What is "just" about making assent to a single doctrine the basis of eternal damnation?
****
What is unjust about it? Too many people try to make life happy-happy. They try to make God into a cheery teletubby or refuse to believe in Him at all.
God is who He is, or He isn't at all. It's no use trying to figure out if you want to believe in someone who would do such a thing. How you want God to be is of no importance. What matters is a) whether He exists, and b) what He is like if He does exist. I can't answer those questions for you, but I will pray that God makes Himself known to you.
In fact, that's how the early Church started - God made a showing of His power.
Of course, questions of "just" and "unjust" are nonsense when dealing with the person who created the rules in the first place.
You should read the book of Job sometime, even if just to prove me wrong. You might find something you can connect with.
What for? They are building to their audience. There's no games. If you aren't their audience, don't use their distro.
Remember - their software is free. Everything they make is free. If you don't like it, either a) don't use it, or b) take their existing code and make it like you want it, or c) hire someone else to do the same.
To make comparisons between Microsoft and RedHat is just completely stupid.
Re:This is the way it should be...
on
KDE Gets The Hat
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No distro should take preference over which is the default windowmanager
***
Why the heck not!? Of course some distros should. Some people don't want that choice, and therefore they should use a distro that doesn't bother them with such a choice. If you don't like _your_ distros that way, don't use them. THAT's where the choice comes in. If every distro becomes a kitchen-sink distro, what is the point of having many? On the other hand, if each distro builds to their audience, we will have a wonderfully diverse operating-system market. THAT's where the choice available in open-source comes in.
In addition, if you want to change something, you have the source code. If you like Red Hat's new distro, but would like more choice, build your own based on Red Hat's but with your changes!
I don't see why more people don't list SAP-DB with MySQL and PostgreSQL. It _is_ GPL, as well, it supports the SAP applications. It's a pretty good DB system. It's strange that it doesn't get the coverage it deservers.
The problem is that there was no bid process. Clearly Microsoft gains in this, or they wouldn't do it. Shouldn't others be able to show how their solution would be even better for the city long-term, and the potential problems with the existing solution?
This is the entire reason that government entities have bid processes - to make sure that noone is slimeballing their way into making the city pay out large sums of money. In this case, the payment is delayed, but the lock-in is evident.
Yes it is. Think of the case of software. Free Software is still Free Software even if you have to pay for it - it is yours to use, keep, and sell. Legal arguments are the same. If I hear a great legal argument, I can use that same argument for my clients. It doesn't matter that some arguments are nicely catalogued for purchase, or that some I hear about freely, or that some I buy books about. The end result is that all of them are free for me to use for my clients as many times as I want. I can even catalogue my own arguments and sell them to others. However, it doesn't make them less Free.
How can an Open Source software company make money in today's economy?
********
By selling solutions, not software. The software "product" idea is going away. In it's place, there will be numerous tools developed by people building solutions for others. If you sell a a product that you obtain for 0 cost, people won't need to do business for you. But if you sell solutions that consist of free elements that you put together to solve business problems, you will be paid well. In fact, the business usually won't care how much you pay for the pieces, as long as you deliver the full package.
Those solution providers will release the tools they develop themselves solving business problems as free software. Why? Because they recognize that it is important to maintain the environment that allows them to be successful.
The legal environment is a good analogy. Legal knowledge is free. All court cases and laws on the books are accessible at zero cost. However, lawyers are one of the highest-paid professions. Why? They put the pieces together (which were obtained at zero cost) to create a valuable solution for the client (getting out of jail, etc.)
The number one thing with being a consultant is communication. You have to be able to communicate with the customer, to find out what their needs really are, and communicate to them why your solution is better than the rest.
But it's more than just communicating facts. The customer must a) be confident that you know what you're talking about. They really don't care about your degree. They care that you know what you're doing. The customer must b) be confident that you know his needs. This is where most people screw up. They talk about what _they_ like - Linux, Apache, open-source, etc. They don't talk about what the _customer_ likes. Customers don't like Linux, but they do like security. Customers don't like open-source, but they do like having control over their technology. Customers don't like technology, they like their problems SOLVED. The better you can communicate both the problem you are solving, why it needs to be solved, and are able to quantify how much is being saved, while still being a likable, lovable guy, the better chance you will have.
