I don't know WHAT they're smoking, but when I was in D.C. years ago, they were using rectal smoke pipes to smoke it!! They seemed to enjoy the pipes as much as the smoke...
You sure are going to be singing a different tune when you put on some age. And when you see all those you used your labor and ideas retire in luxury while you and your family worry about the next meal and apt/house payment, you are going to eat those words just like did. Bon Appetit!
In case you have never read your license agreement (MS and others), YOU indemnify THEM. What a crock! Can you imagine one of us broke down geeks providing legal protection for companies like MS? Don't think so. I am close to having a "ceremonial burning" of all my computers, software and docs...then go fishing for the next few years until I expire. If enough of us refuse to buy software under these "licenses", i.e., you get between them and that cash register, they'll drop that shxx in a heartbeat. But not until!
WHERE in Heaven's name did the OSS "community" get the idea that companies owe them their products by "open sourcing" them?! I have been a big Sun fan for about 10 years, even though I do not often agree with what McNealy had been doing. Remember, however, he has to DELIVER the goods while the rest of us get to play armchair quarterback! It is easy to find fault if you do not put yourself in HIS shoes for a moment. If you do, you must ask yourself, how do I make Sun profitable? Is there any benefit to open sourcing (essentially give away) one of my two most important IPs?
He may end up open sourcing Java, and he may not...but it will be a BUSINESS decision, e.g., for tax purposes, NOT for altruistic purposes.
If you have a 401(k) or IRA'a or retirement fund of ANY kind, remember that it is directly hooked to the profitability of companies like Sun, IBM, yes, even MS, -- NOT the success of the open source community. That may come later, but only if you "support" companies like Novell,Suse, and RH with your dollars, Euros, etc. and IF they can find a way to become profitable and attract investment dollars.
Thank you! I thought I was the only person saying this, and you're argument was less intense than my objectivist philosophy explanation. If any would like to learn the REASONS why things in life are not free, please refer to "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, or the works of Bastiat or Salsman. It is written for the lay person, each chapter is short, to the point, and shows what happens when altruist motives are applied to a variety of "real life" situations.
Not if we refuse to buy them. May I suggest a one month period, say January 2004, where NONE OF US buys a single CD or DVD! You get between them and that cash register, and boy will they listen!
Geez, wouldn't it be too bad if he had a fatal car accident?! Imagine: he'd probably have more folks at his wake/funeral than anyone in the history of computing -- mostly to make sure he was REALLY dead and it wasn't another SCO FUD job. And if his lawyer, "colleagues", and henchmen were with him, can anyone here say they'd be emotionally distraught?
Understand that I an NOT wishing anyone ill fate; I'm just conducting a thought experiment;^)
Well, for those of you who have not contributed to FSF, may I suggest you send your checks today guys and gals. YOU are under attack, and it's all nice and legal, though maybe not that ethical. If WE lose, the right to act in our own behalf for our own reasons will have been removed because the courts consider it "unprofitable." The mind simply boggles trying to compute all the perverse permutations and long term damage to individuals caused by this line of thinking.
Many like RMS have put their entire lives into things we all enjoy and use daily, and it is just as immoral for us to complain and do nothing as it is for the likes of Darl to get the unearned by legal fiat.
IMHO, either that boy is on crack or he is on the longest LSD trip in history. Whether he is or not, though, he simply cannot be allowed to win THIS case. If SCO wins this case, the DMCA will look like kindergarten by comparison, and you will all be able to convert to Longhorn at premium prices. Unlike many who write here, I don't fault Bill Gates, nor do I see a conspiracy on his part to FUD Linux. For one thing, Linux firms are, IMHO, mismanaging the businesses so badly that they don't need any help going broke. Add to that users who all want something for nothing, and you begin to understand how little MS is worried about a Linux desktop hurting Windows.
Whether we like it or not, money basically drives development of applications because you and I must get paid to keep on living and paying those bills. Those who work on Linux for "free" do so for our own reasons, and we are free to do that...unless McBride and Co. win this case.
Where in heck did you get the idea that companies have an obligation to serve *societies* best interests?! They have no such obligation any more than you do. Never, NEVER accept any altruist scheme as the good. If you believe altruism to be so good, why don't you go to a place where it is practiced, like Vietnam or Communist China or better yet North Korea, and see how good it is for yourself BEFORE you advocate it as the good. After all, they practice the "virtues" of self-sacrifice, self-abnegation, living for the benefit of "all society", etc. Of course, most decent folks can't wait to escape that crap...
