Personally I prefer measures where the people with the lowest score count for more than the people with a higher score. That is a question of ethics, though.
Nope, it's not a matter of ethics. If you are saying that anyone with no pity to the poor is a fascist pig (or, sort of), I don't agree. This is the way capitalist society works.
No, I was not speaking of fascism. I was saying that I don't really like a measurement system where the "score" for how good it is in a country consists of simply adding up the income of all people in it. This is indeed how it is done in capitalist society. But as you may have noticed, I don't really like that either;-)
I would prefer something like summing the squared inverse incomes (that's \sum(1/income^2), and the lowest score is the best. It's just an example of using mostly the lower incomes to determine if a country is "good", there are many other possibilities.
I'm saying that in my view, ethically, you need to have several rich people in your country to compensate for one poor person. Example: Saudi Arabia is quite a wealthy nation if you look at the gross national product. However, almost all of the money goes to the royal family, and lots of people are poor. In my view, the country shouldn't score very high. Therefore, gross national product is in this case (IMO) not a good measure.
One has to work harder to become richer and consume more, and this in itself is the main driving matter.
It is indeed in capitalist society, or at least "they" want it to be. Personally, I'm not after consuming as much as I can in life. I'd rather have happiness. I need some consumption for that, but not the maximum.
But you are making exactly the statement which I hoped to have proven wrong in my previous post;-) You are saying that by working harder you will get richer. This is how many people believe capitalist society should work, but in fact it doesn't. A few people get rich because they work hard. A few more (I think) get rich because they were somehow smart enough to have other people give them their money.
But most people just stay as they are, poor or rich, without very much work. All the people get a bit richer, which means there's inflation, but the rich usually get more richer than the poor, which means the difference increases. This is not because they work harder, but simply because they have the money to control where the rest of the money goes.
Someone born in an average family in Africa can work much harder than I do here in the Netherlands, but they probably will not make more money. Which shows that capitalism fails if the idea is to give people what they deserve. On the other hand, if the idea is to distract the poor from what's really happening, it's doing quite a good job. Lots of people don't realize all this:-(
Sounds like a good thing for the economy (and even for programmers) if you asked me...
Not for programmers working at Microsoft, or a similar company (does that exist? Well... anyway). They make money from the fact that people have no choice but to buy their product, and adjust their prices accordingly. They lose a lot of money when users can (easily) choose someone else. That, however, would be a big win for for people in general though.
i dont know where everyone gets the idea that you need profits to have a good economy
Whether we like this or not, it's a fact. Without hope of profits there is no reason to invest.
From "dict economy":
the system of production and distribution and consumption
Money is not needed to have an economy. Many people consider it a good way to distribute resources among people, with the idea that the ones who do more or more important work should have access to more resources.
That is how things work in a capitalist economy. This is, however, not the only possible economy, as you suggest. And in fact IMO it's not a good one, too. What this theory overlooks is that money is equivalent to resources, and it can buy (virtually) anything, including power. Especially it can buy the power to get more money, which makes other people poorer.
This results in a system where the rich always get richer, until the poor realize that it isn't such a good idea and start a revolution. At this moment, governments all over the world are trying to prevent that by giving some money to the unemployed, etc. However, the rich are still getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer (I'm not sure about absolute values, but they're nonsense anyway, it's all about relative values), so I expect a revolution at some point in the future. All the govenments do is put it off for a while.
Of course this is not very nice, because a revolution is such a waste of resources. If people would just live together happily, things would be so much better. I really think the free software movement should be an example for a perfect lifestyle.
Your parent said better for the people, not all people. Better for the people means that using some kind of average, the total comes out higher.
Personally I prefer measures where the people with the lowest score count for more than the people with a higher score. That is a question of ethics, though.
Just because you get it worse (if you do, which I doubt), doesn't mean the people get it worse. If all the users get better software, and all developers would make a bit less money (which is unlikely), then I would definitely consider that an improvement for the people.
How about previous: Apple forbidding you to remove a file on their demo CD, because that would result in you having the full version of the product. Sounds familiar? It happened, and IIRC Apple was in their right to do this (in the USA anyway).
