Just email the people who work on Apache, KDE, GNOME, various parts of KOffice and ask them if the do NOT want your support. It's not about getting rich, it's about being able to afford to do what they love to do. Oh, and I realize that some contribute by coding... You however being a leach neither code nor help the developers with money. You are too caught up in self to think of others.
First of all the manual has nothing to do with anything that we are talking about. I believe that you are referring to the license and in particular a GPL license.
The GPL license is granted by the copyright holder. It is an agreement between copyright holder and the person wishing to use the software. The GPL license allows the non-copyright holder to distribute the software under certain conditions that include recouping the cost of copying etc.
However, what the hell does that have to do with not making a contribution to the copyright holders I.E. the developers of the software?
I'll tell you what all this anger is about. It's about the fact that you are a leach and get pissed off if anyone mentions it. Come on go ahead and say it a few times until you get comfortable with it. You probably steal music, video and anything else that you can without being caught. Because anything that you can steal 'Wants to be free.'
... being that this is an old vulnerability and these administrators obviously should have known better.
The time that it takes to safely apply a patch, however, can wear down the resolve of the people responsible for the system. It is not like one can just mindlessly slap a patch into place. It must be tested to ensure that core applications don't break.
I work in an all Microsoft shop so I see the frustration of our system administrators with each new patch that comes out. I really wouldn't want that responsibility. If they take the time that is required to be sure that the patch is safe, it may be too late and the consequences of not taking the time could be grave. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I don't begrudge people who don't contribute because they can't afford to but I do take offense to people who have the mentality of a leach.
Yes, there have been a few people who developed software because they liked to do so as a hobby. Few programs were completed and fewer that were worth using.
Open source didn't start out as 'free software.' Programmers like myself shared code and contributed in that way. However, because programmers must feed their families, keep a roof over their heads and close on their backs they can only work on projects full time if people who can't contribute code and can afford to contribute money do contribute money.
Many selfless people working on software projects full time is how most quality open source projects have got to where they are today.
If you can afford to contribute but don't because you don't care about the outcome then may I suggest that you only use open source software from companies who specify that they don't need donations. Other wise you will be exhibiting the attitude of a leach.
It isn't the open source business model that is flawed. It is the attitude of some individuals that is flawed. If you can't embrace a new way of doing buisess and break out of the traditional way of thinking then your attitude is flawed and won't work with the open source business model.
If enough people are too entrenched in the traditional way of thinking then open source businesses will fail and we will lose the opportunity to transition into a friendlier way of doing business.
"You're a fool. You've been bamboozled into believing that everything has to be a commercial solution or it's worthless, dead, or unsuccessful. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: (sing along, kids!)"
No one has bamboozled this guy and I never said that only commercial software is any good. However, people who devote all of their time to open source projects deserve to be allowed to earn a living through their efforts also. They can't eat their code and it is really cold hearted to tell them 'Thanks for the program now go get a job and work another eight hours a day to support yourself!'
I wasn't talking about people who contribute. Downloading ISO's is fine. What I don't like is the attitude of some people like the original poster who is totally self centered. Who is a dog eat dog kind of guy. It's one thing not to have the money to contribute it is quite another to have the money but cop a 'fuck them' attitude.
Open source business models are completely nontraditional and we should expect to support them in a nontraditional way.
Traditional business model: You pay then you receive goods.
Open source business model: You receive goods. Payment is optional.
You can see that if you have a 'dog eat dog' attitude; if you are stuck in the traditional way of thinking then you just take, call the open source company a bunch of dumbshits for giving away their products and feel good that you have made a real killing.
This is not good for the open source community if too many people have this attitude. So, unless we want open source companies to go out of business, we must support them voluntarily.
Personally, I don't use Red Hat. I use Mandrake and I download the ISOs myself. I also contribute by being a member of the Mandrake club. You contribute by purchasing support. The important thing is that each in our own way we do contribute.
My goal is to help bring Linux to the masses. I want to be able to walk into any software store and purchase popular programs.
I realize that there will always be a few people who create for creation's sake. However, even non-distro companies who put out parts and pieces that eventually get bundled together to form a distribution of Linux need support. These are open source companies as well.
We don't need to write checks to every open source company that we find but if we each pick just one or two a month and make a small donation it would not only help these people out a lot but it would also be a nice way to say thank you for supporting us. It's just the right thing to do.
"I am not responsible for YOUR lack of technical ability, ignorance, or lack of intelligence, so do not expect me to subsidize a commercial solution for your stupidity".
Now, shut the fuck up, I have some Red Hat iso warez to download."
I'm afraid I have some bad news, you self centered pimple faced bastard.... I have more intelligence than you could ever aspire to have. So go ahead and be a taker only. There will always be your type but those of us that have any vision at all will do what must be done to see that open source companies flourish.
sees a big wooden horse outside the walls of Linuxtown with an 800 pound gorrella hiding inside when they think of.net??
