Yes for the record I am paid by Microsoft. You figured me out. Damn you're good. Didn't you know Slashdot was owned by Microsoft? Everyone here is a MS employee (except for the trolls, of course).
Stop assuming everything, it makes you look like a fool.
..said the hypocrit who feels he should have a say in any matter just because he has some sort of right to open his big fucking mouth.
I do try to "spread the gospel"
I am flexible. I don't believe in dogmas
Of course you don't, where would anyone get these crazy assed ideas?
Now you are claiming that I am an MS employee. That makes at least two people in this thread alone.
The freedom of software has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Nothing. You are thinking of a broad definition of freedom. The freedom associated with GNU and Open Source(TM) has nothing to do with speech, religion, or whatever other freedoms you can dream up. It is simply freedom of source code. The only benefit of this freedom belongs to programmers. For example, the freedom to own a gun does nothing for you if you don't care about owning a gun (i.e. you just enjoy the taste of Deer, and continue to want Deer). If you have nothing to do with guns, then don't pursuade others to carry them or not carry them.
And don't you DARE second-guess what I want!!
Just like you are second guessing what I want? You assume I want proprietary software to coexist with free software? If not then why are you implying it. I don't care if you have registered WinZip or not. You are staddling two very different philosophies about software and look like a hypocrit. On one case you claim to support free software, but on the other hand you blatently use proprietary software without concern for those who strive for freedom. Either freedom of software is an ideal, or it is not. You can't simply say "I'm all for free software" and then turn around and use proprietary. This hurts the cause greatly.
if FS or OSS is suicidal for programmers (as you imply), then why are there programmers who do it?
Perhaps they are naive. Lets get something straight: this open-source movement really took on steam around the time the dot-com movement was started. It is not too hard to come to a conclusion that many open-source programmers still have a mindset of a dot-com; that everything will be alright and we can give everything away for free. Many of these open-source programmers did work at dot-coms, and many are now out of their jobs and facing reality. They may also just love to program (which is why I do it). They probably have a different job than programming (system admin or something) and generally don't care about the programmer market. Perhaps it's a mix of the two.
Answer that question before trying to censor me!
I'm not trying to sensor you, per se. Advocating free software and discussing it are two different matters. The former, you are pursuading people to adopt the free software philosophy (either GNU, OpenSource(TM), or your own brand of mix-and-match). What I'm simply saying is don't run around telling people they should be using free software because of it being "free" software, when you really mean "no-cost" software. Then again, you will probably go into bezerk rampage mode again and start waving your American flag yelling "I demand my freedom of speech" and that I'm a Microsoft paid zealot who has ties with no less than 3 mob bosses and worship satan. I'm glad you know your god-given rights that were provided to you by the founders of America, but can you please be a little less ignorant to those who do have sincere issues on the line? If you want to be a cheerleader, at least learn the moves (i.e. to program and how to use the freedom provided by GNU).
I'll keep on contributing to this debate, even at the risk of being wrong sometimes, whether you like it or not. And that's all I have to say about this.
And I'm sure your "contribution" will be greatly appreciated by all involved in the creation, maintenance, and advocation of free software. To be wrong you must not constantly insist that you are right.
There already are people who make money by support, but this brings up a number of nasty issues.
First, software will grow towards "needing support." I don't know if you read the/. article a few days ago, but Shawn Gordon, of theKompany, made a good statement on why selling support for software is a bad idea. It leads to software that needs support (such as Sendmail, which seems like they do not care about usability so much as providing support for it). I believe it is better to have software which does not need support. This is what Microsoft aims for. I remember there was a great fuss when they started making small manuals for Windows9x and moved to skimpish on-line help, but in the end I believe it's easier to use than Windows 3.x was.
Another issue of this is software will become forked multiple times, and the "original" distribution will likely never get bugs patched that the forks do, and etc. This will likely happen because of competition in the service arena. It doesn't now though, because there is usually one "servicer" for one software package. Imagine the case that there are several "general servicers" which will take customer requests and patch accordingly. These create serious maintenance issues with the original source code. On top of that, who will provide for the storage of all the forks and patched software? The service business will likely not, simply because they can make more money by holding patches at ransom and simply giving people those patches when they request them (and doing no extra work for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. customer who requests it). It will then be up to the person who paid for the patch to distribute what work was done for them.
The last issue I can think of at the moment is how software will be "born." Right now free software is started to "scratch-an-itch." In the future I can't imagine much new software will get started, simply because it is cheaper to pay someone to fix old software rather than create new software. The cost of creating new software is enormous. You have to outline the features needed, the architecture to support it, etc. It just doesn't seem feasible that the software industry could support itself like this (and I'm sure whatever these service shops charge will not be cheap either). I don't see innovations in technology occuring either, because software itself is not in competition. What is in competition is programmers supporting software. I don't envision end-users dreaming up a new interface and then paying other people to develop it and then having it become free--just so they can use that interface.
Oh, there is also a problem with copyrights. If you pay someone to modify a program, who owns the copyright to the changes? If a service business makes so many changes to a program that most of the program is the business's, does the creator of the program still hold the copyright (or rights of the entire program)? The reason this is important is because the copyright holder is entitled to change the license of the program at will (move from GPL to proprietary type or BSD, etc.).
Advocating for free software when you are not a programmer and have no job or future job on the line completely removes any validity of the desire of freedom you obtain via free software. If you advocate commercial and free software (Open Source(TM) way) you are simply advocating for gratis software; not freedom. The freedom obtained via GNU free software is only useful to those who know the language the software is written in and have a desire to learn the software architecture to make use of the source code. Anything else is just bandwagon bullshit, or political spin (Open Source) to get no-cost (gratis) software.
What do you do or plan to do for a living? I will make sure I advocate whatever you produce become completely free with no-strings-attached.
I'm not saying you should not enjoy and use free software. What I'm saying is please don't advocate free software (or the Open Source version of free software) unless you have a proposed plan that allows all the programmers you put out of work to make a living. I have found that there are generally nice programmers working for Microsoft. Very knowledgeable too. Please stop the unnecessary bashing of Microsoft. Yes, they have done things which hurt others, etc. etc. It's ancient history and is no longer significant. I want the old free software community back--the one that rarely mentioned what Microsoft was up to and was truely interested in the freedom aspect of software (and the coolness of what was being done w/ the software).
My point:
GNU is about freedom of software, not the cost associated with the software.
