Sigh. If I were to ask you how to do some technical task, without telling you how I am doing it, and you were to tell me my method, then it would be fair to say that it is obvious.. simple != obvious.
I don't consider constructive criticism to be a "negative comment". For example, if you say "gnome-cups-ui could do with some work in the way users enter smb printers as at the moment it is very confusing and the automatic detection of workgroups and hosts doesn't respond quick enough" you will get a good response.. from the right people you'll even get the response "this is being worked on already, check the latest cvs of gnome-cups-ui". But if you say "There's nowhere in this printer setup thingy to enter my workgroup/domain, where the hell am I supposed to enter this?" or "How come my printer doesn't work?" or "Linux support for printers is lame." then, I'm sorry, the correct response from the community is: go away you fuckin' whiner.
Why not advertise the entire deal? "Our software won't cost you a dime, and if you don't like it exactly as it is, fix it yourself or suck eggs."
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Can't you read? Not to mention the fact that it is a common practice in our society to not look a gift horse in the mouth.
On slashdot it doesn't matter if you're the first to do it, no-one else had ever thought of doing it, and no-one knew how to do it until you did it.. if the method can be explained in a sentence this audience is more than willing to call it "obvious" then make some claim about how something completely unrelated (that is also obvious) could be covered by the patent under question and therefore declare that not only will the lawsuit fail but the patent will be revoked by royal decree.
The whole government thing is silly.. they should be developing public domain software, if they're developing any software at all. Typically the argument for government to use OSS is simply a demand for governments to spend money effectively instead of giving pork belly projects to compaign contributors. As for bitching about Microsoft, we have as much right to bitch about them as the rest of the fuckin' world.. they suck, and that is plain for everyone to see. As for getting the commercial world interested, they got interested in us, not the other way around.. unfortunately they continue to think they can apply the rules of the proprietary software world to the free software world, which, of course, is absurd.
Yep, cause the right to restrict others by employing men with big guns so you can make a buck is something that we never wish to see perish from this earth.
Well, for those people who don't do this for fun, and instead do this because they want to show the world how great they are or something, you can complain as much as you like. "I'm great." "No you're not, look at this fuck up." "What do you want for nothing?" doesn't follow, I conceed that.
Sorry, I still think telling people what they can and can't copy is wrong. And threatening to take away everything they own (cause no average person can afford to defend a copyright lawsuit) or send them to jail if they disagree with you is just evil.
The biggest problem with the FOSS community is its tolerance for whiny fuckers who can't understand that we do this for fun and you have absolutely no right to complain about something you got for free.
When engineers do science, you just get secretive research leading to unconfirmed claims. Publish your work. Let other people confirm it. When there's a strong agreement as to what is going on the units will sell themselves.
Of course, you're right, but let's not forget that some people actually hold beliefs so strongly that they believe forcing those beliefs on others is the right thing to do. Ironically, "tolerance of others" happens to be one of those beliefs that is forced on a lot of people:)
Oh my god! Except for the whole, ya know, spirituality aspect, you're 100% correct! Shit, I wonder what else you can play this game with..
Apple sauce, coca-cola and honey are all types of beer. Why do I think this?
They're liquids.
People enjoy their taste.
You can buy them in stores.
They often come in glass containers.
What a revelation! See how I did that? I just set aside the key features of beer (it's brown, it gets you drunk, etc) and all of a sudden everything is just like beer! Wow!
Jesus. This is insane ok? There's absolutely no guarentee you'd win a legal battle with any patent, let alone one written by people who you are not suing and who have disclaimed all liability for what they wrote. Patents are hard to enforce and you only go through the insane process of doing so when you think the other side has nothing to lose from paying you to stop suing them. This is why people sue Microsoft, cause they're not adverse to just throwing you a few million bucks to go away. Redhat on the other hand would more likely fight you to the death to stop the community from claiming they had sold out. Speaking of which, for all we know Redhat has licensed a dozen patents already.. these things are typically confidential.
