The heart of open-source software has been tarnished by these large corporations that use it to play "price point" wars with each other
I don't understand your statement. Perhaps to you open source is about writing software simply because you love writing code but that certainly isn't the founding principal that got this ball rolling. Open Source is about freedom It is about the freedom to do what you want with your code (even sell it or be paid to write it) and it is about your customers freedom to use it as they need or see fit. Not one of the OSS licenses even hints that the software should be free -- even idealy. In fact, the GPL actually addresses the "do I have to give my software away" because the authors knew it would come up. The answer? No, you don't.
To be totally honest here I think the current movement of people who demand OSS be free and that OSS developers don't get paid or it's not "true OSS". Bull! There is nothing at all corrupt or wrong about making money off of OSS code. How can we rave about "OSS is about freedom" and then complain when someone excercises that freedom in a way we don't like BUT is in no way incompatible? We can't.
Yeah yeah yeah we KNOW you're at effin' JPL, and we know you wrote some code. Please try some humility
Oh come on now: don't be jealous just because some people are living a dream that most of us have had at some point. Personally, I think the people at JPL have a LOT to be proud of and even have a right to boast a little. They are fast becoming the new Columbus'
The fact that Linus has Windows loaded on his laptop along with Linux is a blatant example of the fact that LINUX IS NOT COMPLETELY READY FOR MAINSTREAM. Maybe, Linus should be using his laptop without Windows before he declares 2004 the "year of the linux desktop".
I think that, as an OS, Linux is completely ready for the desktop and even has enough consumer ready applications to satisfy the average desktop user who does things like email, surf the web, a few file transfers, etc. But the main problems with Linux have less to do with the availability of application than it does to do with the availablillity of specific commercial applications on the platform. Users don't like having to learn new things. Making the jump from Windows to Linux is a big change in their lives then they are told "Oh, by the way: few of the applications you've used for the past 15 years will be available to you on Linux. You'll have to learn the alternatives". In many cases, those alternatives are just as good or nearly as good as their Windows counterparts. But it's still having to learn something new.
I don't think we're going to really see the "year of desktop Linux" until 1) More Windows-centric vendors begin releasing Linux versions of their software so the transition is eased, 2) There is more parity between Linux distro's, or 3) Open Source developers stop the "I'm developing to scratch my own itch" type of thinking and start thinking about enhancing the community as a whole and writing software because it needs to be written even if they don't have a stake in it. Then, I believe we will start to see widespread adoption of Linux at the consumer level. But it's going to take a little while. We own the server. We're reaching the desktop.
Looking for a great open source license that is business friendly? Check out the Consumer Public Access License at www.safferconsulting.com/capl.htm
What's the deal with all this anti-money stuff? Everytime someone tries to make money in open source they are villified and demonized by the community. But what is so wrong about this? Is it really fair to expect a company to invest money (quite a bit of money) in research, development, marketing, etc and then NOT want to make money for their efforts?
It just amazes me to keep seeing this anti-money attitude in the oss community. Open source isn't about giving away software. It's about freedom. This confusion is one of the main reasons I think that it should not be referred to as "free software" -- it fosters an uninformed and misdirected belief that if someone doesn't give their work away then it's wrong. It's not people. Get over it. MandrakeSoft is a strong supporter of open source and I, for one, hope they do survive and become profitable.
None of what you've said in your email bares any resembelence to reality. What Outlook features take away control of your PC? How is MS going to "patent" your messages when patents aren't for the written word (it's copyright) and our copyright laws are strongly against this sort of thing.
Come into reality and out of the "I hate Microsoft and everything they do simply because they exist" mode. Microsoft has some problems with both their software and their business model. But not "everything" they do is sinister. Sheesh.
I've always liked the idea of Microsoft using the BSD kernel in Windows and focusing on the GUI. It would bring automatic system stability and security, and they could focus on the one thing they do very well: GUI development.
The only thing that could present a problem is that they would still have to implement nearly the entire Win32 API into the GUI to support the applications that are already out there. You'd end up with a HUGE system. How would you suggest they handle that?