Convicted monopolist, eh?! Well, if you ever actually read the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1892, as amended, then some of the various court cases, you will understand that ANY company that "gets too big" could automatically be defined as monopolist. How can they be a monopoly when Apple had a better GUI and user interface a decade before MS? How can they be a monopoly in a market full of OSs? The problems with the other OS companies is that (IMHO) they either don't do what the market wants, or they are incompetently run, or they want to address only a particular market. Bye the bye, the first three packaged applications that ran on the original MAC were Microsoft, which gave the original Mac *some* usability, without which it would have shipped as a boat anchor...and it was pretty close to that anyway. Publically, the original purpose of this act was to prevent companies from getting together and setting [minimum] prices. Therefore, the head of say GE could not get together with Westinghouse to set the minimum (or other) price of light bulbs, thus keeping the price up. Privately I suspect, and I believe it has been proven over the years, that it was passed due to a) a fundamental hostility toward business in general and businessmen in particular, and b) to shift more power to bureaucrats in government. Why is it that people seem to have such an inherent trust of government, esp. given EVERY governments track record, yet they have so little in business and businessmen, to whom most of us owe our jobs?!
This is a philosophical problem, and it starts in schools, and esp. universities. Businesses and successful business people often give large donations to universities, but they don't understand that they are supporting their own destruction. Most professors I've met are either openly hostile toward business, or consider it beneath their dignity, or just don't think about it at all (other than being very glad they don't have to compete "out there"). While I am not saying that businesses, MS included, are without fault in every situation, ask yourself if you could create your own from scratch, make it very successful, then watch others who have done pretty much nothing special in life either bad mouth you or take you to court and attempt to choke the lifeblood out of you, simply for trying to be the most successful you can in any given situation. More importantly, ask yourself what is the track record of GOVERNMENTS that have become "monopolistic". The richest individuals, even the biggest companies, pale by comparison.
This is one of the reasons that I took ALL my money out of the stock market: There is no way to tell when the low-life "analysts" are scamming, who they are in cahoots with, nor what the driving force is. Because the SEC will not really investigate and recommend the prosecution of these folks, and the big money behind them, we, the "small investors" are left holding the bag - an empty bag! For example, which of the investment trust bankers and their stock market cronies (here, I am speaking of the firms owners/board members) have gone to jail? Why was Spitzer willing to settle for just MONEY, and how does the state skimming 5% or so of the gross take represent justice? I guess age has made me cynical, but I do know that a rational, objective standard (and practice) of justice is the only thing that stands between us and becoming a country like Afghanistan or most other countries in the world.
If I am going to gamble money, I might as well play the LOTTO or go to Vegas. Vegas has better shows, and the chances of doubling your money, poor as they are, seem better. Then again, so do your chances of losing it!
You are supposedly paying them to be experts, and give you expert advice. To my way of thinking, it's pretty obvious that there has been a LOT of defrauding their investors, even their big ones.
IMHO, probably half the folks on Wall Street could/should have been charged with federal crimes. Until something like that happens, there is no way they will get my money to play with -- where they get paid whether I win or lose! I can better than that myself, but only on "a level playing field" where there is no manipulation.
Since we do NOT live in a democracy, nor should we want to, it is imperative that each of you take time to write your senators and representatives and keep their feet to the fire. As Eddie Childs used to say, "If your congressmen aren't doing their jobs, fire 'em!"
It would be great if they acquired by a large corporation like IBM. There is nothing wrong with companies buying G-V's (I'd give up my 80th birthday to fly one), but not just to please the CEO/CTO/COO/CFO egos. Remember too that the workers/scientists at HP are not the same people as the management. Over the last 30 years, I have seen truly brillant minds get laid off while the clowns at the top mismanage the company into Ch 11, then run off with their golden parachutes. Sad.
Obviously, you have never had to pick up bloody body parts, ones that just moments before belonged to your best friend. If voting and free speech ever fail seriously enough to pose a imminent personal threat, you'll get an opportunity to test your revolutionary resolve...and you aren't going to like it.
The lawyers are, and have been for years, giving the American people an IQ test to see if they understand the concept of property rights and the proper transferral of them to the buyer. Sadly, the majority of Americans do not think in intellectual terms, so the fraud is being perpetrated almost without discussion...current audience excepted, of course. When you purchase a product, that product (rather, copy of it) becomes yours to do with as you see fit. Now, you cannot copy disks any more than you can books or jigs, but that is it! The concept of ownership implies the right of use and disposition. Otherwise, you are only a custodian: You have the responsibilities and duties of ownership, but none of the rights. The concept of you only "licensing" property is a direct attack on the concept of *individual* property rights as such, and you should (and most of you do) fight to preserve them.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know WHAT they're smoking, but when I was in D.C. years ago, they were using rectal smoke pipes to smoke it!! They seemed to enjoy the pipes as much as the smoke...
You sure are going to be singing a different tune when you put on some age. And when you see all those you used your labor and ideas retire in luxury while you and your family worry about the next meal and apt/house payment, you are going to eat those words just like did. Bon Appetit!
