If slavery were legal and your competitors were employing slaves at 1$/day where you were employing people at 10$/hour you would have the choice to follow their example or go out of business. I'm not saying you would do it, but I am saying that's what caused a lot of hardship at the beginning of the industrial revolution, when some people DID think that capitalism would solve all problems. Over time they realized that some basic principles are best transcribed to law and constantly guarded.
Do not ask 'would I do it if it were possible', do ask 'would other people do it'. The answer is yes.
I sorta agree. I've never really liked CSI:M, especially compared with CSI. What I've always thought is that not only the acting is worse, the political undertones are also much more conservative in CSI:M. It's more the 'tough on crime'-show than the original CSI. Perhaps this all sells a bit better with the somewhat older (florida-based?) population.
Me, I can't help but cringe whenever they get 'tough' on crime.
Despite the crudity of the parent poster's statements, he is essentially correct. Linux/GCC have regularlly changed the ABI for seemingly no reason at all. All that says to us programmers is that either the coders are changing the ABI as a feel good session (See? It looks puuuurrdy!) or they didn't take the time to get it right the first five times.
I mostly agree, but you have to take into consideration that Microsoft's tendency to support ancient ABI's for windows 2.0 applications greatly increases the complexity of their product. In fact, it is often cited as the very reason for windows's relative instability (and linux's stability). So perhaps it's better this way.
Exactly. I mean, to quote the article: [boy3] teleios you gurl, pix plz? [boy3] kthxxb ai
If this is the kind of people you're hanging out with, are you really that surprised they'll make crazy assumptions? I can tell you right now that on the IRC channels I frequent anybody using the phrase "kthxbye" for anything more than laughs will be tagged a moron. But apparently chicks prefer hanging out with them. Hmm, real world analogies.
He doesn't have to "support" firefox, or IE or any one browser. He just has to write standard, correct HTML and do a little more testing in different browsers.
Now seriously, we all now this isn't true. Write any website that you want to work in IE 5.5 and you're gonna have to pull some serious tricks to have it work in IE about the same way it would in Firefox. You can say "I only support the latest" (thus probably already ignoring 10% of your clients, depending) and go for IE 6. Still, if you try to do your formatting with CSS there's gonna be loads of inconsistencies and display problems.
And then there's the ActiveX of course. Which you could replace by a number of technologies. Most not free and open. Usually ActiveX is useless though, but try convincing the business leader who invested money in it of that fact.
I once got a wasp in my mouth after it had been in my soda. Spit it out the moment I felt it though and it didn't sting me. Must have been a bit dazed by all the sugar goodness I guess.:-)
If it's just for displaying, the government could probably convert it to PDF, HTML, rtf,.doc(?) on the fly. So indead, the problem is only when information needs to be entered in the forms.
The real cost introduced from a government point of view (and not the citizen) is that certain things to process the documents will have to be rewritten. If they were formerly using word macro's to process these documents, they will now need to switch to something a bit more robust. That will cost money, but I think they factored that in when they compared the cost with a new version of windows.
In any case, I think this is what the OP was referring to. But since the citizen will do no or little processing on the documents, I don't see how that actually could increase costs for them.
What this simply says is that you are not granted the permission to distribute or modify the program if you have not accepted the license. But since the program was distributed to you, you still have general copyright law to back you up. Nobody can keep you from modifying the program, even if you didn't accept the license. And no court would hold that modifying the software meant you accepted the license, since the license really doesn't have a say about it. A copyright license merely governs the terms for redistribution. (and in some countries, also use, eg. moral rights of the author)
Of course, if the "program" was protected by a copy protection mechanism (rot26 on the Makefile ^_^), you would be violating the DMCA or EUCD depending on your location. Yet another erosion of our basic rights. Anyway, I could also be completely wrong about all of this of course. Apparently even lawyers have great difficulty figuring this stuff out.
Space flight is exceedingly dangerous, it's industrious, hard work, and the people who have the courage and training to hop on top of a million gallons of high explosives need to be seen as national heros for what they are doing.
