There is a thing called a motorjet or thermojet which was invented in the early 20th Century and was a fore-runner of the gas turbine.
In the days before most people realised that a self-sustaining gas turbine was possible, someone came up with the idea of using a reciprocating piston engine with a ducted fan or propeller to compress air and to inject fuel and burn in in the compressed air stream (like an afterburner on a modern jet engine).
Because the amount of stock I could afford to buy on my meager salary and savings in this broken economy is so trivial that I'd starve and lose my house by the end of the week.
It's just the Invisible Hand's way of telling you that you need to be changed. And after all, what could be more important than placating the forces that govern the Invisible Hand?
"It's nothing poysonal, it's only business," as they say.
Quite, when you work yourself into illness to make the shareholders richer as they constantly cut back your resourcing, fire your colleagues, make deadlines shorter and freeze your pay, selling things that don't exist to customers expecting delivery tomorrow when there's 2 year's work to do to get it out the door...
As long as the stock price keeps going up, little things like customers and worker bees are merely incidental.
A good 10 years ago now (or was it 11?) the Mozilla folks were touting the "browser is the platform" and suggesting that people right their applications to target the browser to get cross-platform portability.
They had a good point, since Firefox was and is cross-platform.
Oracle should just have engaged an outsourcing company like Infosys, HCL or TATA if they wanted to pay Indian wages. They are experts at bending the work permit/visa rules.
So sorry. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and I'm supposed to cheer for the thrill rides of people who've somehow managed to game the system to make money while my real wages have been going down for 10 years?
These things give us an opportunity and means to redress the balance, and relieve them of their dubiously-gotten gains. Their decadence today will pay for (a small bit of) progress.
Now all we need to do is to think of other ways to part them from their loot so that more of us can benefit...
Suborbital flight. If you go high enough (c.f. SpaceShip Two) where the air is very thin indeed you can then accelerate to much higher speeds than are possible where the air is thicker (lower down). Then you can fall back down into the air, slow down and land like a plane when you get near your destination. Flying at 15 to 25 times the speed of sound becomes feasible.
I think the point being made is that if SapceShip Two is popular and makes a big profit, there might be money to invest is a sub-orbital liner version for intercontinental travel.
People have imagined such things since the 1930s (first for weapons delivery i.e. Slibervogel/Amerikabomber) but it's been prohibitively expensive so far.
I personally don't believe that all code should be free either. In my opinion, the GPL does more to ensure on-going freedom for the many (as opposed to the few) than the BSD license does.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a BSD license (or family of licenses) or that people shouldn't use them.
All I'm saying is that people should make an informed choice when they choose software and when they choose a software license.
It is currently fashionable to disparage the GPL (and related licenses) and to spread FUD and misinformation about them.
The fact that it protects the ultimate users is very debatable. Especially since the original developer can offer dual licensing.
I did not contradict myself. The GPL ensures the continuing freedom of users to benefit from the code and any enhancements/modifications to the code made by others. It empowers the users to employ whoever they like (including themselves) to make further enhancements. Progress is ensured for all by standing on the shoulders of giants.
This is not a restriction.
The BSD makes no such provision.
The requirement to make all changes available in source code is a restriction.... of the GPL.
This is one of the features of Copyleft. It is not a restriction on the users.
No one is required to make their changes in source code available under the GPL unless they distribute the modified binary. Everyone is perfectly free (individual, corporation, evil dictator, saint etc.) to make whatever changes they like to the code for their own use. If they choose to make that version available to others, then that's when they have to make their source changes available.
You got your rights confused. BSD protects the user's right. GPL protects the developer's right.
No, not at all. You have completely mistaken the points I have been trying to make.
The GPL protects the user's rights because it places no restrictions on their use of the program, it guarantees them access to the (machine-readable) source code for the program, it permits them to redistribute the program unmodified in binary form (as long as they make the source code for that release available along with it) and it permits them to modify the program for their own use. They only have to distribute their changed source code (again, in machine-readable form) if they distribute the modified binary.
Thus the rights of any users of the derived work are preserved i.e. it's the gift that keeps on giving.