In case you have never read your license agreement (MS and others), YOU indemnify THEM. What a crock! Can you imagine one of us broke down geeks providing legal protection for companies like MS? Don't think so.
I am close to having a "ceremonial burning" of all my computers, software and docs...then go fishing for the next few years until I expire.
If enough of us refuse to buy software under these "licenses", i.e., you get between them and that cash register, they'll drop that shxx in a heartbeat. But not until!
In ten years, Blalock may not look that good in that outfit. On the other hand, she has looked pretty good out of it, too 8^)
Should I bother to remind everyone that Sim-City is A GAME!?
WHERE in Heaven's name did the OSS "community" get the idea that companies owe them their products by "open sourcing" them?!
I have been a big Sun fan for about 10 years, even though I do not often agree with what McNealy had been doing. Remember, however, he has to DELIVER the goods while the rest of us get to play armchair quarterback! It is easy to find fault if you do not put yourself in HIS shoes for a moment. If you do, you must ask yourself, how do I make Sun profitable? Is there any benefit to open sourcing (essentially give away) one of my two most important IPs?
He may end up open sourcing Java, and he may not...but it will be a BUSINESS decision, e.g., for tax purposes, NOT for altruistic purposes.
If you have a 401(k) or IRA'a or retirement fund of ANY kind, remember that it is directly hooked to the profitability of companies like Sun, IBM, yes, even MS, -- NOT the success of the open source community. That may come later, but only if you "support" companies like Novell,Suse, and RH with your dollars, Euros, etc. and IF they can find a way to become profitable and attract investment dollars.
Please, tell me you didn't waste all that productivity and knowledge on that asshole. You DID find another company (or at least a better boss, right?)
So, if all of our jobs go to India, what are we going to be buying the software with?!
Thank you! I thought I was the only person saying this, and you're argument was less intense than my objectivist philosophy explanation.
If any would like to learn the REASONS why things in life are not free, please refer to "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, or the works of Bastiat or Salsman. It is written for the lay person, each chapter is short, to the point, and shows what happens when altruist motives are applied to a variety of "real life" situations.
That should be Cray, as in Seymour Cray. Not Kray.
Not if we refuse to buy them. May I suggest a one month period, say January 2004, where NONE OF US buys a single CD or DVD! You get between them and that cash register, and boy will they listen!
Geez, wouldn't it be too bad if he had a fatal car accident?! Imagine: he'd probably have more folks at his wake/funeral than anyone in the history of computing -- mostly to make sure he was REALLY dead and it wasn't another SCO FUD job. And if his lawyer, "colleagues", and henchmen were with him, can anyone here say they'd be emotionally distraught? Understand that I an NOT wishing anyone ill fate; I'm just conducting a thought experiment ;^)
Well, for those of you who have not contributed to FSF, may I suggest you send your checks today guys and gals. YOU are under attack, and it's all nice and legal, though maybe not that ethical. If WE lose, the right to act in our own behalf for our own reasons will have been removed because the courts consider it "unprofitable." The mind simply boggles trying to compute all the perverse permutations and long term damage to individuals caused by this line of thinking.
Many like RMS have put their entire lives into things we all enjoy and use daily, and it is just as immoral for us to complain and do nothing as it is for the likes of Darl to get the unearned by legal fiat.
IMHO, either that boy is on crack or he is on the longest LSD trip in history. Whether he is or not, though, he simply cannot be allowed to win THIS case. If SCO wins this case, the DMCA will look like kindergarten by comparison, and you will all be able to convert to Longhorn at premium prices.
Unlike many who write here, I don't fault Bill Gates, nor do I see a conspiracy on his part to FUD Linux. For one thing, Linux firms are, IMHO, mismanaging the businesses so badly that they don't need any help going broke. Add to that users who all want something for nothing, and you begin to understand how little MS is worried about a Linux desktop hurting Windows.
Whether we like it or not, money basically drives development of applications because you and I must get paid to keep on living and paying those bills. Those who work on Linux for "free" do so for our own reasons, and we are free to do that...unless McBride and Co. win this case.
You're really GOOD at that. Thanks, I enjoyed them both immensely...though I have to admit a certain sadness that it seems all too true!
Where in heck did you get the idea that companies have an obligation to serve *societies* best interests?! They have no such obligation any more than you do.
Never, NEVER accept any altruist scheme as the good. If you believe altruism to be so good, why don't you go to a place where it is practiced, like Vietnam or Communist China or better yet North Korea, and see how good it is for yourself BEFORE you advocate it as the good. After all, they practice the "virtues" of self-sacrifice, self-abnegation, living for the benefit of "all society", etc. Of course, most decent folks can't wait to escape that crap...
