Actually, it is falsifiable. Try reading
The Darwinian Revolution : Science Red in Tooth and Claw by Michael Ruse. It does a great job of explaining how Darwin came up with his theory in the face of great opposition. It's succeeded because observations support it.
Note that a number of other large complex systems are described by science, considered fact, and yet are not reproducible by experiment. For instance, the fact that stars exist through fusion, galaxies are scattered uniformly through the universe, and that the universe is expanding. No experiment reproduces these theories, but they're generally accepted as fact because all observations support the theories that describe them.
So he seems to think that Linux allows foreign competitors to undercut costs of companies using closed source alternatives. But I thought the largest provider of closed source software had proven that Linux has a higher cost.
So which is it? Oh I get it - Linux costs more than Windows when you use it but less when someone else uses it?
And what the heck is a triple edged sword? Talk about bad metaphors.
Hmm.. I'm assuming "you" here in the parenthetical means people in general or some other people in this thread since I haven't voiced enough information for anyone to label me gung-ho about anything yet.
However, I think it's naive to assume that any government believes all of its own propaganda, and the current US administration has some particularly egregious examples.
If this administration really thought that No Child Left Behind was going to obtain the results they promised, don't you think they might be adressing it at this point? Or at least decrying those opposing it?
Or why has the justification of the Iraq war continually changed as previous reasons become obviously false?
No, the current administration is much to smart to believe what they say. In fact, I think you can pretty much count on them NOT believing what they say. In some cases that's a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary. And sometimes it's just wrong.
On the other hand, it appears that everything Stallman writes, and does is consistent regarding his stance on software. This doesn't necessarily mean it's 'good' in an absolute sense, or 'better', but it is clearer.
As an example: It would be hard to argue that Stallman is trying to do something tangential to his cause, such as prop up or undermine any particular political party. However, it's pretty easy to make a compelling (although not necessarily correct) argument that the Iraq war was designed to enrich Haliburton and distract the public from the Enron scandal.
Ah, but your example is NOT contrived. I'm a programmer by living, and encounter that all the time. The idea of "you can just fix it" isn't really true. If it's a minor glitch in a simple program, no problem. But even small problems in arelatively naiscent project management programs are too large for me to spend my time on - for the same reason you cite. Sure, I could fix them, and I'd love to, and we'd all be better off in the long run, but somehow the mortgage company isn't so concerned about that, so I have to use something else in order to complete my current project.
That goes to the old rule that the last 10% is 90% of the work.
Having worked in a large commercial development environment, that really is true, and on two fronts: the code/bug/release cycle AND the "nice little feature" portion. Those little details about helpful, specific error messages, and input field order turn out to be critical for adoption, but feel like an indordinate waste of time on the development side.
So, most developers would rather code a whole new window manager/file system/project than tweak innumerable minor "usability" problems. This is exacerbated since developers tend to get used to using their software the way it was designed and/or works, which tends to blind the developer to easier or better ways to interact with the software.
On top of that, the OSS model by virtue of "pick your distribution" necessatates an inordinate amount of QA for "retail level" install/run capability.
And while it's fine to say that it's free, so just install it and fix it, you can't also then complain that it doesn't get adopted en masse. And unfortunately, if it doesn't get adopted, it's in danger of getting relegated to obscurity.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is falsifiable. Try reading The Darwinian Revolution : Science Red in Tooth and Claw by Michael Ruse. It does a great job of explaining how Darwin came up with his theory in the face of great opposition. It's succeeded because observations support it. Note that a number of other large complex systems are described by science, considered fact, and yet are not reproducible by experiment. For instance, the fact that stars exist through fusion, galaxies are scattered uniformly through the universe, and that the universe is expanding. No experiment reproduces these theories, but they're generally accepted as fact because all observations support the theories that describe them.
So he seems to think that Linux allows foreign competitors to undercut costs of companies using closed source alternatives. But I thought the largest provider of closed source software had proven that Linux has a higher cost.
So which is it? Oh I get it - Linux costs more than Windows when you use it but less when someone else uses it?
And what the heck is a triple edged sword? Talk about bad metaphors.
And truly the antidote to the daily grind.
Hmm.. I'm assuming "you" here in the parenthetical means people in general or some other people in this thread since I haven't voiced enough information for anyone to label me gung-ho about anything yet. However, I think it's naive to assume that any government believes all of its own propaganda, and the current US administration has some particularly egregious examples. If this administration really thought that No Child Left Behind was going to obtain the results they promised, don't you think they might be adressing it at this point? Or at least decrying those opposing it? Or why has the justification of the Iraq war continually changed as previous reasons become obviously false? No, the current administration is much to smart to believe what they say. In fact, I think you can pretty much count on them NOT believing what they say. In some cases that's a good thing. Sometimes it's necessary. And sometimes it's just wrong. On the other hand, it appears that everything Stallman writes, and does is consistent regarding his stance on software. This doesn't necessarily mean it's 'good' in an absolute sense, or 'better', but it is clearer. As an example: It would be hard to argue that Stallman is trying to do something tangential to his cause, such as prop up or undermine any particular political party. However, it's pretty easy to make a compelling (although not necessarily correct) argument that the Iraq war was designed to enrich Haliburton and distract the public from the Enron scandal.
On the other hand, at least you can count on Stallman believing what he says.
Ah, but your example is NOT contrived. I'm a programmer by living, and encounter that all the time. The idea of "you can just fix it" isn't really true. If it's a minor glitch in a simple program, no problem. But even small problems in arelatively naiscent project management programs are too large for me to spend my time on - for the same reason you cite. Sure, I could fix them, and I'd love to, and we'd all be better off in the long run, but somehow the mortgage company isn't so concerned about that, so I have to use something else in order to complete my current project.
That goes to the old rule that the last 10% is 90% of the work.
Having worked in a large commercial development environment, that really is true, and on two fronts: the code/bug/release cycle AND the "nice little feature" portion. Those little details about helpful, specific error messages, and input field order turn out to be critical for adoption, but feel like an indordinate waste of time on the development side.
So, most developers would rather code a whole new window manager/file system/project than tweak innumerable minor "usability" problems. This is exacerbated since developers tend to get used to using their software the way it was designed and/or works, which tends to blind the developer to easier or better ways to interact with the software.
On top of that, the OSS model by virtue of "pick your distribution" necessatates an inordinate amount of QA for "retail level" install/run capability.
And while it's fine to say that it's free, so just install it and fix it, you can't also then complain that it doesn't get adopted en masse. And unfortunately, if it doesn't get adopted, it's in danger of getting relegated to obscurity.
Well after I followed tech support's instructions and resinstalled XP, I just can't *find* them - or the rest of my data for that matter...