The other side of the "OSS" movement, Open Source(TM), is not about freedom of software (or the GNU definition of "freedom"). Their agenda is to get business to open up to free software, but they are not advocating for freedom of software. They have a very "loose" ideal compared to Richard Stallman's. They believe that free software can or should mingle with proprietary. If you believe in the freedom aspect of GNU then you will find the reasoning of Open Source(TM) absurd because it does not guarantee or obtain future freedom of software. Therefore, the only value in advocating Open Source(TM) is for the no-cost aspect of free software. This is the only reason businesses open up to free software--it lets them get the benefit of using it without having the burden of contribution. Businesses love the BSD license even more (which Open Source(TM) camp advocates also) because it lets them include the free software into proprietary software (which Microsoft and probably others have done). On the other hand, if Open Source(TM) camp could have it's way, then all software would be free, just as Richard would have it. They are taking a round-about way of advocating for freedom, yet their pragmatic methods may end up hurting the free software (GNU) movement more than helping it. They indirectly excuse business for being a free software leech and not contributing.
Freedom is good, being a leech is not. If you have nothing to contribute, at least contribute by staying out of the discussions involving free software. There is no nice way to put it. The freedom gained is for programmers only--the no-cost of free software is merely a side-effect. Don't confuse the no-cost side-effect with what GNU and even Open Source(TM) are truely about. If you are advocating for no-cost software, then please simply state so. Do not masquerade behind legitimate movements such as GNU when all you really want is software without a price tag. Think hard now. What freedom do you, personally, truely gain from free software? The only one apparent to me, is you can redistribute that software, or sell it like Red Hat. It's a freedom, yes, but not what GNU is about.
One gigadollar? I assume you mean one-billion dollars. That seems a bit steep, considering the best known Free Software business is Red Hat, which is only worth something like $20 million if that.
But then again, seeing as how you sound exactly like a MS employee paid to spread FUD on Slashdot would
Why stoop to this level? Everyone assumes everyone else is a troll or a MS paid employee. I would not be suprised if MS has no one paid to spread (mis)information on the web. They may have plenty of money to spend, but having someone do something like that seems like a waste. It does not directly translate into more money in MS' pocket, and it does not efficiently or effectively promote what MS' is about. So stop with the paranoia already.
And your entire "better product wins" drivel is simply defeated by mentioning the word "brand." See? I can do *poof* also. You think Nike shoes are better than cheaper ones?
I never saw any philosophy become the norm ever.
How do you think MS came into power? People had to believe in paying for proprietary software (or that their old word processors weren't good enough and needed a computer).
And you don't think that has value? Probably $400 / day, or more. That was the best $20k they ever spent.
Sure it has value. But, they are paying based on perceived value. What managment perceives that a programmer should make, or be paid. This changes based on what society deems a programmer to be worth. Once enough Dilbertian managers get the idea that "software is free, so it just has to be easy to create" they will start slashing programmer's salaries. At that point the programmer job market is filled with only those who love to program (those there for the money have left). They get to keep the shitty end of a deal gone wrong (free software community's "promise" of a better future through freedom of source code). I'm not a musician because I hate the thought of not having work, or being paid pennies. Don't make me become a musician.
What the fuck are you on? Seriously. I have not once said the word "communist" or anything about creating laws. You are the one stuck on creating laws and denying freedoms. If you remember how you started this thread, you were denying Microsoft their right to use BSD-licensed software. And you call me the hypocrit.
I know he can be greedy and want a strictly regulated economy (for his benefit). But he shouldn't throw around terms like "socialist" and "communist" as slurs unless he's against a regulated market.
You have no ability to comprehend anything you read. I do not want a regulated economy, like you imply. I'm trying to prove a point, and that point is that free software destroys value in software. This, I believe, will lead to instability in the software industry. That is all I'm saying. Why can't you grasp that?
However, I get a kick out of tweaking psuedo-libertarians who want a free market (for them to abuse) but a set of very strict rules that force people to put up with it, and not pull similar tricks on them.
Pull similar tricks? Strict rules? What in the fuck are you talking about? We are having a discussion about the software industry, not government regulations. I don't give a fuck about laws. I don't give a fuck if GPL stays around for 10 million years. What I am saying is that RMS wants all software to be free software and that, in my opinion, it will lead to instability once the general public starts demanding that all software become free software (and with no proven track-record from free software businesses of making money to support the creation of software). I sound like a goddamn broken record here...
I'm not talking laws, I'm talking business. I'm not talking restrictions, I'm talking instability in an industry because of FSF propaganda. Not once did I say "FSF should stop promoting the GPL." I have written GPL software myself for fucks sakes! But, I will never do it again.
Let me go ahead and call you a Nazi and a Hitler-wannabe before you imagine me saying it. Thus, I am enacting Godwin's Law and am admitting defeat. It is obvious you will believe what you want without consideration to what I am saying, or simply invent what you believe I stand for.
I have not found Microsoft paying any money to slam free software/open source. They may place a page or two of PR stuff on their web site, but where is this large amount of money they are spending? I'm sure not getting pounded by bulk mail saying "open source is bad." I believe they care about open source, but only because the value of software will become tarnished if average joe types (i.e. anyone who does not program, yet asks for open source.. i.e. probably 75% of Slashdot readers) start demanding all software become open source.
Open source to a large number of people today means "no-cost" software. This is not good and definately not what GNU and the FSF stands for.
Certainly, if you use a license that says that your users are entitled to the source code, you're really going to have to expect to get called on it.
From what I understand, theKompany is selling GPL software and not distributing it freely. The users have absolutely no right to demand access to their source code. The GPL does not say that the source code licensed under it has to be distributed to everyone freely. Please read www.gnu.org and learn about the GPL before you spew this nonsense into an already confused community. You are the precise reason that theKompany is avoiding the GPL. You expect that if software claims to be GPL'd, then you should have immediate and direct access to it without pay. Little history lesson: RMS (yes, the guy who started GNU and created the GPL) used to sell disks with his program Emacs on them. IIRC, he sold it for quite a profit too.
I like it how people will advocate free software, yet they do not know how to program. At that poin t you can no longer claim you are doing it for the freedom of software, but instead for no-cost software (i.e. they are blood-sucking leeches). It seems the free software community has tons more advocates than people doing actual work...
We sell one product that is GPL. On at least a weekly basis we get someone telling us that we have to give them the source code because it is GPL. Some of them become verbally violent and abusive when I point out that the GPL provides for us to charge for the source code, we just have to make it available, and this we have done. Some of these people even tried to hack our system to get the code because they thought it was their God-given right to have it. These are also typically the people who contribute nothing to the community.
Keep in mind that these are people who are technical enough to install something like Linux, and they are already ignorant of what the GPL is about.
I had RMS come to me on this product to make sure we weren't violating the GPL, and he admitted that we were not, but in the course of the conversation he proceeded to project onto the KDE project aspects of theKompany in a totally inappropriate fashion and was very negative about KDE in this regard. Now, to my mind there is far more corporate involvement and control over GNOME than KDE, but RMS chose to see things the way he wanted to see them in this instance and say that it was too bad the KDE didn't stand for freedom.
