"Granted, the company doesn't always know how the user will use it, and can't control that, but if they know what will happen then the ethical thing would be to refuse services. It is really too bad that companies are more worried about the next quarter than how their actions will go into history books."
Should Linus be held accountable for abuses the Chinese govt. perpetrated using Linux? After all, he makes no restrictions on how the software is used?
They claim the cd supplement, and new editions are the key factors driving up textbook costs. I doubt adding a cd changes their cost structure significantly. As for new editions, in electrical engieering anyway, this is important, since the field changes so quickly, and their are numerous bugs that need fixing. Saying we don't need new editions is like saying version 1.0 of software is good enough. The reason textbooks are expensive is simple supply and demand. You'll never sell even a fraction of the number of copies of Harry Potter, so it will cost more to make a profit given fixed costs are similar
from post: "WeakGeek added, "FBI security guys are using Macs because, 'those machines can do just about anything: run software for Mac, Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the command line. And they're secure out of the box.' "
from article: "many of the computer security folks back at FBI HQ use Macs running OS X, since those machines can do just about anything: run software for Mac, Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the command line. And they're secure out of the box."
The post quote implies that all FBI computer security agents, or at least the majority, use Macs. The second quote, from the actual article, implies that only some unspecified number of FBI computer secuirty agents use Macs. Please don't butcher wuotes to mislead.
"It also raises the obvious question: have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?"
The whole concept of OSS is about choice. I'm sure Linus wouldn't want you to feel guilty because you picked something other than Linux, as long as you had a good reason.
" Don't support the big multinationals. They view consumers as nothing more than cattle at the trough."
This is just empty rhetoric, completely meaningless. It seems to me a company that offers you a cheaper product because they are constantly streamlining the process to make things more efficient is a good thing. When I go buy something, I already know what I want. I don't need to fund an overpaid salesperson at a niche store to help me make my choice.
Many people argue that Linux has less problems because it is more secure. Others say this isn't true (for NT-based Windows, anyway), and that Windows is simply a higher profile target because of the higher user base. It is impossible to prove either arguement since no one knows how many security flaws are in either system. To add another variable to the problem, is Windows a target because Linux users hate Windows. It's probably impossible outside of Redmond to find anyone who hates Linux. This latest Windows attack seems to be perpetrated by a Linux user, since it attacks SCO as well as Windows. Is this attack motivated simply by hatred? Could this be a significant factor in the equation for why Windows is attacked so often?
" *we* admit no such thing. Software patents are a very bad thing. See Bruce Perins recent article on the subject."
The OSS community is not the entire set of programmers. Of course OSS people hate software patents. Personally, I'm not against them. I just think they're overly broad. I think a more detailed algorithm is necessary for a patent. Therefore, mp3 patent should be valid since it is a new sophisticated way to compress music with a specific algorithm, but lauching a helper application to handle a particular file format should not be patentable, because it's so simple a concept that no algorithm needs even to be stated, and programs have lauched other programs forever anyway. The idea of patents is to foster innovation, but not stifle it. I think there is a middle ground, but we are clearly not there now.
The next generation wireless standard is positioning itself as an alternative to cable and DSL broadband access. Your location may be a prime candidate. Should not have the latency problems of satellite.
" guys who made REAL advances in computer science without greed as a primary motivator."
Greed can be a virtue, as well as a vice. Use of greed as a motivator for productivity is a virtue. Don't let Christians and socialist fool you. And don't think any of the people you mention made selfless contributions. All worked for selfish ends. Making money isn't the only form of self-interest.
Robin Hood was morally bankrupt. He didn't create wealth. He simply stole it. And not just from corrupt govt officials, who at least you can argue were overtaxing people unfairly for their own benefit. Robin Hood also stole from merchants, who are the people that brought us out of the middle ages as cities developed as centers of trade. Bill Gate and Linus Torvalds are heroes not because of what they gave away, but because of what they created. They created software that is useful, something of value to everyone. Giving to the poor is horoable, but starting a company which provides useful goods/services and provides people jobs does a lot more to raise the standard of living for everyone.
"In our generation the protestant work ethic has died. People are willing to actually do some amount of work for the greater good of society. "
This is a myth. People do things for their own self-interest. That is why we have GPL and not public domain. Look at the open source founders. Richard Stallman started GPL because he was tired of working with software in which he didn't have source code to fix bugs and modify in other ways. That's self interest. Linus Torvalds started Linux because he wanted a version of unix that ran on his pc. That's self-interest. In general, people start OSS prjects because they want the software themselves. Others like the fame within their community. Others because they hate Microsoft. None of these motives have anything to do with "the grater good of society".