As far as I know Linux 2.4 also needed module-init-tools.
Anyway, I have a USB device here which had problems with a bug in the uhci driver of 2.4, and there was a patch for it for 2.6.0-test2. I used that, and it worked fine. Later, I moved the device to a different computer, so I compiled a new kernel. By that time, -test9 had come out (which included the patch btw), so I used that.
I don't know why, but the other computer was completely unstable with that, crashing several times an hour. This was of course unacceptable, so I compiled a -test2 kernel for it and it hasn't crashed since.
I didn't file a bug report, because I couldn't figure out what was causing the crashes. I sure hope my machine will run allright on 2.6.0, because I want to let other people use that usb device as well, and I wasn't planning to tell them they need to compile their own kernel.
This is ridiculous. Does all of your hardware come with schematics? Of course not. Why should software be any different.
It used to, but nowadays not anymore, no. And I still think it should.
But that's not a good comparison. Software comes with a license which specifically forbids to even open the cover and go look for yourself. The fact that there are no schematics (documentation) is quite another thing.
I think proprietary software is a Bad Thing. It teaches people to keep things for yourself, even if sharing them is a trivial action which doesn't cost you any trouble. If people insist on making money at the cost of teaching people such things (and not allowing them to look under the cover of the product), then I think they are doing immoral things.
Of course it is only immoral if they know that they are doing this. Therefore we should tell them our analysis of the situation. If they insist on doing it, they are immoral. If not, then we can welcome a new friend:-)
RMS wrote an article about free software in schools just a few days ago. Of course it's only about doing the right thing, so basically it tells schools they should teach children to be good citizens, even if that means they will be less prepared for the "real world". And I think he's completely right.
What do I care if all the children in the school get good jobs, if they're going to ruin the world when they're there? I'd rather have many of them have good jobs (software doesn't make that much of a difference, and I'm not even sure if free software would be getting them less or more jobs), and they're going to help make the world a better place to live.
Will you speak for yourself, please. Just because you consider software only a tool, doesn't mean everyone does.
There are people who use software because it's moral, and I'm one of them. Software is not a tool for me, it's knowledge. I am a scientist. If I discover something, I publish it. That way other people can learn from it. I guess you know how the thing works.
Of course I use software (as a tool) as well. Just as I use knowledge. I also don't use scientific discoveries if I am not allowed to find out how and why they work. I'm not saying I will open every device I use. But I definitely want to be allowed to.
Imagine a society where it would be acceptable that knowledge is "owned" and discoveries are secret. You think the microwave oven (using quantum mechanic theory) would have ever been developed? I think not.
Most people know how they can make or break the world. Most of the time it is only about little things, but for some people (CEO's of large companies) it can be about very big things.
I want a better world, and I'll do two things for that: I don't do things that harm my ideals (like using non free software), and I tell others they shouldn't either. I know it won't make much of a difference, but it will make a difference.
And besides, I wouldn't want to live in a world where my friends know, or even think, that I would put a little personal gain above my ideals.
A society where everyone, doctors, lawyers, engineers, you name it, acted like that would be highly inefficient and unpleasant to live in.
Don't forget the scientists. In a sociciety like that,... Oh wait, perhaps there wouldn't actually be any scientists. All the wannabe scientists would be busy inventing the wheel.
Netscape defaults to Netscape search too, y'know;)
Yes, but it doesn't go searching for advertisments if you make a typo.
But assume that people actually want to do a search every time they mistype something. Would they like to get a page of search results or a page of advertisments?
I've read some things about the registry, and I think I would consider it a good idea to have it distributed in multiple files. However, the statement says it will be distributed across the filesystem in multiple directories, not neccesarily in files (given their new "our filesystem is a database" idea).
It wouldn't surprise me if this would mostly be meant to prevent copying it, so it will be very hard to copy your system to a new hard drive.
But on the other hand, surely they will still be compatible with the old interface, so old programs can still run. And that means that all the weak points will stay right where they are.
Anyway, I'm not wasting more time on this, it will not come out before 2006 anyway.
Seems to me that the prosecutors and MS are trying to hang someone as an example but that is a very fine line.