Yeah, you're on crack and have obviously never written any code for a company that actually gives a shit about patents. The due dilligence done by such engineers is not something that is done by open source developers. The only reason people who have these patents don't sue is because they have yet to find anyone with deep enough pockets.
Kinda makes you wonder what would happen if lots of people bought a few thousand stocks in Microsoft, went to the annual meeting and demanded that Microsoft immediately enforce their patents.. after all, Microsoft currently claims their patent portfolio as an "asset". How about making that asset pay already?
Except, ya know, that they'd have to pay someone to document all that stuff.. which they never do, because they're fuckin' cowboys. If, instead, Microsoft signs up Novell to their shared-source program, they can just give Novell the source code.
I agree with you, but I say the probability of infringing code is almost certainly very close to 1. You can't write anything that is non-trivial without stepping on a patent claim these days, and Microsoft likely owns at least one of them. The problem is that this meme competes with another meme, which I like to think of as the "irrational other player" meme. Everyone loves to think of Microsoft (and lawyers in general) as being insane. So rather than say "what would Microsoft have to gain by suing me?" and basing rational decisions on that, they say "I don't want Microsoft to be able to sue me" which, if you're writing or using software these days, is an impossible task.
Nah. If Microsoft were to actually sue someone (which they won't) the first order of business would be for them to say *exactly* which patents are being infringed and where.. you then have a period of time to come into compliance.. i.e., to code around the patent. Coding around a patent is almost always, pretty easy.
meh, you don't have any idea whether he's being held or why. You don't even know that this dude exists or was the product of someone's imagination. You're not "standing up" for anyone. Seems to me the only thing you're doing is moaning on Slashdot that people in Egypt don't appear to have the same rights as people in the US (and some other western countries). News Flash: they havn't for a hell of a long time, what are you gunna do about it? Nothing, that's what. Go back to watching Oprah.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh. If I were to ask you how to do some technical task, without telling you how I am doing it, and you were to tell me my method, then it would be fair to say that it is obvious.. simple != obvious.
I don't consider constructive criticism to be a "negative comment". For example, if you say "gnome-cups-ui could do with some work in the way users enter smb printers as at the moment it is very confusing and the automatic detection of workgroups and hosts doesn't respond quick enough" you will get a good response.. from the right people you'll even get the response "this is being worked on already, check the latest cvs of gnome-cups-ui". But if you say "There's nowhere in this printer setup thingy to enter my workgroup/domain, where the hell am I supposed to enter this?" or "How come my printer doesn't work?" or "Linux support for printers is lame." then, I'm sorry, the correct response from the community is: go away you fuckin' whiner.
Why not advertise the entire deal? "Our software won't cost you a dime, and if you don't like it exactly as it is, fix it yourself or suck eggs."
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Can't you read? Not to mention the fact that it is a common practice in our society to not look a gift horse in the mouth.
On slashdot it doesn't matter if you're the first to do it, no-one else had ever thought of doing it, and no-one knew how to do it until you did it.. if the method can be explained in a sentence this audience is more than willing to call it "obvious" then make some claim about how something completely unrelated (that is also obvious) could be covered by the patent under question and therefore declare that not only will the lawsuit fail but the patent will be revoked by royal decree.
The whole government thing is silly.. they should be developing public domain software, if they're developing any software at all. Typically the argument for government to use OSS is simply a demand for governments to spend money effectively instead of giving pork belly projects to compaign contributors. As for bitching about Microsoft, we have as much right to bitch about them as the rest of the fuckin' world.. they suck, and that is plain for everyone to see. As for getting the commercial world interested, they got interested in us, not the other way around.. unfortunately they continue to think they can apply the rules of the proprietary software world to the free software world, which, of course, is absurd.
Yep, cause the right to restrict others by employing men with big guns so you can make a buck is something that we never wish to see perish from this earth.
Well, for those people who don't do this for fun, and instead do this because they want to show the world how great they are or something, you can complain as much as you like. "I'm great." "No you're not, look at this fuck up." "What do you want for nothing?" doesn't follow, I conceed that.