"However, I would prefer to see an Internet based voting system that gets rid of the electoral college system...."
The electoral college system is not driven by the method votes are cast. The US doesn't count popular vote because a decision was made by most states that they wish to cast all their votes as one block for a particular candidate. There are a couple of states that divide their electoral votes on a percentage basis, but most choose to place all their electoral votes with the candidate that wins a simple majority in their state.
Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Copyright is designed to protect work from theft (and don't bore me with your symmantics arguements). Coding isn't artistsic either by your definition. It's just a set of instrutions for a machine. Collecting a database of information takes work, and no one has the right to just take it from you. They already have vaugue laws about this sort of thing under unfair business practices. The classic case is a west coast company that listened to east coast news, rewrote it a little and broadcast it. They weren't guilty of copyright infringement, but were guilty of unfair business practices. This law simply clarifies the issue.
"We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software, and it will technically be illegal for other people to do so."
Sounds like Perens is trying to make the evidence fit his preconcieved notions. Software patents do not necessarily benefit large corporations. Just look at Eolas, a one man company hold Microsoft hostage over a helper launching patent. I agree with Perens that software patents are overly broad, but I think this hinders big and small companies alike. I see no reason for Perens' attack on large companies over software patents, except that he must have a preconcieved notion that they're bad, and is using this as an unwarranted attack against them.
Yes. Hennessy and Patterson (or in reverse, I have Stanford bias:-)) is the bible of computer architecture. They invented the RISC processor independently at Stanford and Berkeley. Their processors evolved into MIPS and SPARC.
You don't understand the distinction between govt. and business. Govt. is unique in that the use force to enforce their will. A business can only offer contracts, which people accept or reject. To say a company can have the same power as a corrupt govt in a free society is irrational. If you are being exploited by MS, it's because you chose to be of your own free will.
You are not a libertarian. A libertarian believes in separation of busniess and state. A state shouldn't write laws that allow monopolies (e.g. Bell), nor should they interfere in free trade. No govt. legislation got MS where they are, and the govt. shouldn't interfere in their business, since it is interefering with their right to free trade. You do NOT have an individual right that comes at the expense of someone else's rights.
Any economist will tell you that deficit spending is a standard prctice for the govt. to get out of a recession. It worked for Reagan and looks like it's working for Bush as well.
"Hoover recession = Bush recession"
However. that's not to say that the govt. creates recessions or boom periods. This is called the busniess cycle. It a function of a free market based economy. The govt. merely tries to dampen the cycle by playing with interest rates and tax rates, as well as spending money.
"The libertarians don't care either way, as long as government money is not used for the wood to burn the witches."
Actually, libertarians believe in copyright. They don't believe in tranpling over civil rights to protect it, however. The manner in which the RIAA is suing copyright infringers now is perfectly acceptable to libertarians, i.e. through the court system with no special subponae power.
"I believe that systems which align themselves with the natural behavior of people will outlive ones that fight it.
Open source software doesn't "go against the grain"."
So by your own arguemnt GPL goes against the grain, and should be ignored. You claim it's natual to share code, but forcing someone to share source code they don't want to, just because they used some of your source code, is unnnatural by your argument. GPL relies on copyright for a reason. Condemning copyright for one condemns it for all. You can't have it both ways.
"A company can get totally destroyed for the actions of one person."
Paying a $20,000 fine isn't going to destroy any company. Since when are companies exempt from responsibility of the actions of their employees, anyway?
"It looks like SCO has finally ditched their failing product line in favor of 24/7 litigation and PR work."
Show some objectivity, or I have no reason to bother reading the story you found, since I must assume you are pushing an agenda, rather than reporting news.
" Is this software/hardware reporting back to someone that you're trying to duplicate currency? I doubt it, so it's likely not spyware. The incentive they have is simply to help the government fight counterfeit currency. Do you want your goods to be purchased with fake money? I don't."
Agreed. The poster is using loaded terminology to make an issue out of a non-issue
Slashdot Mirror
"Granted, the company doesn't always know how the user will use it, and can't control that, but if they know what will happen then the ethical thing would be to refuse services. It is really too bad that companies are more worried about the next quarter than how their actions will go into history books."