You need to understand that they way you market yourself will have a big impact. Don't market yourself as a Linux guy or a C++ programmer. You're not. You're more than that. You are an analyst who can analyze and solve problems and can build solutions.
Be thinking entirely in terms of their business - how they do business, how they purchase, how they manage, how they interact with their customers. These are all important things. If you have the cheapest and fastest customer-billing system in the world, but it can't print the company logo correctly, it doesn't cut it. This is their business, and if you treat it with respect, that will go a long way.
Try coming up with a product you can sell - something simple. You don't have to actually sell it, it will just get you in the door so you can see how they do business and what other solutions you can offer them. For example, maybe try selling a ticket-tracking system (i.e. - Request Tracker), and make a sales pitch, but while your there, take whoever you are speaking with out to lunch, and find out what his _real_ problems are that you can solve. And offer real solutions, not just technology.
Actually, copyrights and patents are socialistic, and the lackthereof is capitalistic. In the case of copyrights and patents, the government is artificially playing with the market, and therefore is more of a socialist way of doing things. Napster et al are making free markets, just like capitalists like.
In fact, the big businesses don't like Napster specifically because it is capitalistic. They enjoyed their government-sponsored position as holder of the copyrights. Because they had the government's help in having monopoly power over culture, they are able to become big.
From your posts, I wonder if instead of being socialist, you're just anti-big-business. If so, you may like capitalism more than you think, because big businesses are usually created because of government interventions. For example, big drug companies are created because it requires a big company to be able to handle FDA regulations. In a free market, the same could be done with small companies at a fraction of the cost.
in pure capitalism, the losers or people who dont benifit from it, will become terrorists, steal, rob and so on, theres no such thing as 100 percent employment, and even if there were, without a minimum wage employment wouldnt be fair employment, pure capitalism would create class warfare to the highest degree.
***
And this is based on what?
Usually, this sort of thing happens when capitalism _doesn't_ happen. People often confuse big business with capitalism - they aren't the same. If you have large, controlling companies, chances are you do not have capitalism. Why? Because capitalism creates competition, and breaks down the barriers to entry. Big corporations usually exist in fields with large barriers to entry, because they are the only ones with enough cash flow to do it. Remove the barriers to entry, and all of a sudden the small companies have the upper hand because they are more nimble.
Even so, if VCs were smart, if they found that they had happened onto a company that was a slow-growth company accidentally, they would be better off keeping it that way rather than growing it unnaturally and dooming it to fail.
Often, when faced with the choice of letting a profitable company remain profitable (but not quite as profitable as you want) and destroying the company completely, the VCs tend to choose destroying it completely, even when the outcome is obvious.
Can you name one Free Software project in common use that cannot be obtained for zero price?
******
Red Hat Advanced Server
******
Can you name any non-custom application that is not free beer?
******
I know that TheKompany had one for a while. Also, for a while, I believe CVS was only available by purchasing it from Cyclic.
And then there is Blender.
This is also the model, I believe, that ADA Core Technology has used for many years (they modify the GNU Compiler Collection, sell it, and eventually merge their code in with GCC after about a year).
The thing is, most people using this model aren't advertising that they are, so you wouldn't know it anyway.
The minute it gets one user, Free Software becomes free beer, because you cannot restrict that user from giving it away
********
This is not necessarily true. Although it is true that once one user gets it there is a _risk_ of it becoming free beer, it is not necessarily the case. Question: if you charged some company $10,000 for a piece of software, do you think they will start giving it to their competitors? I think it is more likely that their competitors will ask you for the same software, and you can say, "that's great! that'll be $10,000!" Eventually one of them will give it away, but not for a while. Even then, you will still likely be able to continue to charge that for a while, as you are the one who knows the code and can customize it if needed.
Should I take my software off of my website and demand payment before the recipients can access it?
****
Sure, why not?
****
Should I mandate that downstream distributors send me royalty checks?
****
No! Here we have the differences between Free Beer and Free Software. Free Software does not imply Free Beer. Free Software does not mean that the software has to be provided for free. It only means that the recipients get the freedoms.