I know that the hardcore zealot Microsoft haters are going to see something sinister in this survey I'd like to put forth another view on this. I'm sure it won't be popular and I'm sure someone's going to try to be a smartass about it. So be it.
Consider that Microsoft is a corporation and as such their goal (and their responsibility to their shareholders) is to increase revenue. Over the past several years -- and especially since Linux has become a serious contender in the OS field -- Microsoft has slowly been losing market share (read: revenue) to what it sees as a rogue platform that is primarily developed by idealogs and hobby programmers.
It would stand to reason that Microsoft wants to find out *why* so many of its customers are asking about -- and moving to -- Linux dispite all of the FUD and propaganda they've so artfully slung in recent times. They want to understand the competition, how it does things, and how it's getting things RIGHT that Microsoft has struggled with for so long (security, stability, etc). Yes, they will use this information to compete with Linux and make money. But there is nothing wrong with that. This silly belief that anyone who wants to make money writing and selling software is ridiculous. It's one of the reasons why those of us in the community are seen as zealots and idealogs. Microsoft should use whatever means it can (ethically, I mean and there is nothing unethical about research) to increase it's profit and effectively compete in the marketplace.
So I think that, if Microsoft is in any way involved in this survey, it's a good thing. Yes, they will use the information to their advantage. But to use that information to their advantage will mean making Windows more secure, more stable, etc. That is, in no way, a bad thing. If the community really IS interested in choice as it claims then that also means supporting the "choice" of those who choose Windows (for whatever reason) over Linux. If Linux is as good as we all say (which I thin it is) then it will still win out in the end.
How do we know Microsoft isn't just taking code from linux and integrating it into windows?
We don't. In fact, there was this very allegation a few years ago (along with some supporting proof) made by a group of developers. I don't think it ever went anywhere though.
Is there ANY way to tell if open source apps (not just linux) are becoming integrated into the windows codebase?
I don't think so. Even similar behaviour within the software isn't reasonable enough proof. But again, a few years ago there were some interesting things. Like a BSOD that referenced "/dev/null" LOL. Personally, I think they are integrating OSS code into their software and that is one of the reasons they don't want to open the code up.
I've just run into a very similar situation with some other Microsoft software that seems to have been totally abandoned: Frontpage Express.
I am designing a documents management system using Perl, MySQL, and RedHat Linux 7.3 for the youth detention and treatment facility that my wife works at. While I would loved to have brought then 100% of the way to Linux, they conceded only to allow Linux on the server but insisted on keeping Windows on the desktop (a mix of 98/2000/XP). To save myself some coding, I decided to let them use Frontpage Express to create their new documents and forms then I could just parse the HTML and automatically update the database with the new information thereby saving me having to run out to the place every time they needed to add a new form. To save time, and avoid them using something too complicated for them, I figured I'd just install Frontpage Express on all of the desktops. So I called Microsoft to ask about licensing...
The person I spoke to didn't even know what Frontpage Express was and argued that there was never any such product shipped with any Microsoft operating system. He insisted that I was calling the wrong company BUT suggested that I purchase and install the full-blown Frontpage 2003 package. I again explained that these people didn't *need* that extensive of software and were only going to be creating HTML forms -- nothing more. I was then told that I might want to consider MS Site Server. Site Server? Ummm, why? Isn't that a server, I ask? Well, yes, they explained but it will allow them do display their forms (forms they have no ability to create as of yet, mind you) very simply.
Next, I switch gears and asked "How about I just install a copy of FP Express on each desktop". Absolutely not! The tech screamed. That was Microsoft property -- property he wasn't even aware they owned -- and I couldn't simply bundle it with my own stuff. How about buying it, I pleaded? Nope, can't do that because we don't sell it anymore. So I explained that they never DID sell it but that it came bundled with the OS to which I was told "how are we expected to place a monetary value on it to sell it to you then?"
