By their very nature many products cannot be ported without their foundations being ported as well. Do any forbid different platforms, though? Perhaps not. But show me one clause in the official definition (according to RMS) at http://opensource.org/docs/osd that says open source can be tied to a specific platform?
I will assume you mean "can't" instead of "can", for otherwise your post is meaningless.
Points 3 and 10 are clearly against a restriction to a platform.
It talks of products, but that's only that open source can be extract from part of a product an true open source can't forbid it. Last time I checked, CodePlex projects are part of Windows itself.
And to add to that, there are plenty of open source projects on Freshmeat that only run on linux/BSD, or even SourceForge for that matter (which also hosts Windows-only open source projects).
Please point ONE project whose licensing forbids porting the app to another platform. Just one.
One of the plus points of open source as I'm led to understand is that others can review the code to increase trust in that code, many eyes and all that.
That's one of the many pluses, and the problem is that most other pluses disappear at once at the moment you change the licensing to something like "you can look at this but you can't do X" for various values of X.
What you really want is for programs to get an out of memory error when trying to allocate memory, and then they can shut down as gracefully as possible.
In an out-of-memory situation, there is very little that an app can do to shut down gracefully, unless the application is essentially trivial.
Except, you DO get vendor lock-in with FOSS, because you can't use anything EXCEPT FOSS.
I do not know what FOSS software you are using, and under what license, but I do not think I have ever used FOSS software whose license included the condition of never using anything but FOSS.
Also, in the US, companies are more interested in reliability- hence why they will BUY commercial software when there are "free" alternatives.
Do you really believe Europeans are less interested in reliability?
That it was written in assembly directly means that it is unbelievably fast only if the person writing the assembly can do, say, global register allocation optimization in his head...
While there are tasks for which hand-coded assembly really is faster, those are very special tasks. A complete OS is not one of them.
In the rather strange situation that you install an extension which modifies firefox's code, and if then you proceed to distribute the resulting code, yes.
Not really. I do not claim that is even imaginably true, so it is not on me to even try to come up with a way to check that statement. In fact, since it goes against absolutely every single piece of evidence available, the only position compatible with the information I have is that that claim is in fact false.
The question, then, is whether or not the friends are imaginary. Or more precisely, whether or not the people who believe in those "imaginary" friends might have good reasons to believe that those friends exist.
Sure. Now, after thousands of years, no one has been able to come up with any falsifiable statement which might possibly entail the existence of those imaginary friends, nor with any falsifiable statement which would contradict the non-existence of such imaginary friends. No one has ever produced absolutely nothing whose explanation depends on the existence of those imaginary friends, with sufficient hard evidence that it is not required to already believe in the existence of those imaginary friends in order to accept the proof that they actually require the existence of imaginary friends.
You, and everyone, is of course entitled to your opinion on the matter. Yet, of course, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, it is not true that all those opinions are equally valid, or that they withstand equally the test of reason.
I think a lot of Creationists are old earth creationists [wikipedia.org]. They basically hold a world view that seeks to make sense of both the fossil record and other beliefs they carry.
In the end, it all comes to you asking yourself whether you want to be under the power of someone who believes in imaginary friends, independently of how old s/he thinks the earth is.
It is irrelevant if the candidates themselves wrote the answers. Do you believe that candidates are aware of all issues, have all the relevant details and make all the decisions? Do you even think that would be a desirable situation?
You do not elect a president: you elect a whole team. Now, of course, one has to assume that McCain stands behind the replies, whether they be written by himself of by someone more knowledgable about the issues involves. But only a fool pretends and demands that candidates be omniscient...
Why is that a disaster? Did anyone seriously expect otherwise? Did anyone seriously plan otherwise? I have yet to hear anyone but very imaginative slashdotters who have never coded one line for anything Linux-related, ever, and marketing people, strategise for the Year of The Linux Desktop.
This idea you seem to have that paying someone somehow enhances their responsability is so much against every single piece of evidence! Do youalso believe that being elected to a position somehow implies that you are going to do what yuu told your voters you'd do?
Slashdot Mirror
The truly paranoid user should get some help...
By their very nature many products cannot be ported without their foundations being ported as well. Do any forbid different platforms, though? Perhaps not. But show me one clause in the official definition (according to RMS) at http://opensource.org/docs/osd that says open source can be tied to a specific platform?
I will assume you mean "can't" instead of "can", for otherwise your post is meaningless.
Points 3 and 10 are clearly against a restriction to a platform.
