The problem with your analogy is that it is possible to have an internet (one or more connected, yet autonomous, networks that are not connected to the Internet (a global connection of connected, yet automomous, networks taken as a unit). It's more like a clump of dirt is earth, but Earth is a planet.
And, like it or not, current US law requires them to follow the court order, under 18 U.S. Code 2511, which reads, in part, "Providers of wire or electronic communication service...are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with a court order directing such assistance."
Apple doesn't provide a wire or electronic communication service. The produced the device. I don't think the letter of the law applies in this case.
In the future Gnome3 will require SystemD which is Linux only.
Like I need another reason to avoid GNOME 3. If anything, that's a point in FreeBSD's favor.:-)
More fixing of things that weren't broken
on
Fedora 16 Released
·
· Score: 1
GNOME 3, systemd, autokey, just to name a few. Now they're saying that everything belongs in/usr/bin.
Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to re-invent it, badly. Evidently, as Fedora.
Maybe I'm just getting too old for this, but I'd rather have improvements in the tools that work than to have to learn a completely new tool every year because somebody decided that the old way is wrong because they didn't invent it. I guess Vim will be on the block next.
Are we, as a community, absolutely certain that "release early, release often" is always the best way to go?
Unfortunately by only asking feedback from self-selected users, they'll only get feedback that reinforces what they've already decided.
That's why more people that aren't necessarily happy with GNOME need to take the survey. I've used GNOME since the 1.0 days, but GNOME3 was enough to make me install XFCE4 -- and I'm considering dropping the whole Desktop Environment thing altogether and going back to fvwm (or something similar)
Maybe I'm just old, but I think the current direction of development has lost sight of the reason XWindows was created in the first place. The client and server shouldn't have to be on the same host. The User should be able to customize their own environment in whatever way makes it easier for them to work.
Complete bollocks. Is the freedom to modify code not the entire point of GPL licenced software?
I agree with the OP that GPL is about "the code."
Under GPL: "I'll share my code with you, but if you make improvements, you have to share with me because it's my code."
Under BSD: "I'll share my code with you. If you make improvements, you can share them with me. If you don't share, I'll just go back to the lab and make mine better."
Face it, copyright is copyright. Thanks to Sonny Bono, Disney et al. Nothing that is currently covered under copyright is going to lapse into the Public Domain in your lifetime.
If you think you're going to get ANY copyright term shortened, I can let you in on a deal for a bridge.:-)
Hate to turn your logic against you but; by your own metric, Windows(tm) and Internet Explorer(tm) are better than - - well, anything that anybody else has to offer.
Why? Because most (pre-assembled) computers ship with Windows, therefore Windows must be better. Windows ships with IE, therefore IE must be better.
Yes, I know I'm trolling. Burn mod points on me, I'm bored.
The GNU GPL is perfect for Users. The BSD license is for Developers.
GPL means everyone has to share and code will always be free.
Developers may not always want their code to be "free." Whether RMS likes it or not, there ARE companies that survive by selling their software. Granted, most of those are niche markets that wouldn't see mass development the way that something like an OS kernel would, but revenue-generating software is how they make their way in this world. These companies can incorporate software under a BSD-style or MIT-style license and still keep their source closed. This is not the case with the GPL; if they incorporate a GPL'ed library, then their code is GPL'ed as well - - and that usually isn't the desired outcome.
Why is the industry shooting itself in the foot by driving away loyal customers?
Because, quite obviously, they're NOT driving away customers. People will gripe, bitch, complain, and then pony up the cash anyway.
It's nice to talk about having principles, hating the Evil Empire, and all that - - but it doesn't mean anything if you're unwilling to vote with your feet. If you don't like the established method, support the alternatives - - even and especially if it costs more to do so. If there isn't an alternative, create one and get/find folks to support it.
Businesses are the way they are because they make money. As long as their making money, they have no reason to change. As long as folks choose cheap/convenient over worth-it/the-right-thing, things will not change.
