First of all, paragraphs are good. It was hard reading your post. Second, I know how the free market works, thank you.
The problem (from the RMS perspective) is that people don't value software freedom. So, naturally, they're willing to "tolerate" higher prices than they would if they were more educated. By 'price' I mean the freedom itself.
I suggest you read up on core FSF beliefs and why they think that software freedom is important for everybody--even people who don't care.
Yep, that's a business model that'll support millions of programmers./sarcasm
Why not? It supports quite a few at the moment, and demand for open source software is pretty low in comparison to proprietary.
This is doable but is against RMSism (assuming that your proprietary-use license allows the licensee to release his binary without disclosing his source code and under a license that doesn't allow redistribution), and therefore disproves RMS's (and your) point.
I'll give you a quick tip--avoid clauses that state that you've either disproven or proven anyone else's point. Or your own for that matter. Logically speaking, proving or disproving anything is quite difficult to pull off. This is a good example. My point was that there were plenty of ways for a free software developer to make money, one of which being selling licenses that bypass the GPL to proprietary software vendors. You've made the assumption that RMS would disagree with this. Even though I wouldn't be surprised if that assumption were correct, you still haven't demonstrated anything conclusive, such as a quote where RMS stated his opinion on the matter. You further made the assumption that my ideals of free software beyond the four freedoms RMS speaks about line up with RMS's exactly. That assumption is very much unwarranted. RMS and I agree on the definition of free software, and that users ought to choose free software (defined by the four software freedoms). We have radically differing views on politics, religion, and just about anything else.
So you've made two assumptions you haven't any evidence for (one of which is just flat out wrong), and you claim that you've 'disproven' my point. And you had a much better counter you could have used.
You could have mentioned how this discussion is about a world without proprietary software and the potential economic ramifications it would bring forth. Selling licenses to proprietary shops could not happen in this instance, so my point is moot. I made a mistake; I should have used only points that showed FOSS developers earning a living in a world without any proprietary software.
Why pay you do add it over somebody else?
Because I wrote the software and I'll probably be able to do it the best and in the shortest amount of time. If not me, then some other developer. The next day I could be hired for someone else's project, so it's not a big deal.
Richard Stallman was around before this industry built around restricting freedom began. I *really* hate to bring up slavery (a corrolary to Godwin's law), but apply this to the slave trade and I think you can make the connection.
Besides, the need for software wouldn't go away. Businessess need reliable software now, and they'll always pay for it somehow--just not 'seat licenses' as it is currently. I hear Novell and Redhat make pretty good money selling free software. If Microsoft and Apple didn't exist, companies like them would easily fill the void.
Restriction is still restriction, even if you are free to avoid it. RMS has been crusading for years to ensure that we can always avoid proprietary software. Before GNU, you could not. You had to choose software that imposed restrictions.
I don't agree at all. You can't make money by releasing the software itself, but there are plenty of ways (outside of support and services) that programmers can get paid to develop software.
Scenario 1: I write a cool database tool called foobaz. I'm on sourceforge, people are downloading me. IBM notices a lot of customers want to migrate to Postgres from Oracle, IBM wants to help them accomplish this. IBM hires me to develop foobaz full time.
Scenario 2: I write a cool library called foobaz. I release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. Some company wants to write a proprietary piece of software linked against my library. They buy their own license that allows this.
Scenario 3: I write a really cool desktop app called foobaz. You want foobaz do be able to perform some task called 'shiznitting.' You pay me to add it.
You must have fallen for the "support and services is the only way to make money off of GPL software" straw man.
I think what this might mean is that companies that can hire a patent lawyer team can take individual's ideas and patent them. I hope not, though, please correct me if I'm wrong.
This would mean a huge blow for proprietary software over open source software, because copyright would no longer protect us. Our ideas could be stolen retroactively.
Unfortunately, truly resolution-independent display systems are a ways off. OS X is almost there, though. I believe Longhorn will be that way as well. Gnome and gtk are moving in that direction.
Plus, say goodbye to slashdot. And a whole lot of websites would either start charging or leave town. I like things better the way they are now--where I don't see any ads and no one notices.
Perhaps there is another difference between UK and US protests--American protestors might have a higher propensity to get violent.
