There is no open source community, because everyone is in the free software community singing:
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
x2
Hoarders may get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
When we have enough free software
At our call, hackers, at our call,
We'll throw out those dirty licenses
Ever more, hackers, ever more.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
x2
It's venting of frustrations built on top of other things they have been doing lately.
One thing that Microsoft has been doing as of late is applying for a large number of patents. This is fine, something that IBM used to do. But, they aren't doing it for just "protecting" their "property." It is part of a larger tactic to eliminate competition. For instance, one fun thing they do is to have a private meeting with a CEO of a fortune 500 company (they've done this several times). The CEO must sign a nondisclosure agreement to not share the information shared at the meeting with competitors. THe information shared by a team of Microsoft lawyers is that there will be lawsuits against open-source software creators and copyright owners for software that violates microsoft patents . . . and that it is in the best interest of the CEO's company to not use the open-source software and to stick with Microsoft.
So, when I see Microsoft do things like hire a very important in the human machine interaction world, it irks me more than it should, probably. But, I believe that the most effective thing a company can do to improve their product is to "improve the atmosphere around the product." I mean, the iPod is a perfect example of not only creating a product, but changing the cultural understanding of one. This is what I fear.
But, of course economics and cultural fears are just flighty poetry and all. I mean, Bill Gates has more money than a lot of third world countries --- I could pretend that this is just the flighty stuff that poetry is made of, or I could look at it with some skepticism and think: hmm, should I worry about this? Should I have soem concern about the role this company plays in the world and their long term strategies of engraining themselves in the minds of people that that they are "the" makers of software.
I guess not. I should just go back to my poetry writing. You freak.
Wow, this is just one step closer to everyones goal and wish that Microsoft will be better, more user friendly, and eventually in a world with _fewer_ competitors. Soon we'll not only be giving Microsoft credit for being the most innovative and greatest producer of software innovations and technologies, but we'll have a deeper psychological connection to Microsoft. I mean, as Buxton said, "Ultimately, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the products that we design are the "things" that we sell, rather than the individual, social and cultural experience that they engender, and the value and impact that they have."
But, really, I think the ideal world would be if Microsoft, Apple, and Intel combined forces into one giant mega-corporation. This way we could have beautiful looking machines and interfaces from Apple, machines that people feel a deep and unique social and cultural connection to Microsoft products, and they could build optimizations into the chipsets for specific things. How perfect would that be! Eventually we could even move all of our factories over to the third world, and all the rest of our filth and dirtiness and poverty too, so that we can have the most perfect materialistic iPod culture that we all desire. O proprietary disposable culture how I adore you!
Well we all know Linus's opinion. It's rather insightful: GNOME is overly simple and for dumb users, KDE is for smart people, haha.
But, seriously, it is all about configurability. One of the nice thigns about both KDE and GNOME is all of the configuration you can do to them. The question is, how "stripped down" of a configuration are you going to start a user out with? Are you going to set up some nice buttons or put some useful help-guides on the desktop?
For instance, I'm starting a cute little Web site I'm going to put on the desktop on my parents computer at home. I'm probably going to start them off with KDE, but that is because I get to set it up for them and give them a cute little guide to using it, and some simple pieces of software they might want to use.
Free and Open-Source software does not represent anti-corporate software. Richard Stallman doesn't think so, as he encourages people to make money off of free software by selling it. Furthermore, the phrase Open-Source came about at least partly as a way to appeal more widely to business people in Silicon Valley. That is, "OSS" has its roots in the corporate environment.
The claim, that "the success of any FS/OSS product will be due to large companies deciding its the best strategy for getting a high quality product without having to be at the mercy of a single proprietar" only helps to promote the idea of Free Software. I don't think anybody denies that business know how to make a good product.
Free Software and Open Source Software is not anti-coroporate and it is certainly not anti-government ( e.g., the GPL relies completely on the fact that the US government will protect and defent copyright laws) --- and I'm not sure where these misconceptions came from.
I think all of us in the community thank companies like IBM for patching the kernel, for supporting Free Software. I think we are grateful that Google encourages their employees to spend 20% of their time on Free Software projects. And, I think we will only be all the more thankful when even larger companies, like the US Government starts funding them as well. And why will they continue to fund them? Because philosophically and economically it is the right move.
Judge extends order so that Microsoft not only includes Java, but also AOL and 1/3 the proceeds of the sale of the operating system must go to Wal-Mart.
Yay big corporations!
I think this is a good reason why the term "Open Source" can be extremely misleading. Next thing you know, we will have an "open source" version of windows 2004---however, the license agreement restricts anyone from incorporating their source code into non-microsoft programs, and they will sue anyone who tries to. However, they can go ahead and call their software "open source," because they are making the source code available to the public.
