The UNIX philosophy is about design. The book explains some of the ideals behind how UNIX, and UNIX like, operating systems came to be what they are and why they work as well as they do. People who get hung up on the word "philosophy" and think that it only pertains to metaphysics, economics, theology, or morality need to understand that philosophy also applies to design and the creative arts.
Perhaps they should admit that they really have no idea what philosophy means instead of attempting to deny it's presence in areas of thought where they fail to recognise it.
Christopher Browne has a good synopsis for those who would like a primer before they run out and buy one of the books.
The UNIX philosophy has nothing to do with commercial vs Free, or closed vs open and has everything to do with design and problem solving. The comercial aspects of UNIX culture were imposed upon UNIX by shareholders and corporations with little or no regard for who had designed the product, whether they had been compensated, or how future maintainance and development would be accomplished. The development of the EMACS editor, the GNU project, and the GPL license were a reaction to these changes in UNIX development. The GPL was not created as an economic "weapon", nor was it created with money in mind at all. It was motivated by a desire to have the source code available to anybody with an idea and the know-how to implement it.
Many posters here seem to be obsessed with money, and it can't be good for thier thinking. Whether they are dogmatic about giving away for free or about charging for every last thought, it betrays an unwillingness to view subjects and viewpoints as other than economically based. I admit that the economics of software development need be considered in any project, but my opinion is that making design decisions based on monetary arguments is putting the cart before the horse and will often result in poorly designed and inferior software.
The UNIX philosophy is not incompatible with the GPL, nor is it incompatible with comercial licensing In fact, the GPL has very little to do wih money in any way whatsoever. In other words, read the book, come back and discuss philosophy when you're prepared.
These people are programmers who would have built thier project using non-Free libraries and routines if the idea of selling software had been attractive to them.
If you see a need for tech support for GnuCash, you are free to build a business that supplies that support, and to market that business however you see fit.
Why don't we have GnuCash selling licenses to those who actually need and are willing to pay for it?
If we ignore the obvious GPL licensing boondoggle, there's still many reasons top not go the comercial software route.
The developers would have to form a company, hire lawyers to help craft the licenses, hire marketing drones to advertise the product, hire support people to help end users with problems, find investors to pay for all of the above, and would probably have no time to write the code and lose all control of the product in the end.
Doesn't sound like a very attractive option to me.
As an American, I can assure you the correct spoelling is actually "idjit", and the correct pronunciation is id-jit (the pause between syllables is essential, but should be very brief and barely noticable.)
"$15,000 is still a good deal," counters Frank Sowin, senior director of service marketing for NetApp of Sunnyvale, Calif., noting that the original price of the storage server was more than four times that. "If the ownership of a system changes, our contract says the software has to be relicensed. We have a price list for the software, just like any other product."
You may not agree with me, but at least I check my sources.
Support is not the issue here, and no-one is claiming that the manufacturer is obligated to offer support the second buyer.
What is being claimed is that the second buyer should have every right to make use of the software, but the manufacturers are attempting to deny this right. The second buyer is not attempting to enforce any obligations on the manufacturer, but the manufacturer is attempting to enforce a contract that the second buyer had no opportunity to review or agree to.
Your argument is a classic "Straw Man" argument. A "Straw Man" is defined as an attack against an argument that the opponent did not make. I consider it a cheap trick only employed by foolish debaters that either know that thier position is undefendable or are unable to think through a legitimate argument. It is just one example of what are popularly known as Logical Fallacies.
While solar to electric to hydrogen may be a good solution, hydrogen power for the home is not as eco-friendly as many assume, and is promoted actively by petro energy companies because they expect to use thier oil to produce the electricity needed to produce the free hydrogen, and it will allow the current power producers to maintain thier limited monoplies.
Natural gas -> electric is more practical, as natural gas can be produced as a renewable resource on farms (a dairy cow can produce between 17 and 32 cents of electric a day, depending on the type of feed and the animal's general health) and natural gas feul cells are available that are both affordable and small enough to implement distributed power generation. Both hydrogen and natural gas fuel cells are around 85% efficient as compared to between 25 and 30% efficiency for conventional feul oil power generation and between 36% and 50% efficiency for gas turbine generation.
A distributed electric generation plan would be less vulnerable to enemy and terrorists attack, and ready the availability of household sized natural gas fuel cells could give consumers not only the choice of who to purchase thier electric from, but to produce it themselves (and sell the surplus back to the grid) if gas prices are more reasonable than electric. Power companies hate this possibility, so I'd be suprised if this would be implemented (or permitted) anytime soon.
hydrogen pipelines break and spill just like every other kind of pipeline
Hydrogen is lighter than air (half the density of helium), so leaks disperse quickly and safely in comparison to natural gas and "spills" are virtually non-existant, except where the gas can gatther under an unventilated roof.
