985 bugs? That sounds like an exact number. Of course that is possible, it being open source, but I hope they don't believe that they found them all. Debugging is quite a profession on itself, and I don't think anyone has found the ultimate "solution" for it.
Anyway, I sure hope they at least reported the bugs they found. Being the best is no reason not to want better. (And no, I did not imply that Linux is the best existing kernel.)
On the surface Linux and HURD are very similar. That's because most people don't ever interact directly with the kernel.
Actually, they are very different, even on the surface, because the surface of the kernel is not the surface of the OS. GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd on the other hand are very similar. This is exactly why RMS is telling people to call it GNU[/Linux], not Linux. Because it's the OS people see, not the kernel. And the OS is GNU.
On the whole I think that the design behind the HURD is a more interesting than other current OSes.
I completely agree.
I guess we'll just wait until it's gotten a bit further.
Unfortunately, as "Linux" is quite big, few people are interested in developing the Hurd. Helping to get it further is a better idea than to wait for it.
(I do believe it's useful for basic server stuff though.)
Only if your server isn't also a firewall. While the implementation of something like iptables would be much cooler in the Hurd (because it would all be in user space and therefore much more flexible), it is currently nonexistant.
Personally, I think the L4 port which is being worked on is the most important thing to do at the moment. Everyone agrees that Mach (the current microkernel underneath the system) is not useful for the Hurd, because it is too slow in IPC, which is its most important task. People are still improving the Mach version, which is probably useful, as much of it can be used without (much) change on L4, but I think the port should have priority.
Anyway, this is free software. If others want to improve the Mach version, who am I to stop them? All I can do is help with the port myself (and motivate others to do the same thing).
This whole thing reminds me of a song by the Arrogant Worms, Let there be guns. They sing:
We'd all feel safe, 'cause everybody'd have a gun
Not everyone may get safer from having their car driven by a computer. But together, we'd definitely get safer without all the people who can't drive well driving their own car.
I can imagine that if it happens voluntarily, it might take a while, because many people will not want to use such a car. Making them a requirement to enter highways would probably help:-)
our system is about "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", not "they are pretty sure"
Well shit, we better tell the police to stop arresting people unless they catch them in the act. How else are they supposed to know if someone's 100% guilty or not?
The police is allowed to arrest suspects. That has nothing to do with it. Your grantparent said:
But if they released his full name you can bet they are pretty sure about this one.
which implies that there is a difference between suspects depending on how sure you are. The judicial system leaves that consideration to the court, so the press shouldn't make it.
Here (in the Netherlands), the police will not tell family names to the press at all. People who need it can check for a criminal record, and others have no business knowing anything about it. And of course, you don't have a criminal record if you're only suspected.
"liberal", which has been turned into an insult meaning essentially "communist"
You are completely right, except that you seem to imply that "communist" is a valid insult. I know the US has a history of thinking this, but it doesn't make much sense.
Communism, like socialism, wants to solve the problems of life by letting people cooperate. By contrast, in capitalism, the problems are supposed to be solved by competition. In communism, the idea is to cooperate in "communes", village-sized communities of cooperating people.
What many people (especially US) call communism nowadays, is what was happening in the Soviet Union. As most people agree nowadays, that didn't have much to do with communism, and a lot with totalitarianism. As that is generally opposed, it can be used as a valid insult. Communism can be called unrealistic, but I think it still doesn't make sense to use it as an insult.
At least I never understood why people who live by the rule "let's together make the world a better place to live" can be used as an example of how not to live...
Never ever is it a good idea to crash on receipt of invalid data.
You are talking about web browsers, and for those I agree. However, there are programs which should crash, in particular programs which trust the source of their input. If a trusted source sends malformed data, then something is terribly wrong, and ignoring it may corrupt the database the program is handling, for example. In such a case, a crash (or panic, whichever word you like better) is a good thing.
Of course this type of crash, which is triggered by the programmer, is very different from a really unexpected crash. Those are never good.
Since I have seen the (digital) lcd displays of apple, and compared them to analog lcd displays, I have been hoping that the digital ones would catch on. I mean, it saves a DAC in the video card and an ADC in the display, and it creates a much stabler display.
Ideas like these are only delaying this (because the digital signal can be easily copied without analog noise), so once again they have come up with a plan which is bad for the people. Too bad the people will probably not realise it.