The BSD license and its friends do not make this crucial guarantee (see my "scary story"). A certain Redmond-based software monopoly (convicted in courts the world over) has used this feature of the BSD license to wage its embrace-and-extend lock-in war campaign on the industry.
This is very plain and simple to understand. It has been tested in court and a thriving ecosystem of FOSS has build up around it.
It's not trolling when you are trying to educate someone about their misperceptions.
The misperceptions lie with you.
I never denied that the BSD-licensed code would remain available (and therefore it is not a problem with my story). I was referring to enhancements to that code that may be used to perform a bait-and-switch or embrace-and-extend move. You are deliberately ignoring that and de-emphasising the importance of the freedom of the user. It's a very common thing for businesses and other self-interested organisations to do.
Why do you play down the importance of the freedom of the end user of the software? Why do you advocate that people should support BSD projects when it clearly has the potential to be against their interests
Why should the "rights" of the rich and powerful to exploit others be more important than the rights and interests of everyone in general?
We live in interesting times. We need more freedom and empowerment as individuals to support ourselves. Large companies are already far too powerful and concentrate the wealth in too few hands. They do not need our help. We need to protect ourselves.
Advocating the BSD over the GPL for critical pieces of technological infrastructure that empower us all is madness.
So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code.
Suppose a very important piece of infrastructure, such as a compiler suite, were BSD licensed and achieved wide adoption so that thousands of companies and millions of people (developers, casual coders, end users etc.) came to depend upon it. Then suppose that people neglected competing FOSS projects...
Now, suppose that this large important compiler suite's development were sponsored by a major corporation with a financial and ideological incentive to suppress competition.
To begin with, everything is fine.
Then the major (principle) sponsor of the project decides to add some proprietary language features to one or several of the languages supported by this compiler suite, rewrote large parts of their own code to use these features and encouraged, bribed or coerced their 3rd-party development community (many of which already pay for the dubious privilege of being allowed to compile and distribute their code for that platform) to use these new language features. Perhaps these features look cool and groovy to begin with and make development easier.
Now this major company, what with the compiler suite and tools being BSD licensed have no legal obligation or incentive to release the source for their "enhancements" to the tools to the outside world. After all 99% of end-developers probably only care about getting a ready-to-use binary...
Later, the company decides to charge a hefty license fee for their proprietary, enhanced version of the compiler. All these developers have written their code to use the proprietary features that once seemed so handy and convenient.
Never mind, it's painful, but easier to pony up the cash for a license or get a cracked copy from bit torrent...
Some bright spark decides to re-implement support for those language features in a competing compiler, say a FOSS one such as gcc.
Then they get sued because the major company has "patented" the language extensions, "copyrighted" the language spec. and charges and exorbitant fee for it, or demands validation against a paid-for test suite to use the language name or some other aspect of the design or whatever, or demands membership of some industry committee or other such nefarious organisation invented for locking out the less well-heeled or those not wanting to play at Imaginary Property Hoarding.
It's the old bait-and-switch trick. It's as old as capitalism (i.e. human greed) and the computer industry is not immune (IBM, Microsoft, Oracle....). It will always be a threat.
That's why we need vigilance, competition, choice, freedom, education, and licenses like the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell it like it is!
There is a thing called a motorjet or thermojet which was invented in the early 20th Century and was a fore-runner of the gas turbine.
In the days before most people realised that a self-sustaining gas turbine was possible, someone came up with the idea of using a reciprocating piston engine with a ducted fan or propeller to compress air and to inject fuel and burn in in the compressed air stream (like an afterburner on a modern jet engine).
Eggsasperating!
Whenever I crack an egg, I will imagine I am hearing the sound "Li Ka-shing" for the rest of my life . . .
That's the sound of his cash-register while he's Ka-shing in on his new enterprise...
I am allergic to eggs (and milk) you insensitive clod.
this is also a convenient opportunity for promoting local technology firms
The European Internet brought to you by SAP AG?
Bush won Florida. It is a simple fact.
It was the zombie vote that did it.
Because the amount of stock I could afford to buy on my meager salary and savings in this broken economy is so trivial that I'd starve and lose my house by the end of the week.