Shay's Rebellion was a call to end the current anarchy that was being permitted by a lack of will in the newly formed (not yet complete) government of the United States. The courts and local governments were permitting business owners and large land owners to act as defacto tyrannical governments. Large landowners and companies were issuing thier own currencies and hiring thier own "police forces" in disregard to the good of other citizens, but in keeping with the current attitude against centralized regulation of law enforcement and the government. Small farmers and factory workers wanted a consistant, strong currency backed by gold that would be honored as equal to the boulion that was being used by the large land owners and companies. Local courts ignored the pleas of the farmers and workers, mostly because they were being paid by the people who benefitted most from the inequality. The rebellion was crushed and the surviving rebels were sentanced to death for treason, but later pardoned because of the justness of thier cause. Look here for more info.
The Haymarket Massacre occured after a peaceful labor rally at the Haymarket in Chicago was attacked by the police after the mayor of Chicago had given instructions for the police to stand down. The police captain on duty dissobeyed orders and instructed his men to disperse the crowd of 2500 people, and then to attack the men who refused to leave. There was one bomb thrown after the force of 176 armed police attacked the remaining crowd of 200 people. The bomb thrower was never identified. The police shot four protestors and six of thier own. Eight were arrested and tried, seven were sentanced to death, one of whom commited suicide, two were pardoned and four were executed. Read more here.
The Kent State Massacre occured at a peace rally of at least 2000 people on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio after a group of protesters shouted insults and threw stones at National Guardsmen (no bombs were thrown or found). The guardsmen responded to the stones by marching on the crowd with bayonettes. The crowd was in full retreat when the guardsmen began firing on the fleeing protestors. Four were killed, nine were injured. Follow this link for an account of the events.
You are right to counsel that bombs are bad tactics in a protest, I would go further and state that bombs have crossed the line beyond protest into guerilla warfare. But the allegations of bombs at Kent State have never been proven and have been disputed by several men who served with the National Guard on that day. The single bomb thrown at the Haymarket was the act of either a lone individual, or a small group of radically violent nihilists. In all of these cases the causes of the protesters were just.
At the Haymarket it was the police disobeying orders that led to the massacre. At Kent State the Guardsmen shot people in thier backs.
What is needed in these causes is well reasoned people to push forth the argument and to restrain the more unpredictable elements. The bombs need to be put away until it is clear that Democracy is lost.
The article is neither "good analysis" nor is it "unwarranted optimism". It is an editorial piece making the argument for "the corporate makeover of Linux" and attempting to sell that idea to the current users and developers of Linux. "Corporate Makeover" implies both the limitation of the Free aspects of Linux (and other Free Software) in distribution (beer) and in access to the source (freedom), and the introduction of centralized management of Free Software development.
The repeated claim that Linux cannot become a success and remain free is getting tired and thin. That companies cannot wrap thier minds around the implications of the GPL enough to ship thier products (and services) in a way that is compatible with the GPL is not the fault of the Free Software comunity. It ispossible to create and distribute propietary apps for Linux without running afoul of the (L)GPL.
If Microsoft had helped WINE, there would be little or no demand for OpenOffice, and Linux users would be purchasing Office. Of course, this would have meant acceptance of the fact that Linux is eroding Microsofts dominance of the Desktop market, but acceptance of reality is generally thought of as part of a healthy attitude.
The accusation that there needs to be more "centralized" control over Free Software development is equally false. The current decentralized methods being used for many projects is the main reason for Linux's (and other FS project's) success. There seems to be a failure to understand how the success of Linux has been due (in part) to the lack of marketing driven development. The "markets" that have directed development have been the needs of individual (and groups of) developers, the needs of the users of individual distributions, and the needs of distributions to cooperate in specific ways. This allows greater freedom for separate distributions to explore different answers to the problems of creating an OS and to share, either in whole or in parts, the solutions that different distrobutions have created. It also allows distributions to decide whether to impliment standards based on merit instead of on compliance (I do not want nice to exit with anything but 0 unless there is an error).
There will continue to be people who either refuse or fail to understand that Linux and free Software not only fits nicely into the business place, but is a direct result of business philosophies failing to fufill the needs of software developers and end users alike. Corporations are free to cooperate in free Software Development, make products that run on top of Free Software, and market services to end users of Free Software, but it would be a bad idea to let them run the show.
Only 3rd world dictatorships and military dominated governments suffer under them.
Actually, it's the citizens who suffer the most uner WTO agreements, and not only those who live under oppressive governments.
The WTO forbids restrictions of trade based on envirionmental and health policty risks, such as banning the importation of produce that was treated with known toxic insecticides (think DDT) and weed killers, or the requirement that usage of such products be clearly and truthfully labled on such produce.
The enforcement clauses for WTO regulations (yes, the WTO is an org that regulates trade, not one that eliminates regulation) are the international equivalent to civil lawsuits with the only penalty being that the wronged country is granted 5the right to enforce tarrifs and embargoes on the agreement violator. This means that the only countries that have effective enforcement power are those with the largest markets and the strongest economies, such as the U.S.
WTO supporters like to present the WTO as eliminating unecessary and unfair regulation, but the reality is that it only serves to ensure that the currently dominant economies can enforce thier own regulations against smaller nations and the smaller nations have no power to enter the world markets at a pace that ensures that thier own economies and local industries can remain competative.
