Alright, I can buy that Windows is ``complete unto itself'' (i.e., it is complete for what it does). I just don't think it does half enough to be considered an Operating System.
Oh, and btw., it occurs to me that RMS probably sets a lot of stock in the fact that most Linux distributions come with GNU code, whereas Windows obviously doesn't.
If you can run these popular tools on windows will RMS be emailing windows and telling them to rename windows GNU/Windows?
No. For some reason, RMS considers Windows a ``complete system'' which is left in place by these sorts of things. So, no GNU labeling (just like installing GNU on BSD doesn't involve a GNU/ holy war from RMS). I'm not entirely sure what crucial system component Windows has that Linux (as distributed by Linus) doesn't (however you want to read that), but RMS has appearantly identified something.
Btw., this came up on the Cygwin mailing list a while back (RMS was cc'ed); google cygwin.com for it if you're interested in a link.
You're absolutely right. That's why I hate Windows: computers should be deterministic. If it didn't work last time, it shouldn't work this time, either. I mean, it's almost like Windows has an RNG in it telling it whether to work!
Are you saying you really mean ``I refuse to let my politics dictate how I feed my family''? I mean, if you think M$'s buisiness practices are evil, that's your politics, no?
Now imagine a situation when one of the developers for a dual-license software who contributes actively to the product refuses to allow commercial use for his contribution. This can cause havoc to the dev process because the status of the commercial aspect of the software is now questionable.
So, basically the same problem BSD-licensed software opens itself up to w.r.t. commercial forks? I.e., some company that does a great deal of development refuses to allow free use, making the free aspect of the software questionable?
Yeah, that's how science works. They hardly ever prove anything, they just fail to disprove it and then assume (without basis as far as I know) that, were it false, they would have disproven it. So, the theory must be true.
Utter bullshit logically, but just workable enough to be practical.
I think what RMS is talking about is statements like this, by ESR, which explicitly advocates ``putting aside the deeper issues''. What ESR actually says is:
In a Slashdot posting published today, RMS distances himself from the Open Source movement because (he says) we avoid talking about "freedom, about principle, about the rights that computer users are entitled to".
He's right.
ESR then goes on to give his explanation as to why he doesn't think those issues need to be brought up. RMS's remark about the APSL simply says he thinks it's an example of why he does think those issues need to be brought up.
I totally agree. Companies are incapable of being nice. This is the nature of companies - they exist to maximize profit.
That doesn't mean we have to like it, though. And, even if companies have no ethical value in the sense applied to humans (even though boards of directors obviously do have such ethical value), it is possible to dislike a company's behavior for reason that would qualify as ethical when applied to humans, and to call this sort of objection, for short, an ``ethical'' one.
While we're on the subject of how ethical Apple is, where is the outcry of support for Apple as they stand virtually alone resisting DRM?
I don't see it counter-acting nearly everything else Apple has ever done, if that's what you mean.
And, remember what happened the last time we supported a company one week and attacked it the next?
a little more from Torvalds (be pragmatic and realistic about your circumstances to advance toward your goals)
Um, only problem with that is: Torvalds doesn't have any goals (not in the sense we're talking about here). That ``World Domination'' buisiness is a joke (just like the notion Torvalds is a leader for the community). So, I wouldn't go listening to him for advice.
So what if they require you to send back your changes?
So, you're saying if I make some silly hack for my girlfriend (well, OK, I don't have a girlfriend, but let's suppose), I have to send it to Apple? That's a waste of my time and theirs, as well as (potentially) a violation of my privacy.
Now, admittedly, that sort of situation isn't very likely with a kernel, but this is a dispute about principle.
Well, the FSF page does make it pretty clear which objection still stands: the last one, i.e., no private modifications. The other two objections are (IIRC) explicitly stated to have been retained for historical interest only.
It's a cultural issue. Arithmatic hadn't been invented back then, so they were looser about numbers.
(Actually, I understand that as recently as 40 years ago, an Italian (on Sunday) arranging to meet another the next Sunday would say "I'll meet you in eight days"---it's counted inclusively.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd expect so, yes. Not even M$ can change the UI *that* much without changing some code...