This is damaging! We must not group together "free software" programs with "open source" ones, for this very reason! The more we call "Linux" Open Source, the more we will be giving Microsoft free advertising for their "open source" programs that will surely be coming out in the future. Please call GPL'd and GPL compatible software "free" or "Libre" in the least, so that we can make clear distinctions between "open source" and the freedom that come's with GPL-like programs. Thank you.
For a more clearly articulated argument see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-fr eedom.html
This is not a new problem. ..look at the rainforests and deforestation in general! We won't even be able to print things out in the future if we run out of those resources. . . unless, of course, we further explore the wonders of silicon: the earth's most abundant element, mineral (don't know my periodic table).
In your mind, when does a license stop allowing you enough freedom to work with it, that is develop code underneath that license? (e.g. GPL, LGPL, BSD, or some other less restrictive license that allows for intergration with proprietary software)
The idea that presynaptic firing and postsynaptic firing control the synaptic efficacy of a cell was proposed by Donald Hebb in 1947. However, it has also been questioned that different neurons behave differently. For instance, granular cells may act differently then cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus (they are drastically different in size and number for one). Therefore, these scientists have shown a particular case, they have not shown that Hebb learning can be generalized throughout all the brain, only that in certain cells obey Hebbian learning.
The claim that, "GNU/Linux may challenge Microsoft's monopoly over the consumer desktop, but few other projects are likely to have as telling an effect on commercial software providers, and thereby represent truly alternate forms of industrial organization."
I feel he is a bit off scope here. The GNU/Linux project, or even that of the GNU project alone, touches an extremely wide range of applications.
At the moment the project is focusing on developers tools, and creating a system primarily for the developer and for service providers.
However, the movement is growing, and as the GNU/Linux project grows to be larger, so will the development base.
For instance, as governements begin to use the GNU/Linux system there will need to be a large amount of money invested into the development of applications for office use--these will hopefully be released under the GPL.
It won't be long until there is Free Software to rival Microsoft Office, and Power Point (Not including Star Office.), etc etc.
I feel in general his statement is looking at the short term future of GNU/Linux--the Operating system and the package of software it comes with must first spread, before there will be large scale investment into free applications.
There will be a drive for this software, because once the idea of Free Software is accepted, then the idea of paying for the development of free software will be more generally accepted.
Slashdot Mirror
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
x2
Hoarders may get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
When we have enough free software
At our call, hackers, at our call,
We'll throw out those dirty licenses
Ever more, hackers, ever more.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
x2
There is no open source community, because everyone is in the free software community singing: Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free. x2 Hoarders may get piles of money, That is true, hackers, that is true. But they cannot help their neighbors; That's not good, hackers, that's not good. When we have enough free software At our call, hackers, at our call, We'll throw out those dirty licenses Ever more, hackers, ever more. Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free. x2
Not sure how the GPL gets enforced, but I imagine the people who do know can be found here:
GPL Compliance Lab
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance.html
Software Freedom Law Center
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
It's venting of frustrations built on top of other things they have been doing lately. One thing that Microsoft has been doing as of late is applying for a large number of patents. This is fine, something that IBM used to do. But, they aren't doing it for just "protecting" their "property." It is part of a larger tactic to eliminate competition. For instance, one fun thing they do is to have a private meeting with a CEO of a fortune 500 company (they've done this several times). The CEO must sign a nondisclosure agreement to not share the information shared at the meeting with competitors. THe information shared by a team of Microsoft lawyers is that there will be lawsuits against open-source software creators and copyright owners for software that violates microsoft patents . . . and that it is in the best interest of the CEO's company to not use the open-source software and to stick with Microsoft. So, when I see Microsoft do things like hire a very important in the human machine interaction world, it irks me more than it should, probably. But, I believe that the most effective thing a company can do to improve their product is to "improve the atmosphere around the product." I mean, the iPod is a perfect example of not only creating a product, but changing the cultural understanding of one. This is what I fear. But, of course economics and cultural fears are just flighty poetry and all. I mean, Bill Gates has more money than a lot of third world countries --- I could pretend that this is just the flighty stuff that poetry is made of, or I could look at it with some skepticism and think: hmm, should I worry about this? Should I have soem concern about the role this company plays in the world and their long term strategies of engraining themselves in the minds of people that that they are "the" makers of software. I guess not. I should just go back to my poetry writing. You freak.
Wow, this is just one step closer to everyones goal and wish that Microsoft will be better, more user friendly, and eventually in a world with _fewer_ competitors. Soon we'll not only be giving Microsoft credit for being the most innovative and greatest producer of software innovations and technologies, but we'll have a deeper psychological connection to Microsoft. I mean, as Buxton said, "Ultimately, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the products that we design are the "things" that we sell, rather than the individual, social and cultural experience that they engender, and the value and impact that they have."