Common usage can be manipulated by the media in order to further political causes. When we are discussing issues of crime and punnishment, the "cold, clinical words" are appropriate in order to prevent the connotations of words like "piracy" from leading to unfair treatment of the issue.
An example of this would be the use of "piracy" to refer to persons who download MP3s of copyrighted music using peer to peer programs. The lawsuits are seeking dammages far in excess of what has been sought from the criminals who have been copying entire CDs in thier native format and selling them as originals. The counterfit CD vendors are doing much more monetary damage to the copyright holders than file dowloading, but the media is obsessed with thie kid downloading a few crappy N'Sync songs than the mobster who is counterfiting entire CDs by the truckload.
Meanwhile the RIAA is making media noise, lobbying congress for manditory DRM, and spending time and money chasing teenagers who download a few crappy pop songs.
Piracy is an inacurate term that hardly describes the crime. It was used years ago in order to galvanise the politicians against unlicensed copying of software. No effective copy protection schemes were created, Software continues to be produced in a form that is easily copied, and software companies continue to produce both profits (at least those who have both good product and business sense) and new software.
If this is going to be a serious problem, then it would already be one. The technology to "pirate" books via the internet has been around 10 or more years now, and reading extensive texts on a terminal hasn't really improved to the point that people would be willing to read "Anna Kerennina" or "Gavity's Rainbow" on a screen. Web pads and tablet PCs are unlikely to change that as long as bound paper is still available.
My guess is that someone in the industry (think big, DRM friendly software vendor) has come up with a solution to sell, and is now looking to create a problem. The "Harry Potter" leak has all of the earmarks of a media stunt engineered to prevent the inevitable downswing of popularity that the trendy serial will (and already has) expirienced.
Alarmist Crap.
Keep your DRM, thank you.
And no, SMTP works just fine for me, thank you. If you think you have something better, then release it and see if anyone switches.
Now we can blame the high cost of broadband on the HAM operators, instead of the exclusive provider deals the cable companies enjoy and the stupid way the phone companies were "required" to allow competition through thier lines. (Can a company really fairly act as a "Common Carrier" if they are competing in the service market that they are "carrying"?)
Oooh, those HAMs burn me up! I feel better already.
It's not a brilliant idea anyway, with power lines being incredible non tunable antaennas, irregular variations in power transmission frequency (which would be your carrier freq), and most power transformers filtering frequencies that are not close to 60Hz (that's the freq you feel when you stick your finger in the wall socket).
There are better ways to expand the broadband market, such as wireless. I figure that if they can afford it in Bangladesh, there's no logical reason it can't be done in the States or other fully developed countries.
Everyone does use Free Software, even if they are not aware of it.
Much of the web is run on Free Software, and most (if not all) packets will cross routers, firewalls or bridges that are running Free Software at some point during thier journey.
In fact, thier own computers may be using code that was directly derived from Free Software, such as the improved network stack in Windows (from BSD, IIRC).
The world of propietary, closed source software has benefitted greatly from Free Software development, and this has benefitted EVERYONE, even if they know nothing about it.
Including you.
Also, there is no precident to a "benefit EVERYONE" requirement for government funding (at least in the U.S.).
One example of government funding for a select few persons would be the funding of natural disater insurance programs for persons who choose to build thier houses on flood plains and on beaches. Government funded flood plain insurance enables people to live along rivers and the same coverage allowed the wealthier americans to ensure that most of us could not afford to live near the beach. (Before natural disaster relief plans covered beachfront property, it was quite inexpensive to have a house on or near the beach, but most chose not to because of the possibility of storm damage or erosion.)
Another would be farming subsidies for tobbacco farmers. I fail to see how one could conscrue such funding as "beneficial to EVERYONE".
In the U.S., I think that the government should fund Free Software development for projects that the Government is likeyly to use or desires for specific projects. I also believe that the government should not fund the development of closed source projects that are destined to be products for private vendors, as that would be using public funds to enrich private individuals and of course would end up rife with corruption. Perhaps using the BSD license for government funded projects would be "politically correct" enough in the Republican sense as it would not preclude thier supporters from turning the project results into a money making venture if they had the desire, technology, and business sense to do so.
I would not like to see the U.S. government begin funding programming in a more general way, because there is the possibility of uUniversities and Free Software development labs/projects becoming dependant on govt. money and the politicisation of Free Software when a govt. funded project is released that has the potential to be used in ways that some people do not approve of. A group of network security and monitoring tools could be misconscrued as "tools for hackers", or an HTTP server condemned as for "the distribution of pornography". To many, this may seem far fetched, but those who are familiar with the art world know how mixing public funding for museums and public exhibition venues was turned into a Republican "bully pulpit issue" in the controversy over the display of artwork most notably Piss Christ by Andres Serrano and some photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe. The works in question were not specifically created using government funds, but the issues arose when facilities that were partially funded by government grants decided to display the artwork. As it is now, he volunteer nature of much Free Software development prevents many of the political issues that could arise, and it also ensures that political decision making has little or no direct influence on what is developed or how.
