The comparison to Microsoft is invalid because there are competing distributions of various prices, from Slackware and Debian on the $0 end to RedHat and Mandrake on the pay end, whereas there is no competition to Windows. If the distribution is done right and works well, market competition will take care of "fair pricing."
The comparison isn't about price. RMS and the FSF have said time and again that price isn't an issue. You can charge $65,000,000,000 for your Linux distribution and that's fine by RMS and the FSF. The problem is, "per-seat" licensing (which is a very valid comparison to Microsoft, because Microsoft was one of the first companies to introduce such an absurd concept). Per-seat licensing IS in direct violation of the GPL, and a patently Microsoft act -- Microsoft might have even patented that kind of license.:)
I concur with RMS: Boycott all companies at all involved with per-seating licensing of GPL software.
Agreed. This really needs to be the focus. We keep hearing about 'fair use' and how it's being infringed upon. How about making a computer a general-purpose tool that does exactly what the user asked for? Oh wait, that's Linux. No level of remote spyware or control or "copy protection" -- whatever you call it -- is ever acceptable in any form whatsoever.
"Strong copy protection" means, whether fair use is preserved or not, that your computer is not your own.
the first is hydrogen. there's a little perception of explosions, but i believe the vehicles exist, and have been safe.
Where do you get the hydrogen? In order to extract hydrogen from water or air, you have to spend more energy than you get converting it back to water. Simply stated, a hydrogen fuel cell is basically like a battery. You still have to charge the battery.
Of course, if we all got away from internal combustion, we'd save a lot of energy. Turbine engines, powerplants, and cowboyneals all generate energy from fossil feuls far more efficiently.
This LOOKS like this applies not only to traditional universities, but the for-profit Devrys of the world. Interesting, compared to the standard "non-commercial" stuff.
Let's see... oil reserves are supposed to RUN OUT in 30, 40 years. And Iceland is going to voluntarily stop using oil. I guess that means the rest of us are going to be forced when it runs out? Go iceland. Being out of soda, I'm "voluntarily" going stop drinking soda until I find some more.
Now the IRS's "voluntary" tax system makes more sense anyway.
XML is a becoming a very powerful, indeed, magical language. Perhaps one day before long, it'll have forloops and a query language (oops, xpath, already exists). Why before long, we might just have a reference counting garbage collector for those XML namespaces. Then maybe a cyclicle garbage collector.
</wheelrant>
Actually it's not your two cents. Email is postage-due mail, and therefor it's my two cents that paid for the bandwidth and my $1.50 that paid for the time it took for me to read it.
BTW, spammers and organized crime are the only two business models that use the word "legitimate" to describe themselves. If you were a real business, you would be using words like "synergy" and "innovative." The fact that you needed to throw that word in there is very telling.
Patent policy. Privacy policy. Why not add a murder policy?
Having policies for exactly what unethical acts you plan to commit does not excuse them, or even seem to prevent them. In the past few years:
The number of 'privacy policies' on the web has gone from zero to what? Maybe millions?
The number of cases where consumer privacy has been infringed on has gone from very few to common place.
Consumers can't be expected to read the "end user license agreement," "patent policy," and "privacy policy" from every company we ever buy a product from. That's like having to read the "spider eggs in burgers" policy before you eat at Wendy's.
You're missing the point. The benefit of Open Source is nill when it comes to software patents. If Red Hat can sue BSD because they violated a software patent, there is nothing the open source community can do to defend that.
Redhat knows that the people who run their OS are smart and more than often, open source advocates. It would be foolish to piss those people off.
First of all, they already have pissed off those people, several times. Slashdotters are quick to boycott something they wouldn't buy anyway. But if it's something we actually want, a boycott just doesn't seem like the answer. Case in point: Star Wars -- inspite of the fact that this film exists purely to fund the companies that gave us the DMCA, slashdotters went in droves to see it.
Secondly, Red Hat's income no longer comes from selling CDs to hobbiests. Take a look at their recent earnings report. $15.7 million of that $18.6 million in revenue comes from "enterprise" sales. Meaning consulting and training, mostly. Red Hat makes no secret that they intend to become some kind of "e-business player" and is trying very hard to shed its image as a hobbiest's company -- something most companies involving Linux are doing too.
Please don't dismiss this so quickly. Red Hat is changing my friend, and fast.
If you can not code, design a database (500+ tables) or build a network (1000+ seats in multiple locations) then you are an operator.
First of all, no databases are 500+ tables. I'm serious. There aren't databases that big out there in real world applications. If you are getting pasta few dozen, you need to start using table domains and if you get to hundreds of tables, you need to look at what you're doing wrong.
