he would recognize the Open Source organization as a partner in his goals that happens to just come at it from a different angle.
No. RMS's goal, and his only goal, is the eradication of ``software hoarding'' (his term). The OSI accepts the existence of some proprietary software, they just think proprietary licenses are good less often than is usually believed.
He does try very hard to get along with people. True, he doesn't like people mis-representing him or his work as something else, or as directed towards somebody else's goals.(1) He does seem confrontational, at times; that's because he's under so much societal/cultural pressure to accept Linux/Open Source/etc. (all of which he views as representing different viewpoints than his, and refuses to endorse on those grounds). He has to resist that pressure to stay true to his principles, and so he sometimes appears confrontational. If ``GNU/Linux'' were used by the majority of users/reporters, Linus would probably seem confrontational sometimes, too.
(1) I don't care if you think GNU/Linux is RMS's software or not; that's the way he sees it, and you have to understand that to understand him. There is a genuine difference of opinion here between Linus and RMS.
Seriously , what is wrong with a computer admitting defeat? If it cant talk then it follows the entire history of modern computing and raises an error. It worked before, why is it now a problem?
Yes, buy why do we need.NET to admit defeat/work? If what we've been doing worked before, why is it now a problem?
Source code IS useless if you don't have time to look over it or modify it. It only benefits the 5% or so that are actively involved in maintaining or modifying the code. The remaining consumers get absolutely zero benefit from it.
Perhaps for fetchmail or hello, world! or other,
similarly sized projects,
A minor nit:
$ du -sh fetchmail-5.9.7 hello-1.3
3.4M fetchmail-5.9.7
352k hello-1.3
So, fetchmail's source is 98x the size of hello's. And, fetchmail is not small for a Un*x program. ``[Every]where else'' means Windows/Windows imitations (Gnome, KDE, etc.), right? Naturally those are unfixable, because they're bloatware.
Not philisophically different then ack/nack on port 80 to see if it can http?
I assume you mean as in a user selecting a website, and the browser `asking' it ``do you support http?'' and getting a simple t or nil response, right?
Ok, if that's all you're talking about, I have no problem with that. But what's ``self-describing'' about it? Describing:
to represent or give an account of in words <describe a picture>
to represent by a figure, model, or picture DELINEATE
t or nil hardly qualifies as either ``words'' or ``a figure, model, or picture''.
Asking ``What order are you structuring your struct_cluebats'', if you mean you're expecting a reply like (I hate XML, so this is lispish, sorry):
('tip 'handle 'middle)
that's useless unless you know what tip, handle, and middle mean. And nobody thinks you should ``guess'' the order. Decide on an order most people can accept, get it published as an RFC, use that, and forget about it! (Not like M$ forgets about RFCs, though.)
So what you're saying is, I should write my program to go find a news webservice based on the various webservices self-descriptions, and if one of them lies, no harm done---my program just doesn't work!
Now guess who the user blaims---that's right: me. So, I'll pick the news service I want my program to use, thank you very much. And if you've got a human picking the service, you don't much need the program to duplicate that human's intelligence. So, the program doesn't need to know what the service does, and the service doesn't need to describe itself to the client. Right?
We're also probably getting close to the saturation point - I think there will always be about a quarter of the population that doesn't have or necessarily want anything to do with the Internet.
Okay, first the math: 100% - 25% = 75% > 54%. So, we've got some growth room left. Second, exactly what will this 25% that doesn't want anything to do with the internet do (I mean for a living). I gather you're talking about lower class manufacturing types, i.e. the kind of jobs American companies love to ship overseas. People in service industries will need the net to stay competitive. So, the net will bust 75%, at least if you count buisiness users only.
It's embarrassing how much karma I have, so I'll get rid of some of it here.
F. A. Hayek wrote about how slums could actually help the poor, especially poor people coming into the city off the farm. The basic idea is: slums provide cheep housing and a foot in the door to the city. This is what I think AOL & WinDOSs should be: cheep, but a foot in the door.
Of course, the problem with slums is when you get multiple generations spending their entire lives in the inner city. You need a clear upgrade path to the suburbs (Redhat, Mandrake, etc.), which we don't have. But still, AOL and WinDOSs users do count as online and computer users, respectively.
