to task by Joe Barr for his explanation, not for declining to speak at a particular location.
Stallman responds to Barr's article and cites the Bitkeeper situation as an example of the difference between people in our community who see things like him and people who are more pragmatic
And a prediction:
Furore on Slashdot
I drew up this list because I know I'm going to get annoyed at the RMS-bashing that will surely follow. Many of the bashers won't even bother to read the article, because it is long and requires some effort to follow. I present this summary so that people understand that it is not just about RMS seeking credit. He makes a cogent and logical distinction between his point of view and (eg) Linus's point of view, and gives an example of why he thinks his own principles are important. You don't need to agree with him, but simply insulting him is unacceptable if our community is to continue to move forward.
I'd like to draw slashdotters' attention to the articles by John Naughton in the UK Sunday newspaper, The Observer. These articles are in the business section, but they seem to be online too. Today's article, which is on the same topic, is here.
This is a very interesting take on the reviews at Amazon. There were twenty reviews at the point when this story was posted. Only one (the one you chose to quote) was very negative. Why did you choose this one, I wonder?
Am I the only one who didn't know Jon Katz was an established author? Oops.
Anyway, can I be the first to say that I like Katz's articles here. I find it hysterically funny every time his stories are posted and a proportion of the slashdot community starts to froth at the mouth at... well at pretty much anything he might say. And his comment in this story about about "tick[ing] off the yowling hordes" is just great! More power to you, Jon.
TWO because the schools in question didn't keep track of their paperwork on these machines licensing they are crying foul saying somehow that it's MS's fault and that they don't have the time/resources to track everything down or do the research to avoid an audit.
GAAAAH! What paperwork? What are you talking about? Did you even read the article? It says that many of their computers are donated. They don't know what's on them.
If your argument is that it's a good idea to audit because then everyone knows what is the true cost of MS software, then that's one thing. But you could at least read the article first.
Unfortunately this doesn't work in an "ecosystem" where one dominant monopolist can bend the market to its will. Anything that communicates with anything else can be subverted by a powerful enough monopoly. So if Jo Bloggs, government funded researcher, produces a new type of chat SW (call it NewChat) which will revolutionize internet chat, we can all use it under BSD. But if MS "improves" it subtly (by changing protocols) and incorporates NewChat Plus! in the latest version of XP, our taxes have been used to extend their monopoly, because anyone wanting to use NewChat Plus! has to buy MS Windows. And NewChat falls into dis-use because MS's monopoly is so complete. Note that MS doesn't need to make NewChat any better; they just have to change it enough and then incorporate it as binary-only into their OS. And everyone who funded Jo Bloggs to create her SW gets to pay twice to get the benefits of the work.
Not to mention, this article is old news. I remember reading this a while back. Is Cmd Taco getting amnesia? Because most stories about the superiority of GNU/Linux, I get as references from/. JJ.
If you look at the first line, you can see that it was updated on 16th April 2002.
The video gives a little technical information. At the end, the reporter says that consumer versions are planned and "they will cost less than two desktop LCD monitors".
I think you have to compare like with like. If you have closed software, how much does it cost to ensure it is free of back-doors? The answer is nothing of course, as you cannot EVER be certain. You just have to hope that the company from which you have bought the SW is trustworthy. If you ABSOLUTELY MUST know that your software is free from back-doors or other nasties, open source is the only way to go. The cost of the consultancy is neither here nor there, as you'll NEVER find out with closed source software.
I don't know. I'd call Linux and Apache pretty powerful. Emacs is certainly a powerful editor, wouldn't you say? PERL is a pretty powerful language too.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you get a monitor which can do everything you need to do for nothing? If so, you don't need to pay somebody else for one. I think the point he is making is that you don't need to spend hundreds of dollars on an OS these days. I personally believe that for more and more people that is true.
I've been repeating myself about this for a couple of years now, but I could have predicted that your eight year old would take to it quicker than your fifteen year old. Any person who is given a set of SW to run and who is not in the habit of changing very much on the setup will happily adapt to Linux (or anything else for that matter). For such people (and there are a lot of them in businesses), what OS is run on the desktop will become a matter of cost and reliability. And we all know who will win in the x86 market.
As a general rule, up until you reach the true geek category, the more sophisticated a user, the *more* difficulty they will have switching to Linux.
Sorry. I misunderstood your post. Perhaps I should read more carefully.
Didn't you read the article? The point is that the United Linux partners are free to choose their own pricing model. Caldera want to do per-seat licensing. This article says that SuSE don't want to do that. There's nothing about United Linux that requires per-seat licensing. It's the decision of each partner how they want to charge.
Judging from what the United Linux partners have said, there wouldn't be any restriction on SuSE saying this. As far as I understand, SuSE, Caldera and the rest will sell distros which are "powered" by United Linux. The idea being, presumably, that software updates/packages for one UL-based distro will be compatible with all UL-based distros. However, the companies will all have independent contents, pricing, marketing etc. Therefore, SuSE is just saying what their pricing approach will be. What SuSE chooses to say about selling their UL-powered distro is no business of the other partners.
> And the room full of MS millionaires will laugh and end the meeting.
>
> This is a stupid response.
Two points:
(a) My comment was a joke and, if I say so myself, rather a funny one.
(b) If you're going to call someone's post "stupid", put your handle at the top and stand up for your opinion like an adult. Otherwise people will think you are a fucking idiot.