Should Linus be held accountable for abuses the Chinese govt. perpetrated using Linux? After all, he makes no restrictions on how the software is used?
They claim the cd supplement, and new editions are the key factors driving up textbook costs. I doubt adding a cd changes their cost structure significantly. As for new editions, in electrical engieering anyway, this is important, since the field changes so quickly, and their are numerous bugs that need fixing. Saying we don't need new editions is like saying version 1.0 of software is good enough. The reason textbooks are expensive is simple supply and demand. You'll never sell even a fraction of the number of copies of Harry Potter, so it will cost more to make a profit given fixed costs are similar
from post: "WeakGeek added, "FBI security guys are using Macs because, 'those machines can do just about anything: run software for Mac, Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the command line. And they're secure out of the box.' "
from article: "many of the computer security folks back at FBI HQ use Macs running OS X, since those machines can do just about anything: run software for Mac, Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the command line. And they're secure out of the box."
The post quote implies that all FBI computer security agents, or at least the majority, use Macs. The second quote, from the actual article, implies that only some unspecified number of FBI computer secuirty agents use Macs. Please don't butcher wuotes to mislead.
"It also raises the obvious question: have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?"
The whole concept of OSS is about choice. I'm sure Linus wouldn't want you to feel guilty because you picked something other than Linux, as long as you had a good reason.
" Don't support the big multinationals. They view consumers as nothing more than cattle at the trough."
This is just empty rhetoric, completely meaningless. It seems to me a company that offers you a cheaper product because they are constantly streamlining the process to make things more efficient is a good thing. When I go buy something, I already know what I want. I don't need to fund an overpaid salesperson at a niche store to help me make my choice.
Many people argue that Linux has less problems because it is more secure. Others say this isn't true (for NT-based Windows, anyway), and that Windows is simply a higher profile target because of the higher user base. It is impossible to prove either arguement since no one knows how many security flaws are in either system. To add another variable to the problem, is Windows a target because Linux users hate Windows. It's probably impossible outside of Redmond to find anyone who hates Linux. This latest Windows attack seems to be perpetrated by a Linux user, since it attacks SCO as well as Windows. Is this attack motivated simply by hatred? Could this be a significant factor in the equation for why Windows is attacked so often?
My copany is working on one of the chips for 802.16. Cost is their number 1 concern. It will be competitive in price with current 802.11 equipment.
" *we* admit no such thing. Software patents are a very bad thing. See Bruce Perins recent article on the subject."
The OSS community is not the entire set of programmers. Of course OSS people hate software patents. Personally, I'm not against them. I just think they're overly broad. I think a more detailed algorithm is necessary for a patent. Therefore, mp3 patent should be valid since it is a new sophisticated way to compress music with a specific algorithm, but lauching a helper application to handle a particular file format should not be patentable, because it's so simple a concept that no algorithm needs even to be stated, and programs have lauched other programs forever anyway. The idea of patents is to foster innovation, but not stifle it. I think there is a middle ground, but we are clearly not there now.
" Don't forget the, "I got sued by Microsoft and all I got was this stupid shirt" t-shirt :)"
How about "I got sued by Microsoft, and I still have this t-shirt on my back.":-)
The next generation wireless standard is positioning itself as an alternative to cable and DSL broadband access. Your location may be a prime candidate. Should not have the latency problems of satellite.
" guys who made REAL advances in computer science without greed as a primary motivator."
Greed can be a virtue, as well as a vice. Use of greed as a motivator for productivity is a virtue. Don't let Christians and socialist fool you. And don't think any of the people you mention made selfless contributions. All worked for selfish ends. Making money isn't the only form of self-interest.
Robin Hood was morally bankrupt. He didn't create wealth. He simply stole it. And not just from corrupt govt officials, who at least you can argue were overtaxing people unfairly for their own benefit. Robin Hood also stole from merchants, who are the people that brought us out of the middle ages as cities developed as centers of trade. Bill Gate and Linus Torvalds are heroes not because of what they gave away, but because of what they created. They created software that is useful, something of value to everyone. Giving to the poor is horoable, but starting a company which provides useful goods/services and provides people jobs does a lot more to raise the standard of living for everyone.