Btw: Windows NT, by this model, is a slum high-rise---i.e., a contradiction better off forgotten.
I have yet to see any evidence that AOL/TW has insufficient gold to make whatever rules it requires.
``[W]hatever rules it requires.'' Actually, I have to wonder what rules AOL (or any other software hoarder) requires. After all, the GPL is a copyright license. If it were overruled, that could easily mean copyright was overruled. In this case, whoever got the GPL overruled would have three options:
Give up software hoarding,
try to get proprietary software copyrights upheld, but not GPL copyrights, or
rely on click-through licenses.
(1) is obviously unacceptable; (2) is probably very expensive--can you imagine how many hours would be billed coming up with, and supporting such a doctrine?; (3) is probably a big PR difficulty--imagine admitting the law doesn't treat software hoarding as property, only as a matter of contract laws!
So, if a software hoarder wants to keep shipping proprietary software, his realistic options are:
Live with the GPL.
Spend a lot of money trying to construct a legal doctrine that differentiates software hoarder copyrights from the GPL, recognising that, in the final analysis, said doctrine may or may not hold up.
Give up on copyright altogether as a software hoarding mechanism, and spend a lot of money coming up with new advertising.
And, come to think of it, all Stallman/Moglen need to do to defend the GPL is make (2) and (3) more expensive than (1)--something much easier than matching AOL's power dollar for dollar.
p.s. Sorry for the long reply--I have difficulty suppressing a brain storm like this.
I have never heard a Microsoft Exec spend most of their time talking about the competition in a presentation. With Sun and McNealy I have several times heard an entire sales proposition put to me as 'this is how you can put one in the eye of Mcrosoft'.
I don't doubt it. However, I was thinking more about thinking about the competition, and how to destroy them, not about talking about the competition!
Unfortunately for Sun they have not quite figured out that I am not interested in their proposals because they will hurt Microsoft. My only interest is whether they will make money for my company.
Granted. Of course, you need to have a great product, and you have to believe in that product, in its own right.
However, I think it's crucial for every company other than M$ to think about protecting itself from M$. If you're successfull enough, they will come after you. You need to be prepared.
I get them in another way, for instance, I use xemacs.
Actually, (x)emacs is a desktop environment, like GNOME and KDE. So, if you use Windowmaker + xemacs, that's roughly the same thing as using Sawfish/Enlightenment + GNOME.
So, the question is: what is it if you're using Sawfish + GNOME + Emacs?
Under our current laws, a person can release their sourcecode under a proprietary license, or a GPL license. Under this proposed new "law", Code can only be released under the GPL.
I call this a removal of my freedoms.
Ok--you cited my whole message, which proposed two possibilities. Which are you arguing with?
Slashdot Mirror
No. RMS's goal, and his only goal, is the eradication of ``software hoarding'' (his term). The OSI accepts the existence of some proprietary software, they just think proprietary licenses are good less often than is usually believed.
He does try very hard to get along with people. True, he doesn't like people mis-representing him or his work as something else, or as directed towards somebody else's goals.(1) He does seem confrontational, at times; that's because he's under so much societal/cultural pressure to accept Linux/Open Source/etc. (all of which he views as representing different viewpoints than his, and refuses to endorse on those grounds). He has to resist that pressure to stay true to his principles, and so he sometimes appears confrontational. If ``GNU/Linux'' were used by the majority of users/reporters, Linus would probably seem confrontational sometimes, too.
(1) I don't care if you think GNU/Linux is RMS's software or not; that's the way he sees it, and you have to understand that to understand him. There is a genuine difference of opinion here between Linus and RMS.
Yes, buy why do we need
Quick question---Am I the only person who thinks this is tongue-in-cheek?
The benifits to society as a whole of source code
I assume you mean as in a user selecting a website, and the browser `asking' it ``do you support http?'' and getting a simple t or nil response, right?
Ok, if that's all you're talking about, I have no problem with that. But what's ``self-describing'' about it? Describing:
t or nil hardly qualifies as either ``words'' or ``a figure, model, or picture''.