Granted, I remember when the latest Michael Jackson round of media blitzing came about (well over a year ago, probably more), a bunch of Floridians were shot at and thrown in jail protesting something like the Patriot Act. It was really disheartening to see the MJ nonsense "cover" it up.
Most processors now have so many pinouts that you need multi-layer boards just to house all of them. Not even double sided boards would work. So any 'custom motherboard' would have to be made in a really expensive factory cranking them out by the thousands. However, you can sodder off the connections you don't use (like the built-in audio) and pretend you don't have them:P.
I'll pick apart your belief structures when they mean discrimination with impunity towards me and everyone I know. Not to mention social license to beat the shit out of me and my friends.
My beliefs mean neither. What are you talking about? If anyone did that they should be thrown in jail.
I'm simply trying to point out that when people use Christianity as a defense to exercise bona fide discrimination they're not getting that from the Bible. If they were also using their faith to excuse randomly attacking groups of non-believers physically, they would be equally wrong. That just sounds absurd.
Well, as far as optimizations go, compiling Gnome with -O3 really won't give a significant increase. Most of the applications just sit around waiting for input, and when they do something, the difference between -O2 and -O3 for them is negligible (the -f options tend to do more, but you have to expirement with them to get them right for each application). -Os will help startup times, and decrease your total footprint.
For the most part, I agree, but I don't think that our founding fathers were the sparking Super-Christians that we are lead to believe. Many of them were deists, many were even atheists.
Even though I also think homosexuality is a sin, I simply think the government has no place defining marriage (this kind of controversy sparked separation of Church and State to begin with). Well, I take that back. It's kind of necessary at the local level.
I don't think that changing the laws would have much of an effect on the hearts of Americans (neither would Paul--Galatians comes to mind). If they do, in fact, need Jesus, then the Evangelicals ought to get to work on...evangelism.
I didn't mean that. I stand corrected. I definately think you should be allowed to pick apart anyone's belief structure. Also, by "should" I meant moral acceptibility, not legal accountability. At any rate, honest debate is something we need more of. I just wish those who attacked Christianity had more educated view points on the matter.
The Christian position on homosexuality is contained in Romans chapter 1, not Leviticus. However, like non-believers, Christians too are hypocrites. In fact, right after condemning homosexuality in Romans ch. 1, Paul condemns hypocrasy, and to a much greater extent. If the Christian doctrine on homosexuality came from Leviticus, though, you'd have a point.
Ahh, so what your saying is that you're completely unprepared to defend your view that Christianity "tolerates hatred," and you have to resort to making some loose connection with faith to basically say "well, you make wild unsupported claims too, so there!"
But be my guest, go on with your {belief,opinion} that Christians are the dumbed down sheep who have all been fooled. I'll leave you with this, though--if we were talking about anything else besides Christianity, I bet you would have backed up your point:)
This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial. They can't accept that two people of the same gender can experience love and commemorate that love in marriage. Here is is folks, the plain truth:
How about I give you a different version of plain truth, claim that it is in fact you who are in denial, and we can end up no where closer to a solution, but I can feel better about myself. Here it goes:
The relationship that you gentiles call "love" is not even a shadow of what Christians experience through God. Instead of being fixated on the partner meeting the needs of the other, Christian marriages, bound by selflessness and grace, grow into something far deeper than your average heathen could even understand. So it's no wonder why you equate the "love" that heterosexuals enjoy to that of the homosexuals--neither is really love!
Now, I hope you don't think I was completely serious, I was just trying to show that in such subjective matters, trying to give everyone the "plain truth" is useless, because perception is greater than fact. You, for instance, seem to have enjoyed both homosexual and heterosexual marriages first hand, since you can equate them neatly.
I think I have a better solution: let people believe what they will, and ensure that free speech protects our right to change their minds when we believe they are wrong. Leave the government out of marriage!
I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.
Homophobia is rampant within the Christian community, but that doesn't mean that the proper Christian viewpoint is that homosexuality is OK. They should show homosexuals every bit of grace and love they can in spite of a different sexual orientation. The Bible claims that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God--I don't see why simply considering homosexuality to be a sin is so bigoted if it merely puts us all in the same boat!
