When SCO pulled their FUD moves some while ago, that triggered a rash of FUDding through various industries. Various patent trolls etc woke up and started sniffing about.
The latest MS vs Linux FUDding is very widely reported in the popular media. Perhaps that's triggering another run of this behavior through various industries.
are not just limited to the politicains and trade negotiators. Half the engineers in USA fall into that trap too. A good percentage of the responses here are of the form Indian work is cheap and crap. Sorry, I don't but that. Indians, Chinese, whatever are as capable as anyone else and to say otherwise is self-deluding and offensive.
There's the "We got to the moon first, so we must be better" argument. But that ignores the fact that 99.9% of engineers in the USA had nothing to do with that.
That pair of shoes made in the Phillipines could have been made in USA too. So could that ipod, phone etc made in China. Every time you buy a foreign made product you're helping write a US factory worker's pink slip.
It's easy to bitch when you're losing out, but look at the bugger picture. Why should highly paid tech workers feel they should have protection yet are willing to let factory workers get screwed so that they can enjoy low-cost products?
Cons: Only one phone could have a conversation at a time since the copper is shared. Needs seperate ring patterns so you know who needs to answer.
Pros: You can answer your phone if visiting next door if they're on the same party line. You can make "local calls" to others on the party line without going through the exchange.
I am not suggesting that it is better to leave bugs unfixed.
What I am saying is that fixing bugs has a possibility of making benign bugs go live. Thus, fixed software needs to be well tested to ensure that nothing else was broken in the exercise.
This means that the cost of fixing bugs can be quite high and often companies need to prioritise or batch up bug testing to make sure that bug fix releases are good.
There's a myth that if the patents are listed then programmers will be able to work around them. This is sometimes the case, but not always.
Consider the MS FAT file system patent. There is no way you can work around the patent and still provide FAT functionality (required to work with cards from cameras etc.). For such patents there are three choices (i) Keep infringing, (ii) pull support or (iii) challenge the patent and get it overturned. With these types of patent, MS will have to weigh up whether it is worth exposing their patents to challenge, especially since many of the claims are probably quite unlikely to succeed.
fixing a bug causing a known issue can also fix several unknown issues
Just as often the reverse applies. A bug often shadows other bugs. Take away the main bug and there's just another right behind it which might even be worse. This is why you don't just "shoot from the hip" when fixing bugs.
Everything in the media is driven by its ability to attract eyeballs. Eyeballs == paying viewers/readers and advertising dollars. This means that accuracy is very low in priority and entertainment value is much higher. Even "hard news" and photos (The camera can't lie, but zooming and cropping can) gets spun to be more dramatic/whatever to attract those eyeballs.
Boring but technically correct writers will not attract eyeballs and will not get published.
In cave man times there was far less scope to come up with good excuses: "Sorry I'm late honey. There was a mammoth stampede. Then the rock/stick broke and the boss needed it fixed by sundown". How many times can you get away with that?
Now you can blame electricity, computers, and needing to meet deadlines for international customers. You can roll out a new excuse every day and never get to the end.
This looks like a variant on behavior-based robotics. Instead of just prioritising behavior on sensed conditions, it also prioritises based on expected conditions.
Currently robots really struggle with making good judgement calls. Behvior-based systems only go so far, perhaps this will go one step further.
One way this technology could be used is to pay per view. ie. Freelance advertisers put up display ads and get paid per view. A bit like Google ads in the physical world.
I have 20+ years in the industry and have been through a few flat patches too. I'd hardly call that "a lifetime". Your life is far from over yet. There are a few 70+ year old programmers out there doing cool stuff. Being washed up is a state of mind and has nothing to do with physical age.
I agree with parent. Don't get a Vista wife (eyecandy and heartache) etc.
Find some other way to work through your flat patch. This might be industry related (eg. learning a new programming language etc) or it might be completely different (tapdancing, fly fishing, photographing butterflies...). If you're unfit, do something about it. Some degree of fitness really helps too.
That's just the point. If you remove copyright law, then there is no "forced contract", as you term it. This means that you would not be able to openly publish code and still retain rights over it (as you can with copyright). You'd only be able to publish that code within a controlled environment where all participants were bound by the "copyright contract". In essence you have just recreated a society with copyright law. In countries with no copyright law, the GPL is essentially null and void, until you try ship derived works back into a country with copyright law..
The murder analogy is a good one. Imagine if murder was just limited by a regular contract rather than a law. If you didn't sign the contract then you could kill anybody, for any reason and not get punished. People would soon feel unsafe and enter into closed communities where you'e have to sign the murder contract to become a member.
And that is going to be Open Source? How? Requiring signatures and, essentially, NDAs, would make this not at all like the GPL. It makes the code private.
You'd end up essentially saying "You are obliged to both freely distribute this code and keep it secret" which seems a bit of a challenge. Frankly I think your idea is broken.
It is only copyright law that allows us to publish the code and defines the terms of use at a level that suites the copyright holder. This allows us to have various licenses.