You can restrict access to Free Software. I can make a proprietary version of Linux and not provide the source to anyone except my customers - and even charge _them_ $100 for access to the source. I just can't prevent them from exercising those same freedoms.
If you're using 5.0 then you just have to click "okay" two or three times on the first blank page. It comes from the way Ghostscript handles blank pages.
If you need a different format, email me at johnnyb@eskimo.com
I've written about 150 pages so far. A few chapters need rewriting, as I've introduced new material beforehand, it needs a good editting, and one or two chapters need to be written, and I need some appendices (those are pretty short, though).
It's hard to say, probably depends more on your personality than anything else.
If you are going to work on low-level systems, TAOCP is probably the better starting place. For high-level apps, SICP is probably a better starting point.
For someone new to programming, SICP is probably an easier start, because TAOCP assumes some programming background. Specifically, some machine-language programming background.
The nice thing about TAOCP is that it make the way that computers works very obvious - as well as the limitations involved. Way too many programmers do not know this information, and therefore when problems arise, are totally left out in the cold. Issues such as pointers, memory management, etc.
Also, if you want, you can check out my book that I'm writing on programming, available at
http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/computers/Program mi ngGroundUp/
It starts at the low-level, but does not assume any previous programming experience.
Anyway, it's a tough call, but since TAOCP requires previous experience, SICP is probably the better choice for the new programmer. For an experienced programmer, I'd probably go with TAOCP first, as it most likely contains the most that you don't already know.
The sequence I'd recommend once I finish my book is,
Slashdot Mirror
What is "just" about making assent to a single doctrine the basis of eternal damnation?
****
What is unjust about it? Too many people try to make life happy-happy. They try to make God into a cheery teletubby or refuse to believe in Him at all.
God is who He is, or He isn't at all. It's no use trying to figure out if you want to believe in someone who would do such a thing. How you want God to be is of no importance. What matters is a) whether He exists, and b) what He is like if He does exist. I can't answer those questions for you, but I will pray that God makes Himself known to you.
In fact, that's how the early Church started - God made a showing of His power.
Of course, questions of "just" and "unjust" are nonsense when dealing with the person who created the rules in the first place.
You should read the book of Job sometime, even if just to prove me wrong. You might find something you can connect with.
My son _had_ a permanent heart disorder. Yes, that was past tense - had.
Jesus is alive and well and active.
Why doesn't anyone use SAP's database? It's free, Oracle7 compatible, and enterprise-ready (i.e. - you can run SAP's applications on it).
What for? They are building to their audience. There's no games. If you aren't their audience, don't use their distro.
Remember - their software is free. Everything they make is free. If you don't like it, either a) don't use it, or b) take their existing code and make it like you want it, or c) hire someone else to do the same.
To make comparisons between Microsoft and RedHat is just completely stupid.
No distro should take preference over which is the default windowmanager
***
Why the heck not!? Of course some distros should. Some people don't want that choice, and therefore they should use a distro that doesn't bother them with such a choice. If you don't like _your_ distros that way, don't use them. THAT's where the choice comes in. If every distro becomes a kitchen-sink distro, what is the point of having many? On the other hand, if each distro builds to their audience, we will have a wonderfully diverse operating-system market. THAT's where the choice available in open-source comes in.
In addition, if you want to change something, you have the source code. If you like Red Hat's new distro, but would like more choice, build your own based on Red Hat's but with your changes!
Actually, you can do this with OpenOffice and MySQL. There is a HOWTO about it somewhere, but it takes about two minutes to install the driver.
I don't see why more people don't list SAP-DB with MySQL and PostgreSQL. It _is_ GPL, as well, it supports the SAP applications. It's a pretty good DB system. It's strange that it doesn't get the coverage it deservers.
Any service organization could do this. I'm working part-time with one who is getting into just this.
All of the software is there, and you just hire a solutions company to put it all together for you. It certainly isn't rocket science.
They've already taken us over, dude. Tulsa City is the worst.
The problem is that there was no bid process. Clearly Microsoft gains in this, or they wouldn't do it. Shouldn't others be able to show how their solution would be even better for the city long-term, and the potential problems with the existing solution?
This is the entire reason that government entities have bid processes - to make sure that noone is slimeballing their way into making the city pay out large sums of money. In this case, the payment is delayed, but the lock-in is evident.