Hmm, yes, the website is one of the big problems of the project. For more info, please read the mailinglists (linked in the other reply) or drop by on freenode (irc), channel #hurd.
If people want GNU software they'll find out about it and they'll learn that it's what they want.
No, they won't. Just like you can't expect people to come up with Newton's laws by themselves, you shouldn't expect people to make deep philosophical arguments either. However, when you tell people about either of them, they can think about it and agree or disagree. If people don't know GNU exists, because all they know is that their "Linux operating system" is working fine, and they aren't told about GNU, then don't expect them to think of this by themselves.
Clearly, they don't give a fuck, they just want software that works.
Because that's the only thing they think of. Before I was told about free software, I sold my software closed source. Now that I have read articles on GNU's website, I wouldn't want to do that again, because they convinced me that distributing the source is better for everyone (including me, except maybe on the short term, but I try not to make desicions based on that whenever possible.)
As you say, RMS probably wants recognition. I don't mind if he does. If he gets more than he deserves, I don't really mind either. I do care if many people get to know the GNU project, because that may make the world better.
It's not dead at all, and there is quite some activity on at least bug-hurd@gnu.org, help-hurd@gnu.org and l4-hurd@gnu.org.
The problem is that the current version is based on Mach, which isn't really suitable for it. Currently it is being ported to the L4 microkernel (that's what l4-hurd@gnu.org is about, as you probably guessed) which should be much better for it.
No, the GNU/Linux argument is not about recognition. He'd like that, too, but as he says here:
if there were nothing at stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have already done.
GNU is about freedom. Linus doesn't seem to care much about that. The fsf wants people to know about their goals, therefore they want to have their name on their work. Not for the credit, but to let people know about what they want.
So they wouldn't really have a problem if RMS would get all the credit, as long as the message would reach the people.
I wouldn't call using Linux (or whatever he uses) pragmatic, as I'm sure it is software as RMS likes it to be: free. One of the freedoms is that if you don't like the programmer (or, as in this case, some of his opinions), you can still use it because he can't use the software to "oppress" you.
I think the Hurd is a very good idea. Using a microkernel and doing everything in userspace is great. They say the current implementation (on mach) sucks performance-wise, and I believe them without checking (I ran it, but didn't do enough to be able to verify the claims.) That is enough reason not to use it for normal work, if there is a comparable kernel (from an end-user point of view) which is doing better.
Not only are there performance problems, there is also the point that mach is not a microkernel if you compare it to modern microkernels like L4 (mach actually does device management, for example.) Currently, the hurd is being ported to L4, and I can only hope that it will have good performance. Technically, I am sure it will be a great system.
It's only about Stallman wanting the source for everything for his own interests.
You're probably trolling, but what do I care:-)
Stallman doesn't do this for his own interests, as far as I understand the word anyway (I'm not a native english speaker, so my understanding is limited.) He believes that for many reasons it is better for people to have the source of the programs they use. Even more, they should be allowed to change it, recompile it and redistribute it.
If it was only about his own interests, he'd ask for the BIOS of the computer he has. He asks for all BIOSs, because he cares about us all, not only about himself. I tend to like people who do that:-)
While the article doesn't speak about GNU/Linux, it does call people who break into computers crackers, not hackers, and that's a good thing. Let's hope it's a trend:-).
Example 1: Fifty years ago, most people considered racial equality (or the rights of a person accused of a crime) to be unimportant. Should we have stayed that way?
We did stay that way. Only when people started to think of it as something important, it was changed. That's how things are. They don't always change fast enough to my taste, but things change because people want them to change. At the moment I have the feeling what people want counts much less than what makes the big companies money, and that's a pity, but I'll not go into that now.
Example 2: Microsoft. Like it or not, copyright law is how MS got the huge dollars they get--and despite their despicable business pracites, they have pushed for innovation in the industry as a whole (even if that innovation is mostly "let's do it better than those bastards at MS").
I'm not saying copyright law doesn't get people a lot of money. I'm saying that it costs too much for society in terms of freedoms it loses. Of course there are people who innovate. But I think there must be other ways to let people innovate without taking away all those freedoms. I didn't think of how exactly, because noone would listen to me anyway.
News flash: you're not anonymous now. If you use Napster, or Kazaa, or Gnutella, or any of the rest of the Napster rip-offs, a competent lawyer and a competent sysadmin can track you down and slap you with a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
I wasn't talking about being anonymous to do criminal things. I was more thinking about running a human rights organisation in China or something. I would like people to be able to do that, and I don't care what the internet was invented for, if it can make it possible then that is a Good Thing.