Proof of RMS' extremist viewpoint and his narrow mindedness.
What is the net result of this? We won't use the GPL for anything anymore. It is far too frustrating to deal with; it is ambigiously worded in places that make it just too risky for a company like us. I've heard the arguments about selling services, but for what we are doing it just really doesn't work. Look at it this way. I can send 1,000 copies to a distributor who will put it on store shelves around the world. People will walk in, pick it up and buy it. Now let's say that the software was free (as in cost) and I just sell services. Well, now I can't put it on a store shelf and for every customer; I have to go and hunt them down somehow and persuade them to use our free software and then pay us for support -- but they should only really need support if our software is hard to use or poorly designed, which isn't the case or our objective.
I really like that last statement. Take a look at Sendmail, and its obfuscation of configuring it. Is it deliberate? Maybe. What I do know is that Sendmail makes money from their support and they have made no attempt to make their software easier to use. I believe you could also say the same thing about Perl. While there is plenty of free documentation, it seems new features are added just so people can write books documenting those new features. So they have something to support.
A 286 (maybe 386 too, I'm not sure). It was an IBM model. Came with VGA monitor. It's those small footprint computers you used to see in school. Tiny, for their age. They also came with a mouse. I'm thinking the release date is something like 1986 or 87. Could be wrong, though..
I could honestly care less if Microsoft dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow. But, I would never wish that. Think of the many people who were hurt by the Enron disaster. People's lives truely are at stake. I'm not excusing Enron, though. They committed a crime and got caught. I see no wrong-doing with Microsoft. Only a bunch of whining brats who couldn't handle the competition (Netscape, whom had absolutely no business plan and was out to rape investors with their IPO, or Sun who has yet to get their shit together ~7 years after Java was created).
The free software world has created huge projects
Yes, but the incompatibility is becoming greater as the free software/OSS community becomes larger. It is also becoming more like searching for a gold nugget in a pile of shit when trying to find quality software (look at Freshmeat now compared to Freshmeat around 98-99).
Either way, it's an example of a project that took probably millions of dollars of time, were it billed, to create and yet was written by hobbyists, for free.
Yes, and who do you suppose will fund this if all software is free software?
Free software is raising the bar on paid software.
No, it's destroying the value of software. Once consumers (the masses) are unwilling to pay for software (no demand) then there will be no commercial software. It will be created by free time or government grants, etc. only. This will trigger the end of the consumer PC and the beginning of networked/all-in-one computers (when consumers get tired of the chaos of downloading software and move on to simpler, and complete systems). Some like that idea; I don't. It will likely cause an increase in price of the x86 architecture due to decreasing demand.
Microsoft is the creator of weird new formats.
You lost me there. There is this little OS called Linux. On this mysterious beast there is no less than 2 standard online help systems. "man" and "info." At any given moment the help of other systems comes into play, such as ghostview (for PostScript) or Acrobat (for PDF) for the various commercial software available for this beast. If you want to talk about weird incompatibilites and quirks look in/etc or the dotfiles in $HOME. Or the fact that hidden files begin with a dot (!). Why? All this excess baggage that Linux carries around--consumers don't need this.
Free software tends to use either standard formats, documents it, or at least provides the source code for reading it.
And proprietary vendors tend to either make their formats work, or they expect to receive a call about it to their tech support. Free software creates more standards than proprietary, IMO. Look at tar, gzip, bzip2, ar, etc. etc. Then you have sh, bash, csh, tsh, etc. Each shell is practically a whole new incompatible platform that software must work with.
You don't understand the power of custom software until a user asks for a feature on Monday and you can demo it on Wednesday and merge it into stable code by the end of the week. They love this.
And plumbers get the same treatment after they fix a nasty leak.
The reason your salary has not been cut is because software, for the most part, still has value. What I find perplexing about the situation of Microsoft's perceived monopoly, is they may have a monopoly by good they may have done. Let me explain. When Bill Gates decides to sell proprietary software, no one was doing it. There were paid programmers, I'm sure. But, I'm willing to bet that they were paid very modest sums. I believe they were viewed more as "secretarial" positions, rather than professions such as Doctors or Lawyers. If you read the history of Microsoft it has been said that Bill Gates worked his employees very hard with, what I assume, minimal pay. They are a start-up, after all. Now that Microsoft is growing they can afford to pay higher salaries for higher talent. Why is there a need for "higher talent?" Perhaps because Microsoft's key selling point is the features they have and ease-of-use. Before proprietary, software was simply made to do a job. Who cared about talent then? This is why Unix stressed efficiency, while DOS grew features and ease-of-use that other systems didn't have. Are they responsible, in part, for raising programmer's salary? I would think they played a big part. This is where I also believe they, inadvertently, created a barrier to entry in the market. Programmer time is now expensive. Thus, they have a lock on barrier to entry. You can either get the software you want, or the pay you want. Ultimately you can not have both.
The fact that you can start out entry-level in the 40-50k range while teachers remain in the 20-30k range says plenty about the perceived value of programmer time and of software. Why would anyone want to destroy this perceived value by making it appear as if software is easy to create and doesn't really matter? When mom-and-pop understand fully that compatible quality software can be made with programmer's free time, for free, what is stopping them from demanding this from Microsoft, Intuit, etc.? This is what I am arguing is Microsoft's viewpoint. This is what I truely believe is their "beef" with open source. I honestly do not think they worry about Linux or KDE/GNOME taking their market as much as they worry about the philosophy of the FSF and RMS spreading like wildfire. Linux may hurt Microsoft's market, but it will be the FSF that brings the entire software industry to its knees.
Money doesn't grow on trees, people have to work for that money. Spending money to buy a piece of software is therefor, a liability.
A liability for the person, but not society. Money is actually made in capitalism. It is made by giving objects (software) value. Take the value away and you take the money away. Take money away and you take jobs away.
magical pipe dream in the sky
Yes, perhaps that's what it is. Take out a dollar. Read it. "In God We Trust." Trust what? That perhaps that dollar will still hold this magical thing called value tomorrow. Software currently holds a value. Do you really want to remove value from software and place it on the service of creating that software? Think about it. The cost of creating software. How does that get paid for? It's beyond me. Maybe the government will pay for all software, if the FSF philosophy prevails.
It's an awfully slippery slope from GPL to Apocalypse. Don't be dramatic.
You might call it "dramatic," but I call it the future. Read what I wrote to the other guy in the posts above. It's not the end of the world, but it may very well be the end of the consumer computer as we know it. Apple computer is in a very good position right now, as they own the hardware and the software. Once the anarchy takes its toll upon Microsoft's architecture everyone will move to bashing Apple. Why? Because Apple provides a single solution for consumer problems. They will then inherit all Microsoft customers. Forget choice of hardware. That will be long gone. Keep in mind, though, that this is if FSF philosophy becomes the norm. When "average" people start demanding free (no-cost) software. It's a stretch, yes. I do believe it is plausible, though. There is much value in coherent architecture, which I find very lacking in open source land (infact, it's the one thing I hate most about using Linux).
