Because the FSF has a widely-known agenda. If you don't support that agenda, then don't donate to the FSF. Donating to an organization does not constitude gaining control over that organization.
There is more GNU software out there than just the kernel.
Linux (the kernel) is not GNU software. It is merely licensed under the GPL.
I'm just saying that the FSF pulling support lowers their credibility.
On the contrary, the FSF's credibility would be lowered if on one hand, it proclaimed that SCO is evil, and on the other hand, it continued to expend resources in supporting SCO's platform (thus boosting SCO's sales) when this provides no strategic benefit for the FSF. You are essentially suggesting that the FSF would increase its credibility by being hypocritical.
Confidence, that's the game we're playing. SCO undermines ours by this case of theirs, but we undermine our own even more so if we hit back like this.
I disagree. I think by continuing to support SCO after its actions, the FSF could (validly) be looked upon as being hypocritical. In fact, I'd say that the FSF would be violatng its (albeit unwritten) social contract with its financial contributors by continuing to expend resources on support for the SCO platform. One of the primary purposes of the FSF's is to support the free software movement, and supporting SCO is currently contrary to that purpose.
If they were operating under the normal laws of copyright then they had no right to distribute everything surrounding the offending code in the first place... Is there a danger to the GPL going to court over this and losing that I don't see?
Does anyone notice the lack of response to anyone who ever asks that question?
The whole notion that the GPL is "untested" and is therefore not solid is simply FUD.
There doesn't have to be *one* standard interface for everything. A few standards would also work. Like with audio equipment. There are a countable number of different headphone jack sizes, and you can get an adaptor relatively cheaply.
I can't think of many classes I took that didn't involve me copying pictures and diagrams off the board, which I have yet to see handled well on a laptop or PDA, although some of the tablet PCs come close.
Ever tried a medium-resolution (2 Mpx or higher) digital camera?
Yeah, except you don't have to pay for newer versions of RedHat. You just continue paying for the support.
That may be true, but I think it's the wrong approach to addressing the concern. The truth is that nothing forces you to upgrade to new versions of RedHat -- even if you want new features. You can just get some competent people do merge in whatever features you want.
You know we're talking about secretaries, don't you ?
That's just it: we're not talking about secretaries. We're talking about people who have the financial resources to pay programmers like us to make the enhancements they need.
Let's not take the RedHat vs. Microsoft example then. RedHat drops old versions a lot faster than MS.
So what? Users don't need to upgrade to the latest RedHat version just to get individual features. Example: iptables requires Linux 2.4. RedHat 5.2 had (IIRC) Linux 2.0. Nothing stops competent people from upgrading just the kernel to Linux 2.4 with RedHat 5.2. Therefore, if you're happy with RedHat 5.2, except that you want a few more features (like iptables), you have the option of either upgrading to a newer RedHat, or you can get someone competent to just add those features. With closed source software, you often don't have the second option.
And remember all the distros out there are made by companies that care about big bucks also.
I don't remember it because it's not true. Widely-used, high-quality distros like Debian, Knoppix, and Gentoo (just off the top of my head -- I'm sure there are a few others) are all made by people not developing for profit.
"Not quite ready" is almost irrelevent. It would be true with closed source, but with open-source software, end-users can put their resources toward getting the features they want, rather than toward paying Microsoft every few years.
And the nice thing about OSS is that you don't really need to do mass upgrades to new major versions -- if it's cheaper to make (for example) Linux 2.0 support IPSEC, that's a possible option. It's not a possible with Microsoft (or many closed-source solutions).
bursch-X said "It's OSS; if you hate the interface so much, make a new one", not "program a new one". Writing a nice interface design doc and sending it to the mailing list would count as 'making a new one'.
The phrase "GNU/Linux" is semantically similar to the phrase "UDP/IP", and not to "Sony Playstation".
When you write "UDP/IP", you are referring to "UDP over IP". You are not implying that some entity "UDP" is the owner of "IP" -- "UDP" is not an adjective modifying "IP". The same thing applies to "GNU/Linux", which refers to the GNU system (glibc, gcc, and the GNU tools) running on top of the Linux kernel.
If the FSF were to have their own "Linux distro", they might call it "GNU GNU/Linux"; if they forked the kernel, they might call it "GNU Linux". As for "GNU/GNU/Linux", I don't know what that would mean.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the FSF has a widely-known agenda. If you don't support that agenda, then don't donate to the FSF. Donating to an organization does not constitude gaining control over that organization.