It talks of products, but that's only that open source can be extract from part of a product an true open source can't forbid it. Last time I checked, CodePlex projects are part of Windows itself.
Huh?
And to add to that, there are plenty of open source projects on Freshmeat that only run on linux/BSD, or even SourceForge for that matter (which also hosts Windows-only open source projects).
Please point ONE project whose licensing forbids porting the app to another platform. Just one.
Have you read the definition given by OSI?
It does not "only mean this", but in order to be OSI-Open, the licensince must not forbid porting to another platform.
It is not that hard...
So if I provide the source code for my app, but reserve all rights, disallowing even recompiling the code, do you think that is open source?
One of the plus points of open source as I'm led to understand is that others can review the code to increase trust in that code, many eyes and all that.
That's one of the many pluses, and the problem is that most other pluses disappear at once at the moment you change the licensing to something like "you can look at this but you can't do X" for various values of X.
What you really want is for programs to get an out of memory error when trying to allocate memory, and then they can shut down as gracefully as possible.
In an out-of-memory situation, there is very little that an app can do to shut down gracefully, unless the application is essentially trivial.
Proving that trigonometric identity using Excel is surely an amazing feat...
You misspelt "brillant"...
I guess you were relieved when gravity was verified on both sides of the Atlantic...
Well... one could argue that that is precisely the mark of stupidity ;)
Except, you DO get vendor lock-in with FOSS, because you can't use anything EXCEPT FOSS.
I do not know what FOSS software you are using, and under what license, but I do not think I have ever used FOSS software whose license included the condition of never using anything but FOSS.
Also, in the US, companies are more interested in reliability- hence why they will BUY commercial software when there are "free" alternatives.
Do you really believe Europeans are less interested in reliability?
The thing is, those are not the "two sides". They are all on the racists side...
That it was written in assembly directly means that it is unbelievably fast only if the person writing the assembly can do, say, global register allocation optimization in his head...
While there are tasks for which hand-coded assembly really is faster, those are very special tasks. A complete OS is not one of them.
Of all the huge amazing thing that the LHC is you find only the vacuum-insulated piping amazing?
Nice post.
How else are you proposing the judge the veracity of statements? Wait for signals from imaginary friends?
In the rather strange situation that you install an extension which modifies firefox's code, and if then you proceed to distribute the resulting code, yes.
Not really. I do not claim that is even imaginably true, so it is not on me to even try to come up with a way to check that statement. In fact, since it goes against absolutely every single piece of evidence available, the only position compatible with the information I have is that that claim is in fact false.
The question, then, is whether or not the friends are imaginary. Or more precisely, whether or not the people who believe in those "imaginary" friends might have good reasons to believe that those friends exist.
Sure. Now, after thousands of years, no one has been able to come up with any falsifiable statement which might possibly entail the existence of those imaginary friends, nor with any falsifiable statement which would contradict the non-existence of such imaginary friends. No one has ever produced absolutely nothing whose explanation depends on the existence of those imaginary friends, with sufficient hard evidence that it is not required to already believe in the existence of those imaginary friends in order to accept the proof that they actually require the existence of imaginary friends.
You, and everyone, is of course entitled to your opinion on the matter. Yet, of course, while everyone is entitled to an opinion, it is not true that all those opinions are equally valid, or that they withstand equally the test of reason.
I think a lot of Creationists are old earth creationists [wikipedia.org]. They basically hold a world view that seeks to make sense of both the fossil record and other beliefs they carry.
In the end, it all comes to you asking yourself whether you want to be under the power of someone who believes in imaginary friends, independently of how old s/he thinks the earth is.
You know, "woosh!" is not an argument...
It is irrelevant if the candidates themselves wrote the answers. Do you believe that candidates are aware of all issues, have all the relevant details and make all the decisions? Do you even think that would be a desirable situation?
You do not elect a president: you elect a whole team. Now, of course, one has to assume that McCain stands behind the replies, whether they be written by himself of by someone more knowledgable about the issues involves. But only a fool pretends and demands that candidates be omniscient...
Why is that a disaster? Did anyone seriously expect otherwise? Did anyone seriously plan otherwise? I have yet to hear anyone but very imaginative slashdotters who have never coded one line for anything Linux-related, ever, and marketing people, strategise for the Year of The Linux Desktop.
This idea you seem to have that paying someone somehow enhances their responsability is so much against every single piece of evidence! Do youalso believe that being elected to a position somehow implies that you are going to do what yuu told your voters you'd do?