Having code out there that does everything and I just play lego and mash it together to me is just as bad to socieety as it teaches you not to figure out how to deal with shit on your own, but teaches you how to take other peoples work and integrate it into your own.
You seem to think that all blocks have been built, and writing a program can be nothing more than putting them together, if only you had the blocks. Even if this was true, I would not see the problem, but it isn't true anyway. There are always new things to be written. Not in 10,000 years will that end. You know why? Because the rest of the world is changing. 20 years ago, people thought that 640kB should be enough for everyone. Now we want more. That's not because the memory changed, but because there are faster CPUs and graphic cards to actually use that memory.
But as I said, even if it was true, there is no point in not doing it. That's the same as saying we shouldn't give anyone a car, because then they don't have the pleasure of inventing it for themselves. For learning reasons, many people write things that have been written before, and nobody has a problem with it. However, it is nonsense to keep available programs from people just because they might use them otherwise.
As for my example about taking others contributions to GPL'd work and integrating it back into my own -- you mis the entire point.[...]
Your example assumes that you know a better way to do things than what you see in the code. What if you don't? Will you write code that is worse, just because copying is not allowed?
All in all, you sound like the religious one. Prove my religion wrong or you are a heretic you say.
The philosophy section of gnu.org is nothing like the bible. The bible is full of stories, which religious people say you should believe are actually history (in a more or less literal sense.) The philosophy section is full of reasons why free software is indeed better than non-free software. For example, in Why schools should use exclusively free software, Stallman gives arguments for his statements. It's not a believe-it-or-not story, it's a clearly written article which makes some points. If you don't agree with the points (except the ethical base), then you're supposed to give arguments saying what's wrong with the article. Where does his logic fail? You are simply saying that the article doesn't actually defend anything, it just tells a story. Well, read it again. What he says is simply true, except School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole. That is an axiom, and if you don't agree with it, then there's no point in arguing. But all the other points are simple logic and facts, and I ask you again to tell me which facts are incorrect, or where the logic doesn't hold up.
I look at solely the ethics [...] If they cannot be free to think, they are less likely to contribute to society and more likely to do only that which contributes to themselves.
I am quite surprised to hear this from you. You may actually be right for your situation. What I'm saying is not that in all cases GPL'd code is the only Right Way. I'm saying that if you don't use GPL, then there must be a reason for it. You seemed to disagree, but the argument you make here may be a valid one. My point is that usually, GPL is simply better for society than BSD or closed source. If you have a reason, you should consider the effects of your choice. In some cases the conclusion may be that the GPL should not be used. But (I came to the conclusion that) it should be used by default, and there are very few reasons to do something else.
The current economics of society allow for this. It also allows for GPL and BSD ideals. Saying one is better than the other ignores the re
My problem with the GPL is that it allows companies to profit off of other people's code without sharing those profits with the creators of that code.
Would you really want to have to pay IBM whenever you make an open source program?
He says he considers it reasonable to give IBM part of the profit he makes (and only if he used IBM software for it), not to give them money for doing things that don't make him money. I don't agree with him, but your wording means something quite different.
After the flagrant disregard for copyright brouhgt about by Napster and its clones, criminalizing software that is designed to share copywritten work isn't unreasonable.
It's not designed to share copyrighted work. It's simply designed to share, and (just like a VCR) it doesn't bother to try to prevent sharing copyrighted work. That is illegal, and a copying device being available doesn't change that.
But if so many people consider copyright to be unimportant, then it might be a good idea to change the law. You live in a democracy after all, or don't you? Copyright and technology don't go together anymore. One of them has to go away. Which one would you choose?
Don't get me wrong, I want artists to get money for their work. But the current copyright system just isn't the right way. Instead of protecting it with laws that stifle innovation, politicians should better think about how a new system should look.
Especially since, as its worded, INDUCE won't slap BitTorrent or FTP or even a classic P2P that uses Creative Common's licenseing schemes.
Oh that's good, only P2P systems where people can stay anonymous are targeted. I'm sure oppressive regimes (at company, national, or any other level) won't mind.
I have commercial code that I release with no source. I have commercial code I release with source to most clients -- but the first is solely for stuff I don't feel like having others know how the mathmatics and statistics engine is working.