Alright, I can buy that Windows is ``complete unto itself'' (i.e., it is complete for what it does). I just don't think it does half enough to be considered an Operating System.
Socialism, democracy, what's the difference? They're both about screwing over anybody who's inconvienent to the masses.
Oh, and btw., it occurs to me that RMS probably sets a lot of stock in the fact that most Linux distributions come with GNU code, whereas Windows obviously doesn't.
No. For some reason, RMS considers Windows a ``complete system'' which is left in place by these sorts of things. So, no GNU labeling (just like installing GNU on BSD doesn't involve a GNU/ holy war from RMS). I'm not entirely sure what crucial system component Windows has that Linux (as distributed by Linus) doesn't (however you want to read that), but RMS has appearantly identified something.
Btw., this came up on the Cygwin mailing list a while back (RMS was cc'ed); google cygwin.com for it if you're interested in a link.
Thanks for the tip.
You're absolutely right. That's why I hate Windows: computers should be deterministic. If it didn't work last time, it shouldn't work this time, either. I mean, it's almost like Windows has an RNG in it telling it whether to work!
Are you saying you don't think you should use the best product available? I'm shocked....
Are you saying you really mean ``I refuse to let my politics dictate how I feed my family''? I mean, if you think M$'s buisiness practices are evil, that's your politics, no?
So, basically the same problem BSD-licensed software opens itself up to w.r.t. commercial forks? I.e., some company that does a great deal of development refuses to allow free use, making the free aspect of the software questionable?
Yeah, that's how science works. They hardly ever prove anything, they just fail to disprove it and then assume (without basis as far as I know) that, were it false, they would have disproven it. So, the theory must be true.
Utter bullshit logically, but just workable enough to be practical.
It's GNU-Darwin in the same sense as GNU/Linux.
ESR then goes on to give his explanation as to why he doesn't think those issues need to be brought up. RMS's remark about the APSL simply says he thinks it's an example of why he does think those issues need to be brought up.
And all of this is why everybody runs PCs running Windows, I suppose...
That doesn't mean we have to like it, though. And, even if companies have no ethical value in the sense applied to humans (even though boards of directors obviously do have such ethical value), it is possible to dislike a company's behavior for reason that would qualify as ethical when applied to humans, and to call this sort of objection, for short, an ``ethical'' one.
I don't see it counter-acting nearly everything else Apple has ever done, if that's what you mean.
And, remember what happened the last time we supported a company one week and attacked it the next?
Um, only problem with that is: Torvalds doesn't have any goals (not in the sense we're talking about here). That ``World Domination'' buisiness is a joke (just like the notion Torvalds is a leader for the community). So, I wouldn't go listening to him for advice.
So, you're saying if I make some silly hack for my girlfriend (well, OK, I don't have a girlfriend, but let's suppose), I have to send it to Apple? That's a waste of my time and theirs, as well as (potentially) a violation of my privacy.
Now, admittedly, that sort of situation isn't very likely with a kernel, but this is a dispute about principle.
Do you have a link for this? (I'm just curious about this sort of ancient history thing).
Well, the FSF page does make it pretty clear which objection still stands: the last one, i.e., no private modifications. The other two objections are (IIRC) explicitly stated to have been retained for historical interest only.
You mean is it a story about the Sony that's Helping Us, or about the Sony that's Trying to Kill Us?
It's a cultural issue. Arithmatic hadn't been invented back then, so they were looser about numbers.
(Actually, I understand that as recently as 40 years ago, an Italian (on Sunday) arranging to meet another the next Sunday would say "I'll meet you in eight days"---it's counted inclusively.)
Thanks for clarifying that.
:)
Btw., I find cdparanoia | esdcat sufficient for CD audio, but obviously that's not user friendly
Well, obviously it has to seem useful (and at the price). It just doesn't have to seem ideal (which I think is what people want).
Somebody please explain to me the difference between Walmart and M$ sitting astride the retail software market. I'm not getting it.
Just curious---Why do your parents need more than ``Web and Email, and maybe even a simple word processer''?