Yes they are lookign to make an example out of this, but I think the rabbit hole goes deeper. I think MS knows something we do not, and hopefully we'll be able to find out what it is. There has been worst viruses in Windows history..why this particular virus? Why now? I think we'll all be surprised in the end when all of this is over.
It seems pretty clear what they're doing: They're continuing their everlasting story of "it's impossible to make computers secure, the only possible solution is to catch the criminals exploiting the holes in our software, because we can't close them". You may be right that there is more to it this time, but it seems to me like a usual PR move, like they had lots in the past.
Is there a law that clearly states that you can not knowingly write code that may cause millions of computers to crash?
--Yes there has to be, but it's common sense. Writing code that will cause billions of dollars in damage, devastate the economy and people's lives should be punished, and under the US law it is punished.
I don't agree at all. Writing code that may cause lots of computers to crash is as criminal to me as making a tool that may be used to circumvent an encryption. There are other uses, also to virusses. Programmers can learn a lot from reading the source of a (working) virus. Getting the same result without working code would take longer, or simply fail. Of course this is only about learning how to write secure code (which would be immune to a virus) and who would want to do that anyway?;-)
I know this is a touchy subject but I view this software as free speech
--I do not understand? How can software be the same as free speech?
Source code is, like a painting, a creation. Free speech is about being allowed to let others know what you think/do/made. It is a matter of free speech to be allowed to show a painting in public, even if some people may not like it (for example, because it shows a murder). In the same line, I agree with your parent message that being allowed to publicize software is a matter of free speech.
like free speech is not part of the communist system
You might want to read up on communism. Marx didn't say free speech should be forbidden. The fact that in soviet Russia people didn't have free speech doesn't mean it is impossible in a communist country.
I fully understand what *free speech* is, but even the communists paid for software.
You may come from a communist country, but free speech has nothing to do with money. It is about the freedom to say whatever you want to say, without being prosecuted for it. The problem usually is what is more important, because for example telling people that they should kill all black people is not allowed, because it is racism. In this case racism is considered more important than the freedom to tell everybody what you think.
In the case of software, the question should be if free speech (the right to publish your software) is more important than the potential damage. Personally, I still hold Microsoft responsible for the virus outbreaks, and not the virus writer. If you leave your door wide open and I walk in and take your jewelry, then I am breaking the law. However, IMO you are the one who should be punished most, because you created a situation where you could just wait for the crime to be committed. In this case you are punished, because your jewelry is gone. With Microsoft things are different, because they don't leave their own door open, they leave open 90% of the doors in the world. I think they should be punishable for this, because they know very well what they're doing and they don't care, because it doesn't cost them anything.
PR moves like this one are just a smoke cloud to stop the lawmakers from realizing this. As long as they all think the virus writer is the one to blame, Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
The objective of Open Source (Linux in this example) is to make the best software possible
For many people, most notably Linus, this is true. However, for many other people, most notably Richard Stallman, it isn't.
Free software (which is of course open source) is written to make a better world. Not to make the best software possible. The idea is to improve the lives of many people by giving them software that is useful for them.
Ideally, this software may be the best software available. But it doesn't need to be.
Software is not like a puzzle that can be solved until it is finished. It is more like science, you can keep researching and finding new, sometimes better, ways to do things.
If scientific discoveries would be kept secret, like proprietary software, there would be hardly any innovation. Every company who would want to build a new device (don't even think of building something if you're not a company) must first research all the theory behind it. All discoveries must be done again by every company. There would be no public education.
If that would be the case, there would be hardly any innovation. Quantum theory (needed for things like a microwave oven and a CD player) is impossible to derive without hundreds of years of research. Building a microwave oven is only possible if the results of such research are made public, so many people around the world can work on it. No company could provide the manpower or the investment to work it out.
The objective of the free software movement, lead by the free software foundation, is to create a better world. This better world is defined as a place where software is exchanged, like scientific discoveries. The fact that this will result in better software is a nice coincidence. It is not the goal.
Disclaimer: I am a strong supporter of the FSF, but I am in no way a spokesman for them. The above are only my views on things.
