I've done only very limited contract work and at that, it wasn't Open Source. I think it really depends on the client, as the people I was working with hired me specifically because they were a Windows firm and didn't want to bother themselves with some Unix stuff that came their way from an existing client. For them, of course, it would have been impossible. But I can speak in regard to how some companies would react in general.
If you're working with a firm that's more familiar with the a community or is part of a larger scientific community, it's another matter. Some firms view releasing open source software as almost a promotional effort and you might egg them to develop an "open source policy" to satify their concerns.
Board of director types have bazaar stigmas and FUD like "won't we have to support it," "won't it give away our business model," and so on. You can address those questions by suggested an OSS policy. The policy basically comes down to how and when they'll open source software. For example, they won't open source software that would be directly useful to their compeditors. When they do, putting the employee email addresses won't be allowed, as it will burden them with emails. Open Source projects shall be included on another website, etc etc etc.
But they will be more warm to a policy than simply deciding to open source things adhoc -- so if you give them a policy to address their concerns, you might have better luck.
And of course if your Philip Greenspun good, you can TELL them it'll be Open Source.:)
If we start putting GNU before every program that was made with GNU software, where will that lead us? Combine that with gnome, and you've got GNU/Gvi, GNU/GMozilla, GNU/GGoddammit
Actually that's incorrect. Yellow lights have been regularly shortened over the years. The purpose of photo red light is to increase revenue at the EXPENSE of safety. For information see This government article or This one or maybe this one
I make no distinction between photo red light and murder. It KILLS people, but that's ok, because the major needs a new lemo.
Yes, they are gathering statistics. And no, they don't care about you. Having said that, your information is VALUABLE. It takes a lot of nerve for a company to think it can just ask for information and get it. I never participate in surveys unless they are not-for-profit, and I certainly wouldn't participate in one like this. It bothers me that other people do. It's only going to promote a more consumeristic society. We have enough consumerism in American society and I don't want any more.
Corporate surveys (A) intrude on your privacy (whether it's personal or not), (B) are only used to market to you and fellow consumers more useless goods that you don't need and shouldn't want, (C) find out what levels of absolute bullshit you will put up with.
Oh, yes, gee. Why wouldn't I want to give my information, free of charge, to a massive advertising network that will use it to ram me in the ass? Show me what GOOD this information -- which belongs to me -- will do. Then I'll give it to you without hesitation. More advertising and more consumerism and more credit card debt across America is NOT GOOD.
I'm very close to giving up TV altogether anyway (I'm down to only PBS news), so they probably wouldn't care much for what I don't watch.
Should volantary selling of your soul be legal? Compelling question. Kind of goes along with docter assisted suicide, except that suicide actually reduces suffering.
Volantary or not, this is DEFINITLY part of that there Axis of Evil.
But seriously, I think they should include a urine sample so we can see which pot smokers are watching what.
You mean I could get wireless TV? Wow. What if this service were based on some kind of advertising system and not subscriptions... And you numbered the stations from... oh wait a second.
That said, would not overly restrictive legislation like this provide strong incentive for consumers to adopt freely available formats that are not encumbered?
No. The goal here is to attack freely available formats and formats that don't restrict user access. Do you think the RIAA would like to ban mp3? This is just one step closer. With this kind of legislation, before long, there will be no free formats, as they are tools only a "pirate" would have reason to use over the proprietary tools.
I can see it now. RIAA whore: "With the RIAA's secure file format, the only reason you could want to use a format like mp3 is to steal. Banning mp3 is just common sense."
Although this particularly license has no real implications, and I think we can be sure Microsoft is aware of this, perhaps their is a more sinister goal here: testing the waters of anti-GPL and/or anti-free-software licenses.
What would happen, for example, if Windows were "licensed" to exclude its use in conjunction with certain free software -- such as -- oh say -- Wine. Wine works better with Windows binary libraries accessible, and Microsoft might be thinking about some kind of anti-free-software clause in the Windows license.
I suspect this obsolete Samba license is just a beta test of their newest scam.
The difference is that even if it says on the back of a PertPlus bottle "We own your car" the company can't just call a tow truck and arrange a delivery time.
Some silly people think that the EULA should be a legally binding document. It rarely is, but tell that to the software industry. A contact is something you sign using ink and a pen, and date. Clicking "I Agree" is not a legally binding contract that's ever been upheld by the courts.
This is different. First of all, owning something does not give you unlimited access to it. My land lord cannot summarily inspect my apartment. If I lease a car, Toyota can't take it back at any given time. Ownership alone is not justification, by any means.
Secondly, the police weren't just doing their jobs, they were doing their jobs poorly. Typically campus police are the worst of the police force and have authority issues. They were investigating ONE EMAIL and needed her entire computer? That's not very reasonable. Does your ISP take your computer away to investigate an email? No.
If I sound biased, it's because I am. I've observed that campus police don't have real jobs for a reason. Anyone who spends five minutes with one of these people cannot retain respect for them, IMHO.
