I'm not saying your complaints aren't valid, but the examples you use are fairly bad. I'm pretty sure both tomcat and subversion are available in the repos of all major distros. Example in ubuntu:
aptitude install subversion tomcat5.5
Do you have actual examples of "joe average" applications that are not available (things that could legally be available)?
Saying "Nokia uses browser X" doesn't really make your point since Nokia uses pretty much all major rendering engines in their products, including gecko...
Re:How about a count of the number of people who .
on
Thunderbird in Crisis?
·
· Score: 1
Why don't upgrade your Thunderbird instead of complaining here... "Order by date received" has been available for a couple of point releases.
Did you even follow the proceedings? The SCO case was totally based on dragging heels: They changed their story so many times I couldn't keep up and refused to show material they claimed to have. There's not a lot a judge can do, but go along and let them strangle themselves with all that rope...
If Lyons had asked anyone "skilled in the art" (meaning unix, not law) in the beginning he would have found out that there probably was no real technical merit to the case. He decided not to do that.
During the case the groklaw and other gathered a mass of evidence showing the exact same thing. He decided not to consider the evidence.
If Lyons had asked anyone with any clue in the last 18 months, he would have found out SCO is the laughing stock of the industry. He decided not to do this.
The guy was not just wrong. In this case he failed his job as a journalist miserably for three years.
If I link to an active server that serves up the same source code I used to build the binaries I have used some (any) kind of propagation that enables them to make or receive copies.
Read the GPL FAQs if the license text is not clear enough for you. You _do_ have an obligation to supply the source code. How you decide to do that is up to you, "hosting a server" is not required... But it's clear that relying on upstream is not enough.
It looks like you have a real agenda in this discussion... I didn't even mention Asus, why on earth would I need to explain their pricing? I was just trying to say that "doubling in price" is not the whole truth here. Now that you brought up the Asus: it seems their pricing is changing just like the OLPCs.
RMS has his goals and aspirations, and is also somewhat of extremist in his ideals, IMHO, where compromise is not in the vocabulary. For me a healthy eco-system is about balance and compromise and GPLv2 is offers much of that.
What you say may be true, but do remember that the whole idea of Free software and the GPL were also considered "extremist" when RMS first introduced them... Personally I'm glad he didn't compromise back then.
Re:What happened to all the apologists who said...
on
AMD To Open ATI Specs
·
· Score: 1
Exactly. The same thing happened with Java: "Why do you keep whining about freeing Java? Sun will never do it, so just shut up and be content with free-as-in-beer" was a very common attitude... I'm quite sure that the fact that Fedora and Debian refused to accept non-free Java had a serious impact there.
There are two points here: 1. The FLOSS community does have influence in these things. 2. Opening the source is seen as a viable business option in more and more situations as companies learn how it all works (remember, this is all fairly new).
Plus in the hey-day of MP3 player competition: Apple rolled out new models twice a year. I doubt that the iPhone won't be following the same aggressive product development cycle.
I'd estimate we're talking at least an order of magnitude more features and larger codebase... Keeping up with the Joneses will be a lot more difficult this time (remember that Nokia is a master in this game: they roll out new phones faster than anyone).
Some Windows users will no doubt refrain from using the software because they fear Google is invading their privacy. Some companies will not let their employees install the software because of infosec concerns. Why should Google write software for Windows when some users won't use it?
Once again I expect to get beaten to death by zealots moderators but I really don't care. Getting karma back on slashdot is really easy screaming a pair of "linuzz rocks" and "OMG MS copies Apple again", so I don't care getting modded down by expressing MY opinion, which is as valid as anyone elses.
...
Not a troll or flaimbait, but mod me so... I don't care. I can fake my stupid karma back. I've done so a houndred of times. Getting karma is easy. losing it by expressing a valid opinion is a honor,
Personally I think that even mentioning moderation ("I know I'll be modded down for this, but..") is pretty lame. You just spent half your post brooding over it.
There is a difference between complex and clearly obfuscated (and I did not use the term with exaggeration in mind), but you don't need to take it from me: Google will show that a lot of xorg/xfree86 developers agree.
I'll add another quote. This was added to the xfree86 sources after the initial nvidia upload:
After we already finalized XFree86-3.3.3 NVIDIA forced The XFree86 Project
to replace the sources we had with sources that were partly run through the
C preprocessor in order to remove some of the names that NVIDIA thought
might give away IP from NVIDIA. This resulted in unreadable and unmaintainable
code.
The XFree86 Project is strongly opposed to such obfuscated code. We do not
regard this as free software according to our standards. Due to the extremely
late date of this decision from NVIDIA we decided to include the code as
offered by NVIDIA. We are considering to remove support for the later NVIDIA
chips in a future release, though.
Take a look at just about any FOSS project and you will see that a few people do most of the work. Take the NV driver for example. It is FOSS and it still has bugs. Also take note that the NV driver is mostly maintained by NVidia.
Let me guess: you haven't looked at nv code or talked to anyone who has? It looks deliberately obfuscated and crippled -- let me quote one of the noveau project goals: "De-obfuscate the nv source". That should tell you why nv is still crap.
Way to shaft all the people who bet their business on your software, bub, by changing the license terms.
Like someone already pointed out, the license cannot change -- they can keep using the current software till the end of time, "bub". This is a _lot_ better than the License Agreements included with most proprietary software.