And what if you are working for a company of 100 people? You need to design a network of 1000+ seats to be a "designer?" If I'm the only computer tech for a company of 25, am I a lowly "operator" even though there's no designer?
Sounds to me you're referring to consultants vs. implementors. The consultants say "you should build a faster car" and the implmementors do the REAL work of figuring out how.
I've noticed that the exerience of the programmer, like most aspects of software design, is only an asset if the programmer has done a variety of tasks. I've seen veteran programmers who have only written code and actually never maintained it. They never actually learn what maintainers need to make modifications, so the comments only help them write the code.
My best advice is to do as many tasks in the software development process as possible. This includes testing, maintaining, and working with users and even technical support (gasp!). Don't get stuck doing one thing. You won't get better and better at it, you'll become more out of touch and therefor do an even worse job.
Experience is best measured in deversity, not years.
Yes, they purchased napster, but they aren't allowed to make copies of the company or share it with any of their partners. Shame. Although if you stick a post-it note on Shawn's face, you can clone him!
Read an intro to biology textbook sometime, and you will find a fit with the definition of life.
You're splitting hairs, and you're wrong. There are a variety of scientific, philosophical, and religious definitions of life. Biologically, a tape worm is more alive than a human fetus. If a human fetus were biologically an animal, it would have to be defined as a parasite. How's that for cold, hard truth?
Moreover, the point isn't whether the human fetus is alive, what's important is whether it is independent life. You're allowed to remove your kidney, and it is certainly human life and alive. The point is, it isn't itself an independent living being.
Perhaps dictionary's definition is insightful:
the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
This is the second entry from m-w.com's definition.
A fetus would certainly not fit this definition. Please just admit that this is philosophical. Scientifically, a fetus is a parasite. Think about that.
College will give you false impressions about many possible careers. Programming in college is nothing like programming in the real world. Not many companies use lisp and document it with Latex. Not many companies are obsessed with real microkernels. All company cultures are different, but the one thing they have in common is that they aren't what you'll expect.
If you want to go to college, go. But don't fool yourself into thinking it has anything to do with the real world or that a BS in computer science will maker you a better programmer.
Universities are places of knowledge. Freshmen come with some, seniors leave with none. It accumulates.
The real danger here, I think, isn't some kind of "national security" or "bank fraud" or anything like that -- security schmecurity. The real danger, is Quake cheating!
Think about it. If I can reconstruct what is on your monitor, I can tell where you are. Are you down the tunnel? In the water? Are you on top of that goddamnfucking sniper tower? I could reconstruct your screen and determine exactly where you are in the Quake map.
Quick, someone, solve this problem before it tears society apart!!
It seems to me that the email itself, which bans P2P networks, could be damaging. The lawyers could argue that it is kind of an admission of guilt. Ala Microsoft case.
I just love living in a Lawsuit Economy. It's much better than that silly free market.
"A Method to Force the USPTO to Behave in a Dignified Manner" perhaps?
Sadly, it can't. A quote from the article: "Patent law does not require them to make a humouse, but they must show it can be done."
I assume the same would apply, and so far there's no evidence to support the idea that it is possible to make the USPTO behave in a dignified manner. Sorry.
I think you're missing the point. "Doing complex things" is not the gaol of a good language -- "doing complex things simply" is. And those of us who have waded through "powerful" C++ code can all attest to how refreshing it is to see normal structured C code.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I concur with RMS: Boycott all companies at all involved with per-seating licensing of GPL software.
Dammit Dammit Dammit. BUT .. can it do what MivaScript does? God, I hope not.
Agreed. This really needs to be the focus. We keep hearing about 'fair use' and how it's being infringed upon. How about making a computer a general-purpose tool that does exactly what the user asked for? Oh wait, that's Linux. No level of remote spyware or control or "copy protection" -- whatever you call it -- is ever acceptable in any form whatsoever.
"Strong copy protection" means, whether fair use is preserved or not, that your computer is not your own.
Of course, if we all got away from internal combustion, we'd save a lot of energy. Turbine engines, powerplants, and cowboyneals all generate energy from fossil feuls far more efficiently.
Links, please? I'd like to know where you got all this information, because frankly, I don't believe it.
Coal as a feul is out of the question anyway. All those lumps of coal are ear marked for Microsoft and their Education Initiative. Sorry.
This LOOKS like this applies not only to traditional universities, but the for-profit Devrys of the world. Interesting, compared to the standard "non-commercial" stuff.
Now the IRS's "voluntary" tax system makes more sense anyway.
