Are you implying that all businesses should employ GPL or BSD style licenses?
I'll explicitly state so, if that's clearer. "No business should, ideally, use non-free software licenses."
That's just stupidity piled on top of ignorance.
It's a controversial view point from some perspectives.
I even think that they shouldn't bundle IE in with their OS.
But it's okay for Apple to bundle Safari? Is it okay for GNU to bundle Emacs and GCC?
They should release SOME source code, so that improvements can be made
What source code? Under what terms? In some ways, releasing it under restrictive terms would have practical effects worse for the general public than not releasing it it at all, since it would improve the technical quality of Microsoft products without the various other advantages of software freedom.
I'm defending Microsoft's right to make money, NOT the manner in which they do it. There's a difference and it's important.
I certainly agree, though you seem to think that restricting the use, modification and distribution of software (like Microsoft does) is an acceptable manner. I don't agree with that since I see that as unethical, impractical, and harmful for the economy as well as society in large.
While you may think that if every business utilized some utopian GPL license, we'd all be happy, software would be perfect because it would be open source, and the code would be free, and wouldn't that be just peachy,
Wouldn't it, though?
those of us in a little-known called reality know better.
Right. You know that in current reality, there are successful free software (a.k.a. open source) businesses as well as (unfortunately) some businesses which currently rely on non-free software. Please keep in mind that free software is increasingly successful, unlike non-free software.
What you're advocating is a pipe dream. Great on paper, but utterly useless in the real world.
What I'm describing, what I hold as my ideal world, is the utopian world you call a pipe dream. What I'm advocating, however, is not that MS would make as much money releasing their software under the GPL (they'd have to change several of their practices), nor that they should. What I'm advocating is simply that until they do, they don't deserve our support - and half-assed "shared source"-releases (or releases of small parts of their system) is not going to change that.
Congratulations, BTW. Your mindless, drone-like, Microsoft-bashing has caused me to defend them in some small way, something I never thought I'd do. Way to go.
I'm sorry, that was certainly not what I intended. Please accept my apologies if I were unclear.
I'll bite... how does this legitimize them and in whose eyes?
I'm concerned people will think that this is "enough", that people will reward Microsoft for this "sharing of secret information" that shouldn't have been secret in the first place.
People (non-geeks) might go "Oh, Microsoft released source code so they're fine now", even if Microsoft would only reveal a fragment of code or under horrible "Shared" source licenses, since that's how news media would represent it. You'd be surprised of the headlines in some EU countries these days. "Microsoft gives in and will release source!" from Dagens Industri earlier this January, when MS were in talks with a local government.
The problem as I see it is that they work with non-free software (not only non-free from a copyright perspective, but hassled with patents as well). If they did free software the market share wouldn't be a problem since you could fork at any sign of misbehaviour (whether spyware or pricing).
I agree with this. The bundling is (clearly?) not the problem. The GNU/Linux distros bundles browsers, media players, calculators and that's fine, that's a good thing.
In fact I have a hard time considering an operating system that doesn't ship with a compiler.
It's like telling a thief to "steal less". As long as Microsoft does non-free software (as opposed to GPL or BSD-style), rulings like this will only help legitimize them rather than raise concerns of their ongoing practices.
One GUI 'expert' said that the start menu is in the bottom right hand corner because in general the mouse will be quite far away from it, and so you can just shoot the mouse down as far as it goes and click. This works in most enviroments - gnome(panel), kde (kicker), fvwm.. but not the newest windows (tut tut).
Yes, Windows breaks Fitt's Law. It may be so that they don't have any usability concerns at all.
The problem isn't the start button or the status bar. It's the taskbar/task list. You never switch apps?
When are you going to realize that unlike you racist schmucks,/. isn't about trying to be a homogenous group?
There ar/.-ers that are for the complete abolition of copy control/monopoly and there are/.-ers that aren't, that generally support the legit pay-for-download services.
There are even those who hail to the RIAA every night and complain about the stereotypical imagine slashdotter.
There even might be a few who think that this proprietary-codeced (AAC), closed, Mac-customers-only offering is a good thing.
I really love slashdot, I do, but I guess we all have our various side-thorns with it. It took me longer than it should have to be cautious with articles like these.
Personally, I try to avoid advertisements and I do pretty well. It can go days between me seeing one - most often it's billboards or in journals when it does happen. (I have a huge blacklist for Phoenix.) The town I live in also has a medium-to-big street culture group that does defacement and propaganda, which I find a refreshing break from the drone of sponsored media.