The article mentioned that graphic art types prefer CRTs because of a more true color depth? This being the result of the electron gun having better intensity control than LCD. (Article's point, not mine) I'd like to know why SGI makes such awesome flat panels? When I worked with a wide-screen flat panel SGI monitor, I was so taken back by how sharp the image was and how easy it is to read a wide monitor, I never wanted to go back.
But wouldn't SGI reject the LCD monitors due to color quality? What's the story there? Are the SGI monitors better than PC flat panels?
That's a very ignorant point of view. Perhaps you aren't aware that exactly 567648000 seconds after you are born, something happens. For every person, this happens at the exact same second, with the exact same result:
You are intelligent and mature enough to vote.
You are intelligent and mature enough to buy cigarettes.
You are intelligent and mature enough to pay State Farm insurance less money.
You are intelligent and mature enough to operate heavy machinery at your job.
You are ingelligent and mature enough to... contribute to Darwin.
Of course, based on more sound research, we have concluded that consuming beer is prudent exactly 126144000 seconds after that. You can even run for President when you're exactly 1103760000 seconds old.
NOTE: Your body's natural development cycle may depend on any leap years within 1103760000 seconds of your birth. Of course. You really should know that.
They are of course within their legal rights. But a good idea!? When you read to the bottom of his page, their reason is that he could break the "non-disclosure agreement" -- presumably for their bug database, but that's just rediculous. Any self-respecting company makes a bug database public, and even if it isn't: what's the worst that could happen? A leak of a bug? Come on.
Indeed it's tempting to rewrite because of readability. The real point is that a rewrite is usually needed. But, before the rewrite, learn to read the old code. Then, you can build in your past experiences.
As proof that the never-rewrite rule is flat-ass wrong, I submit the interviews with id software, and how often Quake, Doom, etc were all re-written in their code base.
The difference? They understood their old code and rewrote it anyway. That's key.
All true, but there is some convergence of the two, not just in Open Source, but in general. Many Open Source projects were started both because someone wanted to write the program, and they thought there was economic benefit. TheKompany.com is an example of that. (No, not all their products are Open Source anymore.).
In truth, it goes beyond Open Source. GE exists because Thomas Eddison had an itch to make a light bulb. An Internet-company example, Yahoo, exists because some students wanted a directory of web sites.
The question is, would Eddison have made the light bulb if there was no economic benefit? Maybe, maybe not. Will - say - Larry Wall still be working on Perl even if O'Rielly fires him? Probably, and that's common among free software programmers. It's the willingness to work for the software alone that shows us who the true geeks are.:) Maybe Ed would have made the light bulb anyway, I think we probably would have!
Slashdot Mirror
I've done only very limited contract work and at that, it wasn't Open Source. I think it really depends on the client, as the people I was working with hired me specifically because they were a Windows firm and didn't want to bother themselves with some Unix stuff that came their way from an existing client. For them, of course, it would have been impossible. But I can speak in regard to how some companies would react in general.
:)
If you're working with a firm that's more familiar with the a community or is part of a larger scientific community, it's another matter. Some firms view releasing open source software as almost a promotional effort and you might egg them to develop an "open source policy" to satify their concerns.
Board of director types have bazaar stigmas and FUD like "won't we have to support it," "won't it give away our business model," and so on. You can address those questions by suggested an OSS policy. The policy basically comes down to how and when they'll open source software. For example, they won't open source software that would be directly useful to their compeditors. When they do, putting the employee email addresses won't be allowed, as it will burden them with emails. Open Source projects shall be included on another website, etc etc etc.
But they will be more warm to a policy than simply deciding to open source things adhoc -- so if you give them a policy to address their concerns, you might have better luck.
And of course if your Philip Greenspun good, you can TELL them it'll be Open Source.
2 cents.
It is a contribution. I'm pointing out that since GNU software contributed to both RMS and Linus, they are GNU/RMS and GNU/Linus.
And one more thing, it's GNU/Bouncings to you, dammit!
- DoubleClick
- Direct Marketing Association of America
- Open Relays
And remember. If you give porn sites your email address, the spammers have already won.And GNU/Linus is a programmer person. GNU/RMS is a person who smells funny.
If we start putting GNU before every program that was made with GNU software, where will that lead us? Combine that with gnome, and you've got GNU/Gvi, GNU/GMozilla, GNU/GGoddammit
I'm still not sure what "BitKeeper" was from the article, but frankly, I don't care.
Microsoft didn't use the "Buy It Now" button?
I make no distinction between photo red light and murder. It KILLS people, but that's ok, because the major needs a new lemo.
Yes, they are gathering statistics. And no, they don't care about you. Having said that, your information is VALUABLE. It takes a lot of nerve for a company to think it can just ask for information and get it. I never participate in surveys unless they are not-for-profit, and I certainly wouldn't participate in one like this. It bothers me that other people do. It's only going to promote a more consumeristic society. We have enough consumerism in American society and I don't want any more.
Corporate surveys (A) intrude on your privacy (whether it's personal or not), (B) are only used to market to you and fellow consumers more useless goods that you don't need and shouldn't want, (C) find out what levels of absolute bullshit you will put up with.