This went on for nearly 25 minutes and, towards the end, I was actually thinking about switching my phone recorder on so I could share the fun over the Internet. It would have brought some chuckles to be sure. I say all of this to point out that there is no hope of Microsoft EVER "giving away" Windows 98 even years after they no longer support it. Their stances is that you should just upgrade. Too bad if you can't or don't really want to. We're a progressive company damnit!
Actually, a lot of states are passing laws that say a company cannot force you to use your SSN as an indentifying number due to the increasing cases of identity theft here in the United States. While this hasn't happened on a national scale yet, I do believe that we will see a time when SSN's *are* protected by privacy laws.
I can see this being a great "live" email harvesting tool for some spammers. Setup a spamhole and just sit back and collect the addresses that other spammers try to send to. A good majority of the addresses will be good and you don't even have to waste time harvesting. This could be a windfall for technically savvy spammers with a little time to waste. Good God. Here we go again...
Linux, Wine, gcc, Mozilla. They all took, or are taking, a very long time to develop
I suppose that is one of the catch-22's in the open source world: if you get developers to volunteer their time and work for free then you have to tolerate the long delays in project completion and updates. But, you get a better finished product -- assuming you have decent programmers working on it -- because the programmers are personally involved with it and have a personal stake in the finished product. OTOH, if you PAY developers to work on open source projects you get faster development, faster upgrades, etc but a sometimes lesser quality finished product because many tmes the developers simply don't care. They have nothing to lose. I think the open source community needs to find a good balance between the two. That will be one of the biggest challenges yet to confront the community and that will be a major milestone in our maturation.
I never thought in 2003 that engineers would be working for mega-corporations for free.
Where are engineers working for "mega-corporations" for free? Last I checked, people who worked for big companies are payed -- and often payed well -- for their work be it in the closed source world or open source world.
If you're talking about people writing software and giving it away under the GPL thereby allowing companies to exploit their work for profit well, that's a different story. But I still don't think these independent developers are "working for" the company. They are working for themselves and it just happens that corporations see and exploit the value of their work.
Hobbyists and hackers used to own the PC workspace; it is long past time we took it back. Cards and letters and complaints won't get the job done. Get involved, contribute your time, learn what needs to be done: that's what will get the job done
Actually, I think there needs to be a combination of both. Everyone that buys a LinuxBIOS based MB should drop a quick postcard to Phoenix letting them know *why* you've chosen to do so instead of purchasing their product. If everyone who chooses an alternative tells them why there is really no way they can spin it.
While what he did was wrong, what the company was doing was not better or justified. Behavior which pushes a person to unreasonable behavior is a crime per se
What they did is no better? So now, sending spam is equal to threatening to torture or murder someone?
What Mr. Booker did was illegal and wholly unjustified. He overreacted for whatever reason (I doubt it's solely because he got a lot of spam and suspect there's a lot more going on) and now he has to pay for his actions. He is, after all, an adult and adults are still responsible for what they do and how they react to situations.
We've all gotten frustrated from getting spam. Most of us have gotten frustrated enough to issue threats against the spammer. But really, how many of us actually do that? Surprisingly few. Why? Because we know it won't solve anything and we know it's illegal. It's called "impulse control". While I can sympathize with Mr. Bookers plight, I can't see how anyone can say what he did was justified or what the company did was "equally wrong". That, my friends, is just pure and utter rubbish.
During the high times of the dot com bubble a lot of employers tried to make their people sign silly contracts that said they would all but leave the industry if they were no longer working for CompanyX. They, like undoubtedly Blockbuster found or or will find out, couldn't enforce them when nuts came to bolts. IANAL, but if I remember correctly, a contract that forces you to leave an industry or substantially hinders your abillity to get employment in your industry is unenforcable.
Why not take it a step further and make people have to be certified in order to purchase a PC. Maybe make them show they know how to use firewalls, IDS's, tracing tools, patching systems, etc before they are allowed to own one. Those that are caught owning a PC without a license would be severely fined and have their computer impounded until they got certified.