I completely understand that this may be a clever thing to do in a capitalist economy as we live in. However, I'm sure you understand that in total, this approach leads to less innovation, and more problems (such as bugs in software because there are only few people who can fix them.)
This is exactly Stallman's point: If people would just stop accepting non-Free Software, things would be much better. The problem is that things would be better for everyone, and not always directly for the person it concerns.
And if they make any modifications to my code -- I can see what they've done and reintegrate what they've done (and without stealing the code -- just the ideas).
Sounds like you need to do a lot of double work, just because you don't release your main code under the GPL. Also, with large contributions it will be hard to show that you didn't use the code, especially it is clear that you have indeed seen their code. Copying it by hand with small modifications like different variable names is still copying. You are probably just lucky that noone can be bothered to sue, or that they don't know because you keep your code closed.
[I license BSD or put in the public domain] Stuff I don't want anyone to f'n bother me about nor call me up and ask me to make additions to it.
These should not be reasons not to use the GPL. With the GPL, you are allowed to not respond to anyone asking you things, you can specifically state in the program that you feel like that, so they don't call you. Of course you can't prevent them from forking, but you don't want to anyway if you'd use a PD-style license.
I've seen some of the public domain stuff come back a few years later when I need have more functions and I look out on the net for something that can do what I need it to do but more than the last one did -- the last time I did that, I found someone else had taken my software and actually added these functions to it (and still kept the appropriate contacts in there even though I didn't ask them to do it). Luckily the field I work in is small enough that there is some comradery even if we compete against each other...
So you're very happy about BSD/PD, because it allows others to make additions and if they release them again then you are lucky to be in a field of work where the people are so nice to give you back their new source? Guess what, if you'd have used the GPL then it wouldn't be about luck. You get it back with source, or they don't release it at all. Them not releasing it may sound like a bad thing, but if your software is any good, they want to use it as a basis for their own product. And if they do that, then they do it nicely (by releasing with source, which is good for everyone), or they can only use it internally, which is probably mostly their own problem. The other option (which is not available with the GPL) of releasing the new program, but not the source, would result in a program that can no longer be improved. Not having those releases doesn't sound like a big loss to me.
Anyone that picks a license and [...] goes with the group think on the subject is a fucking idiot.
If they have thought about it for themselves, I don't see the problem. The group can be right.
Personally, I think GPL is a group think license. The few folks that release quality apps are [...] or they are fully endoctrinated in to the religion and can't understand why anyone would do anything else.
Religion is about believing things that cannot be proved. Indoctrination is about making people believe things so strongly that t
Those people who champion the GPL because they believe proprietary software is inherently wrong, I have respect for. (Though the subset of those champions who make their living writing proprietary software, well...)
Those who really believe in Free Software, but still write non-Free Software, must have a reason for it. They are probably not happy with their job. I know that in the Netherlands you are pretty much forced to take any job (including jobs you morally oppose) if you are unemployed, otherwise the state stops giving you welfare.
Stallman's plan certainly worked; look at all the excellent GPL-licensed software out there. It's a huge codebase that will never make its way into closed-source software -- mission accomplished.
While we've come a long way, we're not quite there yet. The plan was to make everyone consider closed source a Bad Thing(tm), so for example hardware manufacturers will by default write their drivers as open source. I'm sure you agree that that is not yet the case:-)
So the only remaining "injury" is that the body of closed-source software has once again grown. Again, for those of you who think this is a Bad Thing, I respect you and your views. But I disagree, and I suspect many of you do, too. GPL is overkill, most of the time.
For those of us who think this is a bad thing, you didn't give any argument why the GPL is overkill, because (according to us) it prevents Bad Things from happening. Sounds good to me:-)
I don't see why you suspect that many of us would disagree with our own views. Or were you talking to the slashdot crowd in general? In that case you are most certainly right.
That's why there are things like Gnome and KDE, and distributions like Knoppix which just choose for you. People who like that can get it. Perhaps we need to be more clear about that, because otherwise they'd feel like they still have to choose:-)
There wouldn't be so much of a problem with them shipping it, as long as they don't integrate it into the system. You can use Firefox on Windows, but IE will still be installed. Because if you uninstall IE, windows doesn't work anymore. There is no technical reason for this, they did it because they needed to claim it in court.