This isn't about not wanting them to pay, it's about not allowing them to. They're not just saying "you don't need to pay, we won't sue you", they're saying "we shall not accept any payment from you".
SCO would refuse money only for one reason: because it costs them more than they get if they accept it. And indeed it does: If they actually sell a license, then the receiver can sue them for mail fraud and would probably win. They don't want to risk that, and surely not for only $699.
Why should we build a washing machine? Walking to the river and doing the laundry by hand works, doesn't it? Why build a computer? Keppler could do physical computatations by hand, and it worked.
In other words: why innovate? The answer is obvious: because it makes life easier, and thus the world a better place to be (well, that's the idea anyway, the result may be different).
Don't ever fail to do innovations just because the old system isn't broken. Look at the good and the bad points of the innovation, and make a decision based on them.
I am confused by the purpose behind this research...seems like one of those "because we can" things.
The first wheel was probably used for pottery. The person using it must have been an uber-geek. Making pots isn't much more efficient with a wheel, they only look a bit nicer (to us, I'm not even sure if the people back then thought so.
If someone would have asked the purpose of his or her invention, the answer certainly wouldn't be that in the future people could make clocks with it.
Some research is done with a particular goal in mind. Some is done just "because we want to know" (which is something else than "because we can"). Most of it, if not all, is eventually used for things the inventor didn't dream of.
Yes, it had been discovered. It took months of measurements, and in the end they claimed to have three magnetic tapes, each of which held exactly one such discovery.
However, when others asked to see the data, they appeared to have been erased, because the tapes were accidentily left on an accellerator magnet.
I don't think anybody believed this story, and now scientists commonly agree on it that it was not discovered.
Oh, I agree with you that it is interesting if there is a talk about the subject on a respected convention. I was just saying that the story emphasized his company, while we're probably not going to hear from them again about it. I'd have emphasized something else.
Like in a bug report, the title should IMO contain a short summary of everything important in the message. And in this case I don't think Microsoft was part of the important things.
Of course losing memory is not nice. It even might be a reason for not wanting to use the system. But for a server, having bugs is far worse. Less memory is acceptable. A remote exploit is not.
So who cares that this guy is from Microsoft? Was he telling us about their new product which will come out next week? I mean, if the subject had anything to do with a software company, then I'd understand, but given the typical slashdot reaction on any article mentioning anything Microsoft, I don't think it makes sense to mention it. Well, at least not in the headline.
Or does the submitter mean we shouldn't trust this story? He'd need a bit more convincing argument for me;-)
Save memory? Who cares about a bit of memory on a server? It should have enough of it. What's much more important: the GUI is a complex program, which is next to impossible to get bug-free. Bugs on a server are much worse than buying an extra simm.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I was not speaking of fascism. I was saying that I don't really like a measurement system where the "score" for how good it is in a country consists of simply adding up the income of all people in it. This is indeed how it is done in capitalist society. But as you may have noticed, I don't really like that either ;-)
I would prefer something like summing the squared inverse incomes (that's \sum(1/income^2), and the lowest score is the best. It's just an example of using mostly the lower incomes to determine if a country is "good", there are many other possibilities.
I'm saying that in my view, ethically, you need to have several rich people in your country to compensate for one poor person. Example: Saudi Arabia is quite a wealthy nation if you look at the gross national product. However, almost all of the money goes to the royal family, and lots of people are poor. In my view, the country shouldn't score very high. Therefore, gross national product is in this case (IMO) not a good measure.
It is indeed in capitalist society, or at least "they" want it to be. Personally, I'm not after consuming as much as I can in life. I'd rather have happiness. I need some consumption for that, but not the maximum.
But you are making exactly the statement which I hoped to have proven wrong in my previous post ;-) You are saying that by working harder you will get richer. This is how many people believe capitalist society should work, but in fact it doesn't. A few people get rich because they work hard. A few more (I think) get rich because they were somehow smart enough to have other people give them their money.
But most people just stay as they are, poor or rich, without very much work. All the people get a bit richer, which means there's inflation, but the rich usually get more richer than the poor, which means the difference increases. This is not because they work harder, but simply because they have the money to control where the rest of the money goes.
