I can only speak for my country. Here people vote for the members of the parliament (MPs), the MPs propose and approve laws after which the executive/judicial branches take over the task of overseeing the enforcement of these laws. The enforcement is conducted by the police and, if necessary, military (only if approved by the parliament).
What's wrong with that? The fact that the social rules (laws) are made and enforced by the government and not by people directly?
If the majority of the people think that we should not allow people to incite violence against the people of certain colour or religion, so be it.
If you want enjoy freedom, you also have to be responsible. Break a law (=a social rule enforced by the majority of the society) and we'll take away your freedom. Abuse your freedom of speech and we'll take away your freedom of speech. No freedom is absolute and irrevocable. Why don't you try to see a little bit beyond your dogma?
My problem with Perl is the ubiquitous use of the regular expressions.
Some people are good at learning stuff by heart. I am not one of them. As a result, I've neither been good at (bio)chemistry (that's why I became a physicist) or at learning the syntax of regexps. To me Perl code looks like line-noise you used to get when you used a modem on a bad line. It's the same thing with Emacs' controls. There's just no logic in it.
So, my question is: how the hell do you remember all those codes (perl, emacs, chemistry,...)?
I don't like GPL, that's no secret to anyone who has read my posts on/., but I'd say that your post is one of the most lucid and impactful summaries of this situation. If I were the Editor of Forbes, this would be one of the letters I'd consider publishing.
As a matter of fact, that's already happening. Where I live, the trucks (semi and full) are limited to 60 mph by law. That's controlled by the tamper-proof electronics in the engine.
As for "being a player" with respect to the kernel, you'll have to ask Linus about his particular motivations.
It was not a typo when I wrote that Linux is a Player - not Linus.
Linus is a figurehead but completely expendable now that big corporations such as IBM are taking an interest. Should Linus cross one of the big players we could very well see a split in the kernel development similar to StarOffice and OpenOffice. The purists would keep their GPLd GNU/Linux while IBM and others would go and make the fork the next mainstay operating system in the industry.
Like the waste of memory when you code programs in C or Pascal instead of assembly?
if hardware manufacturers would actually tell developers what they were.
GNOME and KDE are themeable and already have full capabilities for variable sizing of just about every component of the windowing environment.
Which leads to a yet another pet complaint. No standardization. Too much freedom in the GUI and I must agree.
p
Make it profitable and they'll suck up to you. How hard can that be to understand? Oh, I get it. Profit is not a part of the open source equation...
we scratch itches we see now, we don't come up with as many hypothetical itches
Come on. You really want me to believe that? Linux supports AMD's 64-bit CPUs out of box before Microsoft. Why? Because it was important to sell Linux to the server markets - not because of "scratching an itch". As of now, Linux is a Player and it doesn't help you to play coy in the future.
You don't think we'll be having bigger screens by then? That's one thing that's really holding you open source guys back. You don't dare to gamble on the capabilities of the future hardware.
Rocket technology aiming at supersonic suborbital flights built by privateers using off-the-shelf components? Sounds more like Darwin Awards, especially after you take a look at the level of technology. How do they even know that their rocket is aerodynamically stable? Building robust, real-time control systems to adjust the attitude during flight at a sub-millisecond rate can't be that easy either.
What will happen once their licenses are revoked? SCO will shout at them and tell them to pay up for a new license.
So what usually happens if a company keeps using licensed material after the license has been revoked? They get sued, are found guilty of using intellectual property without a proper license and punished.
And of course licenses are revokable (unlike some people here seem to believe). Even if the license is fully paid, it can still be revoked if you are found in breach of the contract. Hell, IBM is using a similar argument against SCO's Linux.
What the hell is a real troll? Are you the "post as AC or post at -1" guy? That doesn't make sense.
A smart troll trolls you so that you've never realize you've been trolled and can certainly maintain excellent karma. It's the brute force trolls like memetrolls, gnaa and goatse-trolls who post at -1, but there's nothing wrong being a smart troll (not naming any names, though).
No, I'm not Tim Ward. I normally would care to respond to silly posts like yours, but I can see that Tim is posting here with an account linking to his real-life persona and I don't hordes of rabid open source zealots harassing him because of what I post here.
If you really read my posts you would have come to a conclusion that I am not a native English speaker. Tim clearly is. I certainly agree with Tim on most points he makes and I personally find open source badly marketed, overhyped and handicapped by the zealous advocacy.
This thread is actually a good example of the last point. It's rather amusing to see how paranoid you can get when someone challenges your little dogma of how the open source is revolutionary, makes the world a better place and probably cures cancer too. You're probably the guy who stalks Sir Haxalot thinking that you're doing a great service to the people on/. by pointing out that someone's a troll. I mean, come on. How pathetic can you get? Trolls, unlike the bulk of/. articles and grouper posters, are sometimes informative and most of the time at least amusing. It is the reason I personally read/. at -1. Going about posting claims about who is a troll and who is not is just lame.
They are not in the business for the customers health they are their for their commision.
And in order to keep getting those commisions in the future, they've better not to hide blatant problems with the product (of course they don't have to advertise them either) or lie in your face about the support.