Since OSS can be used to run a business, it does have economic value, just like "Central Park."
Yes, it does. But, at what cost to programmers? If a business finds value in a open source program, then they will not pay programmers to build them one. Then programmer jobs will be lost, I'm sure. Should the business be entitled to a free ride? Someone had to spent time and money building the program they are now using.
Which leads to the next quote..
Money is not what makes people cooperative, it's the ability to punish the free-rider, the threat of punishment; and the removal of anonymity, so that everyone knows who the free-rider is. Without these things, cooperation falls apart.
Downloading free software via the internet is as anonymous as you can get. Say there are two businesses, A and B. Say business A pays for the development of software which runs their web-based store (or whatever you can imagine). Now business B runs a shop very much like business A (say Barnes and Noble arriving to the web shortly after Amazon.com). Now business B simply downloads the software that business A had developed--no one gets paid. Now business A is still paying for the maintainence of their software. Business B simply downloads patches and are, feature-wise, compatible to business A. Who do you think has the upper-hand? The business paying thousands for their software and features which they thought would be unique to them, or business B which is simply freeloading? If it were Barnes and Noble vs. early Amazon.com, do you know who would win? Barnes and Noble. They have brand identity. This is the reason Slashdot gets away with releasing their source code. Slashdot is a brand. It has a public image, thus value built-in. You can go start a/. clone, but it will never be as popular as Slashdot. Perhaps that is why Rob was so slow to release slashcode. Waiting for the value to build up.
I never mentioned M$. You seem to be on the defensive for them so forcefully. Do you work for them?
Well, this whole thread is about Microsoft using open source. And no, I'm not on Microsoft's payroll. I also do not own Microsoft stock, or stock in any company that Microsoft has stakes in (that I know of, anyways).
Software has greater value if it is high quality.
I doubt that. Quality plays a part, but consumers today want features and coherency. Which is why many people will accept a Windows crash every once in awhile. They want to be able to print from any application and use the network from any application. They don't want to mess with configuration and installation details.
they came up with this Shared Source [shared-source.com] that is afflicted with most of the same things they are complaining about under OSS
After looking at shared-source.com it appears that their concerns are in line with my concerns, and that their licencing is exactly what I would expect.
A quote from shared-source.com on a "Microsoft claim":
In this sense, open source software based on the GPL mirrors the.com business models that proved the least successful during the past year. They ask software developers to give away for free the very thing they create that is of greatest value in the hope that somehow they'll make money selling something else. In effect, it puts at risk the continued vitality of the independent software sector.
You would probably think I was lying if I told you that I have never read this site and know nothing of Microsoft's shared source license scheme. Note at the bottom that they list Red Hat as proof that open source is commercially viable. I have yet to see proof of this, and from what I understand they also bundle proprietary software. Ximian, as you probably know, is testing the proprietary waters because of perceived future cashflow issues. At the bottom they also list the LSB as proof that Linux won't fragment--a failsafe. I have yet to see this materialize and it has been 2 (?) years now. You can't put a failsafe on every detail. CVS may help developers on a small scale, but what will happen on the larger scale? I hate to find out...
Prove that Microsoft is trying to make open source code illegal.
You're the one proposing a corporate welfare state. Let's pass laws making it illegal for people to do their own programming, just to keep Microsoft making their money.
You obviously haven't read a damn thing I've written. I haven't said a thing about laws being passed. If Microsoft can get laws passed then it is because the government is corrupt. If Microsoft can bribe the government then they are both at fault. But, I need proof and I'm not seeing any.
And then with the 401k plans. Wah! If you invest in a volatile market you expect risk. I don't see anybody crying over my retirement fund, so why should I go out of business over theirs?
I was simply stating that Microsoft is more than just Bill Gates and the executives. Two words: reading comprehension.
Truly, the open source programmers and I are arguing for the only true capitalist point of view here. If a big company can't compete with us, let them go the way of the dinosaur.
Yes, and when you are reduced to a freelance computer "technician" and are no longer a "professional" don't come crying to me when your salary gets cut in half. It's nice that you can make money in the service industry (such as corporate database programming and web devel), but the consumer market is not the same.
Don't forget, I'm perfectly willing to compete. If Microsoft can fill the niche I do, without simply making it illegal for me to do it, then I will move on to another job. Either I'll find a new niche, or a new career. Unlike the world's richest man, I don't expect everyone to take care of me.
No you aren't. RMS says all software must be free software. Thats not competition, thats dictatorship. Maybe there is no niche because there are not enough people that need source code. From my point-of-view, Microsoft is simply shrugging off free software as a fad. They don't really believe it will produce what they can, but I do believe they are worried about the philosophy the FSF shoves down people's throats. Why are they worried? Because people will start demanding free software. And I'm not talking about source code. People are already starting to demand it--and they don't even need the goddamn source code and don't even know how to program! FSF is basically making the value of software nil. No one will pay for it if there is so much free (no-cost) software out there. I'm sure Intuit, Autodesk, and especially Adobe are worried also.
The Free Software Foundation stresses that free software means freedom, but their logic that "free software does not mean no-cost software" is completely broken. They are not willing to see that once source code has been released it is inherently no-cost.
If all software is free software, then no new software will get created (like I said earlier). Do you know the price tag of something like MS Office or AutoCAD being created? I'm sure it is well into the million dollar range. Who in the world would pay that much and then have it released for public consumption? No one! They may purchase the software and resell it (like MS has done many many times), but they will not release under the GPL. The only time payment can be collected on GPL'd software is at the initial transfer. Once two parties have free software you can be sure that the entire world will have access to that software. Do you understand where I'm going here? There will be no support system to continue the development of the software. It will be left up to thousands of development shops to pick up development and the entire computing world will become fragmented. There will be no defacto standards that hold computing systems together. The computing world will become one big spaghetti system. All software talking different protocols, using different file names, and some not even having concepts of "files." If you think the communication between Windows and Linux/BSD is bad, wait until anyone can come along and stomp on protocols. You can already see this happening between Red Hat and various other Linux distros. Certain assumptions about what a "Linux system" is don't hold true and things tend to break. Once computing systems get larger, free software methods break down quick. Try compiling and installing GNOME by hand and you will see that it takes a near miracle to install correctly. It is much easier to download RPMs and install like that. Do you see now, where the value of software is. It isn't being able to modify it (as long as the software is still supported). The value is having it work and work correctly and together. How many times do you really have an urge to modify the source code for bash? Mozilla? X? Not much, I bet. As software becomes more complex, the need for source code diminishes (think of the push for OO programming, and why abstraction is such an important part). There may be a market for you to sign some sort of NDA with a company to let you access source code and modify it (provided you don't distribute). I see nothing wrong with that. I also don't see a problem with software becoming GPL after it has expired (such as id Software did with Quake, Quake2, and Doom). Those, IMO, are valid reasons for having source code. What the FSF wants is too much for me, and their views are very extremist.