I think that points up one of the basic philosophical differences between the GPL crowd and the BSD crowd;
GPL people see the source as something that must be protected from "pirates." (to paraphrase the parent post) If someone makes an improvent to a piece of code, they are required to share with others as they were shared with.
BSD people seem to believe that any one can use the code however they want (in exchange for due credit). If someone makes an improvement to a piece of code - - and that improvement is not made available - - the BSD folks will just implement something better.
To me, the BSD position is more in line with natural selection; if you write better stuff, you win.
<disclaimer>
I was a staunch GPL-booster before GNU/Linux was a going concern.
I am now a happy BSD User.
I also acknowledge that there is no fanatic like a convert.
Most times when an app says, "We use XML! We're Open!" they are, at best, paying lip service to both XML and Open-ness.
Usually, tags and attributes are thrown about in whatever method made sense to the author at the time. DTD's are rarely, if ever, seen for these "Open" formats. Check the specs; without a valid DTD, any XML document is pretty much useless.
All Microsoft (or anyone else) has to do is put their (unknown) binary data inside a couple of XML-ish looking tags and they can say they're using an open format. Yeah, the format is open, but the data is still opaque.
Personally, I still see XML as a solution that is deperately seeking a problem. Being in that state, it winds up getting used for all kinds of things for which it is not the best tool for the job.
I'll consider taking XML seriously when people start using XML documents that are both Well-Formed and SGML-valid.
I could be wrong, but you'll probably have a hard time convincing me of that.
But I always ask this to the Linux guys at my compnay ( ps I also run linux ) why did linux get the market it has now and not BSD ?
Probably, at least in part, because of the USL v. BSD lawsuit in the early nineties.
Most people don't seem to realize that the BSDs (NetBSD & FreeBSD, anyway) and the Linux kernel both got started at about the same time. (Yes, both are predated by the GNU project, but that's another posting entirely).
The net is rife with stories about the Berkeley folks getting sued by AT&T/UNIX System Laboratory. I think that did a lot to hamstring BSD in the eyes of the general public - - even though the products of the BSD team, like TCP/IP, have enjoyed widespread acceptance.
The lawsuit was kind of analagous to the way that SCO is trying frame its case against IBM; "You're using our code without our say so."
In the BSD case, it turned out that AT&T et al were using more BSD code than BSD had AT&T code.
Let's look at the business model. Where do newpaper revenues come from? Subscribers? No. Advertisers. The only reason that newspapers charge for their paper editions is protect against the age old assumption that if it's free, it must be worthless.
Every newspaper in the country could give away their print editions and still make money.
The "news business" is not now, nor has it ever been, about bringing you the news. It has always been about selling advertisements.
Just because a business provides something that is of use to one set of customers does not mean that that customer base is their primary concern.
The big reason that papers want to keep you, the reader happy, is so they can sell you to more advertisers.
There is an old saying (relating to the Federal Aviation Administration) that states: "Aviation policy is written in blood." It speaks to the fact that policy and procedure don't generally change until somebody(/ies) dies.
He lost me as soon as he held up GConf as an example of what was to be accomplished. Have you ever LOOKED at the "xml" files that GConf generates? Ever tried to climb the ~/.gconf (and/etc/gconf) trees? I put GConf (and anything that aspires to be like it) in the same category with the Windows Registry. GConf is, by far, the thing I like least about GNOME (and, on the whole, I like GNOME).
Why do people keep adding needless complexity to fix systems that aren't even broken? If I can't edit my configs with vi, I'd rather use something else.
Maybe I'm just being thick. I don't know. It's been one of those days.
It seems to me that the line ending character they are trying to stabilize on is #xA, right? That's the same as 0x0a, right? That's the same as '\n,' right? That's the same linefeel line ender that UNIX has been using since the '70's right? What's the problem?
I only wish this meant that DOS would stop putting all those extra carriage returns in files!
Go ahead, mod me down. I just wanted to blow of steam anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I keep it synced with subversion.
The problem with your analogy is that it is possible to have an internet (one or more connected, yet autonomous, networks that are not connected to the Internet (a global connection of connected, yet automomous, networks taken as a unit). It's more like a clump of dirt is earth, but Earth is a planet.