I wish that we could trust Microsoft. I really do. It would be a wonderful computing world if we could all work together. But, there are just too many examples of Microsoft holding out a fig leaf in one hand while hiding a big club in the other.
Let's proceed with the Mono project but let us do so with our eyes wide open. Let's consider all possible ways that Microsoft could torpedo our effort and give themselves a big advantage. Are they suckering us into yet another 'standard' that will then be extended in a propritary way?? Is there anyway that we can ensure that this does not happen?? Are we being duped into helping Microsoft convice the world that using this new platform is wise only to find that Microsoft later twists it so that 98% of.NET products only run on the Microsoft flavor of.NET?
I wish that we could trust Microsoft, I really do...
"I've paid for distros when it was more convenient for me to do so. Once I got broadband and a cd burner it was more convenient to d/l it. And that's the way it should be, each user deciding what's best for him/her."
So as more and more people get broadband and CD burners less and less people will contribute to a fine open source company and that is the "way it should be..."
This of course will kill open source companies but hey, that's the way it should be...
After all the open source companys give up because of people like you we will be forced to pay outragouse prices from Microsoft but hey, that's the way it should be...
"...in exchange for this, the 'content industries' be given 'much of the legal backing which they are seeking for copy-protection technologies.' A worthwhile and fair tradeoff?"
The problem is that the copy-protection technologies are backed by the DMCA that pretty much makes obtaining the copy-protected material illegal even after the copyright expires.
I tend to agree that it is a good thing that IBM is on board. They have a vested interest in seeing Linux succeed. I believe that they will do their part to ensure that no unnamed monopoly power embrace and extend this technology in a way that damages their interests.
Hahahaha.... At last the Linux community can make Linux so that it can only run our software!! We can cut out all competition and use our monopoly power to.... Oh Wait!!
My Palladium sucks T-shirt is now worthless and I don't think a "next-generation secure computing base sucks" T-shirt will cut it.
Microsoft "embraces" another technology....
on
Palladium Changes Name
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
" Microsoft claims that the name is being changed to reflect the fact that Microsoft is 'embracing this technology in terms of folding it into Windows for the next decade.'"
Why does my stomach get a queezy feeling when I read this??
MonsterHut officials claimed that the reason 750,000 people where not removed from their mailing lists was that they had failed to follow the proper removal procedure. The procedure is apparently more involved than just clicking 'NO' and includes bringing a shrubbery to the MonsterHut headquarters.
"You do not appear to understand what a straw man is. A straw man is falsely attributing an argument to the other side in order to be able to dismiss it with ease. I attributed no arguments to the other side, hence no straw man."
Thanks for clearing up that straw man thing.... However, you did attribute an argument to the other side. You misquoted the parent post thereby subtly changing the meaning. However, straw men aside, it's really irrelevant anyway. What piper may or may not have done is quite a separate issue from his project of moving Houston away from Microsoft's Office project.
It is a fairly common political tactic to attack a the character of an opponent in order to discredit a project that he has undertaken. Some people will be distracted by this and not realize that the project is not "guilty by association."
I understand what you are saying about the constitutionality of outlawing SPAM but I'm not sure that I buy into that argument. For sure it would be argued at the Supreme Court level.
The reason I say that I don't buy into it is that there are examples where government can limit our rights. We have the right to bear arms but if I walk down the street with a bazooka I could be arrested. We have the right to travel and move about but I still need to have a driver's license to drive a car and I can forget about driving a tank down main street.
So, although spammers have the right to free speech, outlawing SPAM probably does not violate that right. We have the right to free speech but we are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theatre.
My State has anti-spamming laws but they focus on deception and fraud. The Spammer must not fake his return address and the subject line must not be deceptive. Things like that. This law has already been challenged up to the State Supreme Court and has been held as constitutional.
"Just remember guys, a few things we know about these aliens so far: They're VERY susceptible to dying from earth based bacteria (War of the Worlds), their computers can be interfaced via Macintosh computers.. although I'm afraid we'll need to use OS9 or Classic mode to do that since they aren't advanced enough to use a BSD kernel yet (Independence Day), and water is deadly to them! (Signs) Remember this when they start invading guys."
You forgot one: Country music causes their heads to explode. (Mars attacks) Maybe you left it out because Country music has the same effect on a lot of us too...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Just email the people who work on Apache, KDE, GNOME, various parts of KOffice and ask them if the do NOT want your support. It's not about getting rich, it's about being able to afford to do what they love to do. Oh, and I realize that some contribute by coding... You however being a leach neither code nor help the developers with money. You are too caught up in self to think of others.
First of all the manual has nothing to do with anything that we are talking about. I believe that you are referring to the license and in particular a GPL license.