There is more GNU software out there than just the kernel.
Linux (the kernel) is not GNU software. It is merely licensed under the GPL.
I'm just saying that the FSF pulling support lowers their credibility.
On the contrary, the FSF's credibility would be lowered if on one hand, it proclaimed that SCO is evil, and on the other hand, it continued to expend resources in supporting SCO's platform (thus boosting SCO's sales) when this provides no strategic benefit for the FSF. You are essentially suggesting that the FSF would increase its credibility by being hypocritical.
Thank you Microsoft!!
I disagree. I think by continuing to support SCO after its actions, the FSF could (validly) be looked upon as being hypocritical. In fact, I'd say that the FSF would be violatng its (albeit unwritten) social contract with its financial contributors by continuing to expend resources on support for the SCO platform. One of the primary purposes of the FSF's is to support the free software movement, and supporting SCO is currently contrary to that purpose.
I don't think that is a valid argument.
Does anyone notice the lack of response to anyone who ever asks that question?
The whole notion that the GPL is "untested" and is therefore not solid is simply FUD.
Copyright and patent law constitute government-granted monopoly.
exec bash
rm ~/.bash_history
No more history.
There doesn't have to be *one* standard interface for everything. A few standards would also work. Like with audio equipment. There are a countable number of different headphone jack sizes, and you can get an adaptor relatively cheaply.
If it's only going to keep government supercomputers budy for weeks (and not millennia), then it's probably not using strong crypto.
[Disclaimer: I didn't read the artcle.]
Ever tried a medium-resolution (2 Mpx or higher) digital camera?
Too bad it wasn't your physics/science teacher. It could have been very instructive for the rest of the class... ;-)
Now that's not fair. There's no way my comment should have been moderated up.
You mean his punctuation, right? ;-)
[Dwonis ducks.]
That may be true, but I think it's the wrong approach to addressing the concern. The truth is that nothing forces you to upgrade to new versions of RedHat -- even if you want new features. You can just get some competent people do merge in whatever features you want.
That's just it: we're not talking about secretaries. We're talking about people who have the financial resources to pay programmers like us to make the enhancements they need.
Let's not take the RedHat vs. Microsoft example then. RedHat drops old versions a lot faster than MS.
So what? Users don't need to upgrade to the latest RedHat version just to get individual features. Example: iptables requires Linux 2.4. RedHat 5.2 had (IIRC) Linux 2.0. Nothing stops competent people from upgrading just the kernel to Linux 2.4 with RedHat 5.2. Therefore, if you're happy with RedHat 5.2, except that you want a few more features (like iptables), you have the option of either upgrading to a newer RedHat, or you can get someone competent to just add those features. With closed source software, you often don't have the second option.
And remember all the distros out there are made by companies that care about big bucks also.
I don't remember it because it's not true. Widely-used, high-quality distros like Debian, Knoppix, and Gentoo (just off the top of my head -- I'm sure there are a few others) are all made by people not developing for profit.
And the nice thing about OSS is that you don't really need to do mass upgrades to new major versions -- if it's cheaper to make (for example) Linux 2.0 support IPSEC, that's a possible option. It's not a possible with Microsoft (or many closed-source solutions).
Heh. It's still funny. (But maybe that's just because I should be sleeping instead of reading Slashdot!) :-)
For the non-MCSEs like me, what does that do?
s/open source/in the public domain/g
bursch-X said "It's OSS; if you hate the interface so much, make a new one", not "program a new one". Writing a nice interface design doc and sending it to the mailing list would count as 'making a new one'.
No true bigot runs an rpm-based distribution. Real Bigots run Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, or Linux From Scratch.
Instructions for Installing Debian:
Granted, it's not easy for beginners, but I find it *much* easier than using the old boot floppies.
Isn't that Ireland?
Point taken.
When you write "UDP/IP", you are referring to "UDP over IP". You are not implying that some entity "UDP" is the owner of "IP" -- "UDP" is not an adjective modifying "IP". The same thing applies to "GNU/Linux", which refers to the GNU system (glibc, gcc, and the GNU tools) running on top of the Linux kernel.
If the FSF were to have their own "Linux distro", they might call it "GNU GNU/Linux"; if they forked the kernel, they might call it "GNU Linux". As for "GNU/GNU/Linux", I don't know what that would mean.