XML is a becoming a very powerful, indeed, magical language. Perhaps one day before long, it'll have forloops and a query language (oops, xpath, already exists). Why before long, we might just have a reference counting garbage collector for those XML namespaces. Then maybe a cyclicle garbage collector.
</wheelrant>
BTW, spammers and organized crime are the only two business models that use the word "legitimate" to describe themselves. If you were a real business, you would be using words like "synergy" and "innovative." The fact that you needed to throw that word in there is very telling.
Having policies for exactly what unethical acts you plan to commit does not excuse them, or even seem to prevent them. In the past few years:
- The number of 'privacy policies' on the web has gone from zero to what? Maybe millions?
- The number of cases where consumer privacy has been infringed on has gone from very few to common place.
Consumers can't be expected to read the "end user license agreement," "patent policy," and "privacy policy" from every company we ever buy a product from. That's like having to read the "spider eggs in burgers" policy before you eat at Wendy's.Enough with the 'policies' already.
Secondly, Red Hat's income no longer comes from selling CDs to hobbiests. Take a look at their recent earnings report. $15.7 million of that $18.6 million in revenue comes from "enterprise" sales. Meaning consulting and training, mostly. Red Hat makes no secret that they intend to become some kind of "e-business player" and is trying very hard to shed its image as a hobbiest's company -- something most companies involving Linux are doing too.
Please don't dismiss this so quickly. Red Hat is changing my friend, and fast.
And what if you are working for a company of 100 people? You need to design a network of 1000+ seats to be a "designer?" If I'm the only computer tech for a company of 25, am I a lowly "operator" even though there's no designer?
Sounds to me you're referring to consultants vs. implementors. The consultants say "you should build a faster car" and the implmementors do the REAL work of figuring out how.
I've noticed that the exerience of the programmer, like most aspects of software design, is only an asset if the programmer has done a variety of tasks. I've seen veteran programmers who have only written code and actually never maintained it. They never actually learn what maintainers need to make modifications, so the comments only help them write the code.
My best advice is to do as many tasks in the software development process as possible. This includes testing, maintaining, and working with users and even technical support (gasp!). Don't get stuck doing one thing. You won't get better and better at it, you'll become more out of touch and therefor do an even worse job.
Experience is best measured in deversity, not years.
Yes, they purchased napster, but they aren't allowed to make copies of the company or share it with any of their partners. Shame. Although if you stick a post-it note on Shawn's face, you can clone him!
Moreover, the point isn't whether the human fetus is alive, what's important is whether it is independent life. You're allowed to remove your kidney, and it is certainly human life and alive. The point is, it isn't itself an independent living being.
Perhaps dictionary's definition is insightful:
the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual
This is the second entry from m-w.com's definition.
A fetus would certainly not fit this definition. Please just admit that this is philosophical. Scientifically, a fetus is a parasite. Think about that.
If you want to go to college, go. But don't fool yourself into thinking it has anything to do with the real world or that a BS in computer science will maker you a better programmer.
Universities are places of knowledge. Freshmen come with some, seniors leave with none. It accumulates.
The real danger here, I think, isn't some kind of "national security" or "bank fraud" or anything like that -- security schmecurity. The real danger, is Quake cheating!
Think about it. If I can reconstruct what is on your monitor, I can tell where you are. Are you down the tunnel? In the water? Are you on top of that goddamnfucking sniper tower? I could reconstruct your screen and determine exactly where you are in the Quake map.
Quick, someone, solve this problem before it tears society apart!!
in germany you have got a right to make a backup copy
Damn you and your superior legal system snobbery.
Everyone who has an iMac. Go get the CD, fubar your iMac, and send it in for repair under warranty. Apple might just sue their asses.
It seems to me that the email itself, which bans P2P networks, could be damaging. The lawyers could argue that it is kind of an admission of guilt. Ala Microsoft case.
I just love living in a Lawsuit Economy. It's much better than that silly free market.
At the end of his rant, Keith references this. I think this sums up that he was always an enemy of innovation.
"A Method to Force the USPTO to Behave in a Dignified Manner" perhaps?
Sadly, it can't. A quote from the article: "Patent law does not require them to make a humouse, but they must show it can be done."
I assume the same would apply, and so far there's no evidence to support the idea that it is possible to make the USPTO behave in a dignified manner. Sorry.
It would regulate only devices capable of receiving digital television broadcasts.
That's funny, my PC receives digital television broadcasts.
I think you're missing the point. "Doing complex things" is not the gaol of a good language -- "doing complex things simply" is. And those of us who have waded through "powerful" C++ code can all attest to how refreshing it is to see normal structured C code. :)