Didn't really burst his bubble--he suggested we assume the pastor would never hurt another human being, until proven otherwise. You proved otherwise. Still doesn't demonstrate that we should have assumed he was a bigot.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem (from the RMS perspective) is that people don't value software freedom. So, naturally, they're willing to "tolerate" higher prices than they would if they were more educated. By 'price' I mean the freedom itself.
I suggest you read up on core FSF beliefs and why they think that software freedom is important for everybody--even people who don't care.
Yep, that's a business model that'll support millions of programmers. /sarcasm
Why not? It supports quite a few at the moment, and demand for open source software is pretty low in comparison to proprietary.
This is doable but is against RMSism (assuming that your proprietary-use license allows the licensee to release his binary without disclosing his source code and under a license that doesn't allow redistribution), and therefore disproves RMS's (and your) point.
I'll give you a quick tip--avoid clauses that state that you've either disproven or proven anyone else's point. Or your own for that matter. Logically speaking, proving or disproving anything is quite difficult to pull off. This is a good example. My point was that there were plenty of ways for a free software developer to make money, one of which being selling licenses that bypass the GPL to proprietary software vendors. You've made the assumption that RMS would disagree with this. Even though I wouldn't be surprised if that assumption were correct, you still haven't demonstrated anything conclusive, such as a quote where RMS stated his opinion on the matter. You further made the assumption that my ideals of free software beyond the four freedoms RMS speaks about line up with RMS's exactly. That assumption is very much unwarranted. RMS and I agree on the definition of free software, and that users ought to choose free software (defined by the four software freedoms). We have radically differing views on politics, religion, and just about anything else.
So you've made two assumptions you haven't any evidence for (one of which is just flat out wrong), and you claim that you've 'disproven' my point. And you had a much better counter you could have used.
You could have mentioned how this discussion is about a world without proprietary software and the potential economic ramifications it would bring forth. Selling licenses to proprietary shops could not happen in this instance, so my point is moot. I made a mistake; I should have used only points that showed FOSS developers earning a living in a world without any proprietary software.
Why pay you do add it over somebody else?
Because I wrote the software and I'll probably be able to do it the best and in the shortest amount of time. If not me, then some other developer. The next day I could be hired for someone else's project, so it's not a big deal.
Besides, the need for software wouldn't go away. Businessess need reliable software now, and they'll always pay for it somehow--just not 'seat licenses' as it is currently. I hear Novell and Redhat make pretty good money selling free software. If Microsoft and Apple didn't exist, companies like them would easily fill the void.
Thanks. I actually already got the info from other posts :)
Restriction is still restriction, even if you are free to avoid it. RMS has been crusading for years to ensure that we can always avoid proprietary software. Before GNU, you could not. You had to choose software that imposed restrictions.
Scenario 1: I write a cool database tool called foobaz. I'm on sourceforge, people are downloading me. IBM notices a lot of customers want to migrate to Postgres from Oracle, IBM wants to help them accomplish this. IBM hires me to develop foobaz full time.
Scenario 2: I write a cool library called foobaz. I release it under the terms of the GNU GPL. Some company wants to write a proprietary piece of software linked against my library. They buy their own license that allows this.
Scenario 3: I write a really cool desktop app called foobaz. You want foobaz do be able to perform some task called 'shiznitting.' You pay me to add it.
You must have fallen for the "support and services is the only way to make money off of GPL software" straw man.
Reading through the other posts I can see that I was wrong. Please, no more upwards moderation.
This would mean a huge blow for proprietary software over open source software, because copyright would no longer protect us. Our ideas could be stolen retroactively.
Reduce your risk of death? Let's leave religion out of this one, shall we?
Unfortunately, truly resolution-independent display systems are a ways off. OS X is almost there, though. I believe Longhorn will be that way as well. Gnome and gtk are moving in that direction.
And we got Anonymous Coward's most insightful comment right here.
There is an extension, but I seriously hope in never gets into Firefox proper.
Plus, say goodbye to slashdot. And a whole lot of websites would either start charging or leave town. I like things better the way they are now--where I don't see any ads and no one notices.
Granted, I remember when the latest Michael Jackson round of media blitzing came about (well over a year ago, probably more), a bunch of Floridians were shot at and thrown in jail protesting something like the Patriot Act. It was really disheartening to see the MJ nonsense "cover" it up.
