Because those are going to get an user to quit using MS-Access?
Users build databases in MS-Access. They can do it quickly, and until the F/OSS community can replace it with something offering better value, they won't switch. For a lot of small/medium enterprises, it's an important tool.
I know businesses using it, and for what they need, it works fine. Small (20mb) databases which are for non-core functions and a small (5) user base. In many cases, they do some of their own maintenance and reporting. They don't need stored procedures, replication or transactions for that.
Based on what I've read of the Gnu manifesto, the guy's quite a fascist himself, referring to a "software tax" and high paying organisations being "banned".
Most left-wing "liberals" don't understand just how fascist they are. They see their aims as being "good" and other people's as "bad". They assume superiority over others who do not share their view, and sneer at others, assuming that other people can't possibly decide for themselves what is good for them (eg over healthcare, transport, choice of computer).
Conservatism is generally less bad, but still likes to nanny people. Hopefully, the Conservative party in the UK will go more in that direction.
Right. Against fascism. "high-paying ones are banned". Not fascist at all.
I like to code, lots of people do. I like to play around with features of languages. But in the end, I've got to eat. And that means doing a job. And no-one's going to pay me to do what I like. They want the rather dull account chaseup reports written, or send out "special offer" SS messages to a group of customers. Sometimes my work is fun, but sometimes there are things I don't like doing, but I trade my time and skills for their money.
This guy should go and do 5 years in a real computer department sometime.
From what I understand, The whole Gnu thing is about a bunch of tools, including GCC.
I also understand that you don't need Gnu tools to run Linux. That they are development tools which are optional.
I understand that the Gnu tools may have helped to make Linux by providing a compiler, but then, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Did RMS use any tools for compiling/documenting/editing? In which case, where is the accreditation for those?
Ultimately, Linux could have been compiled with something other than GCC. It wasn't a necessity.
Why does RMS insist on calling it Gnu/Linux, if there's no Gnu in there?
that of "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
and
"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative... Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."
That's what Benito Mussolini said, the guy who led a party of fascists. Of course, you could take the earlier 1890 definition, which was the name taken by a group of left-wing revolutionary socialists (again, nothing to do with big business).
Fascism may include support for certain businesses, but that is not its aim. The support for particular businesses is more about those businesses providing political support for the higher aim of state control.
Now, you, Stallman and whoever can have your own opinion about what it means. But if you want to declare that fascism means support for big businesses, then I'll declare that democracy means a system of government where it is from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need. OK?
I have history to back up my assertion (including one who led a party that called itself Fascists) and you have none.
I'm not sure that I agree with you in terms of Conservatives. From what I know of the UK Conservatives in the 20th century, they have mostly been low-taxation but quite often lacking in the personal freedom area. The Thatcher era certainly introduced more fiscal freedoms, but introduced quite a lot of social restrictions on individuals. That said, Blair has been far worse. I refrain from using terms like "right wing" because it fails to describe anything. It is used variously to describe everyone from the John Redwood/Alan Duncan types who are basically laissez-faire capitalists to neo-nazis (many of whom are actually economic socialists).
Libertarians have chosen that word to distinguish themselves from non-liberal liberals. The ones I know understand what liberal meant in it's original sense, but know that they will be misunderstood if they use it.
That said, I've even heard a few high-tax supporters trying to declare themselves as "libertarian".
Stopping filming because you don't like Real Player makes you look like a giant size ivory-tower dwelling idiot. Everyone has to compromise to some degree, even presidents and kings. However, you can compromise in small ways, to gain in bigger ways, the old "losing the battle to win the war".
The answer to free software is for more of it to be written to deal with tasks people want to do every day. There's still no free software database that replaces MS Access for functionality (I've tried OOo Base, and it's not close).
I think you may be confusing what ESR means by "custom jobs". He doesn't mean small one-offs. He's referring to in-house jobs, that is, salaried workers doing work for a company's internal systems, as distinguished from packaged applications sold in multiple copies. My guess is that his numbers on this are probably about right.
Free software can work in a financial sense. Some businesses are making money from it - mostly by selling support services for their free software. Other businesses utilise it, and in the process, give something back - Google sponsor some Firefox guys, Apple contribute to BSD, IBM have made numerous contributions. A lot of the free software development is in the enhancement by other people (for instance, I used a component that a developer had written and contributed my own changes back).
