This hypotetical example should clear up the things a bit.
Joe User is a Mac OS X user and has a problem with a program he uses. He writes: "Hi, I'm a Mac G4 user and the program X don't work. It's way too hard. It doesn't do what I want it to do no matter how many buttons I click. Some people said I should read the manual but it's too full of big words I dont understand. Make it simpler."
His brother Jack User is a Linux user and he writes. "I'm using Linux 9.1 and the program doesn't work no matter what buttons I click. Some people told me to RTFM but it's boring. Other people told me to check man-pages but I'm not gay. Make your program simpler!"
Now, think about the programmers of those apps. One will post a bug report and next version might very well ship with larger and more descriptive icons. Another programmer will laugh his ass off and then post the email into the mailing list so everyone can laugh and then forget it.
I can't really blame Linux programmers not for designing programs for users who have IQ 50 and no interest to RTFM because OSS is mostly scrathing your own itch, but, that means Apple will cater to the needs of non-programmers faster then the OSS community.
If you think *BSD licence/Public Domain is such a horrific thing that will lead into a chaos and anarchy why are the *BSD projects still free? Why hasn't anyone hijacked everything that is public domain?
Maybe because they can't?
And wether you like it or not, without *BSD system (and the licensing it has) computing world would be much poorer indeed. Windows might have a way worse network code, there would not be MacOS X etc...
Bottomline is that the greater the availability of goods (information in this case) the more people will benefit from it.
"you can be 100% sure about what this software does" If you're a trained programmer with the knowledge of the language in question and time to read the source code that is. Otherwise it's a question of trust. Do you trust IBM, Microsoft, Redhat or dozen hackers?
"you can be 100% sure in 100 years the data written by this software can still be read" If you need the data in 100 years with luck you might find some ancient tech documents making a creation of a new file-reader cheaper.
And then a question. You are saying that you simply cannot trust people writing software. What about those making cars? Are you sure they didn't add some trackers so that illuminati will always know where you're driving? What about bakers? Are you certain they aren't adding brain control powder to bread?
From the article. ...One unusual provision, however, allows Microsoft to license some of the code -- known as communication protocols -- to outside companies on "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" terms.
So no, they're not breaking the DOJ settlement unless you consider 100k fee unreasonable and discriminatory.
Unreasonable? Hardly, in a business world that money is peanuts.
Discriminatory? Nope. As far as we know, they're asking the same price from everyone. And before someone claims that price that high is discriminatory I have few things to ask from you.
Is Ferrari discriminating against me because I'm too poor?
If Discriminatory clause refers to price everyone should be able to get it, why would the reasonable price clause exist?
What they're doing might be immoral, but illegal? Hardly. If they ask 100k from everyone wanting to use the protocol they're not discriminating against anyone.
And how are you going to make everyone to change to a modified protocol and make everyone making SMTP software accept the modification? What about making everyone update their servers and/or clients?
Do you think I'd be easy like the change to IPv6? Oh, wait...
Why? Because I dont have a virus scanner and I know I'm not alone in that.
Yes, I know that it's useful, that's why I want it. But critical? Number of times my system has succumbed into a virus? 0.
If my next version of Windows just keeps my computer secure from virii, great! If not, what have I lost?
It could be argued that this adds to bloat. It is true. However, IMHO, it adds much more to usability. No need to read dozens of reviews of scanners, check if they happen to work with your OS and hardware combination, no need to subscribe into an additional download database (scanner that's not kept up to date isn't worth much).
Maybe because, for the average user, things propably wont change much? MS will make sure of that, because, if they don't, people will either not upgrade or change OS.
Users run IE with way too many privilidges -> Users complain to MS about IE being insecure -> MS locks down IE -> Users complain about MS locking down IE.
Is it fault of IE if all the users run it with activeX and all the goodies enabled for all the web pages?
If it is, is it fault of Linux if people run everything in it as root and have 'god' or 'admin' as password?
many CEOs will see OSS developers as a liability thanks to this, because, "they dont care about our company and will happily release our precious source due to their GPL fanaticsm".
That arguement will be very convincing if that actually happened (and it seems to be quite propable that it did).
Moral problem:
1) Assuming that WASTE source was actually released without concent of it's owner (AOL).
2) The fact that people are sharing the source forward claiming that "it's GPL so it is moral and legal"
Those points leads to the following: they are in essense demanding that GPL copyright is enforced so that they source won't be suppressed, even if that collides with the copyright AOL has over WASTE! Therefore, leading to the conclusion that only GPL copyright must be upheld and others must not. Extremely hypocritical conclusion that will surely backfire!