Most processors now have so many pinouts that you need multi-layer boards just to house all of them. Not even double sided boards would work. So any 'custom motherboard' would have to be made in a really expensive factory cranking them out by the thousands. However, you can sodder off the connections you don't use (like the built-in audio) and pretend you don't have them :P.
I'll pick apart your belief structures when they mean discrimination with impunity towards me and everyone I know. Not to mention social license to beat the shit out of me and my friends.
My beliefs mean neither. What are you talking about? If anyone did that they should be thrown in jail.
I'm simply trying to point out that when people use Christianity as a defense to exercise bona fide discrimination they're not getting that from the Bible. If they were also using their faith to excuse randomly attacking groups of non-believers physically, they would be equally wrong. That just sounds absurd.
Well, as far as optimizations go, compiling Gnome with -O3 really won't give a significant increase. Most of the applications just sit around waiting for input, and when they do something, the difference between -O2 and -O3 for them is negligible (the -f options tend to do more, but you have to expirement with them to get them right for each application). -Os will help startup times, and decrease your total footprint.
Even though I also think homosexuality is a sin, I simply think the government has no place defining marriage (this kind of controversy sparked separation of Church and State to begin with). Well, I take that back. It's kind of necessary at the local level.
I don't think that changing the laws would have much of an effect on the hearts of Americans (neither would Paul--Galatians comes to mind). If they do, in fact, need Jesus, then the Evangelicals ought to get to work on...evangelism.
I didn't mean that. I stand corrected. I definately think you should be allowed to pick apart anyone's belief structure. Also, by "should" I meant moral acceptibility, not legal accountability. At any rate, honest debate is something we need more of. I just wish those who attacked Christianity had more educated view points on the matter.
I stand by the rest of my point, however.
The Christian position on homosexuality is contained in Romans chapter 1, not Leviticus. However, like non-believers, Christians too are hypocrites. In fact, right after condemning homosexuality in Romans ch. 1, Paul condemns hypocrasy, and to a much greater extent. If the Christian doctrine on homosexuality came from Leviticus, though, you'd have a point.
Ahh, so what your saying is that you're completely unprepared to defend your view that Christianity "tolerates hatred," and you have to resort to making some loose connection with faith to basically say "well, you make wild unsupported claims too, so there!"
But be my guest, go on with your {belief,opinion} that Christians are the dumbed down sheep who have all been fooled. I'll leave you with this, though--if we were talking about anything else besides Christianity, I bet you would have backed up your point :)
I think I'm going to have to make this clear--I don't think marriage is any business of the federal government.
My guess is you haven't spent much time reading the Bible.
Or, you've taken the Old Testament out of context and not read any of the New Testament.
This pastor is a disgrace. The people who are opposed to gay marriage are actually very disturbed people who are in denial. They can't accept that two people of the same gender can experience love and commemorate that love in marriage. Here is is folks, the plain truth:
How about I give you a different version of plain truth, claim that it is in fact you who are in denial, and we can end up no where closer to a solution, but I can feel better about myself. Here it goes:
The relationship that you gentiles call "love" is not even a shadow of what Christians experience through God. Instead of being fixated on the partner meeting the needs of the other, Christian marriages, bound by selflessness and grace, grow into something far deeper than your average heathen could even understand. So it's no wonder why you equate the "love" that heterosexuals enjoy to that of the homosexuals--neither is really love!
Now, I hope you don't think I was completely serious, I was just trying to show that in such subjective matters, trying to give everyone the "plain truth" is useless, because perception is greater than fact. You, for instance, seem to have enjoyed both homosexual and heterosexual marriages first hand, since you can equate them neatly.
I think I have a better solution: let people believe what they will, and ensure that free speech protects our right to change their minds when we believe they are wrong. Leave the government out of marriage!
I really hate sharing this country with such superstitious and frightened people.
Homophobia is rampant within the Christian community, but that doesn't mean that the proper Christian viewpoint is that homosexuality is OK. They should show homosexuals every bit of grace and love they can in spite of a different sexual orientation. The Bible claims that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God--I don't see why simply considering homosexuality to be a sin is so bigoted if it merely puts us all in the same boat!
Didn't really burst his bubble--he suggested we assume the pastor would never hurt another human being, until proven otherwise. You proved otherwise. Still doesn't demonstrate that we should have assumed he was a bigot.