Yes it is. Think of the case of software. Free Software is still Free Software even if you have to pay for it - it is yours to use, keep, and sell. Legal arguments are the same. If I hear a great legal argument, I can use that same argument for my clients. It doesn't matter that some arguments are nicely catalogued for purchase, or that some I hear about freely, or that some I buy books about. The end result is that all of them are free for me to use for my clients as many times as I want. I can even catalogue my own arguments and sell them to others. However, it doesn't make them less Free.
Just like in software.
(When I think of how much money I've sunk into programming books over the years, I *wish* you were right about knowledge being free.)
*******
Again, you are missing the point. The knowledge is free, even if the books aren't.
It takes time and money to learn the knowledge, but it definitely is not proprietary.
How can an Open Source software company make money in today's economy?
********
By selling solutions, not software. The software "product" idea is going away. In it's place, there will be numerous tools developed by people building solutions for others. If you sell a a product that you obtain for 0 cost, people won't need to do business for you. But if you sell solutions that consist of free elements that you put together to solve business problems, you will be paid well. In fact, the business usually won't care how much you pay for the pieces, as long as you deliver the full package.
Those solution providers will release the tools they develop themselves solving business problems as free software. Why? Because they recognize that it is important to maintain the environment that allows them to be successful.
The legal environment is a good analogy. Legal knowledge is free. All court cases and laws on the books are accessible at zero cost. However, lawyers are one of the highest-paid professions. Why? They put the pieces together (which were obtained at zero cost) to create a valuable solution for the client (getting out of jail, etc.)
The number one thing with being a consultant is communication. You have to be able to communicate with the customer, to find out what their needs really are, and communicate to them why your solution is better than the rest.
But it's more than just communicating facts. The customer must a) be confident that you know what you're talking about. They really don't care about your degree. They care that you know what you're doing. The customer must b) be confident that you know his needs. This is where most people screw up. They talk about what _they_ like - Linux, Apache, open-source, etc. They don't talk about what the _customer_ likes. Customers don't like Linux, but they do like security. Customers don't like open-source, but they do like having control over their technology. Customers don't like technology, they like their problems SOLVED. The better you can communicate both the problem you are solving, why it needs to be solved, and are able to quantify how much is being saved, while still being a likable, lovable guy, the better chance you will have.
You need to understand that they way you market yourself will have a big impact. Don't market yourself as a Linux guy or a C++ programmer. You're not. You're more than that. You are an analyst who can analyze and solve problems and can build solutions.
Be thinking entirely in terms of their business - how they do business, how they purchase, how they manage, how they interact with their customers. These are all important things. If you have the cheapest and fastest customer-billing system in the world, but it can't print the company logo correctly, it doesn't cut it. This is their business, and if you treat it with respect, that will go a long way.
Try coming up with a product you can sell - something simple. You don't have to actually sell it, it will just get you in the door so you can see how they do business and what other solutions you can offer them. For example, maybe try selling a ticket-tracking system (i.e. - Request Tracker), and make a sales pitch, but while your there, take whoever you are speaking with out to lunch, and find out what his _real_ problems are that you can solve. And offer real solutions, not just technology.
Actually, copyrights and patents are socialistic, and the lackthereof is capitalistic. In the case of copyrights and patents, the government is artificially playing with the market, and therefore is more of a socialist way of doing things. Napster et al are making free markets, just like capitalists like.
In fact, the big businesses don't like Napster specifically because it is capitalistic. They enjoyed their government-sponsored position as holder of the copyrights. Because they had the government's help in having monopoly power over culture, they are able to become big.
From your posts, I wonder if instead of being socialist, you're just anti-big-business. If so, you may like capitalism more than you think, because big businesses are usually created because of government interventions. For example, big drug companies are created because it requires a big company to be able to handle FDA regulations. In a free market, the same could be done with small companies at a fraction of the cost.
in pure capitalism, the losers or people who dont benifit from it, will become terrorists, steal, rob and so on, theres no such thing as 100 percent employment, and even if there were, without a minimum wage employment wouldnt be fair employment, pure capitalism would create class warfare to the highest degree.
***
And this is based on what?