I really started freaking out once when I thought I heard commercials in my dreams. I thought it was like in Futurama. Turns out that the neighbours had the radio on so loud and that where the ads came from - I woke up a few minutes later and if you've ever awoken to the radio, you might know what that can be like.
I don't want to do business with corporations who try to trick me, and I view most advertisments as a form of trickery or manipulation.
They want to 'reach' me? Well, they can try ethical behaviour, and maybe then I'll seek them out. Maybe.
For someone familiar with how Xfree works, that's very consistent and thus in a sense intuitive.
In time, I'm sure there'll be a graphical little checkbox somewhere you can tinker with...
I don't think people who complain about the complexity of free software projects consider that this is a brand new release. I don't think bloody Microsoft Longhorn has every option cleanly documented or in a control panel yet, you'd have to go through the registry.
Re:you obviously didn't read the article
on
Ozone As Pesticide
·
· Score: 1
I wrote: "I think that the vulnerable monocultures are the reason that insects like these develop"
I must've been tired. I meant "insect attacks like these" or something like that. I'm aware that many people think the insects themselves existed before farming started.
And they are not going to go away either just because we start growing different plants on the same fields instead of only one variety at time.
I think those fields would be less vulnerable, don't you?
Re:you obviously didn't read the article
on
Ozone As Pesticide
·
· Score: 1
Thanks. I read the article after I posted. I have a backbone reaction when it comes to some topics. (If I head read the article more thoroughly, I'd comment on "The school may file patent protections on its process.". Another pet peeve...)
Your hemp in the field wouldn't do anything for a silo of harvested grain.
I think that the vulnerable monocultures are the reason that insects like these develop, and that long term we have to look at other means of agriculture.
Avoiding damage from weeds (ironically enough) is one of the greatest benefits.
The hemp wouldn't be wasted of course, it should be used for for example cloth, paper or environmentally sound plastics.
As for your comment - industrial hemp has next to no narcotic effect.
Mountain toxic, river poison
on
Ozone As Pesticide
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Is producing more poison, esp that damage the nerve system like this, a good thing?
I don't know.
I'd rather see a decline in the monocultures that are vulnerable to insect attacks. Growing for example hemp alongside your other crops helps against pests and is a lot less harmful to the environment.
Growing a single crop is almost begging for trouble, and using pesticides is not going to the root of the problem. The insects will evolve.
There are a few solutions available, like using free implementations of Flash (not quite done yet) and Java, or wait for a (or work on the) good SVG-implementation in Mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll explicitly state so, if that's clearer. "No business should, ideally, use non-free software licenses."
It's a controversial view point from some perspectives.
But it's okay for Apple to bundle Safari? Is it okay for GNU to bundle Emacs and GCC?
What source code? Under what terms? In some ways, releasing it under restrictive terms would have practical effects worse for the general public than not releasing it it at all, since it would improve the technical quality of Microsoft products without the various other advantages of software freedom.
I certainly agree, though you seem to think that restricting the use, modification and distribution of software (like Microsoft does) is an acceptable manner. I don't agree with that since I see that as unethical, impractical, and harmful for the economy as well as society in large.
Wouldn't it, though?
Right. You know that in current reality, there are successful free software (a.k.a. open source) businesses as well as (unfortunately) some businesses which currently rely on non-free software. Please keep in mind that free software is increasingly successful, unlike non-free software.
What I'm describing, what I hold as my ideal world, is the utopian world you call a pipe dream. What I'm advocating, however, is not that MS would make as much money releasing their software under the GPL (they'd have to change several of their practices), nor that they should. What I'm advocating is simply that until they do, they don't deserve our support - and half-assed "shared source"-releases (or releases of small parts of their system) is not going to change that.
I'm sorry, that was certainly not what I intended. Please accept my apologies if I were unclear.
Peace.
I'm concerned people will think that this is "enough", that people will reward Microsoft for this "sharing of secret information" that shouldn't have been secret in the first place.
People (non-geeks) might go "Oh, Microsoft released source code so they're fine now", even if Microsoft would only reveal a fragment of code or under horrible "Shared" source licenses, since that's how news media would represent it. You'd be surprised of the headlines in some EU countries these days. "Microsoft gives in and will release source!" from Dagens Industri earlier this January, when MS were in talks with a local government.
I think that's ridiculous.