Asking ``What order are you structuring your struct_cluebats'', if you mean you're expecting a reply like (I hate XML, so this is lispish, sorry):
that's useless unless you know what tip, handle, and middle mean. And nobody thinks you should ``guess'' the order. Decide on an order most people can accept, get it published as an RFC, use that, and forget about it! (Not like M$ forgets about RFCs, though.)
So what you're saying is, I should write my program to go find a news webservice based on the various webservices self-descriptions, and if one of them lies, no harm done---my program just doesn't work!
Now guess who the user blaims---that's right: me. So, I'll pick the news service I want my program to use, thank you very much. And if you've got a human picking the service, you don't much need the program to duplicate that human's intelligence. So, the program doesn't need to know what the service does, and the service doesn't need to describe itself to the client. Right?
Okay, first the math: 100% - 25% = 75% > 54%. So, we've got some growth room left. Second, exactly what will this 25% that doesn't want anything to do with the internet do (I mean for a living). I gather you're talking about lower class manufacturing types, i.e. the kind of jobs American companies love to ship overseas. People in service industries will need the net to stay competitive. So, the net will bust 75%, at least if you count buisiness users only.
It's embarrassing how much karma I have, so I'll get rid of some of it here.
F. A. Hayek wrote about how slums could actually help the poor, especially poor people coming into the city off the farm. The basic idea is: slums provide cheep housing and a foot in the door to the city. This is what I think AOL & WinDOSs should be: cheep, but a foot in the door.
Of course, the problem with slums is when you get multiple generations spending their entire lives in the inner city. You need a clear upgrade path to the suburbs (Redhat, Mandrake, etc.), which we don't have. But still, AOL and WinDOSs users do count as online and computer users, respectively.
Btw: Windows NT, by this model, is a slum high-rise---i.e., a contradiction better off forgotten.
This is useless---it's terrible security practice to accept someone's (or some program's) evaluation of itself without documentation.
I'm not surprised---I'm delighted. Miguel may finally be taken to account for his love affair with M$ crap.
Hell---there should be a required netiquette section before people are alowed to buy a computer.
``[W]hatever rules it requires.'' Actually, I have to wonder what rules AOL (or any other software hoarder) requires. After all, the GPL is a copyright license. If it were overruled, that could easily mean copyright was overruled. In this case, whoever got the GPL overruled would have three options:
(1) is obviously unacceptable; (2) is probably very expensive--can you imagine how many hours would be billed coming up with, and supporting such a doctrine?; (3) is probably a big PR difficulty--imagine admitting the law doesn't treat software hoarding as property, only as a matter of contract laws!
So, if a software hoarder wants to keep shipping proprietary software, his realistic options are:
And, come to think of it, all Stallman/Moglen need to do to defend the GPL is make (2) and (3) more expensive than (1)--something much easier than matching AOL's power dollar for dollar.
p.s. Sorry for the long reply--I have difficulty suppressing a brain storm like this.
I don't doubt it. However, I was thinking more about thinking about the competition, and how to destroy them, not about talking about the competition!
Granted. Of course, you need to have a great product, and you have to believe in that product, in its own right.
However, I think it's crucial for every company other than M$ to think about protecting itself from M$. If you're successfull enough, they will come after you. You need to be prepared.
Stallman's lawyer is a Professor of Law at Columbia University. Plus, he has tons of experience enforcing the GPL. Don't judge his capabilities too quickly.
The GPL is enforceable.
Seriously, read it.
Could you please explain to me exactly what you are complaining about?
What `banning' can you do based on IP addresses that any good
Seems to work for Microsoft alot...
Really? How many tens of thousands were killed in the WTC? And you really think we've killed that many civilians in Afganistan?
Actually, (x)emacs is a desktop environment, like GNOME and KDE. So, if you use Windowmaker + xemacs, that's roughly the same thing as using Sawfish/Enlightenment + GNOME.
So, the question is: what is it if you're using Sawfish + GNOME + Emacs?
So, most programmers actually use wizards all the time. The key thing is to know when to use them.
No, it's because you don't believe the GPL (or other Free Software licenses) provide you with any more/better freedom than proprietary licenses.
Ok--you cited my whole message, which proposed two possibilities. Which are you arguing with?