I must admit that I do find it disturbing to know that the U.S. government is funding "computer science" education programs that amount to little more than training facilities where people learn to program for a specific and propietary platform, but I'm not sure there is an acceptable policy that could prevent this.
Go ahead. You are allowed to charge for Linux, and you are permitted to charge whatever you want. And so is anybody who you sell Linux to. That is what the license is about. You are not allowed to deny the rights that you were granted by the GPL to anyone to whom you subsequently distrubute the altered or unaltered GPL code. Hell, Stallman supported himself for years selling GPL software. I believe that the people who paid for it saw the value in supporting his efforts to write an extensible and full featured editor.
If you feel yourself to be a charitable person, then by all means volunteer your time and heart to a worthy organization, perhaps a soup kitchen or a children's hospital.
Good idea. Perhaps we can form a community dedicated to developing Operating Systems, complete with networking, productivity, records management, imaging, and other apps that would be useful for childrens and other hospitals, schools, and charities. That way they could spend thier budgets on providing care and service for those who depend on them, instead of on upgrading thier systems every time the software vendor decides it's time to milk that cow.
The very nature of business precludes money for a piece of property.
Incorrect.Of course if you had stated that the definition of business includes the exchange of money for a piece of property, I'd be forced to agree with you, but precludes means quite the opposite. Perhaps you made a mistake there. (In fact, I'm rather certain that you did mean to use includes, so we agree after all. Isn't this nice?!) When I have a peice of property to sell you, then we can do business. I think that you also forgot that services can be exchanged for currency as well, and it is still business, but I'll forgive that. For the time being though, you can make a copy of what property I have that I'm unwilling to sell, and as long as you have my permission (you do), and you pay for whatever materials you need to make that copy, I think thats legal as well. Just don't use that copy to screw anybody over. (Ha ha, a little humor. See, were all gentlemen here, except for the ladies, and I think we all know that you'd never dream of doing something like that.)
It is not sacred.
I agree with you again. Open Source software has proven to be a practical, secure, and stable alternative to software developed in secretive environments that discourage cooperative problem solving. Practical, usefull, and rapidly developed.Yes, Open Source is all of those things. But sacred? No, nothing is sacred around here. Except for respect for peoples copyright (or copyleft) and thier licensing terms. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Open Source developers and maintainers go to greater lengths to ensure that they are respecting copyright than most others.
Outside the tech world, linux users are hippies, just barely still democratic.
I'm not quite sure by what you mean by that, but I thought I'd quote it anyway.
They use and work on a system of knowledge steeped in time honored and capitalist traditions
Once again we agree! Getting along famously now, aren't we. Many Linux and Open Source developers have built thier own businesses around Open Source, providing goods (computers) for Open Source to run on, services for both industry (customization, implementation, etc) and end users (networking services, web hosting, entertainment) and documentation (books) to teach the masses (consumers) how to make effective use of Open Source software in hopes that this will bring thier businesses more success and thier personal lives more enjoyment, increasing thier demand for more goods and services. Open source people: Upstanding citizens of our Grand Capitolist system!
division of labor(modularity), stability(conservatism), diversification (to the point of parties spanning the globe contributing anony
Although numerous patent infringement suits had quite
crappily affected the market, the independent consultants, programmers and technology companies had no choice but to continue thier struggle.
or
The geeks at the pary danced quite
crappily throughout the night.
They might produce white papers that actual proposals for how Microsoft could improve it's product by adopting a method or feature that they learned of through studying Linux in thier shiny new lab.
Since when has the term "white paper" meant "a piece of marketing department crap".
Yes I do know that there are "peices of marketing department crap" that are disguised as "white papers" but only "consumers" and "marketing analysts" seem to be unable to tell the difference.
Stating that "they are a company" does not change that a "white paper" is accepted to be a technological or scientific project proposal, and "marketing department crap" is "marketing department crap" nomatter what it is presented as.
Free software advocates, programmers, consultants, and administrators do take Microsoft seriously. It's just that they know that Microsoft's product are often not the best tool for the job and that other alternatives may be more reliable (and that will make thier customers happy).
he submitter did not "put words in" anybodies mouth, nor did he indicate any "hatred" of any individual, company or group, nor did he attribute the "cancer" comment to Taylor.
All the submitter did wasmake a comparison between Taylor's stated intentions and Microsoft's previous stance on Linux and Free Software as stated by Microsoft chairman Steve Balmer.
The only reason I'm correcting the previous submitter (and the moderators who think his faulty reasoning "insightful") is that it makes no sense to make accusations of attack by misattribution, even if you have an unreasonable attachment to a particular product, company, or business model.
It is counter productive to legitimate debate and argument to pretend that you understand the rules of debate when you cannot interpet a simple explanatory statement.