It's just the Invisible Hand's way of telling you that you need to be changed. And after all, what could be more important than placating the forces that govern the Invisible Hand?
"It's nothing poysonal, it's only business," as they say.
Work hard? Why bother.
Quite, when you work yourself into illness to make the shareholders richer as they constantly cut back your resourcing, fire your colleagues, make deadlines shorter and freeze your pay, selling things that don't exist to customers expecting delivery tomorrow when there's 2 year's work to do to get it out the door...
As long as the stock price keeps going up, little things like customers and worker bees are merely incidental.
Anything else is commie.
Yes, but what's in it for the share holders?
If Iran gets around to putting a man into space soon, you might well see a TSA presence in earth orbit...
It's all the gays' fault. A fine, right-thinking, upstanding, god-fearing, hard-working Englishman said so!
Is gcc 4.8 the one where the compiler source was completely converted to C++?
/me ducks.
A good 10 years ago now (or was it 11?) the Mozilla folks were touting the "browser is the platform" and suggesting that people right their applications to target the browser to get cross-platform portability.
They had a good point, since Firefox was and is cross-platform.
...Like another wrong!
Go for it, America, show us how it's done. You lead the world.
Oracle should just have engaged an outsourcing company like Infosys, HCL or TATA if they wanted to pay Indian wages. They are experts at bending the work permit/visa rules.
Solaris has actually been quite good since Solaris 10.
Solaris 10 was developed and released (in 2005) by Sun, five years before Oracle acquired them.
I used to run Solaris on my UltraSPARC boxes at home until Oracle made that very difficult.
I'm afraid that SPARC and Solaris are now nothing but historical curiosities to all but the wealthiest who are locked in to Oracle's platform.
It's too bad Oracle won't invest any time to port some of the better aspects of Solaris to Linux.
There's no point. While Oracle tries to milk the cash cow and sweat their assets, Linux will gradually overtake Solaris all on its own.
Oracle will begin the fade into obscurity like the other dinosaurs before it (ICL, Tandem, DEC, Compaq, HP, Microsoft...)
Bottom line, if it matters, it makes slightly more sense to drive on the right side. The opposite of the way the brits do it.
I think you'll find that it is the British who are right on this point and it is Johnny Foreigner who is wrong.
So sorry. We don't even have the Concorde anymore and I'm supposed to cheer for the thrill rides of people who've somehow managed to game the system to make money while my real wages have been going down for 10 years?
These things give us an opportunity and means to redress the balance, and relieve them of their dubiously-gotten gains. Their decadence today will pay for (a small bit of) progress.
Now all we need to do is to think of other ways to part them from their loot so that more of us can benefit...
Suborbital flight. If you go high enough (c.f. SpaceShip Two) where the air is very thin indeed you can then accelerate to much higher speeds than are possible where the air is thicker (lower down). Then you can fall back down into the air, slow down and land like a plane when you get near your destination. Flying at 15 to 25 times the speed of sound becomes feasible.
I think the point being made is that if SapceShip Two is popular and makes a big profit, there might be money to invest is a sub-orbital liner version for intercontinental travel.
People have imagined such things since the 1930s (first for weapons delivery i.e. Slibervogel/Amerikabomber) but it's been prohibitively expensive so far.
I disagree with you too.
I personally don't believe that all code should be free either. In my opinion, the GPL does more to ensure on-going freedom for the many (as opposed to the few) than the BSD license does.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a BSD license (or family of licenses) or that people shouldn't use them.
All I'm saying is that people should make an informed choice when they choose software and when they choose a software license.
It is currently fashionable to disparage the GPL (and related licenses) and to spread FUD and misinformation about them.
The fact that it protects the ultimate users is very debatable. Especially since the original developer can offer dual licensing.
It's less debatable than you think
I did not contradict myself. The GPL ensures the continuing freedom of users to benefit from the code and any enhancements/modifications to the code made by others. It empowers the users to employ whoever they like (including themselves) to make further enhancements. Progress is ensured for all by standing on the shoulders of giants.
This is not a restriction.
The BSD makes no such provision.
The requirement to make all changes available in source code is a restriction.... of the GPL.
This is one of the features of Copyleft. It is not a restriction on the users.