I do agree with you about Linus, though. The guy's a pragmatist. When RMS says that if there isn't free software to do a job, then it's not worth doing, he's living in his own private ivory tower. No business can operate in this way. They have to get the job done. If there's not a free alternative, then what should they do? Write it themselves?
The libertarian party is not "conservative" but "liberal" in its classic sense.
Conservatives normally believed in things like tradition, supporting national business, religion and so forth. Classic liberals believe in minimal involvement by the state in people's lives. Bush is conservative, but not libertarian (no libertarian would support the shocking debts that Bush is running up).
That's idiocy. Millions of businesses run apps they've built themselves or bought/downloaded from elsewhere.
If Microsoft introduced something that meant I couldn't compile my own apps or buy/download from small vendors, they'd see an even greater flight to Linux.
Fascism is nothing to do with "sucking up to business".
Fascism is the belief in nation over individual. This can include protecting special business interests, particularly those who provide some sort of symbiotic support for government (like political supporters or businesses which will wholeheartedly co-operate with government), but it is much more general than "sucking up to business".
RMS is a terrible representative of the free software movement. He preaches to the converted, instead of winning hearts and minds.
Originally, liberals (including those in the UK) believed in liberty in both economic and social terms.
The term liberal has been corrupted by those who support big government in a financial sense and small government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of government. This is true in the UK where the Liberal Democrats are basically left-wing, and the USA where people declare themselves as liberals where they believe in more government.
Many people who declare themselves as liberals are basically socialists.
If you hear the term "libertarian", it's because they can't use the word liberal, even though they are in its original sense.
We could help these people, but instead we use them as subjects of medical research.
And that We being who, exactly? Various internal, UN, oversees aid and charities? They already are.
What we are talking about is that those organisations aren't doing enough. And so a drug company offers another option. The option works for them. Why should that drug company (supported by shareholders expecting a return on their investment) choose to provide a simple treatment that gives them no benefit?
So, would you rather see them have no work at all?
Personally, given the choice of dangerous work and having no food for my family, I'd choose dangerous work. And maybe by doing something a little dangerous, they can earn a little more and get their children educated, instead of doing something like being a subsistence farmer.
If you've got The Incredibles DVD, there's a bit in the directors commentary about the use of John Ratzenberger. ISTR Brad Bird saying something about not wanting to risk the movie without his presence in it, like a rabbit's foot.
Having read a few stories on this software, your comment is very sound.
The problem is that the overall accuracy falls into what I would consider normal parameters. Most star movies are reasonably well made formula, enough to keep a lot of people reasonably happy.
The reason that you can predict outcomes based on genre/cast etc so accurately is the way that most audiences choose a film - on the cast, and preferably if it's a format that they know the cast member in. They expect and want Tom Cruise to be Mr Everyman, and Meg Ryan to be Miss Kooky. When stars step outside of that (eg Magnolia, In the Cut), it fries a lot of brains.
It is very hard to sell someone on a film with an almost unknown cast. I remember seeing Reservoir Dogs in a 1/5th full cinema, and couldn't get a single person interested. Revolutionary and critically acclaimed it may have been, but it was not a monster cinema hit initially.
People go and see the people they like. A star with a big film can come off it and produce a bit of a turkey, and mostly still get an initial audience until word of mouth spreads.
Of course, the people that they like can't keep delivering a duff product. If they star in a series of bad movies, they will lose their audience.
It's really bizarre because the cast has probably the least effect on a good movie, as witnessed by some utter clunkers starring some great actors.
The problem is that the way that Microsoft choose to make a profit is incompatible with the way that slashdotters think, where Google is more compatible. Google also release products that are simply dynamite (Gmail, Google Maps) where Microsoft release little more than products with tweaks or new graphics (see Office since 2000, Vista).
Let's not forget that Google want to make a decent profit. But companies have different ways to make a profit.
