Let me begin where we agree: the GPL was not meant to support the rights of commercial developers. I agree that coding effort should not be wasted. I also notice that in your entire post, you managed to make your point without using the objectionable term "viral".
The GPL was written to ensure that free software continues to be made free. Such effort is not wasted. It can continue to be included in free software
Open only means you have the right to look. Additional rights may or may not be granted by particular licenses. That's why I personally dislike the term "Open Source". It's too vague, although it is useful as a "Big Tent" moniker.
In reference to other points brought up in this thread (not just your article):
The term self-perpetuating is, as most words are, somewhat inaccurate. But it is not pernicious. Although we may have to coin new language to deal with the terms of the debate, I don't think that something that connotes disease is really appropriate. The FSF deals with some of these linguistic issues.
I wish only to focus on why the term viral is inappropriate in this debate.
Let me begin by attempting to understand, without malice, the the other side. The basic point of the other side seems to be "Once I put GPL'ed code in my program, the program becomes freer than I would have originally liked". This injection of freedom that changes the program into "something else" is what people are referring to when they call something viral. Am I correct in my understanding?
I don't agree with this position, because it says that any precondition for use and anything that imposes additional responsibility is equivalent to a disease. Also, the GPL itself does not appear to support this position. I admit there is some language that made me think twice, but it is heavily qualified.
I am trying hard not to quote the GPL itself because:
I start to feel like a missionary quoting the bible. The world has many of those.
However, I do think that Open Source is annoyingly complicated for me. I know that with free software, I can take it and reshape it, and redistribute it without worrying about taking away anybody's rights. I find these redistribution rights too restrictive in other licenses (some of which merely give you the right to look at the source- whooopee).
I had no idea this would take me an hour to write. I've got to get back to work.
/rant on/ I wish distinguished people such as yourself would stop calling the Gnu GPL "viral". Viral has a hostile connotation that the GPL doesn't really deserve. Self-Perpetuating is not synonymous with viral. You may not like the GPL's restrictions on re-use in proprietary software, but that does not justify use of a term such as "Viral" that implies a definite mens rea .
People in leadership positions should be more careful of the language they use because it will be duplicated. You are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Christiansen, but you do not benefit the tone of public debate when you use terms such as "viral" to describe the GPL. Less heat, more light, remember? /rant off/
I did not mean to imply that "Having KDE" = "Not Real". I did mean to imply that "Real" = "Having more choices". I think I need to be more careful in my overuse of this really vague word! ----
Their download & support
on
WinLinux 2000
·
· Score: 2
They don't promise support of winbloze NT. Oh Well. They're also nice enough to suggest downloading it in pieces (it's a 138 Mb download). AFAIK, there is no CD distribution, but I may be mistaken there. It's too bad you can't download a minimal winlinux (kernel, filesystem, shell) then download the parts you are interested in.
They do lock you into KDE, though. If you don't mind being locked into the UI, go for it. As you learn more, you can always get a "real" distribution. I am concerned that the skill for managing your system's boot process won't be learned, but as someone pointed out - so what?
On a personal note, I also find it interesting that the command line interface is viewed as intimidating. I am somewhat intimidated by GUI's. I can't always remember where some setting is hidden, but I can remember a command or the filename to change the setting far more easily. ---
But that doesn't mean you can get off with a slipshod job. I've seen better, and for less money too. I don't think realistic human emotion is too much to ask for.
The issue is just as you said - but you have to sign a form, and you have to put your funds "on hold". With a real credit card, you don't have to worry about this issue, and there is a bit less bureaucracy.
In my case, the employee in question didn't know how to handle the transaction since it did not arise frequently enough.
sigh...and I thought the whole point of these cards was going to be that merchants could not detect that you were really using a checking accont....
You should always have one real credit card for car rentals. You don't want to know what kind of s*it you get put through if you try to rent a car with a Visa debit card.
AMEX is also good for car rentals.
BTW, affinity credit cards such as the one under discussion here are rarely good deal IMHO. They often donate only pennies on the dollar, and you've got to pay interest to boot.
If you want to give money to a good cause, give it yourself directly, and when applicable keep the tax deduction for YOURSELF.
Man pages don't give me the ability to bookmark (when using emacs) my place in my favorite pages, follow references into other manuals and come back, etc. I much prefer info. [disclaimer: Maybe man can do this now. It couldn't when I first learned unix in the 80s.]. I even like info better than HTMLized web collections because I can navigate easily without having to move a mouse at all. However, this thread really shouldn't be about maintenance of the man pages, which is a valid, but separate issue.
I think the LDP and the man|info take on different tasks. LDP is supposed to cover broader tasks that encompass several different procedures or programs where as a man page is supposed to give you everything you need to know about a single command or a single program.
The difference is that if Mom wants me to figure out how to stop the spam from her mailbox, I have a prayer in Linux. I don't have one in Windows.
I think Linux has some work to do in pacing the market, not simply following it. To a certain extent we have to teach them to want different things than they do now.
In other words, show mom how to read her email, and promise that you'll be around to help her maintain it (remotely, even). And she won't have to search the MS knowledgebase or pay $95 for an incident report. If you're smart, though, you might want to charge a slice of apple pie per support call.
In other words, Linux can already meet the needs of the mainstream, but in a different way that MS does.