Without copyright the writer has no rights and there are only two levels: secret (proprietary) and published (BSDL-like use as you wish).
The difference between BSDL and GPL is that GPL forces other (linked) code into the open. You need some sort of property rights (ie copyright) to stake a claim on your code and assert this bargaining power. With no copyright you would not have rights and thus not have the bargaining power and GPL would be dead.
When OSS teams "reinvent the wheel", they are doing it because the existing wheels don't do something that is required. Yes, sometimes OSS projects sets out to replicate the functionality of a different OSS project - sometimes intentionally, but typically because they are not aware of eachother, but these quickly whither and die or amalgamate. This tends to make OSS far more efficient and is better for the customer. Commercial teams just need to reinvent to get to exactly the same state as their competitors. This means that there is less output for the same amount of effort.
I quote Linux file systems because these are a good demonstration of richness and diversity. The different Linux file systems exist because each have their merits (compression, speed, robustness, flash memory...). Those that don't serve a purpose, and are just "me-too" soon disappear with no more effort being wasted on them. There are far fewer commercial file systems available and many of those are just in-house variants of FAT. In other words, many teams have just built something the same. What a waste of effort.
Slashdot Mirror
The latest MS vs Linux FUDding is very widely reported in the popular media. Perhaps that's triggering another run of this behavior through various industries.
There's the "We got to the moon first, so we must be better" argument. But that ignores the fact that 99.9% of engineers in the USA had nothing to do with that.
It's easy to bitch when you're losing out, but look at the bugger picture. Why should highly paid tech workers feel they should have protection yet are willing to let factory workers get screwed so that they can enjoy low-cost products?
The little cap where you blow into broke off and now she doesn't inflate properly. Damn will have to go buy another.
Cons: Only one phone could have a conversation at a time since the copper is shared. Needs seperate ring patterns so you know who needs to answer.
Pros: You can answer your phone if visiting next door if they're on the same party line. You can make "local calls" to others on the party line without going through the exchange.
What I am saying is that fixing bugs has a possibility of making benign bugs go live. Thus, fixed software needs to be well tested to ensure that nothing else was broken in the exercise.
This means that the cost of fixing bugs can be quite high and often companies need to prioritise or batch up bug testing to make sure that bug fix releases are good.
Consider the MS FAT file system patent. There is no way you can work around the patent and still provide FAT functionality (required to work with cards from cameras etc.). For such patents there are three choices (i) Keep infringing, (ii) pull support or (iii) challenge the patent and get it overturned. With these types of patent, MS will have to weigh up whether it is worth exposing their patents to challenge, especially since many of the claims are probably quite unlikely to succeed.
Just as often the reverse applies. A bug often shadows other bugs. Take away the main bug and there's just another right behind it which might even be worse. This is why you don't just "shoot from the hip" when fixing bugs.
Boring but technically correct writers will not attract eyeballs and will not get published.
Now you can blame electricity, computers, and needing to meet deadlines for international customers. You can roll out a new excuse every day and never get to the end.
What a country.
start 'em young
Zune... still crap!
Currently robots really struggle with making good judgement calls. Behvior-based systems only go so far, perhaps this will go one step further.
One way this technology could be used is to pay per view. ie. Freelance advertisers put up display ads and get paid per view. A bit like Google ads in the physical world.
Dark matter, dark stars.... next there will be dark light!
I agree with parent. Don't get a Vista wife (eyecandy and heartache) etc.
Find some other way to work through your flat patch. This might be industry related (eg. learning a new programming language etc) or it might be completely different (tapdancing, fly fishing, photographing butterflies...). If you're unfit, do something about it. Some degree of fitness really helps too.
Telecommuting from the lawn chair is why wifi was invented.
The murder analogy is a good one. Imagine if murder was just limited by a regular contract rather than a law. If you didn't sign the contract then you could kill anybody, for any reason and not get punished. People would soon feel unsafe and enter into closed communities where you'e have to sign the murder contract to become a member.
You'd end up essentially saying "You are obliged to both freely distribute this code and keep it secret" which seems a bit of a challenge. Frankly I think your idea is broken.
It is only copyright law that allows us to publish the code and defines the terms of use at a level that suites the copyright holder. This allows us to have various licenses.
Without copyright the writer has no rights and there are only two levels: secret (proprietary) and published (BSDL-like use as you wish).
Don't leave out our furry friends!
The difference between BSDL and GPL is that GPL forces other (linked) code into the open. You need some sort of property rights (ie copyright) to stake a claim on your code and assert this bargaining power. With no copyright you would not have rights and thus not have the bargaining power and GPL would be dead.
Can't you just feel the freedom?
How do I make an online deposit?
Are there penalties for early withdrawal?
I quote Linux file systems because these are a good demonstration of richness and diversity. The different Linux file systems exist because each have their merits (compression, speed, robustness, flash memory...). Those that don't serve a purpose, and are just "me-too" soon disappear with no more effort being wasted on them. There are far fewer commercial file systems available and many of those are just in-house variants of FAT. In other words, many teams have just built something the same. What a waste of effort.