This issue is mostly a Microsoft vs. IBM battle, but as usual, it the small companies who will do the actual fight for them. As for Miscrosoft, it is not longer worthy to speculate if they are behind SCO/Caldera: THEY ARE!; at least according to IBM (one of the participants).
It is not an issue of poor installation design, the issue is attempting to satisfy differnet users (of different levels of skills) at once! I understand you prefer that the installation process by more idiot-friendly, but if it was satisfactory to you, it would not be satisfactory to me -- I have at least 15 years experience with Unix.
Although it is hard to please everyone, I wander whether they asked you during install if you are willing to let them make most decisions for you. They cannot make all decisiions for you, unless the OS comes pre-intalled, so some trouble must be expected by default.
No, the concept is hard to understand. It is not unusual for graduate students in computer science to refuse to understand that something that is free can possibly be any good. Even if they are somewhat familiar with unix and emacs. It is a concept that they will probably never accept unless told otherwise by someone they respect. And some of these students are not dummies either, it is just that it is world they have never seen and cannot yet make sense of it. I observer similar things here in slashdot also, on so many other topics.
Microsoft has managed to corner the desktop market, and
that is there main reason of their success. It
is not the Windows produc,
but rather the fact that the customer has
no other viable choices but to buy Microsoft. If
Microsft switches to Linux or bsd, consumers
would still buy from them and for the same reasons!
When he PC comes preintalled, and all your
friends use this thing, and you have no (easy)
alternatives, it makes not difference if the
product is Windows, OSX, or Linux. Whatever the
the name of the product, Microsoft's success
is the same (at verious levels of degree, but
that is mostly a secondary detail.)
If the GPL is declared illegal by the courts, then you revert to the default license for the program which means that you have no rights at all! You cannot copy, you cannot distribute, and you cannot a lot things. That means, you now have less rights than before.
Judges could also knwo about Linux if they followed the DOJ vs Microsoft trial a few years ago. I think it is possible that they head of Linux through a major and recent popular case.
Oh no! I was not publically taking a position in this argument. It was just saying that the RSA example is not worth mentioning in a general discussion. It could, however, be mentioned only if the original poster listed ALL advantages, and ALL disadvantages and tallied the results, so we can put the RSA case in prospective.
As for my personal opinion, I am against patents. Yes, it will cause so drugs not be invented, but so what? What counts is whether total good exceeds total evil, the conclusion does not depend on one disadvange (you can always find a disadvantage in anything).
But drugs is bad example. What good will these drugs bring to society if only very few can afford them. Should the rest suffer the slavery of IP lawas for very little in return?
When somone is arguing that alcohol and tobacco are generally bad for the humans, there is no point in saying "but tobaco is good for keeping me thin". Of course tobacco is good for something, but since we are talking in generalities and the harm of tobacco far outweight the good (as the speaker claims), there is no point mentioning matters of little importance.
Both of you are talking about differnent things. You talk about "the right to live" , and your parent about the "world he prefers to live". I have not looked, but it would not be surprising if the slashdot moderators have grade this exchange "insightfull" -- for real, such grade is too common in./ , when both posters blow their horn on differnt winds.
I just wander if they have the right revision, the exact one that was released to the public in binary. What did Microsft also privide the compiler and cc flags so they can compare the output binaries? I doubt it. There is no way to tell then if they got the right sources.
In many cases (not all, of course), the issue is money! You might still turn the GPL propriatory, provided you the copyright holders agree in lieu of payment. So blank statements that GPL code (or any other license) cannot be use in propriatory software is not always true. With bsd, a company does not have to pay you a dime, with GPL they have offer dollars to the owners.
The option is usually there, they question really is do you steal the code without pay, or do you want to pay (when possible).
Microsoft would rather not violate laws. But if you think that Microsoft is scared from the law and (accroding to your logic) will not do anything illegal, well, the history of Microsft speaks for itself. You are wrong.
The RSA example exibits faulty logic, why care is the example was even appropriate?
Back to the original logic. So what if some atchivements are not possible without at legal-patent system: for every case, lots of things are impossible, detrimental, or have disadvantages. The issue always is whether the advantages outweight the disadvantages. It is plainly obvious that you will always have some sort of disadvange in everything, so WHY bother to mention each and every negative? It is needless (and misleading) diversion, as if it particularly matters!
So now we discover that even the wisest among us, might not to be wise at all.