Of course, in reality it won't come to that. Prediction: if the GPL3 comes out the way RMS has been saying it will, Ubuntu, IBM and others will fork the GNU system in a heartbeat
You are really out of touch with reality. Ubuntu or IBM have had no real complaints (if you really need proof to realize that, see e.g. http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1507). The whole GPLv3 process has been very open to community influence: the FSF have made quite a few changes to the drafts when they've been asked to -- this is evident in the change of mind Linus had about the drafts.
But hey, if you really do believe GNU will be forked if GPLv3 comes out looking like the current drafts, I'm ready to bet on that. How about a bottle of good cognac?
Eolas would be the prime example, I guess. Microsoft had to pay over half a billion in damages and spent 6 years in court over it. Oh, by the way: in the end they did "just yank the the code": they made changes in IE that probably caused website re-design expenses at tens of thousands Microsoft clients...
All this was because they used a pretty insignificant piece of "technology". Imagine this happening on a more crucial part of the Windows infrastructure.
I don't speak for the parent, this is just my comment: Let's look at the two terms:
1. Linux -- refers to just the kernel
2. GNU/Linux -- refers to linux+GNU toolset
Neither of these is a good name for what Microsoft is referring to (the unnamed linux-based desktop operating system, including all applications). Can you please explain why you think GNU/Linux is a descriptive name for it?
It'd be akin to me firmly disputing that a DOS word processor is far superior to any sort of modern word processor.
Of course, for that comparison to be valid, "a DOS word processor" would have to be immensely more powerful and useful in various situations than the modern one.
The analogy could only be better if it was about cars...
Outlook 2007 is now fully compatible with iCalendar.
Does that include writing as well as reading nowadays? Some years ago, when I did some work on Mozilla Calendar importers, the situation was more like one-way-compatibility: The iCalendar support was adviertized but getting iCalendar-format, or in fact anything remotely useful, out of Outlook required third-party tools, guess-work or violence.
Ohhhhhhh, you want it to start when the computer boots? No problem. Just set it that way in the proper location. Which location? Well, you're using RedHat, so instead of the 4 other ways you set it up before in other distros, in this case you'll have to rename a file somewhere. Got it? Cool.
What? In order to setup a web server on an operating system, you need to understand the basics of administering the OS? Outrageous, I say. I'll just stay with Windows.
Water does not stop bullets no matter how you slice the Method.
You keep saying that. Do intend to imply that the Mythbusters episode is faked? It pretty clearly shows that some bullets at some velocities seem to have serious problems going through the surface...
Speaking of that: You seem to have some misunderstanding of their conclusions: They specifically stated that high-velocity weapons seemed to have problems penetrating the surface, not that 3 feet of water will keep you safe from any gun.
Their testing seemed pretty good to me (not exactly scientific, but enough to warrant the claim "supersonic bullets in general do not seem to be effective after a few feet in water"), and you have so far provided zero evidence to the contrary. Come on, why just say "there are other arguments as well" -- if you know about some evidence, please link to it and don't just weasel out...
Slashdot Mirror
Saying "Nokia uses browser X" doesn't really make your point since Nokia uses pretty much all major rendering engines in their products, including gecko...
Why don't upgrade your Thunderbird instead of complaining here... "Order by date received" has been available for a couple of point releases.
If Lyons had asked anyone "skilled in the art" (meaning unix, not law) in the beginning he would have found out that there probably was no real technical merit to the case. He decided not to do that.
During the case the groklaw and other gathered a mass of evidence showing the exact same thing. He decided not to consider the evidence.
If Lyons had asked anyone with any clue in the last 18 months, he would have found out SCO is the laughing stock of the industry. He decided not to do this.
The guy was not just wrong. In this case he failed his job as a journalist miserably for three years.
It looks like you have a real agenda in this discussion... I didn't even mention Asus, why on earth would I need to explain their pricing? I was just trying to say that "doubling in price" is not the whole truth here. Now that you brought up the Asus: it seems their pricing is changing just like the OLPCs.
There are two points here: 1. The FLOSS community does have influence in these things. 2. Opening the source is seen as a viable business option in more and more situations as companies learn how it all works (remember, this is all fairly new).
You know, distinguishing those two is not trivial...
Some Windows users will no doubt refrain from using the software because they fear Google is invading their privacy. Some companies will not let their employees install the software because of infosec concerns. Why should Google write software for Windows when some users won't use it?
I'll add another quote. This was added to the xfree86 sources after the initial nvidia upload:
But hey, if you really do believe GNU will be forked if GPLv3 comes out looking like the current drafts, I'm ready to bet on that. How about a bottle of good cognac?
All this was because they used a pretty insignificant piece of "technology". Imagine this happening on a more crucial part of the Windows infrastructure.
Of course, the list would have to exist for that to be possible.
1. Linux -- refers to just the kernel
2. GNU/Linux -- refers to linux+GNU toolset
Neither of these is a good name for what Microsoft is referring to (the unnamed linux-based desktop operating system, including all applications). Can you please explain why you think GNU/Linux is a descriptive name for it?
This is a really good idea. The system could even take care of all the security upgrades for all of those installed packages!
The analogy could only be better if it was about cars...
Sorry, forgot to set the sarcasm bit in my post ;)
Speaking of that: You seem to have some misunderstanding of their conclusions: They specifically stated that high-velocity weapons seemed to have problems penetrating the surface, not that 3 feet of water will keep you safe from any gun.
Their testing seemed pretty good to me (not exactly scientific, but enough to warrant the claim "supersonic bullets in general do not seem to be effective after a few feet in water"), and you have so far provided zero evidence to the contrary. Come on, why just say "there are other arguments as well" -- if you know about some evidence, please link to it and don't just weasel out...