Oh, yes, gee. Why wouldn't I want to give my information, free of charge, to a massive advertising network that will use it to ram me in the ass? Show me what GOOD this information -- which belongs to me -- will do. Then I'll give it to you without hesitation. More advertising and more consumerism and more credit card debt across America is NOT GOOD.
I'm very close to giving up TV altogether anyway (I'm down to only PBS news), so they probably wouldn't care much for what I don't watch.
Should volantary selling of your soul be legal? Compelling question. Kind of goes along with docter assisted suicide, except that suicide actually reduces suffering.
Volantary or not, this is DEFINITLY part of that there Axis of Evil.
But seriously, I think they should include a urine sample so we can see which pot smokers are watching what.
You mean I could get wireless TV? Wow. What if this service were based on some kind of advertising system and not subscriptions... And you numbered the stations from ... oh wait a second.
That said, would not overly restrictive legislation like this provide strong incentive for consumers to adopt freely available formats that are not encumbered?
No. The goal here is to attack freely available formats and formats that don't restrict user access. Do you think the RIAA would like to ban mp3? This is just one step closer. With this kind of legislation, before long, there will be no free formats, as they are tools only a "pirate" would have reason to use over the proprietary tools.
I can see it now. RIAA whore: "With the RIAA's secure file format, the only reason you could want to use a format like mp3 is to steal. Banning mp3 is just common sense."
There is no positive side of laws such as this.
Although this particularly license has no real implications, and I think we can be sure Microsoft is aware of this, perhaps their is a more sinister goal here: testing the waters of anti-GPL and/or anti-free-software licenses.
What would happen, for example, if Windows were "licensed" to exclude its use in conjunction with certain free software -- such as -- oh say -- Wine. Wine works better with Windows binary libraries accessible, and Microsoft might be thinking about some kind of anti-free-software clause in the Windows license.
I suspect this obsolete Samba license is just a beta test of their newest scam.
Some silly people think that the EULA should be a legally binding document. It rarely is, but tell that to the software industry. A contact is something you sign using ink and a pen, and date. Clicking "I Agree" is not a legally binding contract that's ever been upheld by the courts.
One more thing: Add the following entry in /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 slashdot.org
Secondly, the police weren't just doing their jobs, they were doing their jobs poorly. Typically campus police are the worst of the police force and have authority issues. They were investigating ONE EMAIL and needed her entire computer? That's not very reasonable. Does your ISP take your computer away to investigate an email? No.
If I sound biased, it's because I am. I've observed that campus police don't have real jobs for a reason. Anyone who spends five minutes with one of these people cannot retain respect for them, IMHO.
The article mentioned that graphic art types prefer CRTs because of a more true color depth? This being the result of the electron gun having better intensity control than LCD. (Article's point, not mine) I'd like to know why SGI makes such awesome flat panels? When I worked with a wide-screen flat panel SGI monitor, I was so taken back by how sharp the image was and how easy it is to read a wide monitor, I never wanted to go back.
But wouldn't SGI reject the LCD monitors due to color quality? What's the story there? Are the SGI monitors better than PC flat panels?
I think the copyright on his code probably belongs to them.
- You are intelligent and mature enough to vote.
- You are intelligent and mature enough to buy cigarettes.
- You are intelligent and mature enough to pay State Farm insurance less money.
- You are intelligent and mature enough to operate heavy machinery at your job.
- You are ingelligent and mature enough to
... contribute to Darwin.
Of course, based on more sound research, we have concluded that consuming beer is prudent exactly 126144000 seconds after that. You can even run for President when you're exactly 1103760000 seconds old.NOTE: Your body's natural development cycle may depend on any leap years within 1103760000 seconds of your birth. Of course. You really should know that.
They are of course within their legal rights. But a good idea!? When you read to the bottom of his page, their reason is that he could break the "non-disclosure agreement" -- presumably for their bug database, but that's just rediculous. Any self-respecting company makes a bug database public, and even if it isn't: what's the worst that could happen? A leak of a bug? Come on.
A terrible newspaper, with an even worse article. This link is an insult to our intelligence.
Oh, great, money for karma. Why not trade it too? On a market, called "KarmaDaq" -- I could resell karma. Karma pimp?
This karmakrap has gone far enough. No buying karma, dammit.
Indeed it's tempting to rewrite because of readability. The real point is that a rewrite is usually needed. But, before the rewrite, learn to read the old code. Then, you can build in your past experiences.
As proof that the never-rewrite rule is flat-ass wrong, I submit the interviews with id software, and how often Quake, Doom, etc were all re-written in their code base.
The difference? They understood their old code and rewrote it anyway. That's key.
In truth, it goes beyond Open Source. GE exists because Thomas Eddison had an itch to make a light bulb. An Internet-company example, Yahoo, exists because some students wanted a directory of web sites.
The question is, would Eddison have made the light bulb if there was no economic benefit? Maybe, maybe not. Will - say - Larry Wall still be working on Perl even if O'Rielly fires him? Probably, and that's common among free software programmers. It's the willingness to work for the software alone that shows us who the true geeks are. :) Maybe Ed would have made the light bulb anyway, I think we probably would have!
Frankly the facts of your argument lack credibility.