For instance, some manufacturers take the attitude of building in a short lifespan because then they can get another sale soon after. Others take the view of making a less than reliable product and making a lot of money on spare parts. Others use various means to ensure that any upgrades/consumables for the products will cost a great deal. And a few decide that the best way to trade is to make a great value product because even though you don't get a good short term hit, you build customer loyalty and word-of-mouth. Financially speaking, there's probably no right answer to make money.
So, logically, it follows that you won't mind the government having a video camera in your home? After all, you are doing nothing wrong.
We have to be extremely careful of government. The people running them would gladly see martial law and suspended elections to allow them to pursue their own agenda if they could get away with it.
I believe that government should keep it's nose out unless it has good reason. I don't have a problem with a politician tapping my phone line/internet traffic if they have a reason to (eg, they suspect I have been guilty of a serious crime) and in addition, have been through a privacy check (like a panel of independent judges). The government just recording data is open to abuse on a grand scale, whether on a personal or political scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Users build databases in MS-Access. They can do it quickly, and until the F/OSS community can replace it with something offering better value, they won't switch. For a lot of small/medium enterprises, it's an important tool.
I know businesses using it, and for what they need, it works fine. Small (20mb) databases which are for non-core functions and a small (5) user base. In many cases, they do some of their own maintenance and reporting. They don't need stored procedures, replication or transactions for that.
Most left-wing "liberals" don't understand just how fascist they are. They see their aims as being "good" and other people's as "bad". They assume superiority over others who do not share their view, and sneer at others, assuming that other people can't possibly decide for themselves what is good for them (eg over healthcare, transport, choice of computer).
Conservatism is generally less bad, but still likes to nanny people. Hopefully, the Conservative party in the UK will go more in that direction.
I like to code, lots of people do. I like to play around with features of languages. But in the end, I've got to eat. And that means doing a job. And no-one's going to pay me to do what I like. They want the rather dull account chaseup reports written, or send out "special offer" SS messages to a group of customers. Sometimes my work is fun, but sometimes there are things I don't like doing, but I trade my time and skills for their money.
This guy should go and do 5 years in a real computer department sometime.
I also understand that you don't need Gnu tools to run Linux. That they are development tools which are optional.
I understand that the Gnu tools may have helped to make Linux by providing a compiler, but then, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Did RMS use any tools for compiling/documenting/editing? In which case, where is the accreditation for those?
Ultimately, Linux could have been compiled with something other than GCC. It wasn't a necessity.
Why does RMS insist on calling it Gnu/Linux, if there's no Gnu in there?
English or Italian will suffice.
I wouldn't normally waste my time with insulting ACs, but perhaps you'd like to tell me where the report or form designer in Postgres are.
and
"The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative... Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."
That's what Benito Mussolini said, the guy who led a party of fascists. Of course, you could take the earlier 1890 definition, which was the name taken by a group of left-wing revolutionary socialists (again, nothing to do with big business).
Fascism may include support for certain businesses, but that is not its aim. The support for particular businesses is more about those businesses providing political support for the higher aim of state control.
Now, you, Stallman and whoever can have your own opinion about what it means. But if you want to declare that fascism means support for big businesses, then I'll declare that democracy means a system of government where it is from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need. OK?
I have history to back up my assertion (including one who led a party that called itself Fascists) and you have none.
Libertarians have chosen that word to distinguish themselves from non-liberal liberals. The ones I know understand what liberal meant in it's original sense, but know that they will be misunderstood if they use it.
That said, I've even heard a few high-tax supporters trying to declare themselves as "libertarian".
The answer to free software is for more of it to be written to deal with tasks people want to do every day. There's still no free software database that replaces MS Access for functionality (I've tried OOo Base, and it's not close).
Free software can work in a financial sense. Some businesses are making money from it - mostly by selling support services for their free software. Other businesses utilise it, and in the process, give something back - Google sponsor some Firefox guys, Apple contribute to BSD, IBM have made numerous contributions. A lot of the free software development is in the enhancement by other people (for instance, I used a component that a developer had written and contributed my own changes back).
I do agree with you about Linus, though. The guy's a pragmatist. When RMS says that if there isn't free software to do a job, then it's not worth doing, he's living in his own private ivory tower. No business can operate in this way. They have to get the job done. If there's not a free alternative, then what should they do? Write it themselves?