Someone born in an average family in Africa can work much harder than I do here in the Netherlands, but they probably will not make more money. Which shows that capitalism fails if the idea is to give people what they deserve. On the other hand, if the idea is to distract the poor from what's really happening, it's doing quite a good job. Lots of people don't realize all this :-(
Not for programmers working at Microsoft, or a similar company (does that exist? Well... anyway). They make money from the fact that people have no choice but to buy their product, and adjust their prices accordingly. They lose a lot of money when users can (easily) choose someone else. That, however, would be a big win for for people in general though.
From "dict economy":
the system of production and distribution and consumption
Money is not needed to have an economy. Many people consider it a good way to distribute resources among people, with the idea that the ones who do more or more important work should have access to more resources.
That is how things work in a capitalist economy. This is, however, not the only possible economy, as you suggest. And in fact IMO it's not a good one, too. What this theory overlooks is that money is equivalent to resources, and it can buy (virtually) anything, including power. Especially it can buy the power to get more money, which makes other people poorer.
This results in a system where the rich always get richer, until the poor realize that it isn't such a good idea and start a revolution. At this moment, governments all over the world are trying to prevent that by giving some money to the unemployed, etc. However, the rich are still getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer (I'm not sure about absolute values, but they're nonsense anyway, it's all about relative values), so I expect a revolution at some point in the future. All the govenments do is put it off for a while.
Of course this is not very nice, because a revolution is such a waste of resources. If people would just live together happily, things would be so much better. I really think the free software movement should be an example for a perfect lifestyle.
Your parent said better for the people, not all people. Better for the people means that using some kind of average, the total comes out higher.
Personally I prefer measures where the people with the lowest score count for more than the people with a higher score. That is a question of ethics, though.
Just because you get it worse (if you do, which I doubt), doesn't mean the people get it worse. If all the users get better software, and all developers would make a bit less money (which is unlikely), then I would definitely consider that an improvement for the people.
How about previous: Apple forbidding you to remove a file on their demo CD, because that would result in you having the full version of the product. Sounds familiar? It happened, and IIRC Apple was in their right to do this (in the USA anyway).
As far as I know Linux 2.4 also needed module-init-tools.
Anyway, I have a USB device here which had problems with a bug in the uhci driver of 2.4, and there was a patch for it for 2.6.0-test2. I used that, and it worked fine. Later, I moved the device to a different computer, so I compiled a new kernel. By that time, -test9 had come out (which included the patch btw), so I used that.
I don't know why, but the other computer was completely unstable with that, crashing several times an hour. This was of course unacceptable, so I compiled a -test2 kernel for it and it hasn't crashed since.
I didn't file a bug report, because I couldn't figure out what was causing the crashes. I sure hope my machine will run allright on 2.6.0, because I want to let other people use that usb device as well, and I wasn't planning to tell them they need to compile their own kernel.
This is ridiculous. Does all of your hardware come with schematics? Of course not. Why should software be any different.
It used to, but nowadays not anymore, no. And I still think it should.
But that's not a good comparison. Software comes with a license which specifically forbids to even open the cover and go look for yourself. The fact that there are no schematics (documentation) is quite another thing.
I think proprietary software is a Bad Thing. It teaches people to keep things for yourself, even if sharing them is a trivial action which doesn't cost you any trouble. If people insist on making money at the cost of teaching people such things (and not allowing them to look under the cover of the product), then I think they are doing immoral things.
Of course it is only immoral if they know that they are doing this. Therefore we should tell them our analysis of the situation. If they insist on doing it, they are immoral. If not, then we can welcome a new friend :-)
RMS wrote an article about free software in schools just a few days ago. Of course it's only about doing the right thing, so basically it tells schools they should teach children to be good citizens, even if that means they will be less prepared for the "real world". And I think he's completely right.
What do I care if all the children in the school get good jobs, if they're going to ruin the world when they're there? I'd rather have many of them have good jobs (software doesn't make that much of a difference, and I'm not even sure if free software would be getting them less or more jobs), and they're going to help make the world a better place to live.