Sorry, I still think telling people what they can and can't copy is wrong. And threatening to take away everything they own (cause no average person can afford to defend a copyright lawsuit) or send them to jail if they disagree with you is just evil.
The biggest problem with the FOSS community is its tolerance for whiny fuckers who can't understand that we do this for fun and you have absolutely no right to complain about something you got for free.
Linking to videos from the front page, good plan.
That's why you have a legal department.
When engineers do science, you just get secretive research leading to unconfirmed claims. Publish your work. Let other people confirm it. When there's a strong agreement as to what is going on the units will sell themselves.
Of course, you're right, but let's not forget that some people actually hold beliefs so strongly that they believe forcing those beliefs on others is the right thing to do. Ironically, "tolerance of others" happens to be one of those beliefs that is forced on a lot of people :)
Apple sauce, coca-cola and honey are all types of beer. Why do I think this?
What a revelation! See how I did that? I just set aside the key features of beer (it's brown, it gets you drunk, etc) and all of a sudden everything is just like beer! Wow!
Jesus. This is insane ok? There's absolutely no guarentee you'd win a legal battle with any patent, let alone one written by people who you are not suing and who have disclaimed all liability for what they wrote. Patents are hard to enforce and you only go through the insane process of doing so when you think the other side has nothing to lose from paying you to stop suing them. This is why people sue Microsoft, cause they're not adverse to just throwing you a few million bucks to go away. Redhat on the other hand would more likely fight you to the death to stop the community from claiming they had sold out. Speaking of which, for all we know Redhat has licensed a dozen patents already.. these things are typically confidential.
Yeah, you're on crack and have obviously never written any code for a company that actually gives a shit about patents. The due dilligence done by such engineers is not something that is done by open source developers. The only reason people who have these patents don't sue is because they have yet to find anyone with deep enough pockets.
Except, you know, that patent lawsuits are happening every day.. can't say the same thing about nukes.
Kinda makes you wonder what would happen if lots of people bought a few thousand stocks in Microsoft, went to the annual meeting and demanded that Microsoft immediately enforce their patents.. after all, Microsoft currently claims their patent portfolio as an "asset". How about making that asset pay already?
Oh, what? You can't?
that are in Microsoft's portfolio.. but 1) exactly which patents are these Microsoft? and 2) What are you gunna do about it? Nothin', that's what.
Lower the voting age to 12.
Let anyone who wants to work do so.
Make high school optional.
Unless you're the head of the CIA, there aint a lot you can do.
Except, ya know, that they'd have to pay someone to document all that stuff.. which they never do, because they're fuckin' cowboys. If, instead, Microsoft signs up Novell to their shared-source program, they can just give Novell the source code.
I agree with you, but I say the probability of infringing code is almost certainly very close to 1. You can't write anything that is non-trivial without stepping on a patent claim these days, and Microsoft likely owns at least one of them. The problem is that this meme competes with another meme, which I like to think of as the "irrational other player" meme. Everyone loves to think of Microsoft (and lawyers in general) as being insane. So rather than say "what would Microsoft have to gain by suing me?" and basing rational decisions on that, they say "I don't want Microsoft to be able to sue me" which, if you're writing or using software these days, is an impossible task.
Nah. If Microsoft were to actually sue someone (which they won't) the first order of business would be for them to say *exactly* which patents are being infringed and where.. you then have a period of time to come into compliance.. i.e., to code around the patent. Coding around a patent is almost always, pretty easy.
meh, you don't have any idea whether he's being held or why. You don't even know that this dude exists or was the product of someone's imagination. You're not "standing up" for anyone. Seems to me the only thing you're doing is moaning on Slashdot that people in Egypt don't appear to have the same rights as people in the US (and some other western countries). News Flash: they havn't for a hell of a long time, what are you gunna do about it? Nothing, that's what. Go back to watching Oprah.