Convicted monopolist, eh?! Well, if you ever actually read the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1892, as amended, then some of the various court cases, you will understand that ANY company that "gets too big" could automatically be defined as monopolist. How can they be a monopoly when Apple had a better GUI and user interface a decade before MS? How can they be a monopoly in a market full of OSs? The problems with the other OS companies is that (IMHO) they either don't do what the market wants, or they are incompetently run, or they want to address only a particular market.
Bye the bye, the first three packaged applications that ran on the original MAC were Microsoft, which gave the original Mac *some* usability, without which it would have shipped as a boat anchor...and it was pretty close to that anyway.
Publically, the original purpose of this act was to prevent companies from getting together and setting [minimum] prices. Therefore, the head of say GE could not get together with Westinghouse to set the minimum (or other) price of light bulbs, thus keeping the price up. Privately I suspect, and I believe it has been proven over the years, that it was passed due to a) a fundamental hostility toward business in general and businessmen in particular, and b) to shift more power to bureaucrats in government.
Why is it that people seem to have such an inherent trust of government, esp. given EVERY governments track record, yet they have so little in business and businessmen, to whom most of us owe our jobs?!
This is a philosophical problem, and it starts in schools, and esp. universities. Businesses and successful business people often give large donations to universities, but they don't understand that they are supporting their own destruction. Most professors I've met are either openly hostile toward business, or consider it beneath their dignity, or just don't think about it at all (other than being very glad they don't have to compete "out there").
While I am not saying that businesses, MS included, are without fault in every situation, ask yourself if you could create your own from scratch, make it very successful, then watch others who have done pretty much nothing special in life either bad mouth you or take you to court and attempt to choke the lifeblood out of you, simply for trying to be the most successful you can in any given situation.
More importantly, ask yourself what is the track record of GOVERNMENTS that have become "monopolistic". The richest individuals, even the biggest companies, pale by comparison.
This is one of the reasons that I took ALL my money out of the stock market: There is no way to tell when the low-life "analysts" are scamming, who they are in cahoots with, nor what the driving force is. Because the SEC will not really investigate and recommend the prosecution of these folks, and the big money behind them, we, the "small investors" are left holding the bag - an empty bag!
For example, which of the investment trust bankers and their stock market cronies (here, I am speaking of the firms owners/board members) have gone to jail? Why was Spitzer willing to settle for just MONEY, and how does the state skimming 5% or so of the gross take represent justice? I guess age has made me cynical, but I do know that a rational, objective standard (and practice) of justice is the only thing that stands between us and becoming a country like Afghanistan or most other countries in the world.
If I am going to gamble money, I might as well play the LOTTO or go to Vegas. Vegas has better shows, and the chances of doubling your money, poor as they are, seem better. Then again, so do your chances of losing it!
You are supposedly paying them to be experts, and give you expert advice. To my way of thinking, it's pretty obvious that there has been a LOT of defrauding their investors, even their big ones.
IMHO, probably half the folks on Wall Street could/should have been charged with federal crimes. Until something like that happens, there is no way they will get my money to play with -- where they get paid whether I win or lose! I can better than that myself, but only on "a level playing field" where there is no manipulation.
Since we do NOT live in a democracy, nor should we want to, it is imperative that each of you take time to write your senators and representatives and keep their feet to the fire. As Eddie Childs used to say, "If your congressmen aren't doing their jobs, fire 'em!"
It would be great if they acquired by a large corporation like IBM. There is nothing wrong with companies buying G-V's (I'd give up my 80th birthday to fly one), but not just to please the CEO/CTO/COO/CFO egos.
Remember too that the workers/scientists at HP are not the same people as the management. Over the last 30 years, I have seen truly brillant minds get laid off while the clowns at the top mismanage the company into Ch 11, then run off with their golden parachutes. Sad.
Obviously, you have never had to pick up bloody body parts, ones that just moments before belonged to your best friend.
If voting and free speech ever fail seriously enough to pose a imminent personal threat, you'll get an opportunity to test your revolutionary resolve...and you aren't going to like it.
Au Contraire: Sometimes the new "information sharing" works the wrong way, i.e., they share the mistakes, not the fixes ;^)
The lawyers are, and have been for years, giving the American people an IQ test to see if they understand the concept of property rights and the proper transferral of them to the buyer. Sadly, the majority of Americans do not think in intellectual terms, so the fraud is being perpetrated almost without discussion...current audience excepted, of course.
When you purchase a product, that product (rather, copy of it) becomes yours to do with as you see fit. Now, you cannot copy disks any more than you can books or jigs, but that is it! The concept of ownership implies the right of use and disposition. Otherwise, you are only a custodian: You have the responsibilities and duties of ownership, but none of the rights.
The concept of you only "licensing" property is a direct attack on the concept of *individual* property rights as such, and you should (and most of you do) fight to preserve them.