Here is another way to look at this: Maybe Microsoft does want software dictatorship (and Apple wants the whole freaking computer!). Who wouldn't, if they were in that position? They have an obligation to raise their stock price and they have to keep control of their architecture. But, FSF wants software anarchy. If you were an end-user who didn't know a serial port from USB, what would you rather have? My money would be safe with Microsoft. It would be a fairly simple choice, too. The cheap x86 architecture and the numerous applications available because of the cheapness. Who controls the middle is really a non-issue, as long as everything works. Microsoft makes everything work. How well is subjective, though...
GPL developers will charge their users for services, just as they do now and will make money. Non-GPL developers will carry on exactly as they do now - unless MS kills their company.
This is too funny. I just love how Ximian is now turning towards proprietary software to get a little cashflow for when their multi million-dollar VC supply runs short. The irony is too much! My sides are hurting from laughter!
Yawn. It's an old story. "If you bash Microsoft, you're jealous."
It's nice that you think that, but no. I'm saying you (and others) are trying to fit the Robin Hood story over the "Microsoft story." It is implied by the heavy use of "M$" and "Micro$oft" --notice the $ sign. It is a very ingrained story, from elementary school, and it needs weeding out. Microsoft does not pin anyone down. They throw their weight around, but that is capitalism for you. The fact that there is a MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD, etc. prove that Microsoft has no power to get rid of them.
I bash Microsoft because that would desperately love to make open source software illegal.
Oh really? Much like RMS wants to make all software free software? Sounds like freedom to me. Whatever software I write, Bill Gates doesn't give a damn what I do with it. If I'm going for his market, he will do whatever he can to stop me. Who wouldn't? Anyone would (unless you simply don't believe in capitalism and competition). Whenever I write software, RMS will insist I make it free software. Why? Because he is greedy. He wants it all for himself--for no other reason. Look up his reasoning in an interview he did at one time if you don't believe me. He doesn't have any grand vision. He just wants all software he ever uses to be free software (and no, Open Source(TM) is not good enough).
You, like many Slashdot readers, are blindsided by Microsoft's mistakes. You look at Bill Gates' fortune and you look at all the shitty software Microsoft has ever made and you put two and two together and come to the conclusion that Microsoft is a bad organization. Then you turn every story about Microsoft into how Microsoft wants to control the world. Every little mistake is scrutinized and turned into a "Microsoft evil-doing." Microsoft is not just Bill Gates and the executives. Microsoft is the shareholders all across America and the world. In every community and city and state. Microsoft is also the employees, who I'm sure have no qualms about Microsoft. Microsoft is the corporation that holds people's faith that the NASDAQ index will once again rise. This is important to countless people's 401k's and retirement plans.
No, I don't dislike Bill because he's rich. I dislike Bill because he's doing his upmost to make sure that I'll never be rich, by destroying the business oportunities of anyone who isn't Microsoft.
If you are going for Microsoft's market, then you have to compete with Microsoft, no? They aren't going to simply step aside and say "welcome to our market! make yourself at home!" Look at Adobe. They still make money, from what I understand. Look at Intuit, Autodesk, etc. Many started before Microsoft was around or even big. Want to know a little secret? Lotus was bigger than Microsoft. Yes, it's true. Microsoft got ahead of Lotus by being smarter about business.
How much does MS pay you to astro-turf for them?
And how much does the FSF pay you to spread this anti-capitalism trite?
I think people are turned off by the interface, but it is quite capable for the price. It's free to use, though all you can do is export to mp3/wav and you can't save your work and come back later. The cost is a little over $100 IIRC. Should be well worth it though, if you plan to make tons of music. It's actually the fastest pattern-based composer I've found. I was using ModPlug tracker, but that gets extremely tedious.
Does the "average user" need more? Windows is a very minimal interface and operating system. You simply power up and go. It may crash and become unstable, but this "turn on and use" functionality comes at a price. Also, there is nothing else that the "average user" could possibly use today. They could purchase an Apple, but instead they opted for x86 because of applications. They don't care who gets paid for the OS, they just want to use the damned thing. Would they knowingly spend $199? Hell yes! If they want the applications they sure enough will. It is simply a convenience to purchase a computer with an OS. If the consumer really wants then they can put a computer together and get the OS they want. Whats the point of prefab computers, if they aren't fully functional out of the box? That's the market Gateway and Dell are going for. You and I don't need it, but grandma might.
If they say open source is so bad (regardless of if it is) then they shouldn't use it. If they use it, it's because it helps them. If it helps them, it's not so bad now, is it?
I don't think Microsoft is saying that open source is bad. I do believe they know more about business and supporting programmers than anyone who creates free software. RMS just doesn't give a damn if you starve because programming is no longer rewarded financially. He gets paid via non-profit organization to sit on his ass and attack people who create proprietary software. I'd also like to see the taxes RMS has paid his entire life. Compare that to any programmer working for Microsoft, and I guarantee that even the entry-level position people are paying more taxes in a few years than RMS has ever paid.
A world with open source will still require people to code new things, and to customize current things. There'll always be new things.
You seem to forget that it takes an incentive to create new software. You know who foots that massive bill to create new software? People like Microsoft and Intuit. You know who will foot that bill if all software was free software? NO ONE. Not one person or organization will have the capacity to have software created for the common good. The only software that will be created is the "scratch-an-itch" type, except it will be highly specialized and not for the general public. In that case, there is not even incentive to release or maintain a source repository for it. It is simply throwing money down the drain at that point.
But frankly, if you depend on artificial scarcity you're taking advantage of others to make a buck.
It is not artificial scarcity. It is no different than paying for a magazine or newspaper subscription or music. Scarcity is when the creation of actual, physical goods is limited by natural resources. Paying for software is not the same as paying for a computer. When you pay for a computer, you are part of the demand for that computer. Computers face the reality of scarcity. That is why memory prices keep jumping around. When you pay for software you are paying for the labor that went into that service. You also pay whatever extra the giver of that service wishes. Sure, software may appear to be a good when it sits on the shelf. Underneath, software is simply a service. There is a little cost for the scarcity of material such as for the manual and CD-ROM, but that is it.
Spending money is a liability too, because all money is a representation of the amount of work it would take to mine an equal portion of gold. One has to also work to get money.