And, like it or not, current US law requires them to follow the court order, under 18 U.S. Code 2511, which reads, in part, "Providers of wire or electronic communication service...are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with a court order directing such assistance."
Apple doesn't provide a wire or electronic communication service. The produced the device. I don't think the letter of the law applies in this case.
Go figure. http://zenmagnets.com/
In the future Gnome3 will require SystemD which is Linux only.
Like I need another reason to avoid GNOME 3. If anything, that's a point in FreeBSD's favor. :-)
GNOME 3, systemd, autokey, just to name a few. Now they're saying that everything belongs in /usr/bin.
Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to re-invent it, badly. Evidently, as Fedora.
Maybe I'm just getting too old for this, but I'd rather have improvements in the tools that work than to have to learn a completely new tool every year because somebody decided that the old way is wrong because they didn't invent it. I guess Vim will be on the block next.
Are we, as a community, absolutely certain that "release early, release often" is always the best way to go?
Unfortunately by only asking feedback from self-selected users, they'll only get feedback that reinforces what they've already decided.
That's why more people that aren't necessarily happy with GNOME need to take the survey. I've used GNOME since the 1.0 days, but GNOME3 was enough to make me install XFCE4 -- and I'm considering dropping the whole Desktop Environment thing altogether and going back to fvwm (or something similar)
Maybe I'm just old, but I think the current direction of development has lost sight of the reason XWindows was created in the first place. The client and server shouldn't have to be on the same host. The User should be able to customize their own environment in whatever way makes it easier for them to work.
Complete bollocks. Is the freedom to modify code not the entire point of GPL licenced software?
I agree with the OP that GPL is about "the code."
Under GPL: "I'll share my code with you, but if you make improvements, you have to share with me because it's my code."
Under BSD: "I'll share my code with you. If you make improvements, you can share them with me. If you don't share, I'll just go back to the lab and make mine better."
Face it, copyright is copyright. Thanks to Sonny Bono, Disney et al. Nothing that is currently covered under copyright is going to lapse into the Public Domain in your lifetime.
:-)
If you think you're going to get ANY copyright term shortened, I can let you in on a deal for a bridge.
(sorry, it's Monday)
Hate to turn your logic against you but; by your own metric, Windows(tm) and Internet Explorer(tm) are better than - - well, anything that anybody else has to offer.
Why? Because most (pre-assembled) computers ship with Windows, therefore Windows must be better. Windows ships with IE, therefore IE must be better.
Yes, I know I'm trolling. Burn mod points on me, I'm bored.
I think you've got that, kind of, backwards.
The GNU GPL is perfect for Users.
The BSD license is for Developers.
GPL means everyone has to share and code will always be free.
Developers may not always want their code to be "free." Whether RMS likes it or not, there ARE companies that survive by selling their software. Granted, most of those are niche markets that wouldn't see mass development the way that something like an OS kernel would, but revenue-generating software is how they make their way in this world. These companies can incorporate software under a BSD-style or MIT-style license and still keep their source closed. This is not the case with the GPL; if they incorporate a GPL'ed library, then their code is GPL'ed as well - - and that usually isn't the desired outcome.
Yeah, yeah, I know:
s/sew/sow/
I knew it was wrong in the preview and hit [Submit] anyway.
Pobody's Nerfect.
Only Sun can make Java(tm).
Those who trust in sole-source products, reap what they sew.
Because, quite obviously, they're NOT driving away customers. People will gripe, bitch, complain, and then pony up the cash anyway.
It's nice to talk about having principles, hating the Evil Empire, and all that - - but it doesn't mean anything if you're unwilling to vote with your feet. If you don't like the established method, support the alternatives - - even and especially if it costs more to do so. If there isn't an alternative, create one and get/find folks to support it.
Businesses are the way they are because they make money. As long as their making money, they have no reason to change. As long as folks choose cheap/convenient over worth-it/the-right-thing, things will not change.
Think globally. Act locally.