Slashdot Mirror
The UNIX philosophy is about design. The book explains some of the ideals behind how UNIX, and UNIX like, operating systems came to be what they are and why they work as well as they do. People who get hung up on the word "philosophy" and think that it only pertains to metaphysics, economics, theology, or morality need to understand that philosophy also applies to design and the creative arts.
Perhaps they should admit that they really have no idea what philosophy means instead of attempting to deny it's presence in areas of thought where they fail to recognise it.
Christopher Browne has a good synopsis for those who would like a primer before they run out and buy one of the books.
UNIX = Commercial way of thinking
The UNIX philosophy has nothing to do with commercial vs Free, or closed vs open and has everything to do with design and problem solving. The comercial aspects of UNIX culture were imposed upon UNIX by shareholders and corporations with little or no regard for who had designed the product, whether they had been compensated, or how future maintainance and development would be accomplished. The development of the EMACS editor, the GNU project, and the GPL license were a reaction to these changes in UNIX development. The GPL was not created as an economic "weapon", nor was it created with money in mind at all. It was motivated by a desire to have the source code available to anybody with an idea and the know-how to implement it.
Many posters here seem to be obsessed with money, and it can't be good for thier thinking. Whether they are dogmatic about giving away for free or about charging for every last thought, it betrays an unwillingness to view subjects and viewpoints as other than economically based. I admit that the economics of software development need be considered in any project, but my opinion is that making design decisions based on monetary arguments is putting the cart before the horse and will often result in poorly designed and inferior software.
The UNIX philosophy is not incompatible with the GPL, nor is it incompatible with comercial licensing In fact, the GPL has very little to do wih money in any way whatsoever. In other words, read the book, come back and discuss philosophy when you're prepared.
These people are programmers who would have built thier project using non-Free libraries and routines if the idea of selling software had been attractive to them.
If you see a need for tech support for GnuCash, you are free to build a business that supplies that support, and to market that business however you see fit.
Why don't we have GnuCash selling licenses to those who actually need and are willing to pay for it?
If we ignore the obvious GPL licensing boondoggle, there's still many reasons top not go the comercial software route.
The developers would have to form a company, hire lawyers to help craft the licenses, hire marketing drones to advertise the product, hire support people to help end users with problems, find investors to pay for all of the above, and would probably have no time to write the code and lose all control of the product in the end.
Doesn't sound like a very attractive option to me.
and idiot (ijit)
As an American, I can assure you the correct spoelling is actually "idjit", and the correct pronunciation is id-jit (the pause between syllables is essential, but should be very brief and barely noticable.)
From the article:
You may not agree with me, but at least I check my sources.
Support is not the issue here, and no-one is claiming that the manufacturer is obligated to offer support the second buyer.
What is being claimed is that the second buyer should have every right to make use of the software, but the manufacturers are attempting to deny this right. The second buyer is not attempting to enforce any obligations on the manufacturer, but the manufacturer is attempting to enforce a contract that the second buyer had no opportunity to review or agree to.
Your argument is a classic "Straw Man" argument. A "Straw Man" is defined as an attack against an argument that the opponent did not make. I consider it a cheap trick only employed by foolish debaters that either know that thier position is undefendable or are unable to think through a legitimate argument. It is just one example of what are popularly known as Logical Fallacies.
Why not just make the solar panels deductible?
Better yet, a tax credit.
While solar to electric to hydrogen may be a good solution, hydrogen power for the home is not as eco-friendly as many assume, and is promoted actively by petro energy companies because they expect to use thier oil to produce the electricity needed to produce the free hydrogen, and it will allow the current power producers to maintain thier limited monoplies.
Natural gas -> electric is more practical, as natural gas can be produced as a renewable resource on farms (a dairy cow can produce between 17 and 32 cents of electric a day, depending on the type of feed and the animal's general health) and natural gas feul cells are available that are both affordable and small enough to implement distributed power generation. Both hydrogen and natural gas fuel cells are around 85% efficient as compared to between 25 and 30% efficiency for conventional feul oil power generation and between 36% and 50% efficiency for gas turbine generation.
A distributed electric generation plan would be less vulnerable to enemy and terrorists attack, and ready the availability of household sized natural gas fuel cells could give consumers not only the choice of who to purchase thier electric from, but to produce it themselves (and sell the surplus back to the grid) if gas prices are more reasonable than electric. Power companies hate this possibility, so I'd be suprised if this would be implemented (or permitted) anytime soon.
hydrogen pipelines break and spill just like every other kind of pipeline
Hydrogen is lighter than air (half the density of helium), so leaks disperse quickly and safely in comparison to natural gas and "spills" are virtually non-existant, except where the gas can gatther under an unventilated roof.
Shay's Rebellion was a call to end the current anarchy that was being permitted by a lack of will in the newly formed (not yet complete) government of the United States. The courts and local governments were permitting business owners and large land owners to act as defacto tyrannical governments. Large landowners and companies were issuing thier own currencies and hiring thier own "police forces" in disregard to the good of other citizens, but in keeping with the current attitude against centralized regulation of law enforcement and the government. Small farmers and factory workers wanted a consistant, strong currency backed by gold that would be honored as equal to the boulion that was being used by the large land owners and companies. Local courts ignored the pleas of the farmers and workers, mostly because they were being paid by the people who benefitted most from the inequality. The rebellion was crushed and the surviving rebels were sentanced to death for treason, but later pardoned because of the justness of thier cause. Look here for more info.