To society, spending money is not a liability. The government gets tax money and people's time is given actual monetary value. If all software was open source then programmers would have to jump from "gig to gig" looking for work. There would also be hundreds of forks of the major software and almost no new software being created (because programmer's free time is gone since they have to actively look for work and noone wants to foot the bill and support a whole new software package being written).
Example: A free park would only be useful to society if people are restricted from charging and restricting others from and entering the park. Why then do we have parks? The makers are not rewarded, and no one else is entitled to be rewarded financially.
Uhm. A park is created when the city decides to use tax-payer dollars and pays for the creation of such a park. The park is an incentive for people to move to the city and help the economy there. Thus, the free park has actual economic value and is not a by-product of people's free time. Do you really think people create parks in their spare time? I'd like to see something like Central Park in NYC maintained on nothing but good will, as you imply.
If you see an addressed, stamped envelope on the ground, would you pick it up and mail it? If you answer yes, then, why did you do it? No one is paying you to do it, you did it for emotional reasons. If you answer no, then you are a defector. You better hope that no one knows about it. With anonymity comes increases in defectors, as people realize they don't have to contribute, they can just take. That's why the government makes taxation mandatory and not voluntary.
Picking one envelope off the ground and sticking it in the nearest mailbox would be charity. If there were enough people dropping their mail, then it might be of value to pay someone to go along the streets and pick up all envelopes and mail them. Then you would have a tax-payer supported mail picker-upper. This is no different from garbage collection. When you see a bottle on the side of the street you may wish to pick it up and throw it away. This is charity. The guys who come in a big truck and pick up everyone's pile of trash is not charity.
Humans are very emotional and that's what drives people to cooperate.
Oh really? When you drive around town looking for the best price on a computer and then finally decide on one, is that cooperation? Of course. You are paying people for an actual good. They now have profit from whatever mark-up was on that computer and can expand their business. Was it based on emotions? No. It was all about you looking for the best price. This type of cooperation happens more than any other in America. I have yet to find co-workers who can remain in cooperation for even short periods of time, yet money has a way of removing prejudice, religous beliefs, etc. and getting to the bottom of cooperation.
No one is saying that money is evil.
It is implied by the way people bash Microsoft. They are bashing them for no other reason than because the "richest man in the world," Bill Gates owns the company. People are so stuck on the Robin Hood story of "rob from the rich give to the poor" and have this idea that rich people in America are the greedy robber-barons of ancient times. This is not the case, as money in America is actually created. There is not a pile of gold that Bill Gates is hoarding. Whatever money he has, you could have also. But you have to see that opportunity yourself. What? Not smart enough to see it? Neither am I. Nor was anyone at IBM or Digital. Or Apple. People seem to forget how many millionares (and otherwise very happy people) Bill Gates has made.
No one is saying that money is evil.
Microsoft would be, if they rewrote the zlib compression.
And there are more useful things than rotting in jail, hence why smart people don't break the law, lest they get punished. As for lazy people, the punishment for not doing anything is that you have to write a compression library.
Why do you insist on stereotyping Microsoft as "do nothing?" They have more programmers working for them at any given moment than the whole free software movement has ever had. These people are not just standing around with their thumb up their ass. Otherwise Microsoft would not be making money, now would they? I'm not sure what you mean by "rotting in jail." There were no laws broken by using zlib, if that is what you mean.
You don't know that any of that would happen.
Of course I don't. What I do know is that if you remove the value of software, then the monetary incentive is gone with it. You should join the Free Software Business mailing list for a glimpse of the future. What you will witness is people trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and do not realize that software has greater value if it is proprietary than open.
Their PR flack recently said that OS software costs society by not hiring programmers or contributing to tax money. So they should immediately rip out all the open source software they use and hire programmers to recreate it.
Erm. Your logic is broken to me. Why don't we examine this:
There is a free compression library, zlib, which is an asset to the public (and proprietary software business, because of it being BSD licensed and not GPL).
The fact that people spent their own time on zlib is a liability. Their time is gone. They have nothing other than free source code which gains them nothing more than the ability to use that source code. They were not rewarded financially, nor was anyone else able to be rewarded financially for that particular program (not that is matters too much, since there are many other compression tools).
Society does not move forward without using other's tools, but society does not move at all without monetary incentive. There is a reason for money, and it is not for "evil" purposes despite how bad/. readers believe it to be. Throwing out software because of how it was created is plain ignorance and wasteful. There are more useful things to be done than paying someone to rewrite a compression library.
Do you really want "starving programmer" to become an actual phrase, much like "starving artist" or "starving musician?" This is what will happen, if FSF has its way.
It's simple. Just count the number of chars, ints, whatever that you're placing into the buffer and stop when you hit the last one. Also, make sure you stay away from crap like gets() ("man gets"). Use only functions which you can supply a buffer size. You tend to use so many buffers that after awhile it becomes easy to forget about checking them and you get very lazy. Other than that, buffer overflows are very simple bugs, but usually a pain in the ass to find.
Slashdot Mirror
The freedom of software has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Nothing. You are thinking of a broad definition of freedom. The freedom associated with GNU and Open Source(TM) has nothing to do with speech, religion, or whatever other freedoms you can dream up. It is simply freedom of source code. The only benefit of this freedom belongs to programmers. For example, the freedom to own a gun does nothing for you if you don't care about owning a gun (i.e. you just enjoy the taste of Deer, and continue to want Deer). If you have nothing to do with guns, then don't pursuade others to carry them or not carry them. Just like you are second guessing what I want? You assume I want proprietary software to coexist with free software? If not then why are you implying it. I don't care if you have registered WinZip or not. You are staddling two very different philosophies about software and look like a hypocrit. On one case you claim to support free software, but on the other hand you blatently use proprietary software without concern for those who strive for freedom. Either freedom of software is an ideal, or it is not. You can't simply say "I'm all for free software" and then turn around and use proprietary. This hurts the cause greatly. Perhaps they are naive. Lets get something straight: this open-source movement really took on steam around the time the dot-com movement was started. It is not too hard to come to a conclusion that many open-source programmers still have a mindset of a dot-com; that everything will be alright and we can give everything away for free. Many of these open-source programmers did work at dot-coms, and many are now out of their jobs and facing reality. They may also just love to program (which is why I do it). They probably have a different job than programming (system admin or something) and generally don't care about the programmer market. Perhaps it's a mix of the two. I'm not trying to sensor you, per se. Advocating free software and discussing it are two different matters. The former, you are pursuading people to adopt the free software philosophy (either GNU, OpenSource(TM), or your own brand of mix-and-match). What I'm simply saying is don't run around telling people they should be using free software because of it being "free" software, when you really mean "no-cost" software. Then again, you will probably go into bezerk rampage mode again and start waving your American flag yelling "I demand my freedom of speech" and that I'm a Microsoft paid zealot who has ties with no less than 3 mob bosses and worship satan. I'm glad you know your god-given rights that were provided to you by the founders of America, but can you please be a little less ignorant to those who do have sincere issues on the line? If you want to be a cheerleader, at least learn the moves (i.e. to program and how to use the freedom provided by GNU). And I'm sure your "contribution" will be greatly appreciated by all involved in the creation, maintenance, and advocation of free software. To be wrong you must not constantly insist that you are right.