Will you speak for yourself, please. Just because you consider software only a tool, doesn't mean everyone does.
There are people who use software because it's moral, and I'm one of them. Software is not a tool for me, it's knowledge. I am a scientist. If I discover something, I publish it. That way other people can learn from it. I guess you know how the thing works.
Of course I use software (as a tool) as well. Just as I use knowledge. I also don't use scientific discoveries if I am not allowed to find out how and why they work. I'm not saying I will open every device I use. But I definitely want to be allowed to.
Imagine a society where it would be acceptable that knowledge is "owned" and discoveries are secret. You think the microwave oven (using quantum mechanic theory) would have ever been developed? I think not.
Most people know how they can make or break the world. Most of the time it is only about little things, but for some people (CEO's of large companies) it can be about very big things.
I want a better world, and I'll do two things for that: I don't do things that harm my ideals (like using non free software), and I tell others they shouldn't either. I know it won't make much of a difference, but it will make a difference.
And besides, I wouldn't want to live in a world where my friends know, or even think, that I would put a little personal gain above my ideals.
Don't forget the scientists. In a sociciety like that, ... Oh wait, perhaps there wouldn't actually be any scientists. All the wannabe scientists would be busy inventing the wheel.
Incredible... I'd expect a +4 funny for such a comment, but +4 informative?
Netscape defaults to Netscape search too, y'know ;)
Yes, but it doesn't go searching for advertisments if you make a typo.
But assume that people actually want to do a search every time they mistype something. Would they like to get a page of search results or a page of advertisments?
I've read some things about the registry, and I think I would consider it a good idea to have it distributed in multiple files. However, the statement says it will be distributed across the filesystem in multiple directories, not neccesarily in files (given their new "our filesystem is a database" idea).
It wouldn't surprise me if this would mostly be meant to prevent copying it, so it will be very hard to copy your system to a new hard drive.
But on the other hand, surely they will still be compatible with the old interface, so old programs can still run. And that means that all the weak points will stay right where they are.
Anyway, I'm not wasting more time on this, it will not come out before 2006 anyway.
It seems pretty clear what they're doing: They're continuing their everlasting story of "it's impossible to make computers secure, the only possible solution is to catch the criminals exploiting the holes in our software, because we can't close them". You may be right that there is more to it this time, but it seems to me like a usual PR move, like they had lots in the past.
I don't agree at all. Writing code that may cause lots of computers to crash is as criminal to me as making a tool that may be used to circumvent an encryption. There are other uses, also to virusses. Programmers can learn a lot from reading the source of a (working) virus. Getting the same result without working code would take longer, or simply fail. Of course this is only about learning how to write secure code (which would be immune to a virus) and who would want to do that anyway?Source code is, like a painting, a creation. Free speech is about being allowed to let others know what you think/do/made. It is a matter of free speech to be allowed to show a painting in public, even if some people may not like it (for example, because it shows a murder). In the same line, I agree with your parent message that being allowed to publicize software is a matter of free speech.
You might want to read up on communism. Marx didn't say free speech should be forbidden. The fact that in soviet Russia people didn't have free speech doesn't mean it is impossible in a communist country.
You may come from a communist country, but free speech has nothing to do with money. It is about the freedom to say whatever you want to say, without being prosecuted for it. The problem usually is what is more important, because for example telling people that they should kill all black people is not allowed, because it is racism. In this case racism is considered more important than the freedom to tell everybody what you think.
In the case of software, the question should be if free speech (the right to publish your software) is more important than the potential damage. Personally, I still hold Microsoft responsible for the virus outbreaks, and not the virus writer. If you leave your door wide open and I walk in and take your jewelry, then I am breaking the law. However, IMO you are the one who should be punished most, because you created a situation where you could just wait for the crime to be committed. In this case you are punished, because your jewelry is gone. With Microsoft things are different, because they don't leave their own door open, they leave open 90% of the doors in the world. I think they should be punishable for this, because they know very well what they're doing and they don't care, because it doesn't cost them anything.