The Haymarket Massacre occured after a peaceful labor rally at the Haymarket in Chicago was attacked by the police after the mayor of Chicago had given instructions for the police to stand down. The police captain on duty dissobeyed orders and instructed his men to disperse the crowd of 2500 people, and then to attack the men who refused to leave. There was one bomb thrown after the force of 176 armed police attacked the remaining crowd of 200 people. The bomb thrower was never identified. The police shot four protestors and six of thier own. Eight were arrested and tried, seven were sentanced to death, one of whom commited suicide, two were pardoned and four were executed. Read more here.
The Kent State Massacre occured at a peace rally of at least 2000 people on the campus of Kent State University in Ohio after a group of protesters shouted insults and threw stones at National Guardsmen (no bombs were thrown or found). The guardsmen responded to the stones by marching on the crowd with bayonettes. The crowd was in full retreat when the guardsmen began firing on the fleeing protestors. Four were killed, nine were injured. Follow this link for an account of the events.
You are right to counsel that bombs are bad tactics in a protest, I would go further and state that bombs have crossed the line beyond protest into guerilla warfare. But the allegations of bombs at Kent State have never been proven and have been disputed by several men who served with the National Guard on that day. The single bomb thrown at the Haymarket was the act of either a lone individual, or a small group of radically violent nihilists. In all of these cases the causes of the protesters were just.
At the Haymarket it was the police disobeying orders that led to the massacre. At Kent State the Guardsmen shot people in thier backs.
What is needed in these causes is well reasoned people to push forth the argument and to restrain the more unpredictable elements. The bombs need to be put away until it is clear that Democracy is lost.
Good analysis or unwarranted optimism?
Neither.
The article is neither "good analysis" nor is it "unwarranted optimism". It is an editorial piece making the argument for "the corporate makeover of Linux" and attempting to sell that idea to the current users and developers of Linux. "Corporate Makeover" implies both the limitation of the Free aspects of Linux (and other Free Software) in distribution (beer) and in access to the source (freedom), and the introduction of centralized management of Free Software development.
The repeated claim that Linux cannot become a success and remain free is getting tired and thin. That companies cannot wrap thier minds around the implications of the GPL enough to ship thier products (and services) in a way that is compatible with the GPL is not the fault of the Free Software comunity. It is possible to create and distribute propietary apps for Linux without running afoul of the (L)GPL.
If Microsoft had helped WINE, there would be little or no demand for OpenOffice, and Linux users would be purchasing Office. Of course, this would have meant acceptance of the fact that Linux is eroding Microsofts dominance of the Desktop market, but acceptance of reality is generally thought of as part of a healthy attitude.
The accusation that there needs to be more "centralized" control over Free Software development is equally false. The current decentralized methods being used for many projects is the main reason for Linux's (and other FS project's) success. There seems to be a failure to understand how the success of Linux has been due (in part) to the lack of marketing driven development. The "markets" that have directed development have been the needs of individual (and groups of) developers, the needs of the users of individual distributions, and the needs of distributions to cooperate in specific ways. This allows greater freedom for separate distributions to explore different answers to the problems of creating an OS and to share, either in whole or in parts, the solutions that different distrobutions have created. It also allows distributions to decide whether to impliment standards based on merit instead of on compliance (I do not want nice to exit with anything but 0 unless there is an error).
There will continue to be people who either refuse or fail to understand that Linux and free Software not only fits nicely into the business place, but is a direct result of business philosophies failing to fufill the needs of software developers and end users alike. Corporations are free to cooperate in free Software Development, make products that run on top of Free Software, and market services to end users of Free Software, but it would be a bad idea to let them run the show.
Only 3rd world dictatorships and military dominated governments suffer under them.
Actually, it's the citizens who suffer the most uner WTO agreements, and not only those who live under oppressive governments.
The WTO forbids restrictions of trade based on envirionmental and health policty risks, such as banning the importation of produce that was treated with known toxic insecticides (think DDT) and weed killers, or the requirement that usage of such products be clearly and truthfully labled on such produce.
The enforcement clauses for WTO regulations (yes, the WTO is an org that regulates trade, not one that eliminates regulation) are the international equivalent to civil lawsuits with the only penalty being that the wronged country is granted 5the right to enforce tarrifs and embargoes on the agreement violator. This means that the only countries that have effective enforcement power are those with the largest markets and the strongest economies, such as the U.S.
WTO supporters like to present the WTO as eliminating unecessary and unfair regulation, but the reality is that it only serves to ensure that the currently dominant economies can enforce thier own regulations against smaller nations and the smaller nations have no power to enter the world markets at a pace that ensures that thier own economies and local industries can remain competative.