You're right: OSS isn't as "robust" as most commercial alternatives. But that's not a bad thing. Most of the "robustness" of commercial software comes in the form of bells and whistles that most people will never ever use. OTOH, most OSS products focus on delivering the most widely used features to the people who use them most. What good is having a robust 12,000 feature software package when most people use less than 100 of those features?
IMHO, Linux as an OS is more than ready for the desktop. It used to be that people would say that "Linux will never be ready for the desktop until we can play games on it". Well, with the recent develops in the Wine project, that is a reality or a very near reality. Need a nice, slick GUI? The new KDE is definately ready for prime time. So what do I believe could push Linux even further towards desktop adoption? Precompiled Binaries.
The average user looks at all this great free software out there and think "this is GREAT!!" but then are faced with the reality of having to compile most of their own software. This isn't a big deal for the technically literate but for the newbie it can be quite a problem. Linux software developers need to come together and define a common standard for binary software distribution and then start offering both source and precompiled binaries of their software. If this simple step happens, I think we'll see a much quicker and widespread adoption of desktop Linux.
IANAL and I admit that I have yet to read the article. But at first glance, isn't this illegal? I know that a company can offer incentives to entice people to move to their platform but when you are paying people to move to ANY platform that borders on tort. I wonder if RedHat and IBM will run with this? This might be a way to really nail SCO. But then again, IANAL, so I wouldn't know for sure.
I'm not even sure that writing.Net programs for Windows is a future for anyone. Certainly nobody that I know, unless you count hobby projects.
Actually, there are a number of companies writing pro-level software using.NET. Jack Henry and Associates count? I certainly wouldn't consider them a "hobby" group or their software "hobby projects" and yet they are moving all of their major software to the.NET platform.
Remember the guy that tweaked Blaster and re-released it? He was scapegoated
He was? How so? Last I checked, willfully participating in a criminal act makes you a criminal. He was aware that what he was doing was illegal. He was aware (or could have made himself aware with some research if he wasn't) that there were stiff penalties for what he was doing. He chose to do it anyway. Ergo, he chose to accept the consequences for his actions by choosing to do it in the first place. No scapegoat there. He deserved jail time.
Are you smoking something we should know about? While I am no fan of Microsoft, I think this post takes anti-Microsoftness to a whole new and silly level. Whether you'd like to admit it or not, there ARE limits to free speech. You're not free to run into a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!" just to prove there are problems with the buildings evacuation procedures. You ARE however free to contact the building owner and show them the problems. This is no different.
The premise that virus and worm writers are somehow doing something "good" by releasing their creations on the internet is a belief that is seriously flawed and totally silly. These people don't give a flip about "educating people" or "helping to demonstrate lax security in MS Windows". They care only about pissing people off and getting to give the virtual finger to Microsoft. If they *did* really care, they would spend their time writing and distributing protective software to the masses instead of useless crap.
Man, nobody's forcing you to do anything. It's a (relatively) free Internet. Just get another distro. Geez
I never said anyone *was* forcing anyone do to anything. I said they were trying. The fact that their efforts to do so doesn't really effect anyone just shows how absurd it really is to even try.
But aside from that, it's not always as easy as "just go get another distro". When GNU-Darwin does this, it's no big deal. But what if a company like RedHat decided to do so? Imagine the hassle and pain admins of stable production systems would have to go through to "just go get another distro".
While I understand that a lot of this software is designed by small teams and because of such personal beliefs, politics, etc are bound to creep in, I also realize that they have a responbsibillity to their users and THAT is of greater importance than than expressing their political views and trying to drag their users with them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand your statement. Perhaps to you open source is about writing software simply because you love writing code but that certainly isn't the founding principal that got this ball rolling. Open Source is about freedom It is about the freedom to do what you want with your code (even sell it or be paid to write it) and it is about your customers freedom to use it as they need or see fit. Not one of the OSS licenses even hints that the software should be free -- even idealy. In fact, the GPL actually addresses the "do I have to give my software away" because the authors knew it would come up. The answer? No, you don't.