You all are missing my point... while there are dozens of server distributions to aimed at Linux admins there are not any Linux server distros aimed at people who...it is geared towards people who have no Unix knowledge and do not intend to get any.
I'm talking about "my 10 year old brother can install and admin it" easy.
Almost anyone would get advantage out of a personal server.
And almost no-one can set up one themselves. (Let's be realistic, people who could set up a Linux server are less then 10% of the users... maybe even 5% or less).
Demand exists for Linux in that area, it could be used.
I'm talking about targetting homes with more then one computer.
Parents complain because downloads prevents them from reading their email and surfing, downloads must be cut to get low ping, there are no file & printer servers...
I'm pretty sure many people would fine those handy, even if they don't know what packet is.
Except... by the time I'd know Linux well enough to code it we'll all be running sentient OSes anyway.
And if your point was about how everyone should code new stuff of Linux... Why isn't a good idea worth something? Or is there only one true(tm) way people should interact with Linux? By coding?
Why isn't anyone trying to make a home-server linux distro?
"just put the cd in and wait, in half a hour you will have a printer-sharing, file-sharing server that will greatly enhance your internet experience! Now you and your family can download, surf and game without any problems in the bandwidth!"
If Linux is going to break into home of joe average that might very well be the way. As a black box that does wonders for you. No learning, no configuring, just advantages.
And what do you think is easier, to write secure code or educate people in security AND make them interested in maintaining security even when it is inconvenient?
Slashdot Mirror
Some of them have.
If I create an OSS project X there is no proof that no-one except me even reads the code.
Can be read != will be read.
Exactly how many computers is that/soldier?
More then one I'd bet. Why?
Why should I waste my money and time to research something if I'm not going to make $ with it?
That goes double for businesses.
This hypotetical example should clear up the things a bit.
Joe User is a Mac OS X user and has a problem with a program he uses. He writes:
"Hi, I'm a Mac G4 user and the program X don't work. It's way too hard. It doesn't do what I want it to do no matter how many buttons I click. Some people said I should read the manual but it's too full of big words I dont understand. Make it simpler."
His brother Jack User is a Linux user and he writes.
"I'm using Linux 9.1 and the program doesn't work no matter what buttons I click. Some people told me to RTFM but it's boring. Other people told me to check man-pages but I'm not gay. Make your program simpler!"
Now, think about the programmers of those apps. One will post a bug report and next version might very well ship with larger and more descriptive icons. Another programmer will laugh his ass off and then post the email into the mailing list so everyone can laugh and then forget it.
I can't really blame Linux programmers not for designing programs for users who have IQ 50 and no interest to RTFM because OSS is mostly scrathing your own itch, but, that means Apple will cater to the needs of non-programmers faster then the OSS community.
If you think *BSD licence/Public Domain is such a horrific thing that will lead into a chaos and anarchy why are the *BSD projects still free? Why hasn't anyone hijacked everything that is public domain?
Maybe because they can't?
And wether you like it or not, without *BSD system (and the licensing it has) computing world would be much poorer indeed. Windows might have a way worse network code, there would not be MacOS X etc...
Bottomline is that the greater the availability of goods (information in this case) the more people will benefit from it.
Is there a sonyesque powerstuggle going on inside IBM that results in left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing?
What is news and what is not should be decided according to their own merits, not because the editors have (or should have) a political axe to grind.
Unless you wish to live in an imaginary bubble where everything is just the way you want it to be, instead of hearing how things really are.
Isn't that a really bad thing? Making the users pay the price for spreading the message of the developers?
It's not about giving you good programs, it's about spreading our message and fame... a Really bad PR move.
Translation:
"you can be 100% sure about what this software does"
If you're a trained programmer with the knowledge of the language in question and time to read the source code that is. Otherwise it's a question of trust. Do you trust IBM, Microsoft, Redhat or dozen hackers?
"you can be 100% sure in 100 years the data written by this software can still be read"
If you need the data in 100 years with luck you might find some ancient tech documents making a creation of a new file-reader cheaper.
And then a question. You are saying that you simply cannot trust people writing software. What about those making cars? Are you sure they didn't add some trackers so that illuminati will always know where you're driving? What about bakers? Are you certain they aren't adding brain control powder to bread?
They use Mozilla over IE?