No one is required to make their changes in source code available under the GPL unless they distribute the modified binary. Everyone is perfectly free (individual, corporation, evil dictator, saint etc.) to make whatever changes they like to the code for their own use. If they choose to make that version available to others, then that's when they have to make their source changes available.
Why are you having trouble understanding this?
You got your rights confused. BSD protects the user's right. GPL protects the developer's right.
No, not at all. You have completely mistaken the points I have been trying to make.
The GPL protects the user's rights because it places no restrictions on their use of the program, it guarantees them access to the (machine-readable) source code for the program, it permits them to redistribute the program unmodified in binary form (as long as they make the source code for that release available along with it) and it permits them to modify the program for their own use. They only have to distribute their changed source code (again, in machine-readable form) if they distribute the modified binary.
Thus the rights of any users of the derived work are preserved i.e. it's the gift that keeps on giving.
The BSD license and its friends do not make this crucial guarantee (see my "scary story"). A certain Redmond-based software monopoly (convicted in courts the world over) has used this feature of the BSD license to wage its embrace-and-extend lock-in war campaign on the industry.
This is very plain and simple to understand. It has been tested in court and a thriving ecosystem of FOSS has build up around it.
You are the one who is confused.
It's not trolling when you are trying to educate someone about their misperceptions.
The misperceptions lie with you.
I never denied that the BSD-licensed code would remain available (and therefore it is not a problem with my story). I was referring to enhancements to that code that may be used to perform a bait-and-switch or embrace-and-extend move. You are deliberately ignoring that and de-emphasising the importance of the freedom of the user. It's a very common thing for businesses and other self-interested organisations to do.
Why do you play down the importance of the freedom of the end user of the software? Why do you advocate that people should support BSD projects when it clearly has the potential to be against their interests
Why should the "rights" of the rich and powerful to exploit others be more important than the rights and interests of everyone in general?
We live in interesting times. We need more freedom and empowerment as individuals to support ourselves. Large companies are already far too powerful and concentrate the wealth in too few hands. They do not need our help. We need to protect ourselves.
Advocating the BSD over the GPL for critical pieces of technological infrastructure that empower us all is madness.
So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code.
Suppose a very important piece of infrastructure, such as a compiler suite, were BSD licensed and achieved wide adoption so that thousands of companies and millions of people (developers, casual coders, end users etc.) came to depend upon it. Then suppose that people neglected competing FOSS projects...
Now, suppose that this large important compiler suite's development were sponsored by a major corporation with a financial and ideological incentive to suppress competition.
To begin with, everything is fine.
Then the major (principle) sponsor of the project decides to add some proprietary language features to one or several of the languages supported by this compiler suite, rewrote large parts of their own code to use these features and encouraged, bribed or coerced their 3rd-party development community (many of which already pay for the dubious privilege of being allowed to compile and distribute their code for that platform) to use these new language features. Perhaps these features look cool and groovy to begin with and make development easier.
Now this major company, what with the compiler suite and tools being BSD licensed have no legal obligation or incentive to release the source for their "enhancements" to the tools to the outside world. After all 99% of end-developers probably only care about getting a ready-to-use binary...
Later, the company decides to charge a hefty license fee for their proprietary, enhanced version of the compiler. All these developers have written their code to use the proprietary features that once seemed so handy and convenient.
Never mind, it's painful, but easier to pony up the cash for a license or get a cracked copy from bit torrent...
Some bright spark decides to re-implement support for those language features in a competing compiler, say a FOSS one such as gcc.
Then they get sued because the major company has "patented" the language extensions, "copyrighted" the language spec. and charges and exorbitant fee for it, or demands validation against a paid-for test suite to use the language name or some other aspect of the design or whatever, or demands membership of some industry committee or other such nefarious organisation invented for locking out the less well-heeled or those not wanting to play at Imaginary Property Hoarding.
It's the old bait-and-switch trick. It's as old as capitalism (i.e. human greed) and the computer industry is not immune (IBM, Microsoft, Oracle....). It will always be a threat.
That's why we need vigilance, competition, choice, freedom, education, and licenses like the GPL.
But you were just trolling, weren't you?