There already are people who make money by support, but this brings up a number of nasty issues.
/. article a few days ago, but Shawn Gordon, of theKompany, made a good statement on why selling support for software is a bad idea. It leads to software that needs support (such as Sendmail, which seems like they do not care about usability so much as providing support for it). I believe it is better to have software which does not need support. This is what Microsoft aims for. I remember there was a great fuss when they started making small manuals for Windows9x and moved to skimpish on-line help, but in the end I believe it's easier to use than Windows 3.x was.
First, software will grow towards "needing support." I don't know if you read the
Another issue of this is software will become forked multiple times, and the "original" distribution will likely never get bugs patched that the forks do, and etc. This will likely happen because of competition in the service arena. It doesn't now though, because there is usually one "servicer" for one software package. Imagine the case that there are several "general servicers" which will take customer requests and patch accordingly. These create serious maintenance issues with the original source code. On top of that, who will provide for the storage of all the forks and patched software? The service business will likely not, simply because they can make more money by holding patches at ransom and simply giving people those patches when they request them (and doing no extra work for the 2nd, 3rd, etc. customer who requests it). It will then be up to the person who paid for the patch to distribute what work was done for them.
The last issue I can think of at the moment is how software will be "born." Right now free software is started to "scratch-an-itch." In the future I can't imagine much new software will get started, simply because it is cheaper to pay someone to fix old software rather than create new software. The cost of creating new software is enormous. You have to outline the features needed, the architecture to support it, etc. It just doesn't seem feasible that the software industry could support itself like this (and I'm sure whatever these service shops charge will not be cheap either). I don't see innovations in technology occuring either, because software itself is not in competition. What is in competition is programmers supporting software. I don't envision end-users dreaming up a new interface and then paying other people to develop it and then having it become free--just so they can use that interface.
Oh, there is also a problem with copyrights. If you pay someone to modify a program, who owns the copyright to the changes? If a service business makes so many changes to a program that most of the program is the business's, does the creator of the program still hold the copyright (or rights of the entire program)? The reason this is important is because the copyright holder is entitled to change the license of the program at will (move from GPL to proprietary type or BSD, etc.).
Advocating for free software when you are not a programmer and have no job or future job on the line completely removes any validity of the desire of freedom you obtain via free software. If you advocate commercial and free software (Open Source(TM) way) you are simply advocating for gratis software; not freedom. The freedom obtained via GNU free software is only useful to those who know the language the software is written in and have a desire to learn the software architecture to make use of the source code. Anything else is just bandwagon bullshit, or political spin (Open Source) to get no-cost (gratis) software.
What do you do or plan to do for a living? I will make sure I advocate whatever you produce become completely free with no-strings-attached.
I'm not saying you should not enjoy and use free software. What I'm saying is please don't advocate free software (or the Open Source version of free software) unless you have a proposed plan that allows all the programmers you put out of work to make a living. I have found that there are generally nice programmers working for Microsoft. Very knowledgeable too. Please stop the unnecessary bashing of Microsoft. Yes, they have done things which hurt others, etc. etc. It's ancient history and is no longer significant. I want the old free software community back--the one that rarely mentioned what Microsoft was up to and was truely interested in the freedom aspect of software (and the coolness of what was being done w/ the software).
My point: GNU is about freedom of software, not the cost associated with the software.
The other side of the "OSS" movement, Open Source(TM), is not about freedom of software (or the GNU definition of "freedom"). Their agenda is to get business to open up to free software, but they are not advocating for freedom of software. They have a very "loose" ideal compared to Richard Stallman's. They believe that free software can or should mingle with proprietary. If you believe in the freedom aspect of GNU then you will find the reasoning of Open Source(TM) absurd because it does not guarantee or obtain future freedom of software. Therefore, the only value in advocating Open Source(TM) is for the no-cost aspect of free software. This is the only reason businesses open up to free software--it lets them get the benefit of using it without having the burden of contribution. Businesses love the BSD license even more (which Open Source(TM) camp advocates also) because it lets them include the free software into proprietary software (which Microsoft and probably others have done). On the other hand, if Open Source(TM) camp could have it's way, then all software would be free, just as Richard would have it. They are taking a round-about way of advocating for freedom, yet their pragmatic methods may end up hurting the free software (GNU) movement more than helping it. They indirectly excuse business for being a free software leech and not contributing.
Freedom is good, being a leech is not. If you have nothing to contribute, at least contribute by staying out of the discussions involving free software. There is no nice way to put it. The freedom gained is for programmers only--the no-cost of free software is merely a side-effect. Don't confuse the no-cost side-effect with what GNU and even Open Source(TM) are truely about. If you are advocating for no-cost software, then please simply state so. Do not masquerade behind legitimate movements such as GNU when all you really want is software without a price tag. Think hard now. What freedom do you, personally, truely gain from free software? The only one apparent to me, is you can redistribute that software, or sell it like Red Hat. It's a freedom, yes, but not what GNU is about.
File sharing w/ copyright music is illegal (in the US). Free software sharing is not.
And your entire "better product wins" drivel is simply defeated by mentioning the word "brand." See? I can do *poof* also. You think Nike shoes are better than cheaper ones? How do you think MS came into power? People had to believe in paying for proprietary software (or that their old word processors weren't good enough and needed a computer).
Let me go ahead and call you a Nazi and a Hitler-wannabe before you imagine me saying it. Thus, I am enacting Godwin's Law and am admitting defeat. It is obvious you will believe what you want without consideration to what I am saying, or simply invent what you believe I stand for.
Open source to a large number of people today means "no-cost" software. This is not good and definately not what GNU and the FSF stands for. From what I understand, theKompany is selling GPL software and not distributing it freely. The users have absolutely no right to demand access to their source code. The GPL does not say that the source code licensed under it has to be distributed to everyone freely. Please read www.gnu.org and learn about the GPL before you spew this nonsense into an already confused community. You are the precise reason that theKompany is avoiding the GPL. You expect that if software claims to be GPL'd, then you should have immediate and direct access to it without pay. Little history lesson: RMS (yes, the guy who started GNU and created the GPL) used to sell disks with his program Emacs on them. IIRC, he sold it for quite a profit too.
I like it how people will advocate free software, yet they do not know how to program. At that poin t you can no longer claim you are doing it for the freedom of software, but instead for no-cost software (i.e. they are blood-sucking leeches). It seems the free software community has tons more advocates than people doing actual work...