Bruce, on the 1st approximation, a paid developer does not particularly care whether the end product will be sold retail, used internally, or simply discarded after it is finished. So why do you bring such statistics into the picture? I was looking for statistics about whether closed source translates to more jobs, not whether the snow is white.
I have argued in other threads that Free Software works against developers because all these company that develop for internal might build on top of programs and libraries available as Free Software. THAT is not good, developers will probably prefer that these programs and libraries be re-implements again and again. Will all these re-implementations translate to more jobs? This is the main issue.
No doubt, in a Free Software world programmers will still have jobs. That is not the point!
The point is how many jobs, and whether it would pay more. I am affraid, programmers will have more better-paying jobs when the sourse is secret, so so more engineers will be needed when demand is higher.
Sure, Free Software did open the market for customization. But still, there is more money for developers if they closed the source to the customization business so that others will be forced to keep re-implementing the same code over, and over again. More jobs, means more money. You can get more jobs when the source is closed so others will be forced to buy the product from you for expensive dollars, or hire others to re-implement it.
Let there be no doubt that Free Software benefits society, the problem is that we the programers will be sacrifical lamps.
We are talking about developing for money, not just general developing for leisure. If it was for leisure, sure, it is beneficial to use the JPEG library and build your software on top of it. But when developing for money, NO! In that case it is best if thousants of developers had to keep re-implementing the JPEG library and while being paid for it.
In my opinion, (and nobody on earth can accuse me of being anti Free Software) the issue is not black and white. It has been a complicated issue for me to weight the advantagest to the developer against the disadvantages. So far, the rise of Free Software might have slightly even helped the Free-Softwar developer, but the the whole Free buisiness is inherently rigged againsts us. It is a matter of time before we stop receiving the benefits of the upswing and plung into regular starvation.
And if somebody rises to provide links to the (propaganda) articles of ESR, or of anyone else, please keep in mind that chances are that I read them already. In general, No! Free Software works against against the monetary benefits of developers in general -- a little more against the quality developers, but slightly less for mediocre developes, although both will get screwed anyway.
Re:Parrot started out as a joke, and is still a jo
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
One more thing: sometime around Linux-kernel 1.4, there was an attempt to rewrite the kernel in C++. Although that attempt was a failure, did Linux turned out to be a failure?
We will judge when it arrives. I am just suspisious of people who arrive to speak ill about other people's projects before completion, especially, when these people have a prior record of achivement.
Re:Parrot started out as a joke, and is still a jo
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
Strange, as I recall Topaz was a C++ of Perl5 by a tiny group of developers. (Please correct me if wrong). As for Perl6, it is impossible to judge ahead of time, unless of course, you are too eager to spread FUD, much like Caldera, and you keep your reasons a secret.
I have taken the trouble to study the Perl6 features, and I even know Parrot Assembly, not to mention that many Perl6 features have been available as Perl5 for years! I am still waiting to hear why the project is ill conceived, which unlike Topaz, it enjoys the support of most p5p (perl porters), they are the very same people who wrote perl5. If anything, the past history is a one of atchivement and success, not (as you claim) one of failure.
Re:The Superiority of PHP over Perl
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
I don't know Chinese, and yet, I don't complain that the language is "strange". If I know Chinese, I would insist that the language is just natural.
Perl takes years to learn. That is why it is so powerfull. Can you imagine how usufull French would be if you could learn French withing days? Simple languages are practically useless.
Re:The Superiority of PHP over Perl
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
These are references, not pointer.
Re:Barely about Perl. Certainly not essential.
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 1
This book is about (the upcoming) Perl6 and Parrot. If you want to a Perl5 book, buy something else.
So what if Perl6 is not ready. If I was interested in the Unified Theory, I would buy an appropiate book for the topic; or do I first have to wait until physists finaly decide whether the theory is valid or invalid?
Perl has lots of weak points, especially when compared to real languages like Lisp. But modularity is not a weak point of Perl; if anything, there is too much modularity. Even OO is modular, exceptions, IO, overloading, etc,.
Now that I have postted with specifics, do you mind telling us what is not modular in Perl?
Re:Parrot started out as a joke, and is still a jo
on
Perl 6 Essentials
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is it not true that most Free Software projects start small and then pickup exponentially? Debian had less than 70 develpers for several years, today there might be 1000 developers. Or, how about testing the the 2.6 kernel? Most people do not test the kernel until the release date gets closer, at which point traffic and bugfixes also increase exponenttially.