"In our generation the protestant work ethic has died. People are willing to actually do some amount of work for the greater good of society. "
This is a myth. People do things for their own self-interest. That is why we have GPL and not public domain. Look at the open source founders. Richard Stallman started GPL because he was tired of working with software in which he didn't have source code to fix bugs and modify in other ways. That's self interest. Linus Torvalds started Linux because he wanted a version of unix that ran on his pc. That's self-interest. In general, people start OSS prjects because they want the software themselves. Others like the fame within their community. Others because they hate Microsoft. None of these motives have anything to do with "the grater good of society".
"However, I would prefer to see an Internet based voting system that gets rid of the electoral college system...."
The electoral college system is not driven by the method votes are cast. The US doesn't count popular vote because a decision was made by most states that they wish to cast all their votes as one block for a particular candidate. There are a couple of states that divide their electoral votes on a percentage basis, but most choose to place all their electoral votes with the candidate that wins a simple majority in their state.
Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Copyright is designed to protect work from theft (and don't bore me with your symmantics arguements). Coding isn't artistsic either by your definition. It's just a set of instrutions for a machine. Collecting a database of information takes work, and no one has the right to just take it from you. They already have vaugue laws about this sort of thing under unfair business practices. The classic case is a west coast company that listened to east coast news, rewrote it a little and broadcast it. They weren't guilty of copyright infringement, but were guilty of unfair business practices. This law simply clarifies the issue.
"We're looking at a future where only the very largest companies will be able to implement software, and it will technically be illegal for other people to do so."
Sounds like Perens is trying to make the evidence fit his preconcieved notions. Software patents do not necessarily benefit large corporations. Just look at Eolas, a one man company hold Microsoft hostage over a helper launching patent. I agree with Perens that software patents are overly broad, but I think this hinders big and small companies alike. I see no reason for Perens' attack on large companies over software patents, except that he must have a preconcieved notion that they're bad, and is using this as an unwarranted attack against them.
Yes. Hennessy and Patterson (or in reverse, I have Stanford bias :-)) is the bible of computer architecture. They invented the RISC processor independently at Stanford and Berkeley. Their processors evolved into MIPS and SPARC.
You don't understand the distinction between govt. and business. Govt. is unique in that the use force to enforce their will. A business can only offer contracts, which people accept or reject. To say a company can have the same power as a corrupt govt in a free society is irrational. If you are being exploited by MS, it's because you chose to be of your own free will.
You are not a libertarian. A libertarian believes in separation of busniess and state. A state shouldn't write laws that allow monopolies (e.g. Bell), nor should they interfere in free trade. No govt. legislation got MS where they are, and the govt. shouldn't interfere in their business, since it is interefering with their right to free trade. You do NOT have an individual right that comes at the expense of someone else's rights.
"Reagan era deficits = Bush era deficits"
Any economist will tell you that deficit spending is a standard prctice for the govt. to get out of a recession. It worked for Reagan and looks like it's working for Bush as well.
"Hoover recession = Bush recession"
However. that's not to say that the govt. creates recessions or boom periods. This is called the busniess cycle. It a function of a free market based economy. The govt. merely tries to dampen the cycle by playing with interest rates and tax rates, as well as spending money.
"The libertarians don't care either way, as long as government money is not used for the wood to burn the witches."
Actually, libertarians believe in copyright. They don't believe in tranpling over civil rights to protect it, however. The manner in which the RIAA is suing copyright infringers now is perfectly acceptable to libertarians, i.e. through the court system with no special subponae power.
"I believe that systems which align themselves with the natural behavior of people will outlive ones that fight it. Open source software doesn't "go against the grain"."
So by your own arguemnt GPL goes against the grain, and should be ignored. You claim it's natual to share code, but forcing someone to share source code they don't want to, just because they used some of your source code, is unnnatural by your argument. GPL relies on copyright for a reason. Condemning copyright for one condemns it for all. You can't have it both ways.
"A company can get totally destroyed for the actions of one person."
Paying a $20,000 fine isn't going to destroy any company. Since when are companies exempt from responsibility of the actions of their employees, anyway?
"It looks like SCO has finally ditched their failing product line in favor of 24/7 litigation and PR work."
Show some objectivity, or I have no reason to bother reading the story you found, since I must assume you are pushing an agenda, rather than reporting news.
" Is this software/hardware reporting back to someone that you're trying to duplicate currency? I doubt it, so it's likely not spyware. The incentive they have is simply to help the government fight counterfeit currency. Do you want your goods to be purchased with fake money? I don't."
Agreed. The poster is using loaded terminology to make an issue out of a non-issue