Governments and businesses want service and support. They are unlikely to purchase any software without it. So take a look at Redhat for example. Their price charts are confusing and horribly laid out, but as near as I can figure, for Redhat Desktop Linux they are charging $13,500 (US) for '50 desktop entitlements'. That's $270 each. How does that represent a savings over Windows?
That's a non-issue. I am sure that if the people want support for some piece of free software, some company will provide it. It may not necessarely be Red Hat, a local Free Software business will do.
Maybe the OSS model doesn't produce the best software in the planet. Firefox has had its share of the vulnerabilities and Windows is catching up on usability and things. If the OSS model doesn't give the best results in terms of quality then maybe we should start promoting freedom, not the "superior" development model.
Unfortunatly, most of the general public has no use for these freedoms, since they're not software developers.
The public has use for these freedoms. They can hire developers to code specific enhancements to the free software they use and they can freely share the software without any fear of the owner of the rights interfering. Is the right to speak public "no use" if you don't exercise that right? I don't think so.
. For projection that, for example, is based on a CD that autolaunches DRM software, users can reasonably argue that they didn't even realize there was protection (they use Mac or Linux, or have autolaunch turned off or something).
IMHO "restrictions" would be a better word then "protection". Only a very small number of people benefit from Digital Restrictions Management. For others it is just something restricting what they can do with the art they have bought. "Protection" really is one of the words the big media wants you to use. DRM is for their "protection", not yours.
Wouldn't that seem to be prior art for a copyright granted in 2005?
It is a patent, not a copyright. Maybe if we wrote thing using their real names and not some "IP" shit the general public might understand the differences.
41 Jesus sat down opposite the treasury, and saw how the multitude cast money into the treasury. Many who were rich cast in much.
42 A poor widow came, and she cast in two small brass coins, which equal a quadrans coin.
43 He called his disciples to himself, and said to them, "Most assuredly I tell you, this poor widow gave more than all those who are giving into the treasury,
44 for they all gave out of their abundance, but she, out of her poverty, gave all that she had to live on."
Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity."
What is this "linux community". Aren't the people using other kernels included? "Free and/or OSS community/ies" would be more accurate. Unless they mean the Linux developers, which I doubt. Kernels are not important, the idea of free software is.
They've done a very good thing for linux here. I say ta very much to them.
If they had bought a royalty free license for all the free software using mp3 out there then I would thank them. Buying a license for ones proprietary software package isn't a contribution, it is only a business decision.
Which is incidentally something RMS has so far been unable to do.
The Hurd exists and is usable today.
While I respect the GNU people for GCC and the GPL, I don't consider the rest of the necessary stuff as all that difficult to write: libc and the unix utilities.
The name "GNU/Linux is not only about those fundamental parts of the OS but about the fact that GNU was first to have the idea of a completely free operating system. That idea has come true in GNU+Linux.
Its why Linus Torvalds could later sow the seeds of an operating system built by volunteers that would challenge that multi-billion dollar company.
It was actually Richard Stallman who did that. Linus only coded a kernel and connected all the pieces together, GNU+Linux. Now I shall wait the/. modbots to mod me -1 troll.
Unless of course you mean that Mr. Cohen should have either patented or claimed copyright on the BT protocol itself which is (to say the least) very much against the spirit of the GPL.
The turning point for Linux will only come when desktop Linux users become willing to pay money for software on linux; non Open Source software at that.
Why would it be good for the users of a Free operating system to make themselves freewillingly again the slaves of the proprietary software makers? This may sound trollish but the whole idea which brought us the GNU/Linux operating system is the idea of freedom and cooperation which the proprietors want to deny. I myself will never buy any of your non-free or others' non-free software licenses but I'm happy to pay for free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Governments and businesses want service and support. They are unlikely to purchase any software without it. So take a look at Redhat for example. Their price charts are confusing and horribly laid out, but as near as I can figure, for Redhat Desktop Linux they are charging $13,500 (US) for '50 desktop entitlements'. That's $270 each. How does that represent a savings over Windows?
That's a non-issue. I am sure that if the people want support for some piece of free software, some company will provide it. It may not necessarely be Red Hat, a local Free Software business will do.
One of the reasons for not counting application programs as part of the OS but rather as part of the distribution is that you can replace them.
:>.
But GNU is an essential part of the core OS. Stallman isn't telling you to call the OS Stallmanix
And M$ isn't even accountable when the shit hits the fan.