PR moves like this one are just a smoke cloud to stop the lawmakers from realizing this. As long as they all think the virus writer is the one to blame, Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
The objective of Open Source (Linux in this example) is to make the best software possible
For many people, most notably Linus, this is true. However, for many other people, most notably Richard Stallman, it isn't.
Free software (which is of course open source) is written to make a better world. Not to make the best software possible. The idea is to improve the lives of many people by giving them software that is useful for them.
Ideally, this software may be the best software available. But it doesn't need to be.
Software is not like a puzzle that can be solved until it is finished. It is more like science, you can keep researching and finding new, sometimes better, ways to do things.
If scientific discoveries would be kept secret, like proprietary software, there would be hardly any innovation. Every company who would want to build a new device (don't even think of building something if you're not a company) must first research all the theory behind it. All discoveries must be done again by every company. There would be no public education.
If that would be the case, there would be hardly any innovation. Quantum theory (needed for things like a microwave oven and a CD player) is impossible to derive without hundreds of years of research. Building a microwave oven is only possible if the results of such research are made public, so many people around the world can work on it. No company could provide the manpower or the investment to work it out.
The objective of the free software movement, lead by the free software foundation, is to create a better world. This better world is defined as a place where software is exchanged, like scientific discoveries. The fact that this will result in better software is a nice coincidence. It is not the goal.
Disclaimer: I am a strong supporter of the FSF, but I am in no way a spokesman for them. The above are only my views on things.
they would want all parties to pay their fees
This isn't about not wanting them to pay, it's about not allowing them to. They're not just saying "you don't need to pay, we won't sue you", they're saying "we shall not accept any payment from you".
SCO would refuse money only for one reason: because it costs them more than they get if they accept it. And indeed it does: If they actually sell a license, then the receiver can sue them for mail fraud and would probably win. They don't want to risk that, and surely not for only $699.
Why should we build a washing machine? Walking to the river and doing the laundry by hand works, doesn't it? Why build a computer? Keppler could do physical computatations by hand, and it worked.
In other words: why innovate? The answer is obvious: because it makes life easier, and thus the world a better place to be (well, that's the idea anyway, the result may be different).
Don't ever fail to do innovations just because the old system isn't broken. Look at the good and the bad points of the innovation, and make a decision based on them.
The first wheel was probably used for pottery. The person using it must have been an uber-geek. Making pots isn't much more efficient with a wheel, they only look a bit nicer (to us, I'm not even sure if the people back then thought so.
If someone would have asked the purpose of his or her invention, the answer certainly wouldn't be that in the future people could make clocks with it.
Some research is done with a particular goal in mind. Some is done just "because we want to know" (which is something else than "because we can"). Most of it, if not all, is eventually used for things the inventor didn't dream of.
Yes, it had been discovered. It took months of measurements, and in the end they claimed to have three magnetic tapes, each of which held exactly one such discovery.
However, when others asked to see the data, they appeared to have been erased, because the tapes were accidentily left on an accellerator magnet.
I don't think anybody believed this story, and now scientists commonly agree on it that it was not discovered.
I don't think so. It mostly takes marketing. And some FUD helps, too. Well, you can call that marketing as well.
Oh, I agree with you that it is interesting if there is a talk about the subject on a respected convention. I was just saying that the story emphasized his company, while we're probably not going to hear from them again about it. I'd have emphasized something else.
Like in a bug report, the title should IMO contain a short summary of everything important in the message. And in this case I don't think Microsoft was part of the important things.
Of course losing memory is not nice. It even might be a reason for not wanting to use the system. But for a server, having bugs is far worse. Less memory is acceptable. A remote exploit is not.
So who cares that this guy is from Microsoft? Was he telling us about their new product which will come out next week? I mean, if the subject had anything to do with a software company, then I'd understand, but given the typical slashdot reaction on any article mentioning anything Microsoft, I don't think it makes sense to mention it. Well, at least not in the headline.
Or does the submitter mean we shouldn't trust this story? He'd need a bit more convincing argument for me ;-)
Save memory? Who cares about a bit of memory on a server? It should have enough of it. What's much more important: the GUI is a complex program, which is next to impossible to get bug-free. Bugs on a server are much worse than buying an extra simm.