I think that points up one of the basic philosophical differences between the GPL crowd and the BSD crowd;
To me, the BSD position is more in line with natural selection; if you write better stuff, you win.
<disclaimer>
</disclaimer>
Come to think of it; An Intel (x86) box with OBP...that could be interesting.
Previous posters are absolutely correct in that Apple doesn't suffer longterm backward compatibility. Intel processor != "100% IBM Compatible."
Think of what Apple could do without being shackled by IBM's 20-year-old PC underpinnings.
Most times when an app says, "We use XML! We're Open!" they are, at best, paying lip service to both XML and Open-ness.
Usually, tags and attributes are thrown about in whatever method made sense to the author at the time. DTD's are rarely, if ever, seen for these "Open" formats. Check the specs; without a valid DTD, any XML document is pretty much useless.
All Microsoft (or anyone else) has to do is put their (unknown) binary data inside a couple of XML-ish looking tags and they can say they're using an open format. Yeah, the format is open, but the data is still opaque.
Personally, I still see XML as a solution that is deperately seeking a problem. Being in that state, it winds up getting used for all kinds of things for which it is not the best tool for the job.
I'll consider taking XML seriously when people start using XML documents that are both Well-Formed and SGML-valid.
I could be wrong, but you'll probably have a hard time convincing me of that.
Probably, at least in part, because of the USL v. BSD lawsuit in the early nineties.
Most people don't seem to realize that the BSDs (NetBSD & FreeBSD, anyway) and the Linux kernel both got started at about the same time. (Yes, both are predated by the GNU project, but that's another posting entirely).
The net is rife with stories about the Berkeley folks getting sued by AT&T/UNIX System Laboratory. I think that did a lot to hamstring BSD in the eyes of the general public - - even though the products of the BSD team, like TCP/IP, have enjoyed widespread acceptance.
The lawsuit was kind of analagous to the way that SCO is trying frame its case against IBM; "You're using our code without our say so."
In the BSD case, it turned out that AT&T et al were using more BSD code than BSD had AT&T code.
Yeah, yeah, I'm feeding a troll. Feel free to moderate apropriately.
To me, the GPL is based on the idea; "I shared with you and you made it better, now you have to share with me."
To me, the BSD license is based on; "I shared with you and you made it better, now I'm going back to work and outdo you."
Do you, the reader, think that's an accurate summary?
Let's look at the business model. Where do newpaper revenues come from? Subscribers? No. Advertisers. The only reason that newspapers charge for their paper editions is protect against the age old assumption that if it's free, it must be worthless.
Every newspaper in the country could give away their print editions and still make money.
The "news business" is not now, nor has it ever been, about bringing you the news. It has always been about selling advertisements.
Just because a business provides something that is of use to one set of customers does not mean that that customer base is their primary concern.
The big reason that papers want to keep you, the reader happy, is so they can sell you to more advertisers.
What the line says...
What I saw on first glance...
There is an old saying (relating to the Federal Aviation Administration) that states: "Aviation policy is written in blood." It speaks to the fact that policy and procedure don't generally change until somebody(/ies) dies.
Almost everything related to The HURD is gone (the ISOs were off the root of the server). Not sure how I feel about that.
He lost me as soon as he held up GConf as an example of what was to be accomplished. Have you ever LOOKED at the "xml" files that GConf generates? Ever tried to climb the ~/.gconf (and /etc/gconf) trees? I put GConf (and anything that aspires to be like it) in the same category with the Windows Registry. GConf is, by far, the thing I like least about GNOME (and, on the whole, I like GNOME).
Why do people keep adding needless complexity to fix systems that aren't even broken? If I can't edit my configs with vi, I'd rather use something else.
Maybe I'm just being thick. I don't know. It's been one of those days.
It seems to me that the line ending character they are trying to stabilize on is #xA, right? That's the same as 0x0a, right? That's the same as '\n,' right? That's the same linefeel line ender that UNIX has been using since the '70's right? What's the problem?
I only wish this meant that DOS would stop putting all those extra carriage returns in files!
Go ahead, mod me down. I just wanted to blow of steam anyway.