It doesn't have to do with integration from a user's perspective. Debian has/etc/alternatives, which can be used to run "the default browser" and things alike. That doesn't mean that the user (or the distributer) doesn't have choice. If Microsoft would offer the same thing: a system for defaults, plus an option which they offer, then there is no problem. Of course they shouldn't put it on the same CD, but distributors may choose to do this anyway. This is how it was, when internet CDs all included IE and Netscape, with a choice during install which one you wanted.
The GPL does say that the patent must be licensed free of charge to anyone who gets their hands on the program. That includes through distribution by third parties. This is because you are not allowed to place extra restrictions on use, or distribution, and needing a patent license to be allowed to redistribute is a restriction.
However, the GPL does not say you have to license the patent to everybody, effectively throwing it away. While "everybody" and "anyone who can get their hands on the program" are in most cases the same, legally they are not, and thus requiring it is GPL-incompatible.
I don't see why corporations prefer the CPL. They probably think it is safer or something, because the requirements regarding patents are stronger.
I must say I'm not familiar with all distro's, but I'm using Debian and have none of these problems. Why not? Because Debian set up some rules which have to be followed for all Debian packages.
Every package must have an entry in the "Debian" menu. If it registers with Gnome and/or KDE, that's nice. But either way, everything is in the Debian menu. Old versions are of course automatically uninstalled when upgrading.
I don't know when was the last time you installed or saw a newbie use a GNU/Linux system, but I haven't seen any which do, or need to know what $PATH is. No modern installation needs any shell interaction. If you want to use it, you can of course, but everything can be reached from the menus.
I do tell users to RTFM. I tell them in a nicer way, and I tell them why: because if they learn how to read it, they can solve their next problem themselves. I help them reading, tell them which parts they can skip and how they recognise them.
Because if they don't RTFM, they can only do what the program allows them on the surface. They'll just sigh and not have all the features they really would like. Just as they do in Windows. If they like it like that, then I don't really see a reason why they should switch.
Slashdot Mirror
985 bugs? That sounds like an exact number. Of course that is possible, it being open source, but I hope they don't believe that they found them all. Debugging is quite a profession on itself, and I don't think anyone has found the ultimate "solution" for it.
Anyway, I sure hope they at least reported the bugs they found. Being the best is no reason not to want better. (And no, I did not imply that Linux is the best existing kernel.)
Actually, they are very different, even on the surface, because the surface of the kernel is not the surface of the OS. GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd on the other hand are very similar. This is exactly why RMS is telling people to call it GNU[/Linux], not Linux. Because it's the OS people see, not the kernel. And the OS is GNU.
I completely agree.
Unfortunately, as "Linux" is quite big, few people are interested in developing the Hurd. Helping to get it further is a better idea than to wait for it.
Only if your server isn't also a firewall. While the implementation of something like iptables would be much cooler in the Hurd (because it would all be in user space and therefore much more flexible), it is currently nonexistant.
Personally, I think the L4 port which is being worked on is the most important thing to do at the moment. Everyone agrees that Mach (the current microkernel underneath the system) is not useful for the Hurd, because it is too slow in IPC, which is its most important task. People are still improving the Mach version, which is probably useful, as much of it can be used without (much) change on L4, but I think the port should have priority.
Anyway, this is free software. If others want to improve the Mach version, who am I to stop them? All I can do is help with the port myself (and motivate others to do the same thing).
This whole thing reminds me of a song by the Arrogant Worms, Let there be guns. They sing:
Not everyone may get safer from having their car driven by a computer. But together, we'd definitely get safer without all the people who can't drive well driving their own car.
I can imagine that if it happens voluntarily, it might take a while, because many people will not want to use such a car. Making them a requirement to enter highways would probably help :-)
The police is allowed to arrest suspects. That has nothing to do with it. Your grantparent said:
which implies that there is a difference between suspects depending on how sure you are. The judicial system leaves that consideration to the court, so the press shouldn't make it.Here (in the Netherlands), the police will not tell family names to the press at all. People who need it can check for a criminal record, and others have no business knowing anything about it. And of course, you don't have a criminal record if you're only suspected.
You are completely right, except that you seem to imply that "communist" is a valid insult. I know the US has a history of thinking this, but it doesn't make much sense.
Communism, like socialism, wants to solve the problems of life by letting people cooperate. By contrast, in capitalism, the problems are supposed to be solved by competition. In communism, the idea is to cooperate in "communes", village-sized communities of cooperating people.