But, really, I think the ideal world would be if Microsoft, Apple, and Intel combined forces into one giant mega-corporation. This way we could have beautiful looking machines and interfaces from Apple, machines that people feel a deep and unique social and cultural connection to Microsoft products, and they could build optimizations into the chipsets for specific things. How perfect would that be! Eventually we could even move all of our factories over to the third world, and all the rest of our filth and dirtiness and poverty too, so that we can have the most perfect materialistic iPod culture that we all desire. O proprietary disposable culture how I adore you!
Well we all know Linus's opinion. It's rather insightful: GNOME is overly simple and for dumb users, KDE is for smart people, haha. But, seriously, it is all about configurability. One of the nice thigns about both KDE and GNOME is all of the configuration you can do to them. The question is, how "stripped down" of a configuration are you going to start a user out with? Are you going to set up some nice buttons or put some useful help-guides on the desktop? For instance, I'm starting a cute little Web site I'm going to put on the desktop on my parents computer at home. I'm probably going to start them off with KDE, but that is because I get to set it up for them and give them a cute little guide to using it, and some simple pieces of software they might want to use.
Free and Open-Source software does not represent anti-corporate software. Richard Stallman doesn't think so, as he encourages people to make money off of free software by selling it. Furthermore, the phrase Open-Source came about at least partly as a way to appeal more widely to business people in Silicon Valley. That is, "OSS" has its roots in the corporate environment.
The claim, that "the success of any FS/OSS product will be due to large companies deciding its the best strategy for getting a high quality product without having to be at the mercy of a single proprietar" only helps to promote the idea of Free Software. I don't think anybody denies that business know how to make a good product.
Free Software and Open Source Software is not anti-coroporate and it is certainly not anti-government ( e.g., the GPL relies completely on the fact that the US government will protect and defent copyright laws) --- and I'm not sure where these misconceptions came from.
I think all of us in the community thank companies like IBM for patching the kernel, for supporting Free Software. I think we are grateful that Google encourages their employees to spend 20% of their time on Free Software projects. And, I think we will only be all the more thankful when even larger companies, like the US Government starts funding them as well. And why will they continue to fund them? Because philosophically and economically it is the right move.
What fstop was that?
Judge extends order so that Microsoft not only includes Java, but also AOL and 1/3 the proceeds of the sale of the operating system must go to Wal-Mart. Yay big corporations!
I think this is a good reason why the term "Open Source" can be extremely misleading. Next thing you know, we will have an "open source" version of windows 2004---however, the license agreement restricts anyone from incorporating their source code into non-microsoft programs, and they will sue anyone who tries to. However, they can go ahead and call their software "open source," because they are making the source code available to the public.
r eedom.html
This is damaging! We must not group together "free software" programs with "open source" ones, for this very reason! The more we call "Linux" Open Source, the more we will be giving Microsoft free advertising for their "open source" programs that will surely be coming out in the future. Please call GPL'd and GPL compatible software "free" or "Libre" in the least, so that we can make clear distinctions between "open source" and the freedom that come's with GPL-like programs. Thank you.
For a more clearly articulated argument see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
This is not a new problem. . .look at the rainforests and deforestation in general! We won't even be able to print things out in the future if we run out of those resources. . . unless, of course, we further explore the wonders of silicon: the earth's most abundant element, mineral (don't know my periodic table).
In your mind, when does a license stop allowing you enough freedom to work with it, that is develop code underneath that license? (e.g. GPL, LGPL, BSD, or some other less restrictive license that allows for intergration with proprietary software)
The NRC urged NASA to establish "zones of minimal biological risk" by sending automated probes to test for organic chemicals or other life forms.
How do we know what to look for? We have a pretty narrow conception of life.
The idea that presynaptic firing and postsynaptic firing control the synaptic efficacy of a cell was proposed by Donald Hebb in 1947. However, it has also been questioned that different neurons behave differently. For instance, granular cells may act differently then cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus (they are drastically different in size and number for one). Therefore, these scientists have shown a particular case, they have not shown that Hebb learning can be generalized throughout all the brain, only that in certain cells obey Hebbian learning.
The claim that, "GNU/Linux may challenge Microsoft's monopoly over the consumer desktop, but few other projects are likely to have as telling an effect on commercial software providers, and thereby represent truly alternate forms of industrial organization." I feel he is a bit off scope here. The GNU/Linux project, or even that of the GNU project alone, touches an extremely wide range of applications. At the moment the project is focusing on developers tools, and creating a system primarily for the developer and for service providers. However, the movement is growing, and as the GNU/Linux project grows to be larger, so will the development base. For instance, as governements begin to use the GNU/Linux system there will need to be a large amount of money invested into the development of applications for office use--these will hopefully be released under the GPL. It won't be long until there is Free Software to rival Microsoft Office, and Power Point (Not including Star Office.), etc etc. I feel in general his statement is looking at the short term future of GNU/Linux--the Operating system and the package of software it comes with must first spread, before there will be large scale investment into free applications. There will be a drive for this software, because once the idea of Free Software is accepted, then the idea of paying for the development of free software will be more generally accepted.