The GPL license is granted by the copyright holder. It is an agreement between copyright holder and the person wishing to use the software. The GPL license allows the non-copyright holder to distribute the software under certain conditions that include recouping the cost of copying etc.
However, what the hell does that have to do with not making a contribution to the copyright holders I.E. the developers of the software?
I'll tell you what all this anger is about. It's about the fact that you are a leach and get pissed off if anyone mentions it. Come on go ahead and say it a few times until you get comfortable with it. You probably steal music, video and anything else that you can without being caught. Because anything that you can steal 'Wants to be free.'
You really don't get it. Do you?
.
Maybe if you read the thread again... really S l o w . .
Ahhh, the old way of thinking...
But not the only way...
... being that this is an old vulnerability and these administrators obviously should have known better.
The time that it takes to safely apply a patch, however, can wear down the resolve of the people responsible for the system. It is not like one can just mindlessly slap a patch into place. It must be tested to ensure that core applications don't break.
I work in an all Microsoft shop so I see the frustration of our system administrators with each new patch that comes out. I really wouldn't want that responsibility. If they take the time that is required to be sure that the patch is safe, it may be too late and the consequences of not taking the time could be grave. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I don't begrudge people who don't contribute because they can't afford to but I do take offense to people who have the mentality of a leach.
Yes, there have been a few people who developed software because they liked to do so as a hobby. Few programs were completed and fewer that were worth using.
Open source didn't start out as 'free software.' Programmers like myself shared code and contributed in that way. However, because programmers must feed their families, keep a roof over their heads and close on their backs they can only work on projects full time if people who can't contribute code and can afford to contribute money do contribute money.
Many selfless people working on software projects full time is how most quality open source projects have got to where they are today.
If you can afford to contribute but don't because you don't care about the outcome then may I suggest that you only use open source software from companies who specify that they don't need donations. Other wise you will be exhibiting the attitude of a leach.
It isn't the open source business model that is flawed. It is the attitude of some individuals that is flawed. If you can't embrace a new way of doing buisess and break out of the traditional way of thinking then your attitude is flawed and won't work with the open source business model.
If enough people are too entrenched in the traditional way of thinking then open source businesses will fail and we will lose the opportunity to transition into a friendlier way of doing business.
"You're a fool. You've been bamboozled into believing that everything has to be a commercial solution or it's worthless, dead, or unsuccessful. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: (sing along, kids!)"
No one has bamboozled this guy and I never said that only commercial software is any good. However, people who devote all of their time to open source projects deserve to be allowed to earn a living through their efforts also. They can't eat their code and it is really cold hearted to tell them 'Thanks for the program now go get a job and work another eight hours a day to support yourself!'
I wasn't talking about people who contribute. Downloading ISO's is fine. What I don't like is the attitude of some people like the original poster who is totally self centered. Who is a dog eat dog kind of guy. It's one thing not to have the money to contribute it is quite another to have the money but cop a 'fuck them' attitude.
Open source business models are completely nontraditional and we should expect to support them in a nontraditional way.
Traditional business model: You pay then you receive goods.
Open source business model: You receive goods. Payment is optional.
You can see that if you have a 'dog eat dog' attitude; if you are stuck in the traditional way of thinking then you just take, call the open source company a bunch of dumbshits for giving away their products and feel good that you have made a real killing.
This is not good for the open source community if too many people have this attitude. So, unless we want open source companies to go out of business, we must support them voluntarily.
Personally, I don't use Red Hat. I use Mandrake and I download the ISOs myself. I also contribute by being a member of the Mandrake club. You contribute by purchasing support. The important thing is that each in our own way we do contribute.
My goal is to help bring Linux to the masses. I want to be able to walk into any software store and purchase popular programs.
I realize that there will always be a few people who create for creation's sake. However, even non-distro companies who put out parts and pieces that eventually get bundled together to form a distribution of Linux need support. These are open source companies as well.
We don't need to write checks to every open source company that we find but if we each pick just one or two a month and make a small donation it would not only help these people out a lot but it would also be a nice way to say thank you for supporting us. It's just the right thing to do.
"I am not responsible for YOUR lack of technical ability,
ignorance, or lack of intelligence, so do not expect me to subsidize a
commercial solution for your stupidity".
Now, shut the fuck up, I have some Red Hat iso warez to download."
I'm afraid I have some bad news, you self centered pimple faced bastard.... I have more intelligence than you could ever aspire to have. So go ahead and be a taker only. There will always be your type but those of us that have any vision at all will do what must be done to see that open source companies flourish.
sees a big wooden horse outside the walls of Linuxtown with an 800 pound gorrella hiding inside when they think of .net??
.NET products only run on the Microsoft flavor of .NET?