I never understood why people whine about emacs. (These days it's a lot more than just eight megabytes and constantly swapping, and don't get me started on how huge word is.:-)
With the tutorial, I was productive with it within an hour. Over time, I accumulated some power features. Do not confuse the learning curve of various packages within emacs with emacs itself.
I think anything word can do, emacs can do. And then emacs does more (and costs less).
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL was written to ensure that free software continues to be made free. Such effort is not wasted. It can continue to be included in free software
Open only means you have the right to look. Additional rights may or may not be granted by particular licenses. That's why I personally dislike the term "Open Source". It's too vague, although it is useful as a "Big Tent" moniker.
In reference to other points brought up in this thread (not just your article):
The term self-perpetuating is, as most words are, somewhat inaccurate. But it is not pernicious. Although we may have to coin new language to deal with the terms of the debate, I don't think that something that connotes disease is really appropriate. The FSF deals with some of these linguistic issues.
I wish only to focus on why the term viral is inappropriate in this debate.
Let me begin by attempting to understand, without malice, the the other side. The basic point of the other side seems to be "Once I put GPL'ed code in my program, the program becomes freer than I would have originally liked". This injection of freedom that changes the program into "something else" is what people are referring to when they call something viral. Am I correct in my understanding?
I don't agree with this position, because it says that any precondition for use and anything that imposes additional responsibility is equivalent to a disease. Also, the GPL itself does not appear to support this position. I admit there is some language that made me think twice, but it is heavily qualified.
I am trying hard not to quote the GPL itself because:
However, I do think that Open Source is annoyingly complicated for me. I know that with free software, I can take it and reshape it, and redistribute it without worrying about taking away anybody's rights. I find these redistribution rights too restrictive in other licenses (some of which merely give you the right to look at the source- whooopee).
I had no idea this would take me an hour to write. I've got to get back to work.
I wish distinguished people such as yourself would stop calling the Gnu GPL "viral". Viral has a hostile connotation that the GPL doesn't really deserve. Self-Perpetuating is not synonymous with viral. You may not like the GPL's restrictions on re-use in proprietary software, but that does not justify use of a term such as "Viral" that implies a definite mens rea .
People in leadership positions should be more careful of the language they use because it will be duplicated. You are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Christiansen, but you do not benefit the tone of public debate when you use terms such as "viral" to describe the GPL. Less heat, more light, remember?
/rant off/
I did not mean to imply that "Having KDE" = "Not Real". I did mean to imply that "Real" = "Having more choices". I think I need to be more careful in my overuse of this really vague word!
----
They do lock you into KDE, though. If you don't mind being locked into the UI, go for it. As you learn more, you can always get a "real" distribution. I am concerned that the skill for managing your system's boot process won't be learned, but as someone pointed out - so what?
On a personal note, I also find it interesting that the command line interface is viewed as intimidating. I am somewhat intimidated by GUI's. I can't always remember where some setting is hidden, but I can remember a command or the filename to change the setting far more easily.
---
Thanks for correcting me. In that case, the site seems to be tracking the progress of the ballclub on the diamond all too well, it seems :-(
Sorry for the slightly offtopic reply - it's not often my two favorite subjects get covered in one thread!
Despite the user feedback section, it wasn't enough to keep Steinbrenner from trading Wells!
Keep in mind, though that this site, while ordinary today , was at one point ahead of its time for its market.
It did stay up reliably, and I was able to inquire about ticket availability, and do most of the useful things reasonably well.
But that doesn't mean you can get off with a slipshod job. I've seen better, and for less money too. I don't think realistic human emotion is too much to ask for.
The issue is just as you said - but you have to sign a form, and you have to put your funds "on hold". With a real credit card, you don't have to worry about this issue, and there is a bit less bureaucracy.
In my case, the employee in question didn't know how to handle the transaction since it did not arise frequently enough.
sigh...and I thought the whole point of these cards was going to be that merchants could not detect that you were really using a checking accont....
Check out this article on affinity credit cards before you jump in.
AMEX is also good for car rentals.
BTW, affinity credit cards such as the one under discussion here are rarely good deal IMHO. They often donate only pennies on the dollar, and you've got to pay interest to boot.
If you want to give money to a good cause, give it yourself directly, and when applicable keep the tax deduction for YOURSELF.
I think the LDP and the man|info take on different tasks. LDP is supposed to cover broader tasks that encompass several different procedures or programs where as a man page is supposed to give you everything you need to know about a single command or a single program.
The difference is that if Mom wants me to figure out how to stop the spam from her mailbox, I have a prayer in Linux. I don't have one in Windows.
I think Linux has some work to do in pacing the market, not simply following it. To a certain extent we have to teach them to want different things than they do now.
In other words, show mom how to read her email, and promise that you'll be around to help her maintain it (remotely, even). And she won't have to search the MS knowledgebase or pay $95 for an incident report. If you're smart, though, you might want to charge a slice of apple pie per support call.
In other words, Linux can already meet the needs of the mainstream, but in a different way that MS does.
I never understood why people whine about emacs. (These days it's a lot more than just eight megabytes and constantly swapping, and don't get me started on how huge word is. :-)
With the tutorial, I was productive with it within an hour. Over time, I accumulated some power features. Do not confuse the learning curve of various packages within emacs with emacs itself.
I think anything word can do, emacs can do. And then emacs does more (and costs less).
MT
--