What many people (especially US) call communism nowadays, is what was happening in the Soviet Union. As most people agree nowadays, that didn't have much to do with communism, and a lot with totalitarianism. As that is generally opposed, it can be used as a valid insult. Communism can be called unrealistic, but I think it still doesn't make sense to use it as an insult.
At least I never understood why people who live by the rule "let's together make the world a better place to live" can be used as an example of how not to live...
Indeed. I tried to make that clear in my post. The point is that for users, the result looks the same: the program aborts.
You are talking about web browsers, and for those I agree. However, there are programs which should crash, in particular programs which trust the source of their input. If a trusted source sends malformed data, then something is terribly wrong, and ignoring it may corrupt the database the program is handling, for example. In such a case, a crash (or panic, whichever word you like better) is a good thing.
Of course this type of crash, which is triggered by the programmer, is very different from a really unexpected crash. Those are never good.
Since I have seen the (digital) lcd displays of apple, and compared them to analog lcd displays, I have been hoping that the digital ones would catch on. I mean, it saves a DAC in the video card and an ADC in the display, and it creates a much stabler display.
Ideas like these are only delaying this (because the digital signal can be easily copied without analog noise), so once again they have come up with a plan which is bad for the people. Too bad the people will probably not realise it.
Hmm, yes, the website is one of the big problems of the project. For more info, please read the mailinglists (linked in the other reply) or drop by on freenode (irc), channel #hurd.
No, they won't. Just like you can't expect people to come up with Newton's laws by themselves, you shouldn't expect people to make deep philosophical arguments either. However, when you tell people about either of them, they can think about it and agree or disagree. If people don't know GNU exists, because all they know is that their "Linux operating system" is working fine, and they aren't told about GNU, then don't expect them to think of this by themselves.
Because that's the only thing they think of. Before I was told about free software, I sold my software closed source. Now that I have read articles on GNU's website, I wouldn't want to do that again, because they convinced me that distributing the source is better for everyone (including me, except maybe on the short term, but I try not to make desicions based on that whenever possible.)
As you say, RMS probably wants recognition. I don't mind if he does. If he gets more than he deserves, I don't really mind either. I do care if many people get to know the GNU project, because that may make the world better.
It's not dead at all, and there is quite some activity on at least bug-hurd@gnu.org, help-hurd@gnu.org and l4-hurd@gnu.org.
The problem is that the current version is based on Mach, which isn't really suitable for it. Currently it is being ported to the L4 microkernel (that's what l4-hurd@gnu.org is about, as you probably guessed) which should be much better for it.
No, the GNU/Linux argument is not about recognition. He'd like that, too, but as he says here:
GNU is about freedom. Linus doesn't seem to care much about that. The fsf wants people to know about their goals, therefore they want to have their name on their work. Not for the credit, but to let people know about what they want.
So they wouldn't really have a problem if RMS would get all the credit, as long as the message would reach the people.
I wouldn't call using Linux (or whatever he uses) pragmatic, as I'm sure it is software as RMS likes it to be: free. One of the freedoms is that if you don't like the programmer (or, as in this case, some of his opinions), you can still use it because he can't use the software to "oppress" you.
I think the Hurd is a very good idea. Using a microkernel and doing everything in userspace is great. They say the current implementation (on mach) sucks performance-wise, and I believe them without checking (I ran it, but didn't do enough to be able to verify the claims.) That is enough reason not to use it for normal work, if there is a comparable kernel (from an end-user point of view) which is doing better.
Not only are there performance problems, there is also the point that mach is not a microkernel if you compare it to modern microkernels like L4 (mach actually does device management, for example.) Currently, the hurd is being ported to L4, and I can only hope that it will have good performance. Technically, I am sure it will be a great system.
I do not know if this is true, nor do I care much. What are you trying to prove?
You're probably trolling, but what do I care :-)
Stallman doesn't do this for his own interests, as far as I understand the word anyway (I'm not a native english speaker, so my understanding is limited.) He believes that for many reasons it is better for people to have the source of the programs they use. Even more, they should be allowed to change it, recompile it and redistribute it.
If it was only about his own interests, he'd ask for the BIOS of the computer he has. He asks for all BIOSs, because he cares about us all, not only about himself. I tend to like people who do that :-)
While the article doesn't speak about GNU/Linux, it does call people who break into computers crackers, not hackers, and that's a good thing. Let's hope it's a trend :-).