A 286 (maybe 386 too, I'm not sure). It was an IBM model. Came with VGA monitor. It's those small footprint computers you used to see in school. Tiny, for their age. They also came with a mouse. I'm thinking the release date is something like 1986 or 87. Could be wrong, though..
The reason your salary has not been cut is because software, for the most part, still has value. What I find perplexing about the situation of Microsoft's perceived monopoly, is they may have a monopoly by good they may have done. Let me explain. When Bill Gates decides to sell proprietary software, no one was doing it. There were paid programmers, I'm sure. But, I'm willing to bet that they were paid very modest sums. I believe they were viewed more as "secretarial" positions, rather than professions such as Doctors or Lawyers. If you read the history of Microsoft it has been said that Bill Gates worked his employees very hard with, what I assume, minimal pay. They are a start-up, after all. Now that Microsoft is growing they can afford to pay higher salaries for higher talent. Why is there a need for "higher talent?" Perhaps because Microsoft's key selling point is the features they have and ease-of-use. Before proprietary, software was simply made to do a job. Who cared about talent then? This is why Unix stressed efficiency, while DOS grew features and ease-of-use that other systems didn't have. Are they responsible, in part, for raising programmer's salary? I would think they played a big part. This is where I also believe they, inadvertently, created a barrier to entry in the market. Programmer time is now expensive. Thus, they have a lock on barrier to entry. You can either get the software you want, or the pay you want. Ultimately you can not have both.
The fact that you can start out entry-level in the 40-50k range while teachers remain in the 20-30k range says plenty about the perceived value of programmer time and of software. Why would anyone want to destroy this perceived value by making it appear as if software is easy to create and doesn't really matter? When mom-and-pop understand fully that compatible quality software can be made with programmer's free time, for free, what is stopping them from demanding this from Microsoft, Intuit, etc.? This is what I am arguing is Microsoft's viewpoint. This is what I truely believe is their "beef" with open source. I honestly do not think they worry about Linux or KDE/GNOME taking their market as much as they worry about the philosophy of the FSF and RMS spreading like wildfire. Linux may hurt Microsoft's market, but it will be the FSF that brings the entire software industry to its knees.
The Free Software Foundation stresses that free software means freedom, but their logic that "free software does not mean no-cost software" is completely broken. They are not willing to see that once source code has been released it is inherently no-cost.
If all software is free software, then no new software will get created (like I said earlier). Do you know the price tag of something like MS Office or AutoCAD being created? I'm sure it is well into the million dollar range. Who in the world would pay that much and then have it released for public consumption? No one! They may purchase the software and resell it (like MS has done many many times), but they will not release under the GPL. The only time payment can be collected on GPL'd software is at the initial transfer. Once two parties have free software you can be sure that the entire world will have access to that software. Do you understand where I'm going here? There will be no support system to continue the development of the software. It will be left up to thousands of development shops to pick up development and the entire computing world will become fragmented. There will be no defacto standards that hold computing systems together. The computing world will become one big spaghetti system. All software talking different protocols, using different file names, and some not even having concepts of "files." If you think the communication between Windows and Linux/BSD is bad, wait until anyone can come along and stomp on protocols. You can already see this happening between Red Hat and various other Linux distros. Certain assumptions about what a "Linux system" is don't hold true and things tend to break. Once computing systems get larger, free software methods break down quick. Try compiling and installing GNOME by hand and you will see that it takes a near miracle to install correctly. It is much easier to download RPMs and install like that. Do you see now, where the value of software is. It isn't being able to modify it (as long as the software is still supported). The value is having it work and work correctly and together. How many times do you really have an urge to modify the source code for bash? Mozilla? X? Not much, I bet. As software becomes more complex, the need for source code diminishes (think of the push for OO programming, and why abstraction is such an important part). There may be a market for you to sign some sort of NDA with a company to let you access source code and modify it (provided you don't distribute). I see nothing wrong with that. I also don't see a problem with software becoming GPL after it has expired (such as id Software did with Quake, Quake2, and Doom). Those, IMO, are valid reasons for having source code. What the FSF wants is too much for me, and their views are very extremist.
Here is another way to look at this: Maybe Microsoft does want software dictatorship (and Apple wants the whole freaking computer!). Who wouldn't, if they were in that position? They have an obligation to raise their stock price and they have to keep control of their architecture. But, FSF wants software anarchy. If you were an end-user who didn't know a serial port from USB, what would you rather have? My money would be safe with Microsoft. It would be a fairly simple choice, too. The cheap x86 architecture and the numerous applications available because of the cheapness. Who controls the middle is really a non-issue, as long as everything works. Microsoft makes everything work. How well is subjective, though...
I think people are turned off by the interface, but it is quite capable for the price. It's free to use, though all you can do is export to mp3/wav and you can't save your work and come back later. The cost is a little over $100 IIRC. Should be well worth it though, if you plan to make tons of music. It's actually the fastest pattern-based composer I've found. I was using ModPlug tracker, but that gets extremely tedious.
Does the "average user" need more? Windows is a very minimal interface and operating system. You simply power up and go. It may crash and become unstable, but this "turn on and use" functionality comes at a price. Also, there is nothing else that the "average user" could possibly use today. They could purchase an Apple, but instead they opted for x86 because of applications. They don't care who gets paid for the OS, they just want to use the damned thing. Would they knowingly spend $199? Hell yes! If they want the applications they sure enough will. It is simply a convenience to purchase a computer with an OS. If the consumer really wants then they can put a computer together and get the OS they want. Whats the point of prefab computers, if they aren't fully functional out of the box? That's the market Gateway and Dell are going for. You and I don't need it, but grandma might.
There is a free compression library, zlib, which is an asset to the public (and proprietary software business, because of it being BSD licensed and not GPL).
The fact that people spent their own time on zlib is a liability. Their time is gone. They have nothing other than free source code which gains them nothing more than the ability to use that source code. They were not rewarded financially, nor was anyone else able to be rewarded financially for that particular program (not that is matters too much, since there are many other compression tools).
Society does not move forward without using other's tools, but society does not move at all without monetary incentive. There is a reason for money, and it is not for "evil" purposes despite how bad
Do you really want "starving programmer" to become an actual phrase, much like "starving artist" or "starving musician?" This is what will happen, if FSF has its way.
It's simple. Just count the number of chars, ints, whatever that you're placing into the buffer and stop when you hit the last one. Also, make sure you stay away from crap like gets() ("man gets"). Use only functions which you can supply a buffer size. You tend to use so many buffers that after awhile it becomes easy to forget about checking them and you get very lazy. Other than that, buffer overflows are very simple bugs, but usually a pain in the ass to find.