Common usage can be manipulated by the media in order to further political causes. When we are discussing issues of crime and punnishment, the "cold, clinical words" are appropriate in order to prevent the connotations of words like "piracy" from leading to unfair treatment of the issue.
An example of this would be the use of "piracy" to refer to persons who download MP3s of copyrighted music using peer to peer programs. The lawsuits are seeking dammages far in excess of what has been sought from the criminals who have been copying entire CDs in thier native format and selling them as originals. The counterfit CD vendors are doing much more monetary damage to the copyright holders than file dowloading, but the media is obsessed with thie kid downloading a few crappy N'Sync songs than the mobster who is counterfiting entire CDs by the truckload.
Meanwhile the RIAA is making media noise, lobbying congress for manditory DRM, and spending time and money chasing teenagers who download a few crappy pop songs.
Piracy is an inacurate term that hardly describes the crime. It was used years ago in order to galvanise the politicians against unlicensed copying of software. No effective copy protection schemes were created, Software continues to be produced in a form that is easily copied, and software companies continue to produce both profits (at least those who have both good product and business sense) and new software.
If this is going to be a serious problem, then it would already be one. The technology to "pirate" books via the internet has been around 10 or more years now, and reading extensive texts on a terminal hasn't really improved to the point that people would be willing to read "Anna Kerennina" or "Gavity's Rainbow" on a screen. Web pads and tablet PCs are unlikely to change that as long as bound paper is still available.
My guess is that someone in the industry (think big, DRM friendly software vendor) has come up with a solution to sell, and is now looking to create a problem. The "Harry Potter" leak has all of the earmarks of a media stunt engineered to prevent the inevitable downswing of popularity that the trendy serial will (and already has) expirienced.
Alarmist Crap.
Keep your DRM, thank you.
And no, SMTP works just fine for me, thank you. If you think you have something better, then release it and see if anyone switches.
Now we can blame the high cost of broadband on the HAM operators, instead of the exclusive provider deals the cable companies enjoy and the stupid way the phone companies were "required" to allow competition through thier lines. (Can a company really fairly act as a "Common Carrier" if they are competing in the service market that they are "carrying"?)
Oooh, those HAMs burn me up! I feel better already.
It's not a brilliant idea anyway, with power lines being incredible non tunable antaennas, irregular variations in power transmission frequency (which would be your carrier freq), and most power transformers filtering frequencies that are not close to 60Hz (that's the freq you feel when you stick your finger in the wall socket).
There are better ways to expand the broadband market, such as wireless. I figure that if they can afford it in Bangladesh, there's no logical reason it can't be done in the States or other fully developed countries.
Everyone does use Free Software, even if they are not aware of it.
Much of the web is run on Free Software, and most (if not all) packets will cross routers, firewalls or bridges that are running Free Software at some point during thier journey.
In fact, thier own computers may be using code that was directly derived from Free Software, such as the improved network stack in Windows (from BSD, IIRC).
The world of propietary, closed source software has benefitted greatly from Free Software development, and this has benefitted EVERYONE, even if they know nothing about it.
Including you.
Also, there is no precident to a "benefit EVERYONE" requirement for government funding (at least in the U.S.).
One example of government funding for a select few persons would be the funding of natural disater insurance programs for persons who choose to build thier houses on flood plains and on beaches. Government funded flood plain insurance enables people to live along rivers and the same coverage allowed the wealthier americans to ensure that most of us could not afford to live near the beach. (Before natural disaster relief plans covered beachfront property, it was quite inexpensive to have a house on or near the beach, but most chose not to because of the possibility of storm damage or erosion.)
Another would be farming subsidies for tobbacco farmers. I fail to see how one could conscrue such funding as "beneficial to EVERYONE".
In the U.S., I think that the government should fund Free Software development for projects that the Government is likeyly to use or desires for specific projects. I also believe that the government should not fund the development of closed source projects that are destined to be products for private vendors, as that would be using public funds to enrich private individuals and of course would end up rife with corruption. Perhaps using the BSD license for government funded projects would be "politically correct" enough in the Republican sense as it would not preclude thier supporters from turning the project results into a money making venture if they had the desire, technology, and business sense to do so.
I would not like to see the U.S. government begin funding programming in a more general way, because there is the possibility of uUniversities and Free Software development labs/projects becoming dependant on govt. money and the politicisation of Free Software when a govt. funded project is released that has the potential to be used in ways that some people do not approve of. A group of network security and monitoring tools could be misconscrued as "tools for hackers", or an HTTP server condemned as for "the distribution of pornography". To many, this may seem far fetched, but those who are familiar with the art world know how mixing public funding for museums and public exhibition venues was turned into a Republican "bully pulpit issue" in the controversy over the display of artwork most notably Piss Christ by Andres Serrano and some photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe. The works in question were not specifically created using government funds, but the issues arose when facilities that were partially funded by government grants decided to display the artwork. As it is now, he volunteer nature of much Free Software development prevents many of the political issues that could arise, and it also ensures that political decision making has little or no direct influence on what is developed or how.