The problem as I see it is that they work with non-free software (not only non-free from a copyright perspective, but hassled with patents as well). If they did free software the market share wouldn't be a problem since you could fork at any sign of misbehaviour (whether spyware or pricing).
I agree with this. The bundling is (clearly?) not the problem. The GNU/Linux distros bundles browsers, media players, calculators and that's fine, that's a good thing.
In fact I have a hard time considering an operating system that doesn't ship with a compiler.
It's like telling a thief to "steal less". As long as Microsoft does non-free software (as opposed to GPL or BSD-style), rulings like this will only help legitimize them rather than raise concerns of their ongoing practices.
Thanks for the information. I haven't run windows since win 98 at home, and the people I've tried it at don't use Luna.
Yes, Windows breaks Fitt's Law. It may be so that they don't have any usability concerns at all.
The problem isn't the start button or the status bar. It's the taskbar/task list. You never switch apps?
Do you like moving your mouse from top to bottom to top to bottom all the time?
What are you, some kind of only-listening-to-hits kind of person? Where's your sense of discovery?
When are you going to realize that unlike you racist schmucks, /. isn't about trying to be a homogenous group?
/.-ers that are for the complete abolition of copy control/monopoly and there are /.-ers that aren't, that generally support the legit pay-for-download services.
There ar
There are even those who hail to the RIAA every night and complain about the stereotypical imagine slashdotter.
There even might be a few who think that this proprietary-codeced (AAC), closed, Mac-customers-only offering is a good thing.
I'm not one of them.
with slashvertisements like these?
I really love slashdot, I do, but I guess we all have our various side-thorns with it. It took me longer than it should have to be cautious with articles like these.
Personally, I try to avoid advertisements and I do pretty well. It can go days between me seeing one - most often it's billboards or in journals when it does happen. (I have a huge blacklist for Phoenix.) The town I live in also has a medium-to-big street culture group that does defacement and propaganda, which I find a refreshing break from the drone of sponsored media.
I really started freaking out once when I thought I heard commercials in my dreams. I thought it was like in Futurama. Turns out that the neighbours had the radio on so loud and that where the ads came from - I woke up a few minutes later and if you've ever awoken to the radio, you might know what that can be like.
I don't want to do business with corporations who try to trick me, and I view most advertisments as a form of trickery or manipulation.
They want to 'reach' me? Well, they can try ethical behaviour, and maybe then I'll seek them out. Maybe.
The UI of Win 3.11 had a gazillion flaws compared to it's competitors but unlike Win95, it was consistent. I actually like it better than Win95.
For someone familiar with how Xfree works, that's very consistent and thus in a sense intuitive.
In time, I'm sure there'll be a graphical little checkbox somewhere you can tinker with...
I don't think people who complain about the complexity of free software projects consider that this is a brand new release. I don't think bloody Microsoft Longhorn has every option cleanly documented or in a control panel yet, you'd have to go through the registry.
I must've been tired. I meant "insect attacks like these" or something like that. I'm aware that many people think the insects themselves existed before farming started.
I think those fields would be less vulnerable, don't you?
I think that the vulnerable monocultures are the reason that insects like these develop, and that long term we have to look at other means of agriculture.
Right, of course I believe that things like DDT is even worse - a lot worse. I'm not contesting that.
I was questioning the continuing use of monoculture as an agricultural practise, which is what makes things like poison seem "necessary".
Avoiding damage from weeds (ironically enough) is one of the greatest benefits.
The hemp wouldn't be wasted of course, it should be used for for example cloth, paper or environmentally sound plastics.
As for your comment - industrial hemp has next to no narcotic effect.
Is producing more poison, esp that damage the nerve system like this, a good thing?
I don't know.
I'd rather see a decline in the monocultures that are vulnerable to insect attacks. Growing for example hemp alongside your other crops helps against pests and is a lot less harmful to the environment.
Growing a single crop is almost begging for trouble, and using pesticides is not going to the root of the problem. The insects will evolve.
The entire discussion is flamebait. Mod points are limited and I guess people concentrate on the opinions they disagree with the most.
With their bare hands.
You need to install GNUstep but you can run that as well as Gnome/KDE even at the same time. Read the documentation before you begin.
And that's better... how?
HTML. :)
There are a few solutions available, like using free implementations of Flash (not quite done yet) and Java, or wait for a (or work on the) good SVG-implementation in Mozilla.
A free clone of Apple Mail.