Slashdot Mirror
This issue is mostly a Microsoft vs. IBM
battle, but as usual, it the small
companies who will do the actual fight for them.
As for Miscrosoft, it is not longer worthy to
speculate if they are behind SCO/Caldera: THEY ARE!;
at least according to IBM (one of the participants).
the issue is attempting to satisfy differnet
users (of different levels of skills) at
once! I understand you prefer that the installation
process by more idiot-friendly, but if it was
satisfactory to you, it would not be
satisfactory to me -- I have at least 15 years
experience with Unix.
Although it is hard to please everyone,
I wander whether they asked you during install
if you are willing to let them make most decisions for
you. They cannot make all decisiions for you,
unless the OS comes pre-intalled, so some
trouble must be expected by default.
No, the concept is hard to understand. It is not
unusual for graduate students in computer science
to refuse to understand that something that
is free can possibly be any good. Even if they
are somewhat familiar with unix and emacs.
It is a concept that they will probably never
accept unless told otherwise by someone they
respect. And some of these students are not
dummies either, it is just that it is world
they have never seen and cannot yet make sense of
it. I observer similar things here in slashdot
also, on so many other topics.
food, but code is not.
And recipes reside in the kitchen, but code
resides in the computer room.
Enough! an apple is always diffenrent than
orange.
Let's see, according to you nobody can use
a metaphor to make himself clear because...they
are different? IDIOT!, eh IDIOT!
Microsoft has managed to corner the desktop market, and that is there main reason of their success. It is not the Windows produc, but rather the fact that the customer has no other viable choices but to buy Microsoft. If Microsft switches to Linux or bsd, consumers would still buy from them and for the same reasons! When he PC comes preintalled, and all your friends use this thing, and you have no (easy) alternatives, it makes not difference if the product is Windows, OSX, or Linux. Whatever the the name of the product, Microsoft's success is the same (at verious levels of degree, but that is mostly a secondary detail.)
If the GPL is declared illegal by the courts,
then you revert to the default license for
the program which means that you have no
rights at all! You cannot copy, you cannot distribute,
and you cannot a lot things. That means, you
now have less rights than before.
Judges could also knwo about Linux if
they followed the DOJ vs Microsoft trial a
few years ago. I think it is possible that
they head of Linux through a major and recent popular case.
in this argument. It was just saying that
the RSA example is not worth mentioning in
a general discussion. It could, however, be
mentioned only if the original poster listed
ALL advantages, and ALL disadvantages and
tallied the results, so we can put the RSA case
in prospective.
As for my personal opinion, I am against patents.
Yes, it will cause so drugs not be invented, but
so what? What counts is whether total good exceeds
total evil, the conclusion does not depend on
one disadvange (you can always find a disadvantage
in anything).
But drugs is bad example. What good will these drugs
bring to society if only very few can afford them. Should
the rest suffer the slavery of IP lawas for very little
in return?
When somone is arguing that alcohol and tobacco
are generally bad for the humans, there is
no point in saying "but tobaco is good for
keeping me thin". Of course tobacco is good
for something, but since we are talking in
generalities and the harm of tobacco far outweight
the good (as the speaker claims), there is no
point mentioning matters of little importance.
Both of you are talking about differnent things. ./ , when both posters blow their
You talk about "the right to live" , and your parent
about the "world he prefers to live". I have
not looked, but it would not be surprising if
the slashdot moderators have grade this exchange
"insightfull" -- for real, such grade is
too common in
horn on differnt winds.
I just wander if they have the right revision,
the exact one that was released to the public
in binary. What did Microsft also privide
the compiler and cc flags so they can compare
the output binaries? I doubt it. There is
no way to tell then if they got the right sources.
issue is money! You might still turn the GPL
propriatory, provided you the copyright holders
agree in lieu of payment. So blank statements
that GPL code (or any other license) cannot be use in propriatory software
is not always true. With bsd, a company does
not have to pay you a dime, with GPL they have
offer dollars to the owners.
The option is usually there, they question really
is do you steal the code without pay, or do
you want to pay (when possible).
Microsoft would rather not violate laws. But
if you think that Microsoft is scared from
the law and (accroding to your logic) will
not do anything illegal, well, the history
of Microsft speaks for itself. You are wrong.
care is the example was even appropriate?