To be totally honest here I think the current movement of people who demand OSS be free and that OSS developers don't get paid or it's not "true OSS". Bull! There is nothing at all corrupt or wrong about making money off of OSS code. How can we rave about "OSS is about freedom" and then complain when someone excercises that freedom in a way we don't like BUT is in no way incompatible? We can't.
Oh come on now: don't be jealous just because some people are living a dream that most of us have had at some point. Personally, I think the people at JPL have a LOT to be proud of and even have a right to boast a little. They are fast becoming the new Columbus'
...or you could download the source and add the features yourself. :-)
I think that, as an OS, Linux is completely ready for the desktop and even has enough consumer ready applications to satisfy the average desktop user who does things like email, surf the web, a few file transfers, etc. But the main problems with Linux have less to do with the availability of application than it does to do with the availablillity of specific commercial applications on the platform. Users don't like having to learn new things. Making the jump from Windows to Linux is a big change in their lives then they are told "Oh, by the way: few of the applications you've used for the past 15 years will be available to you on Linux. You'll have to learn the alternatives". In many cases, those alternatives are just as good or nearly as good as their Windows counterparts. But it's still having to learn something new.
I don't think we're going to really see the "year of desktop Linux" until 1) More Windows-centric vendors begin releasing Linux versions of their software so the transition is eased, 2) There is more parity between Linux distro's, or 3) Open Source developers stop the "I'm developing to scratch my own itch" type of thinking and start thinking about enhancing the community as a whole and writing software because it needs to be written even if they don't have a stake in it. Then, I believe we will start to see widespread adoption of Linux at the consumer level. But it's going to take a little while. We own the server. We're reaching the desktop.
Looking for a great open source license that is business friendly? Check out the Consumer Public Access License at www.safferconsulting.com/capl.htm
It just amazes me to keep seeing this anti-money attitude in the oss community. Open source isn't about giving away software. It's about freedom. This confusion is one of the main reasons I think that it should not be referred to as "free software" -- it fosters an uninformed and misdirected belief that if someone doesn't give their work away then it's wrong. It's not people. Get over it. MandrakeSoft is a strong supporter of open source and I, for one, hope they do survive and become profitable.
None of what you've said in your email bares any resembelence to reality. What Outlook features take away control of your PC? How is MS going to "patent" your messages when patents aren't for the written word (it's copyright) and our copyright laws are strongly against this sort of thing.
Come into reality and out of the "I hate Microsoft and everything they do simply because they exist" mode. Microsoft has some problems with both their software and their business model. But not "everything" they do is sinister. Sheesh.
The only thing that could present a problem is that they would still have to implement nearly the entire Win32 API into the GUI to support the applications that are already out there. You'd end up with a HUGE system. How would you suggest they handle that?
Consider that Microsoft is a corporation and as such their goal (and their responsibility to their shareholders) is to increase revenue. Over the past several years -- and especially since Linux has become a serious contender in the OS field -- Microsoft has slowly been losing market share (read: revenue) to what it sees as a rogue platform that is primarily developed by idealogs and hobby programmers.
It would stand to reason that Microsoft wants to find out *why* so many of its customers are asking about -- and moving to -- Linux dispite all of the FUD and propaganda they've so artfully slung in recent times. They want to understand the competition, how it does things, and how it's getting things RIGHT that Microsoft has struggled with for so long (security, stability, etc). Yes, they will use this information to compete with Linux and make money. But there is nothing wrong with that. This silly belief that anyone who wants to make money writing and selling software is ridiculous. It's one of the reasons why those of us in the community are seen as zealots and idealogs. Microsoft should use whatever means it can (ethically, I mean and there is nothing unethical about research) to increase it's profit and effectively compete in the marketplace.
So I think that, if Microsoft is in any way involved in this survey, it's a good thing. Yes, they will use the information to their advantage. But to use that information to their advantage will mean making Windows more secure, more stable, etc. That is, in no way, a bad thing. If the community really IS interested in choice as it claims then that also means supporting the "choice" of those who choose Windows (for whatever reason) over Linux. If Linux is as good as we all say (which I thin it is) then it will still win out in the end.