We did stay that way. Only when people started to think of it as something important, it was changed. That's how things are. They don't always change fast enough to my taste, but things change because people want them to change. At the moment I have the feeling what people want counts much less than what makes the big companies money, and that's a pity, but I'll not go into that now.
I'm not saying copyright law doesn't get people a lot of money. I'm saying that it costs too much for society in terms of freedoms it loses. Of course there are people who innovate. But I think there must be other ways to let people innovate without taking away all those freedoms. I didn't think of how exactly, because noone would listen to me anyway.
I wasn't talking about being anonymous to do criminal things. I was more thinking about running a human rights organisation in China or something. I would like people to be able to do that, and I don't care what the internet was invented for, if it can make it possible then that is a Good Thing.
You seem to think that all blocks have been built, and writing a program can be nothing more than putting them together, if only you had the blocks. Even if this was true, I would not see the problem, but it isn't true anyway. There are always new things to be written. Not in 10,000 years will that end. You know why? Because the rest of the world is changing. 20 years ago, people thought that 640kB should be enough for everyone. Now we want more. That's not because the memory changed, but because there are faster CPUs and graphic cards to actually use that memory.
But as I said, even if it was true, there is no point in not doing it. That's the same as saying we shouldn't give anyone a car, because then they don't have the pleasure of inventing it for themselves. For learning reasons, many people write things that have been written before, and nobody has a problem with it. However, it is nonsense to keep available programs from people just because they might use them otherwise.
Your example assumes that you know a better way to do things than what you see in the code. What if you don't? Will you write code that is worse, just because copying is not allowed?
The philosophy section of gnu.org is nothing like the bible. The bible is full of stories, which religious people say you should believe are actually history (in a more or less literal sense.) The philosophy section is full of reasons why free software is indeed better than non-free software. For example, in Why schools should use exclusively free software, Stallman gives arguments for his statements. It's not a believe-it-or-not story, it's a clearly written article which makes some points. If you don't agree with the points (except the ethical base), then you're supposed to give arguments saying what's wrong with the article. Where does his logic fail? You are simply saying that the article doesn't actually defend anything, it just tells a story. Well, read it again. What he says is simply true, except School should teach students ways of life that will benefit society as a whole. That is an axiom, and if you don't agree with it, then there's no point in arguing. But all the other points are simple logic and facts, and I ask you again to tell me which facts are incorrect, or where the logic doesn't hold up.
I am quite surprised to hear this from you. You may actually be right for your situation. What I'm saying is not that in all cases GPL'd code is the only Right Way. I'm saying that if you don't use GPL, then there must be a reason for it. You seemed to disagree, but the argument you make here may be a valid one. My point is that usually, GPL is simply better for society than BSD or closed source. If you have a reason, you should consider the effects of your choice. In some cases the conclusion may be that the GPL should not be used. But (I came to the conclusion that) it should be used by default, and there are very few reasons to do something else.
He says he considers it reasonable to give IBM part of the profit he makes (and only if he used IBM software for it), not to give them money for doing things that don't make him money. I don't agree with him, but your wording means something quite different.
It's not designed to share copyrighted work. It's simply designed to share, and (just like a VCR) it doesn't bother to try to prevent sharing copyrighted work. That is illegal, and a copying device being available doesn't change that.
But if so many people consider copyright to be unimportant, then it might be a good idea to change the law. You live in a democracy after all, or don't you? Copyright and technology don't go together anymore. One of them has to go away. Which one would you choose?
Don't get me wrong, I want artists to get money for their work. But the current copyright system just isn't the right way. Instead of protecting it with laws that stifle innovation, politicians should better think about how a new system should look.
Oh that's good, only P2P systems where people can stay anonymous are targeted. I'm sure oppressive regimes (at company, national, or any other level) won't mind.
I completely understand that this may be a clever thing to do in a capitalist economy as we live in. However, I'm sure you understand that in total, this approach leads to less innovation, and more problems (such as bugs in software because there are only few people who can fix them.)
This is exactly Stallman's point: If people would just stop accepting non-Free Software, things would be much better. The problem is that things would be better for everyone, and not always directly for the person it concerns.