On the other hand, companies like RedHat, Suse and Mandrake are in it for the money.
Indeed. And the parent poster complained that he had not received proper proposals from the open source companies. That simply means that RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake or whomever simply failed in their marketing.
Instead they are in it for the fun...lambast the OSS developers for being unprofessional
What makes you a professional in some field? You do it for a living. If the OSS developers do not code for money, they're amateurs by definition. For instance, Alan Cox was an OSS pro a few years ago when he was still on RedHat's payroll. On the other hand the likes of Donald Becker or Linus Torvalds are not pros since they do not code OSS for a living.
The software - open or closed - does not maintain itself. The mere existence of the source code is as good as nothing if there is no-one who understands it.
It's dangerous to start thinking that as long as the source code exists, anyone (with a CS degree) can just take it up, fix it and start maintaining it. In less than a decade the languages and architectures change so much that a newly graduated person will have difficulties in dealing with ancient code.
Just remember all those Y2K projects? Sure we had the source code for critical projects but the code was in Cobol or some other antiquated language. We suddenly found out that we need loads and load of people who know Cobol, but the people who had the skills to deal with it were already gone. A lifespan measured in decades is particularly typical for governmental projects. You see how silly your argument is? The availability of the source code is good but doesn't save you.
This question becomes especially relevant when the company runs into problems, changes it's strategy or ends the life of your product.
If did you homework when writing the contract you have nothing to fear. The company will be obliged to help you over the transition period. As far as the end-of-life products go, that's just natural. I've never quite understood the obsession the open source has with maintaining obsolete code. From time to time it's good to end an old product line and write another one from scratch to meet the challenges of today not the past.
Big companies like Microsoft, IBM or Oracle do not go tits-up in a day and even if they would, they'd most probably be contractually obliged to help in the transition to a new system. Furthermore, their products have well set lifespans so you know when you're supposed to start looking for a replacement system.
How do you know your independent consultant is still in the business next year?
Perhaps you could elicit some useful feedback from Slashdot readers
Like what? "Dude, you worked for Microsoft and therefore I won't take your opinions seriously".
If you meant technical advice, why should he be hunting for technical advice on Slashdot when he should have gotten it already from open source companies he has contacted?
In real life you don't have the time to hang around in Google's newsgroups or websites looking for tidbits of information. You set design parameters and ask for a quote from several companies. If a company fails to make a good quote (either pricewise or techwise) or the quote is ambiguous to the least, it gets dropped.
Uh. How old are you? Fifteen? Ok, so if you can't trust a salesman at all (like your caricature implies), how do you propose people who do not have the knowhow can avoid getting a raw deal when buying IT systems? No, educating themselves is not an option, because they already have a dayjob and designing a governmental datacenter requires a corporate level experience and skills - not some grubby group of "let's throw something together" open source linux hippies.
Salesmen are, of course, trying to make profit and that's perfectly OK. However, they're not evil like you seem to think. Any company who sells more than it can deliever will soon be out of business.
Slashdot Mirror
His dispassionate and detached approach just makes sense.
I can only speak for my country. Here people vote for the members of the parliament (MPs), the MPs propose and approve laws after which the executive/judicial branches take over the task of overseeing the enforcement of these laws. The enforcement is conducted by the police and, if necessary, military (only if approved by the parliament).
What's wrong with that? The fact that the social rules (laws) are made and enforced by the government and not by people directly?
If the majority of the people think that we should not allow people to incite violence against the people of certain colour or religion, so be it.
If you want enjoy freedom, you also have to be responsible. Break a law (=a social rule enforced by the majority of the society) and we'll take away your freedom. Abuse your freedom of speech and we'll take away your freedom of speech. No freedom is absolute and irrevocable. Why don't you try to see a little bit beyond your dogma?
Some people are good at learning stuff by heart. I am not one of them. As a result, I've neither been good at (bio)chemistry (that's why I became a physicist) or at learning the syntax of regexps. To me Perl code looks like line-noise you used to get when you used a modem on a bad line. It's the same thing with Emacs' controls. There's just no logic in it.
So, my question is: how the hell do you remember all those codes (perl, emacs, chemistry,...)?
I don't like GPL, that's no secret to anyone who has read my posts on /., but I'd say that your post is one of the most lucid and impactful summaries of this situation. If I were the Editor of Forbes, this would be one of the letters I'd consider publishing.
As a matter of fact, that's already happening. Where I live, the trucks (semi and full) are limited to 60 mph by law. That's controlled by the tamper-proof electronics in the engine.
It was not a typo when I wrote that Linux is a Player - not Linus.
Linus is a figurehead but completely expendable now that big corporations such as IBM are taking an interest. Should Linus cross one of the big players we could very well see a split in the kernel development similar to StarOffice and OpenOffice. The purists would keep their GPLd GNU/Linux while IBM and others would go and make the fork the next mainstay operating system in the industry.
Like the waste of memory when you code programs in C or Pascal instead of assembly?
if hardware manufacturers would actually tell developers what they were.
GNOME and KDE are themeable and already have full capabilities for variable sizing of just about every component of the windowing environment.