We don't. In fact, there was this very allegation a few years ago (along with some supporting proof) made by a group of developers. I don't think it ever went anywhere though.
Is there ANY way to tell if open source apps (not just linux) are becoming integrated into the windows codebase?
I don't think so. Even similar behaviour within the software isn't reasonable enough proof. But again, a few years ago there were some interesting things. Like a BSOD that referenced "/dev/null" LOL. Personally, I think they are integrating OSS code into their software and that is one of the reasons they don't want to open the code up.
I am designing a documents management system using Perl, MySQL, and RedHat Linux 7.3 for the youth detention and treatment facility that my wife works at. While I would loved to have brought then 100% of the way to Linux, they conceded only to allow Linux on the server but insisted on keeping Windows on the desktop (a mix of 98/2000/XP). To save myself some coding, I decided to let them use Frontpage Express to create their new documents and forms then I could just parse the HTML and automatically update the database with the new information thereby saving me having to run out to the place every time they needed to add a new form. To save time, and avoid them using something too complicated for them, I figured I'd just install Frontpage Express on all of the desktops. So I called Microsoft to ask about licensing...
The person I spoke to didn't even know what Frontpage Express was and argued that there was never any such product shipped with any Microsoft operating system. He insisted that I was calling the wrong company BUT suggested that I purchase and install the full-blown Frontpage 2003 package. I again explained that these people didn't *need* that extensive of software and were only going to be creating HTML forms -- nothing more. I was then told that I might want to consider MS Site Server. Site Server? Ummm, why? Isn't that a server, I ask? Well, yes, they explained but it will allow them do display their forms (forms they have no ability to create as of yet, mind you) very simply.
Next, I switch gears and asked "How about I just install a copy of FP Express on each desktop". Absolutely not! The tech screamed. That was Microsoft property -- property he wasn't even aware they owned -- and I couldn't simply bundle it with my own stuff. How about buying it, I pleaded? Nope, can't do that because we don't sell it anymore. So I explained that they never DID sell it but that it came bundled with the OS to which I was told "how are we expected to place a monetary value on it to sell it to you then?"
This went on for nearly 25 minutes and, towards the end, I was actually thinking about switching my phone recorder on so I could share the fun over the Internet. It would have brought some chuckles to be sure. I say all of this to point out that there is no hope of Microsoft EVER "giving away" Windows 98 even years after they no longer support it. Their stances is that you should just upgrade. Too bad if you can't or don't really want to. We're a progressive company damnit!
Tux
Actually, a lot of states are passing laws that say a company cannot force you to use your SSN as an indentifying number due to the increasing cases of identity theft here in the United States. While this hasn't happened on a national scale yet, I do believe that we will see a time when SSN's *are* protected by privacy laws.
I can see this being a great "live" email harvesting tool for some spammers. Setup a spamhole and just sit back and collect the addresses that other spammers try to send to. A good majority of the addresses will be good and you don't even have to waste time harvesting. This could be a windfall for technically savvy spammers with a little time to waste. Good God. Here we go again...
I suppose that is one of the catch-22's in the open source world: if you get developers to volunteer their time and work for free then you have to tolerate the long delays in project completion and updates. But, you get a better finished product -- assuming you have decent programmers working on it -- because the programmers are personally involved with it and have a personal stake in the finished product. OTOH, if you PAY developers to work on open source projects you get faster development, faster upgrades, etc but a sometimes lesser quality finished product because many tmes the developers simply don't care. They have nothing to lose. I think the open source community needs to find a good balance between the two. That will be one of the biggest challenges yet to confront the community and that will be a major milestone in our maturation.
Where are engineers working for "mega-corporations" for free? Last I checked, people who worked for big companies are payed -- and often payed well -- for their work be it in the closed source world or open source world.
If you're talking about people writing software and giving it away under the GPL thereby allowing companies to exploit their work for profit well, that's a different story. But I still don't think these independent developers are "working for" the company. They are working for themselves and it just happens that corporations see and exploit the value of their work.