Usually, this sort of thing happens when capitalism _doesn't_ happen. People often confuse big business with capitalism - they aren't the same. If you have large, controlling companies, chances are you do not have capitalism. Why? Because capitalism creates competition, and breaks down the barriers to entry. Big corporations usually exist in fields with large barriers to entry, because they are the only ones with enough cash flow to do it. Remove the barriers to entry, and all of a sudden the small companies have the upper hand because they are more nimble.
(though other bad things would happen also, but thats a diffrent topic)
*******
I don't think so. I think this sort of thing is best handled through consumer groups, not mandated government decrees.
If I want medical care from a substandard facility and doctor - why can't I get it? It's my life, isn't it?
Even so, if VCs were smart, if they found that they had happened onto a company that was a slow-growth company accidentally, they would be better off keeping it that way rather than growing it unnaturally and dooming it to fail.
Often, when faced with the choice of letting a profitable company remain profitable (but not quite as profitable as you want) and destroying the company completely, the VCs tend to choose destroying it completely, even when the outcome is obvious.
Can you name one Free Software project in common use that cannot be obtained for zero price?
******
Red Hat Advanced Server
******
Can you name any non-custom application that is not free beer?
******
I know that TheKompany had one for a while. Also, for a while, I believe CVS was only available by purchasing it from Cyclic.
And then there is Blender.
This is also the model, I believe, that ADA Core Technology has used for many years (they modify the GNU Compiler Collection, sell it, and eventually merge their code in with GCC after about a year).
The thing is, most people using this model aren't advertising that they are, so you wouldn't know it anyway.
The minute it gets one user, Free Software becomes free beer, because you cannot restrict that user from giving it away
********
This is not necessarily true. Although it is true that once one user gets it there is a _risk_ of it becoming free beer, it is not necessarily the case. Question: if you charged some company $10,000 for a piece of software, do you think they will start giving it to their competitors? I think it is more likely that their competitors will ask you for the same software, and you can say, "that's great! that'll be $10,000!" Eventually one of them will give it away, but not for a while. Even then, you will still likely be able to continue to charge that for a while, as you are the one who knows the code and can customize it if needed.
Should I take my software off of my website and demand payment before the recipients can access it?
****
Sure, why not?
****
Should I mandate that downstream distributors send me royalty checks?
****
No! Here we have the differences between Free Beer and Free Software. Free Software does not imply Free Beer. Free Software does not mean that the software has to be provided for free. It only means that the recipients get the freedoms.
You can restrict access to Free Software. I can make a proprietary version of Linux and not provide the source to anyone except my customers - and even charge _them_ $100 for access to the source. I just can't prevent them from exercising those same freedoms.
If you're using 5.0 then you just have to click "okay" two or three times on the first blank page. It comes from the way Ghostscript handles blank pages.
If you need a different format, email me at johnnyb@eskimo.com
I've written about 150 pages so far. A few chapters need rewriting, as I've introduced new material beforehand, it needs a good editting, and one or two chapters need to be written, and I need some appendices (those are pretty short, though).
Amen Amen Amen!
It's hard to say, probably depends more on your personality than anything else.
m mi ngGroundUp/
If you are going to work on low-level systems, TAOCP is probably the better starting place. For high-level apps, SICP is probably a better starting point.
For someone new to programming, SICP is probably an easier start, because TAOCP assumes some programming background. Specifically, some machine-language programming background.
The nice thing about TAOCP is that it make the way that computers works very obvious - as well as the limitations involved. Way too many programmers do not know this information, and therefore when problems arise, are totally left out in the cold. Issues such as pointers, memory management, etc.
Also, if you want, you can check out my book that I'm writing on programming, available at
http://www.eskimo.com/~johnnyb/computers/Progra
It starts at the low-level, but does not assume any previous programming experience.
Anyway, it's a tough call, but since TAOCP requires previous experience, SICP is probably the better choice for the new programmer. For an experienced programmer, I'd probably go with TAOCP first, as it most likely contains the most that you don't already know.
The sequence I'd recommend once I finish my book is,
1) my book
2) TAOCP
3) SICP
Actually, Lisp is usually compiled, believe it or not, and does a pretty good job of it, too.