Which leads to a yet another pet complaint. No standardization. Too much freedom in the GUI and I must agree. p Make it profitable and they'll suck up to you. How hard can that be to understand? Oh, I get it. Profit is not a part of the open source equation...
Come on. You really want me to believe that? Linux supports AMD's 64-bit CPUs out of box before Microsoft. Why? Because it was important to sell Linux to the server markets - not because of "scratching an itch". As of now, Linux is a Player and it doesn't help you to play coy in the future.
Because WHEN (not if) the hardware comes around, you'll be the only one supporting it.
The fact is that if the language permits you to write insecure code most people will write insecure code.
You don't think we'll be having bigger screens by then? That's one thing that's really holding you open source guys back. You don't dare to gamble on the capabilities of the future hardware.
Keep up the good work in the gutter, son.
How about eliminating the buffer overflows?
Rocket technology aiming at supersonic suborbital flights built by privateers using off-the-shelf components? Sounds more like Darwin Awards, especially after you take a look at the level of technology. How do they even know that their rocket is aerodynamically stable? Building robust, real-time control systems to adjust the attitude during flight at a sub-millisecond rate can't be that easy either.
So what usually happens if a company keeps using licensed material after the license has been revoked? They get sued, are found guilty of using intellectual property without a proper license and punished.
And of course licenses are revokable (unlike some people here seem to believe). Even if the license is fully paid, it can still be revoked if you are found in breach of the contract. Hell, IBM is using a similar argument against SCO's Linux.
A smart troll trolls you so that you've never realize you've been trolled and can certainly maintain excellent karma. It's the brute force trolls like memetrolls, gnaa and goatse-trolls who post at -1, but there's nothing wrong being a smart troll (not naming any names, though).
Hey! It's the George Lucas' Reality Distortion Field! Similar to but legally distinguishable from the Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field.
When's the burning at the stake going to be?
If you really read my posts you would have come to a conclusion that I am not a native English speaker. Tim clearly is. I certainly agree with Tim on most points he makes and I personally find open source badly marketed, overhyped and handicapped by the zealous advocacy.
This thread is actually a good example of the last point. It's rather amusing to see how paranoid you can get when someone challenges your little dogma of how the open source is revolutionary, makes the world a better place and probably cures cancer too. You're probably the guy who stalks Sir Haxalot thinking that you're doing a great service to the people on /. by pointing out that someone's a troll. I mean, come on. How pathetic can you get? Trolls, unlike the bulk of /. articles and grouper posters, are sometimes informative and most of the time at least amusing. It is the reason I personally read /. at -1. Going about posting claims about who is a troll and who is not is just lame.
And in order to keep getting those commisions in the future, they've better not to hide blatant problems with the product (of course they don't have to advertise them either) or lie in your face about the support.
On the other hand, companies like RedHat, Suse and Mandrake are in it for the money.
Indeed. And the parent poster complained that he had not received proper proposals from the open source companies. That simply means that RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake or whomever simply failed in their marketing.
Instead they are in it for the fun...lambast the OSS developers for being unprofessional
What makes you a professional in some field? You do it for a living. If the OSS developers do not code for money, they're amateurs by definition. For instance, Alan Cox was an OSS pro a few years ago when he was still on RedHat's payroll. On the other hand the likes of Donald Becker or Linus Torvalds are not pros since they do not code OSS for a living.
It's dangerous to start thinking that as long as the source code exists, anyone (with a CS degree) can just take it up, fix it and start maintaining it. In less than a decade the languages and architectures change so much that a newly graduated person will have difficulties in dealing with ancient code.
Just remember all those Y2K projects? Sure we had the source code for critical projects but the code was in Cobol or some other antiquated language. We suddenly found out that we need loads and load of people who know Cobol, but the people who had the skills to deal with it were already gone. A lifespan measured in decades is particularly typical for governmental projects. You see how silly your argument is? The availability of the source code is good but doesn't save you.
This question becomes especially relevant when the company runs into problems, changes it's strategy or ends the life of your product.
If did you homework when writing the contract you have nothing to fear. The company will be obliged to help you over the transition period. As far as the end-of-life products go, that's just natural. I've never quite understood the obsession the open source has with maintaining obsolete code. From time to time it's good to end an old product line and write another one from scratch to meet the challenges of today not the past.
Big companies like Microsoft, IBM or Oracle do not go tits-up in a day and even if they would, they'd most probably be contractually obliged to help in the transition to a new system. Furthermore, their products have well set lifespans so you know when you're supposed to start looking for a replacement system.
How do you know your independent consultant is still in the business next year?
Like what? "Dude, you worked for Microsoft and therefore I won't take your opinions seriously".
If you meant technical advice, why should he be hunting for technical advice on Slashdot when he should have gotten it already from open source companies he has contacted?
In real life you don't have the time to hang around in Google's newsgroups or websites looking for tidbits of information. You set design parameters and ask for a quote from several companies. If a company fails to make a good quote (either pricewise or techwise) or the quote is ambiguous to the least, it gets dropped.
Salesmen are, of course, trying to make profit and that's perfectly OK. However, they're not evil like you seem to think. Any company who sells more than it can deliever will soon be out of business.