Actually, I think there needs to be a combination of both. Everyone that buys a LinuxBIOS based MB should drop a quick postcard to Phoenix letting them know *why* you've chosen to do so instead of purchasing their product. If everyone who chooses an alternative tells them why there is really no way they can spin it.
What they did is no better? So now, sending spam is equal to threatening to torture or murder someone?
What Mr. Booker did was illegal and wholly unjustified. He overreacted for whatever reason (I doubt it's solely because he got a lot of spam and suspect there's a lot more going on) and now he has to pay for his actions. He is, after all, an adult and adults are still responsible for what they do and how they react to situations.
We've all gotten frustrated from getting spam. Most of us have gotten frustrated enough to issue threats against the spammer. But really, how many of us actually do that? Surprisingly few. Why? Because we know it won't solve anything and we know it's illegal. It's called "impulse control". While I can sympathize with Mr. Bookers plight, I can't see how anyone can say what he did was justified or what the company did was "equally wrong". That, my friends, is just pure and utter rubbish.
During the high times of the dot com bubble a lot of employers tried to make their people sign silly contracts that said they would all but leave the industry if they were no longer working for CompanyX. They, like undoubtedly Blockbuster found or or will find out, couldn't enforce them when nuts came to bolts. IANAL, but if I remember correctly, a contract that forces you to leave an industry or substantially hinders your abillity to get employment in your industry is unenforcable.
You're right: OSS isn't as "robust" as most commercial alternatives. But that's not a bad thing. Most of the "robustness" of commercial software comes in the form of bells and whistles that most people will never ever use. OTOH, most OSS products focus on delivering the most widely used features to the people who use them most. What good is having a robust 12,000 feature software package when most people use less than 100 of those features?
The average user looks at all this great free software out there and think "this is GREAT!!" but then are faced with the reality of having to compile most of their own software. This isn't a big deal for the technically literate but for the newbie it can be quite a problem. Linux software developers need to come together and define a common standard for binary software distribution and then start offering both source and precompiled binaries of their software. If this simple step happens, I think we'll see a much quicker and widespread adoption of desktop Linux.
IANAL and I admit that I have yet to read the article. But at first glance, isn't this illegal? I know that a company can offer incentives to entice people to move to their platform but when you are paying people to move to ANY platform that borders on tort. I wonder if RedHat and IBM will run with this? This might be a way to really nail SCO. But then again, IANAL, so I wouldn't know for sure.
Actually, there are a number of companies writing pro-level software using .NET. Jack Henry and Associates count? I certainly wouldn't consider them a "hobby" group or their software "hobby projects" and yet they are moving all of their major software to the .NET platform.
He was? How so? Last I checked, willfully participating in a criminal act makes you a criminal. He was aware that what he was doing was illegal. He was aware (or could have made himself aware with some research if he wasn't) that there were stiff penalties for what he was doing. He chose to do it anyway. Ergo, he chose to accept the consequences for his actions by choosing to do it in the first place. No scapegoat there. He deserved jail time.
The premise that virus and worm writers are somehow doing something "good" by releasing their creations on the internet is a belief that is seriously flawed and totally silly. These people don't give a flip about "educating people" or "helping to demonstrate lax security in MS Windows". They care only about pissing people off and getting to give the virtual finger to Microsoft. If they *did* really care, they would spend their time writing and distributing protective software to the masses instead of useless crap.
I never said anyone *was* forcing anyone do to anything. I said they were trying. The fact that their efforts to do so doesn't really effect anyone just shows how absurd it really is to even try.
But aside from that, it's not always as easy as "just go get another distro". When GNU-Darwin does this, it's no big deal. But what if a company like RedHat decided to do so? Imagine the hassle and pain admins of stable production systems would have to go through to "just go get another distro".
While I understand that a lot of this software is designed by small teams and because of such personal beliefs, politics, etc are bound to creep in, I also realize that they have a responbsibillity to their users and THAT is of greater importance than than expressing their political views and trying to drag their users with them.