"Because we're going to wipe the floor with you".
The point I was trying to make was that there's not much point in debating the FSF meaning of "free" in the context of the dictionary meaning of "free". At least, not in this community. I believe it makes sense to make your own definition of "free" if you like, and say that this is "better", in some sense that you might define, than RMS's definition of "free". But it's a bit pointless to say that your definition of "free" is closer to what the dictionary means by "free", because no-one cares what the dictionary means in this context. "Free" now has its own meaning when talking about software, and I believe that the dictionary meaning is irrelevant.
Now, you may argue that your definition is "better" in some other sense than being closer to what the dictionary intends. And I don't doubt your right to do that if you wish. But RMS has twenty years on you, and has GCC and EMACS (inter alia) to back up his claim!
Please note that I'm not disputing your definition, or your right to define the word in your own terms. I'm just saying that the dictionary definition of "free" isn't especially important any more, at least in this context.
... implies that RMS's definition of free isn't shared by everyone. You even say that some people don't think of it as free. I assumed that you were one of those people. Why don't you try to give your definition, instead of trying to pick an argument with me? What is it about RMS's definition of free that you think is not free?
Of course he has fought for free software in his own terms. At least he has taken the trouble to define his interpretation of "free". By contrast, you simply say that what he thinks of as free is not free. Care to give us your definition?
What will be interesting is how the support structure pans out. Everyone knows that you need staff to support your servers. So if they're running Linux, you need someone who is competent in that. But since you've got to have this person anyway, surely they could do some support of the desktop machines. For example, those which are only used for word processing. So long as the user isn't going to be installing new software, or switching between multiple applications, who cares what OS your WP program runs on?
The odd thing about this is that people say that Linux is OK for sophisticated users and not for the newbies. I'm inclined to think that it's the other way around. So long as your user has to use the same application every day, and doesn't get the opportunity to change things, Linux has to be better (file formats permitting of course), because it's cheaper. So it's the unsophisticated users who can be switched to Linux first (as proved by the POS successes; you don't get any more unsophisticated than swiping past a barcode reader), because they see less of the OS than the sophisticated users.
And a prediction:
I drew up this list because I know I'm going to get annoyed at the RMS-bashing that will surely follow. Many of the bashers won't even bother to read the article, because it is long and requires some effort to follow. I present this summary so that people understand that it is not just about RMS seeking credit. He makes a cogent and logical distinction between his point of view and (eg) Linus's point of view, and gives an example of why he thinks his own principles are important. You don't need to agree with him, but simply insulting him is unacceptable if our community is to continue to move forward.
Naughton is also the author of A Brief History of the Future, which is an excellent read.
After September, the exhibition moves on to Edinburgh, then on to various other places in Europe and finally to America.
The way I read it, he's saying that his books do make money.
This is a very interesting take on the reviews at Amazon. There were twenty reviews at the point when this story was posted. Only one (the one you chose to quote) was very negative. Why did you choose this one, I wonder?
Anyway, can I be the first to say that I like Katz's articles here. I find it hysterically funny every time his stories are posted and a proportion of the slashdot community starts to froth at the mouth at... well at pretty much anything he might say. And his comment in this story about about "tick[ing] off the yowling hordes" is just great! More power to you, Jon.
GAAAAH! What paperwork? What are you talking about? Did you even read the article? It says that many of their computers are donated. They don't know what's on them.
If your argument is that it's a good idea to audit because then everyone knows what is the true cost of MS software, then that's one thing. But you could at least read the article first.
Unfortunately this doesn't work in an "ecosystem" where one dominant monopolist can bend the market to its will. Anything that communicates with anything else can be subverted by a powerful enough monopoly. So if Jo Bloggs, government funded researcher, produces a new type of chat SW (call it NewChat) which will revolutionize internet chat, we can all use it under BSD. But if MS "improves" it subtly (by changing protocols) and incorporates NewChat Plus! in the latest version of XP, our taxes have been used to extend their monopoly, because anyone wanting to use NewChat Plus! has to buy MS Windows. And NewChat falls into dis-use because MS's monopoly is so complete. Note that MS doesn't need to make NewChat any better; they just have to change it enough and then incorporate it as binary-only into their OS. And everyone who funded Jo Bloggs to create her SW gets to pay twice to get the benefits of the work.
Not to mention, this article is old news. I remember reading this a while back. Is Cmd Taco getting amnesia? Because most stories about the superiority of GNU/Linux, I get as references from
If you look at the first line, you can see that it was updated on 16th April 2002.
The article says it uses radio signals to operate the lifts.
The video gives a little technical information. At the end, the reporter says that consumer versions are planned and "they will cost less than two desktop LCD monitors".
I think you have to compare like with like. If you have closed software, how much does it cost to ensure it is free of back-doors? The answer is nothing of course, as you cannot EVER be certain. You just have to hope that the company from which you have bought the SW is trustworthy. If you ABSOLUTELY MUST know that your software is free from back-doors or other nasties, open source is the only way to go. The cost of the consultancy is neither here nor there, as you'll NEVER find out with closed source software.
I don't know. I'd call Linux and Apache pretty powerful. Emacs is certainly a powerful editor, wouldn't you say? PERL is a pretty powerful language too.
I was about to reply saying that this seemed incorrect, but a quick search showed that only 28% of dead people are buried. Most surprising