Back to the original logic. So what if
some atchivements are not possible without
at legal-patent system: for every case, lots
of things are impossible, detrimental, or
have disadvantages. The issue always is whether
the advantages outweight the disadvantages. It
is plainly obvious that you will always have
some sort of disadvange in everything, so WHY bother
to mention each and every negative? It is needless
(and misleading) diversion, as if it particularly
matters!
might not to be wise at all.
Bruce, on the 1st approximation, a paid developer does
not particularly care whether the end product will be sold
retail, used internally, or simply discarded after it is
finished. So why do you bring such statistics into the picture?
I was looking for statistics about whether closed source
translates to more jobs, not whether the snow is white.
I have argued in other threads that Free Software
works against developers because all these company that
develop for internal might build on top of programs
and libraries available as Free Software. THAT is not
good, developers will probably prefer that these
programs and libraries be re-implements again and again.
Will all these re-implementations translate to more jobs?
This is the main issue.
will still have jobs. That is not the point!
The point is how many jobs, and whether it would
pay more. I am affraid, programmers will
have more better-paying jobs when the sourse is secret, so
so more engineers will be needed when demand is higher.
customization. But still, there is more
money for developers if they closed the
source to the customization business so that
others will be forced to keep re-implementing
the same code over, and over again. More jobs,
means more money. You can get more jobs when
the source is closed so others will be forced
to buy the product from you for expensive dollars,
or hire others to re-implement it.
Let there be no doubt that Free Software benefits
society, the problem is that we the programers
will be sacrifical lamps.
just general developing for leisure. If it was
for leisure, sure, it is beneficial to use
the JPEG library and build your software on
top of it. But when developing for money, NO!
In that case it is best if thousants of developers
had to keep re-implementing the JPEG library and
while being paid for it.
In my opinion, (and nobody on earth can accuse me of
being anti Free Software) the issue is not
black and white. It has been a complicated
issue for me to weight the advantagest to the
developer against the disadvantages. So far,
the rise of Free Software might have slightly even
helped the Free-Softwar developer, but the
the whole Free buisiness is inherently rigged againsts us. It is
a matter of time before we stop receiving the
benefits of the upswing and plung into regular starvation.
And if somebody rises to provide links to
the (propaganda) articles of ESR, or of anyone else, please keep
in mind that chances are that I read them already.
In general, No! Free Software works against
against the monetary benefits of developers in general --
a little more against the quality developers,
but slightly less for mediocre developes, although
both will get screwed anyway.
there was an attempt to rewrite the kernel
in C++. Although that attempt was a failure, did Linux
turned out to be a failure?
We will judge when it arrives. I am just suspisious
of people who arrive to speak ill about other
people's projects before completion, especially,
when these people have a prior record
of achivement.
(Please correct me if wrong). As for Perl6,
it is impossible to judge ahead of time, unless
of course, you are too eager to spread FUD, much like Caldera,
and you keep your reasons a secret.
I have taken the trouble to study the Perl6
features, and I even know Parrot Assembly, not
to mention that many Perl6 features have
been available as Perl5 for years! I am still
waiting to hear why the project is ill conceived,
which unlike Topaz, it enjoys the support of
most p5p (perl porters), they are the very
same people who wrote perl5. If anything, the
past history is a one of atchivement and success,
not (as you claim) one of failure.
complain that the language is "strange". If
I know Chinese, I would insist that the language
is just natural.
Perl takes years to learn. That is why it is
so powerfull. Can you imagine how usufull
French would be if you could learn French withing
days? Simple languages are practically useless.
These are references, not pointer.
a Perl5 book, buy something else.
So what if Perl6 is not ready. If I was interested
in the Unified Theory, I would buy an appropiate book for
the topic; or do I first have to wait until physists
finaly decide whether the theory is valid or
invalid?
Perl has lots of weak points, especially when
compared to real languages like Lisp. But modularity
is not a weak point of Perl; if anything, there is
too much modularity. Even OO is modular, exceptions,
IO, overloading, etc,.
Now that I have postted with specifics, do you
mind telling us what is not modular in Perl?
Is it not true that most Free Software projects
start small and then pickup exponentially? Debian
had less than 70 develpers for several years,
today there might be 1000 developers. Or, how
about testing the the 2.6 kernel? Most people
do not test the kernel until the release date
gets closer, at which point traffic and bugfixes
also increase exponenttially.