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
That little link disagrees with out. Mozilla MIGHT have 5-10% usage... IF you include people using it on a non-windows platform.
I'd like to see you prove that IE is not the most used browser. Or that it doesn't have over 50% marketshare.
From the article.
...One unusual provision, however, allows Microsoft to license some of the code -- known as communication protocols -- to outside companies on "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" terms.
So no, they're not breaking the DOJ settlement unless you consider 100k fee unreasonable and discriminatory.
Unreasonable? Hardly, in a business world that money is peanuts.
Discriminatory? Nope. As far as we know, they're asking the same price from everyone. And before someone claims that price that high is discriminatory I have few things to ask from you.
Is Ferrari discriminating against me because I'm too poor?
If Discriminatory clause refers to price everyone should be able to get it, why would the reasonable price clause exist?
I guess Ferrari is discriminating against them too?
What they're doing might be immoral, but illegal? Hardly. If they ask 100k from everyone wanting to use the protocol they're not discriminating against anyone.
And how are you going to make everyone to change to a modified protocol and make everyone making SMTP software accept the modification? What about making everyone update their servers and/or clients?
Do you think I'd be easy like the change to IPv6? Oh, wait...
There's pretty much sand out there so... no time soon.
Why? Because I dont have a virus scanner and I know I'm not alone in that.
Yes, I know that it's useful, that's why I want it. But critical? Number of times my system has succumbed into a virus? 0.
If my next version of Windows just keeps my computer secure from virii, great! If not, what have I lost?
It could be argued that this adds to bloat. It is true. However, IMHO, it adds much more to usability. No need to read dozens of reviews of scanners, check if they happen to work with your OS and hardware combination, no need to subscribe into an additional download database (scanner that's not kept up to date isn't worth much).
So what? you can't upgrade the pixel amount either so it wont matter. When 4 and 5 MP cameras are out, they might very well have a larger HD out too.
Maybe because, for the average user, things propably wont change much? MS will make sure of that, because, if they don't, people will either not upgrade or change OS.
Because the problems went like this.
Users run IE with way too many privilidges
-> Users complain to MS about IE being insecure
-> MS locks down IE
-> Users complain about MS locking down IE.
Is it fault of IE if all the users run it with activeX and all the goodies enabled for all the web pages?
If it is, is it fault of Linux if people run everything in it as root and have 'god' or 'admin' as password?
Both a moral and practical one.
Practical problem:
many CEOs will see OSS developers as a liability thanks to this, because, "they dont care about our company and will happily release our precious source due to their GPL fanaticsm".
That arguement will be very convincing if that actually happened (and it seems to be quite propable that it did).
Moral problem:
1) Assuming that WASTE source was actually released without concent of it's owner (AOL).
2) The fact that people are sharing the source forward claiming that "it's GPL so it is moral and legal"
Those points leads to the following: they are in essense demanding that GPL copyright is enforced so that they source won't be suppressed, even if that collides with the copyright AOL has over WASTE! Therefore, leading to the conclusion that only GPL copyright must be upheld and others must not. Extremely hypocritical conclusion that will surely backfire!
You all are missing my point... while there are dozens of server distributions to aimed at Linux admins there are not any Linux server distros aimed at people who ...it is geared towards people who have no Unix knowledge and do not intend to get any.
I'm talking about "my 10 year old brother can install and admin it" easy.
Almost anyone would get advantage out of a personal server.
And almost no-one can set up one themselves. (Let's be realistic, people who could set up a Linux server are less then 10% of the users... maybe even 5% or less).
Demand exists for Linux in that area, it could be used.
I'm talking about targetting homes with more then one computer. Parents complain because downloads prevents them from reading their email and surfing, downloads must be cut to get low ping, there are no file & printer servers... I'm pretty sure many people would fine those handy, even if they don't know what packet is.
Except... by the time I'd know Linux well enough to code it we'll all be running sentient OSes anyway. And if your point was about how everyone should code new stuff of Linux... Why isn't a good idea worth something? Or is there only one true(tm) way people should interact with Linux? By coding?
Why isn't anyone trying to make a home-server linux distro? "just put the cd in and wait, in half a hour you will have a printer-sharing, file-sharing server that will greatly enhance your internet experience! Now you and your family can download, surf and game without any problems in the bandwidth!" If Linux is going to break into home of joe average that might very well be the way. As a black box that does wonders for you. No learning, no configuring, just advantages.
And what do you think is easier, to write secure code or educate people in security AND make them interested in maintaining security even when it is inconvenient?