Conservatives normally believed in things like tradition, supporting national business, religion and so forth. Classic liberals believe in minimal involvement by the state in people's lives. Bush is conservative, but not libertarian (no libertarian would support the shocking debts that Bush is running up).
If Microsoft introduced something that meant I couldn't compile my own apps or buy/download from small vendors, they'd see an even greater flight to Linux.
Fascism is the belief in nation over individual. This can include protecting special business interests, particularly those who provide some sort of symbiotic support for government (like political supporters or businesses which will wholeheartedly co-operate with government), but it is much more general than "sucking up to business".
RMS is a terrible representative of the free software movement. He preaches to the converted, instead of winning hearts and minds.
The term liberal has been corrupted by those who support big government in a financial sense and small government in a social sense. Generally non-earners, or beneficiaries of government. This is true in the UK where the Liberal Democrats are basically left-wing, and the USA where people declare themselves as liberals where they believe in more government.
Many people who declare themselves as liberals are basically socialists.
If you hear the term "libertarian", it's because they can't use the word liberal, even though they are in its original sense.
Next up: Braveheart, the completely true and utterly unbiased story of William Wallace.
And that We being who, exactly? Various internal, UN, oversees aid and charities? They already are.
What we are talking about is that those organisations aren't doing enough. And so a drug company offers another option. The option works for them. Why should that drug company (supported by shareholders expecting a return on their investment) choose to provide a simple treatment that gives them no benefit?
Yeah, because movies are the pinnacle of accurate reporting. Like Titanic, U-571 and Braveheart.
Personally, given the choice of dangerous work and having no food for my family, I'd choose dangerous work. And maybe by doing something a little dangerous, they can earn a little more and get their children educated, instead of doing something like being a subsistence farmer.
IBM aren't doing OSS just to get a lot of geeks to like them.
I've switched from a few suppliers on this basis, and then made sure to write to customer services to tell them why I went elsewhere.
That's got to be one of the most impractical uses of technology invented, and an excellent breeding ground for germs.
If you've got The Incredibles DVD, there's a bit in the directors commentary about the use of John Ratzenberger. ISTR Brad Bird saying something about not wanting to risk the movie without his presence in it, like a rabbit's foot.
The problem is that the overall accuracy falls into what I would consider normal parameters. Most star movies are reasonably well made formula, enough to keep a lot of people reasonably happy.
The reason that you can predict outcomes based on genre/cast etc so accurately is the way that most audiences choose a film - on the cast, and preferably if it's a format that they know the cast member in. They expect and want Tom Cruise to be Mr Everyman, and Meg Ryan to be Miss Kooky. When stars step outside of that (eg Magnolia, In the Cut), it fries a lot of brains.
It is very hard to sell someone on a film with an almost unknown cast. I remember seeing Reservoir Dogs in a 1/5th full cinema, and couldn't get a single person interested. Revolutionary and critically acclaimed it may have been, but it was not a monster cinema hit initially.
People go and see the people they like. A star with a big film can come off it and produce a bit of a turkey, and mostly still get an initial audience until word of mouth spreads.
Of course, the people that they like can't keep delivering a duff product. If they star in a series of bad movies, they will lose their audience.
It's really bizarre because the cast has probably the least effect on a good movie, as witnessed by some utter clunkers starring some great actors.
Let's not forget that Google want to make a decent profit. But companies have different ways to make a profit.
For instance, some manufacturers take the attitude of building in a short lifespan because then they can get another sale soon after. Others take the view of making a less than reliable product and making a lot of money on spare parts. Others use various means to ensure that any upgrades/consumables for the products will cost a great deal. And a few decide that the best way to trade is to make a great value product because even though you don't get a good short term hit, you build customer loyalty and word-of-mouth. Financially speaking, there's probably no right answer to make money.
We have to be extremely careful of government. The people running them would gladly see martial law and suspended elections to allow them to pursue their own agenda if they could get away with it.
I believe that government should keep it's nose out unless it has good reason. I don't have a problem with a politician tapping my phone line/internet traffic if they have a reason to (eg, they suspect I have been guilty of a serious crime) and in addition, have been through a privacy check (like a panel of independent judges). The government just recording data is open to abuse on a grand scale, whether on a personal or political scale.