I must admit that I do find it disturbing to know that the U.S. government is funding "computer science" education programs that amount to little more than training facilities where people learn to program for a specific and propietary platform, but I'm not sure there is an acceptable policy that could prevent this.
Why not charge for Linux?
Go ahead. You are allowed to charge for Linux, and you are permitted to charge whatever you want. And so is anybody who you sell Linux to. That is what the license is about. You are not allowed to deny the rights that you were granted by the GPL to anyone to whom you subsequently distrubute the altered or unaltered GPL code. Hell, Stallman supported himself for years selling GPL software. I believe that the people who paid for it saw the value in supporting his efforts to write an extensible and full featured editor.
If you feel yourself to be a charitable person, then by all means volunteer your time and heart to a worthy organization, perhaps a soup kitchen or a children's hospital.
Good idea. Perhaps we can form a community dedicated to developing Operating Systems, complete with networking, productivity, records management, imaging, and other apps that would be useful for childrens and other hospitals, schools, and charities. That way they could spend thier budgets on providing care and service for those who depend on them, instead of on upgrading thier systems every time the software vendor decides it's time to milk that cow.
The very nature of business precludes money for a piece of property.
Incorrect.Of course if you had stated that the definition of business includes the exchange of money for a piece of property, I'd be forced to agree with you, but precludes means quite the opposite. Perhaps you made a mistake there. (In fact, I'm rather certain that you did mean to use includes, so we agree after all. Isn't this nice?!) When I have a peice of property to sell you, then we can do business. I think that you also forgot that services can be exchanged for currency as well, and it is still business, but I'll forgive that. For the time being though, you can make a copy of what property I have that I'm unwilling to sell, and as long as you have my permission (you do), and you pay for whatever materials you need to make that copy, I think thats legal as well. Just don't use that copy to screw anybody over. (Ha ha, a little humor. See, were all gentlemen here, except for the ladies, and I think we all know that you'd never dream of doing something like that.)
It is not sacred.
I agree with you again. Open Source software has proven to be a practical, secure, and stable alternative to software developed in secretive environments that discourage cooperative problem solving. Practical, usefull, and rapidly developed.Yes, Open Source is all of those things. But sacred? No, nothing is sacred around here. Except for respect for peoples copyright (or copyleft) and thier licensing terms. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Open Source developers and maintainers go to greater lengths to ensure that they are respecting copyright than most others.
Outside the tech world, linux users are hippies, just barely still democratic.
I'm not quite sure by what you mean by that, but I thought I'd quote it anyway.
They use and work on a system of knowledge steeped in time honored and capitalist traditions
Once again we agree! Getting along famously now, aren't we. Many Linux and Open Source developers have built thier own businesses around Open Source, providing goods (computers) for Open Source to run on, services for both industry (customization, implementation, etc) and end users (networking services, web hosting, entertainment) and documentation (books) to teach the masses (consumers) how to make effective use of Open Source software in hopes that this will bring thier businesses more success and thier personal lives more enjoyment, increasing thier demand for more goods and services. Open source people: Upstanding citizens of our Grand Capitolist system!
division of labor(modularity), stability(conservatism), diversification (to the point of parties spanning the globe contributing anony
I'm male.
Growing breasts?
Crappily, the word is crappily, as in or
Why does that not surprise me.
This crap has got to stop.
They might produce white papers that actual proposals for how Microsoft could improve it's product by adopting a method or feature that they learned of through studying Linux in thier shiny new lab.
Since when has the term "white paper" meant "a piece of marketing department crap".
Yes I do know that there are "peices of marketing department crap" that are disguised as "white papers" but only "consumers" and "marketing analysts" seem to be unable to tell the difference.
Stating that "they are a company" does not change that a "white paper" is accepted to be a technological or scientific project proposal, and "marketing department crap" is "marketing department crap" nomatter what it is presented as.
Free software advocates, programmers, consultants, and administrators do take Microsoft seriously. It's just that they know that Microsoft's product are often not the best tool for the job and that other alternatives may be more reliable (and that will make thier customers happy).
he submitter did not "put words in" anybodies mouth, nor did he indicate any "hatred" of any individual, company or group, nor did he attribute the "cancer" comment to Taylor.
All the submitter did wasmake a comparison between Taylor's stated intentions and Microsoft's previous stance on Linux and Free Software as stated by Microsoft chairman Steve Balmer.
The only reason I'm correcting the previous submitter (and the moderators who think his faulty reasoning "insightful") is that it makes no sense to make accusations of attack by misattribution, even if you have an unreasonable attachment to a particular product, company, or business model.
It is counter productive to legitimate debate and argument to pretend that you understand the rules of debate when you cannot interpet a simple explanatory statement.
And my point is that the users wouldn't know Linux if it bit them on the *ss.
They use the GNU tools, or KDE, or Gnome, or whatever and they think that what they are using is Linux, but it's not.
What they are using is programs that use Linux to interact with the hardware.
Replace Linux with another kernel and the user expirience doesn't change all that much, and it'll still be GNU.
it's not polite TO BARK at people who are helping you make your point.