Maybe the OSS model doesn't produce the best software in the planet. Firefox has had its share of the vulnerabilities and Windows is catching up on usability and things. If the OSS model doesn't give the best results in terms of quality then maybe we should start promoting freedom, not the "superior" development model.
Grow up a little and accept that non-Stallman software can be a good thing for the platform.
It may be good for the popularity of the platform but not for the cause of freedom. Freedom is more important than popularity.
But the "Linux operating system" name is commonly used for the combination of GNU+Linux.
Unfortunatly, most of the general public has no use for these freedoms, since they're not software developers.
The public has use for these freedoms. They can hire developers to code specific enhancements to the free software they use and they can freely share the software without any fear of the owner of the rights interfering. Is the right to speak public "no use" if you don't exercise that right? I don't think so.
. For projection that, for example, is based on a CD that autolaunches DRM software, users can reasonably argue that they didn't even realize there was protection (they use Mac or Linux, or have autolaunch turned off or something).
IMHO "restrictions" would be a better word then "protection". Only a very small number of people benefit from Digital Restrictions Management. For others it is just something restricting what they can do with the art they have bought. "Protection" really is one of the words the big media wants you to use. DRM is for their "protection", not yours.
I use operating systems which don't bundle non-free software in their browser installations.
Since the beginning.
I'm all for "making a living" with software as long as the author doesn't want to enslave its users.
That would force the users to use non-free software which is a bad thing. I don't have any flash and never will have.
It's also non-free. Please don't force users to use non-free software to watch your videos.
Wouldn't that seem to be prior art for a copyright granted in 2005?
It is a patent, not a copyright. Maybe if we wrote thing using their real names and not some "IP" shit the general public might understand the differences.
GNU/Hurd or *BSD. And maybe people in such a case would have associated their operating system with freedom, not with open source.
[WEB] Mark 12:41
41 Jesus sat down opposite the treasury, and saw how the multitude cast money into the treasury. Many who were rich cast in much. 42 A poor widow came, and she cast in two small brass coins, which equal a quadrans coin. 43 He called his disciples to himself, and said to them, "Most assuredly I tell you, this poor widow gave more than all those who are giving into the treasury, 44 for they all gave out of their abundance, but she, out of her poverty, gave all that she had to live on."
Let's see if the Linux community can match his generosity."
What is this "linux community". Aren't the people using other kernels included? "Free and/or OSS community/ies" would be more accurate. Unless they mean the Linux developers, which I doubt. Kernels are not important, the idea of free software is.
But it doesn't contribute to the cause of freedom.
The emergence of MP3 players has been built on the availability of terrabytes of stolen material being circulated.
Have you read the 1984?
newspeak n : deliberately ambiguous and contradictiory language use to mislead and manipulate the public; "the welfare state brought its own newspeak"
This is what you are doing.
They've done a very good thing for linux here. I say ta very much to them.
If they had bought a royalty free license for all the free software using mp3 out there then I would thank them. Buying a license for ones proprietary software package isn't a contribution, it is only a business decision.
Which is incidentally something RMS has so far been unable to do.
The Hurd exists and is usable today.
While I respect the GNU people for GCC and the GPL, I don't consider the rest of the necessary stuff as all that difficult to write: libc and the unix utilities.
The name "GNU/Linux is not only about those fundamental parts of the OS but about the fact that GNU was first to have the idea of a completely free operating system. That idea has come true in GNU+Linux.
RMS has said many times that he represents Free Software, not open source. If you read something he has written you would probably understand.
Its why Linus Torvalds could later sow the seeds of an operating system built by volunteers that would challenge that multi-billion dollar company.
/. modbots to mod me -1 troll.
It was actually Richard Stallman who did that. Linus only coded a kernel and connected all the pieces together, GNU+Linux. Now I shall wait the
Unless of course you mean that Mr. Cohen should have either patented or claimed copyright on the BT protocol itself which is (to say the least) very much against the spirit of the GPL.
Protocols can't be copyrighted.
The turning point for Linux will only come when desktop Linux users become willing to pay money for software on linux; non Open Source software at that.
Why would it be good for the users of a Free operating system to make themselves freewillingly again the slaves of the proprietary software makers? This may sound trollish but the whole idea which brought us the GNU/Linux operating system is the idea of freedom and cooperation which the proprietors want to deny. I myself will never buy any of your non-free or others' non-free software licenses but I'm happy to pay for free software.