I wish that we could trust Microsoft. I really do. It would be a wonderful computing world if we could all work together. But, there are just too many examples of Microsoft holding out a fig leaf in one hand while hiding a big club in the other.
Let's proceed with the Mono project but let us do so with our eyes wide open. Let's consider all possible ways that Microsoft could torpedo our effort and give themselves a big advantage. Are they suckering us into yet another 'standard' that will then be extended in a propritary way?? Is there anyway that we can ensure that this does not happen?? Are we being duped into helping Microsoft convice the world that using this new platform is wise only to find that Microsoft later twists it so that 98% of
I wish that we could trust Microsoft, I really do...
"I've paid for distros when it was more convenient for me to do so. Once I got broadband and a cd burner it was more convenient to d/l it. And that's the way it should be, each user deciding what's best for him/her."
So as more and more people get broadband and CD burners less and less people will contribute to a fine open source company and that is the "way it should be..."
This of course will kill open source companies but hey, that's the way it should be...
After all the open source companys give up because of people like you we will be forced to pay outragouse prices from Microsoft but hey, that's the way it should be...
"...in exchange for this, the 'content industries' be given 'much of the legal backing which they are seeking for copy-protection technologies.' A worthwhile and fair tradeoff?"
The problem is that the copy-protection technologies are backed by the DMCA that pretty much makes obtaining the copy-protected material illegal even after the copyright expires.
I tend to agree that it is a good thing that IBM is on board. They have a vested interest in seeing Linux succeed. I believe that they will do their part to ensure that no unnamed monopoly power embrace and extend this technology in a way that damages their interests.
Hahahaha.... At last the Linux community can make Linux so that it can only run our software!! We can cut out all competition and use our monopoly power to.... Oh Wait!!
My Palladium sucks T-shirt is now worthless and I don't think a "next-generation secure computing base sucks" T-shirt will cut it.
" Microsoft claims that the name is being changed to reflect the fact that Microsoft is 'embracing this technology in terms of folding it into Windows for the next decade.'"
Why does my stomach get a queezy feeling when I read this??
Hey, I got karma to burn...
As long as the crap up files that are illegal to trade. Come on people! This doesn't stop the legitimate use of P2P so what's the problem?
MonsterHut officials claimed that the reason 750,000 people where not removed from their mailing lists was that they had failed to follow the proper removal procedure. The procedure is apparently more involved than just clicking 'NO' and includes bringing a shrubbery to the MonsterHut headquarters.
"Rosen cited personal reasons for leaving the Recording Industry Association of America, where she has served as chief executive since 1998."
Yeah, She had to find a proctologist to have a boot removed.
"You do not appear to understand what a straw man is. A straw man is falsely attributing an argument to the other side in order to be able to dismiss it with ease. I attributed no arguments to the other side, hence no straw man."
Thanks for clearing up that straw man thing.... However, you did attribute an argument to the other side. You misquoted the parent post thereby subtly changing the meaning.
However, straw men aside, it's really irrelevant anyway. What piper may or may not have done is quite a separate issue from his project of moving Houston away from Microsoft's Office project.
It is a fairly common political tactic to attack a the character of an opponent in order to discredit a project that he has undertaken. Some people will be distracted by this and not realize that the project is not "guilty by association."
You did a partial quote which took his statment out of context then you build a straw man.
The original quote: "Microsoft has spent years and years outright lying, cheating, and stealing, in order to come to market dominance and stay there."
Piper may or may not have done some lying but it is not the same issue as Microsofts lying and cheating with the goal of market dominance.
Very nice straw man.
I understand what you are saying about the constitutionality of outlawing SPAM but I'm not sure that I buy into that argument. For sure it would be argued at the Supreme Court level.
The reason I say that I don't buy into it is that there are examples where government can limit our rights. We have the right to bear arms but if I walk down the street with a bazooka I could be arrested. We have the right to travel and move about but I still need to have a driver's license to drive a car and I can forget about driving a tank down main street.
So, although spammers have the right to free speech, outlawing SPAM probably does not violate that right. We have the right to free speech but we are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theatre.
My State has anti-spamming laws but they focus on deception and fraud. The Spammer must not fake his return address and the subject line must not be deceptive. Things like that. This law has already been challenged up to the State Supreme Court and has been held as constitutional.
"Just remember guys, a few things we know about these aliens so far: They're VERY susceptible to dying from earth based bacteria (War of the Worlds), their computers can be interfaced via Macintosh computers.. although I'm afraid we'll need to use OS9 or Classic mode to do that since they aren't advanced enough to use a BSD kernel yet (Independence Day), and water is deadly to them! (Signs) Remember this when they start invading guys."
:-)
You forgot one: Country music causes their heads to explode. (Mars attacks) Maybe you left it out because Country music has the same effect on a lot of us too...