Sounds like you need to do a lot of double work, just because you don't release your main code under the GPL. Also, with large contributions it will be hard to show that you didn't use the code, especially it is clear that you have indeed seen their code. Copying it by hand with small modifications like different variable names is still copying. You are probably just lucky that noone can be bothered to sue, or that they don't know because you keep your code closed.
These should not be reasons not to use the GPL. With the GPL, you are allowed to not respond to anyone asking you things, you can specifically state in the program that you feel like that, so they don't call you. Of course you can't prevent them from forking, but you don't want to anyway if you'd use a PD-style license.
So you're very happy about BSD/PD, because it allows others to make additions and if they release them again then you are lucky to be in a field of work where the people are so nice to give you back their new source? Guess what, if you'd have used the GPL then it wouldn't be about luck. You get it back with source, or they don't release it at all. Them not releasing it may sound like a bad thing, but if your software is any good, they want to use it as a basis for their own product. And if they do that, then they do it nicely (by releasing with source, which is good for everyone), or they can only use it internally, which is probably mostly their own problem. The other option (which is not available with the GPL) of releasing the new program, but not the source, would result in a program that can no longer be improved. Not having those releases doesn't sound like a big loss to me.
If they have thought about it for themselves, I don't see the problem. The group can be right.
Religion is about believing things that cannot be proved. Indoctrination is about making people believe things so strongly that t
Those who really believe in Free Software, but still write non-Free Software, must have a reason for it. They are probably not happy with their job. I know that in the Netherlands you are pretty much forced to take any job (including jobs you morally oppose) if you are unemployed, otherwise the state stops giving you welfare.
While we've come a long way, we're not quite there yet. The plan was to make everyone consider closed source a Bad Thing(tm), so for example hardware manufacturers will by default write their drivers as open source. I'm sure you agree that that is not yet the case :-)
For those of us who think this is a bad thing, you didn't give any argument why the GPL is overkill, because (according to us) it prevents Bad Things from happening. Sounds good to me :-)
I don't see why you suspect that many of us would disagree with our own views. Or were you talking to the slashdot crowd in general? In that case you are most certainly right.
That's why there are things like Gnome and KDE, and distributions like Knoppix which just choose for you. People who like that can get it. Perhaps we need to be more clear about that, because otherwise they'd feel like they still have to choose :-)
There wouldn't be so much of a problem with them shipping it, as long as they don't integrate it into the system. You can use Firefox on Windows, but IE will still be installed. Because if you uninstall IE, windows doesn't work anymore. There is no technical reason for this, they did it because they needed to claim it in court.
It doesn't have to do with integration from a user's perspective. Debian has /etc/alternatives, which can be used to run "the default browser" and things alike. That doesn't mean that the user (or the distributer) doesn't have choice. If Microsoft would offer the same thing: a system for defaults, plus an option which they offer, then there is no problem. Of course they shouldn't put it on the same CD, but distributors may choose to do this anyway. This is how it was, when internet CDs all included IE and Netscape, with a choice during install which one you wanted.
The GPL does say that the patent must be licensed free of charge to anyone who gets their hands on the program. That includes through distribution by third parties. This is because you are not allowed to place extra restrictions on use, or distribution, and needing a patent license to be allowed to redistribute is a restriction.
However, the GPL does not say you have to license the patent to everybody, effectively throwing it away. While "everybody" and "anyone who can get their hands on the program" are in most cases the same, legally they are not, and thus requiring it is GPL-incompatible.
I don't see why corporations prefer the CPL. They probably think it is safer or something, because the requirements regarding patents are stronger.
I must say I'm not familiar with all distro's, but I'm using Debian and have none of these problems. Why not? Because Debian set up some rules which have to be followed for all Debian packages.
Every package must have an entry in the "Debian" menu. If it registers with Gnome and/or KDE, that's nice. But either way, everything is in the Debian menu. Old versions are of course automatically uninstalled when upgrading.
I don't know when was the last time you installed or saw a newbie use a GNU/Linux system, but I haven't seen any which do, or need to know what $PATH is. No modern installation needs any shell interaction. If you want to use it, you can of course, but everything can be reached from the menus.
I do tell users to RTFM. I tell them in a nicer way, and I tell them why: because if they learn how to read it, they can solve their next problem themselves. I help them reading, tell them which parts they can skip and how they recognise them.
Because if they don't RTFM, they can only do what the program allows them on the surface. They'll just sigh and not have all the features they really would like. Just as they do in Windows. If they like it like that, then I don't really see a reason why they should switch.