Though I see your point, I don't really see how it takes that much courage to fly into space. Hell, I'd give my left arm and leg just to switch places with one of those guys, and I suspect many other people also do. They do great work, but IMHO they are very privileged compared to the rest of us.
I'm really tired of hearing people whine "how come linux isn't the most popular!" and "boo hoo, we don't rule the desktop or business world" and then turn around and make comments like this.
And once you realize it's not the same people making those comments you'll understand. The reason both types of comments are made is because there are those (crazy) people out there who really want linux to become a popular desktop OS. (I still don't get why?) And then there are those who don't care. I think with them are a hell of a lot of developers who just had an "itch to scratch" and went out and created something.
Personally, I don't mind writing a program and then sharing the code. But if I'm not getting paid to do support for it, I'm not gonna stand for people coming around to me and saying "Hey, this doesn't work, I demand you fix this for me", when it's not a bug but just their broken ass way of doing things. Don't like it, pay somebody else to do it. I think that's only normal. As soon as you're a paying customer, then you can make demands. (not to say that there aren't companies doing support, pay them and let it be their problem)
1. Servers
2. Corporate/government desktops
3. Mom/Grandma home users
4. Power users/Gamers
You forgot:
5. Embedded market
which is bigger than the desktop market and one of the area's where linux is really stirring things up. The wealth of software available for the linux platform gives it an edge in this market. And it's customizability is a real plus... Most people here seem to forget about embedded all the time, but it's a place a free or open source software philosophy really shines.
No. GPLd code used in a project causes the viral aspect of the GPL to kick in on DISTRIBUTION only.
If you link to gpl'd code from a propietary program you often do it with the intent of distribution. Of course it is not an issue for in-house stuff, but I thought that would be clear enough. Copyright is mostly about distribution rights anyway.
I do know the FSF actively enforces the GPL by contacting individual vendors etc. Many open source projects probably contact individual vendors when they learn about a violation of their license. Usually, the vendor quickly complies (at least from what I have seen).
On a side note, I think the biggest problem with the GPL is the whole 'derivative work' confusion. Are you or are you not allowed to link against GPL code from different-licensed programs? I haven't really seen anybody reach a conclusion on that yet. Note that the FSF FAQ takes a quite extreme position on this.
Meanwhile the ATI and other FLOSS drivers will implement it about 8 months later.
I don't know if that's what you meant to say, but ATI drivers are neither free nor open source. (except for the older chips) The problem with ATI drivers being that apparently their engineers suck, since they can't do what nVidia does with such apparent ease.
Don't think you're going to find one but the FSF definition is very narrow as it is. Compatible in there book means relicensed under GPL. However, many people still argue that linking against a certain library, whether it is statically or dynamically doesn't, is allowed from any program that is not a direct extension of that library. (eg a wrapper around libssl)
The problem off course being in the interpretation of the GPL. I think we'll only know for sure once the GPL gets tested in court.
I find the other answer a good one. I would like to add a small point. You seem to assume that the people wanting to have the linux desktop in homes everywhere are the same people who are commenting in this thread (eg. me). I don't really give a rat's ass about desktop linux acceptance, as long as people go for open standards I'm already happy.
Another point to my comment. I personally do not believe that installing software should be easy. It should be easier than compiling your own (which off course has its caveats). But constantly lowering the barrier is exactly what is wrong with the windows use case. Linspire did this too with its "click'n'run". If you don't know what you're doing, you're better off letting somebody else install your software. That's the great thing about good multi-user systems, somebody can maintain them for you.
I know this attitude is very controversial, especially since it's hard to find good, cheap tech support. But in the future, people are going to be held more and more responsible for what their computer is used for. And they should either wisen up now, or let somebody else do things for them. (so you got somebody else to blame)
That's so 1999. I hardly ever compile software from source anymore. If you want to bash installation user friendliness in Linux (the lack thereof not necessarily being a bad thing) then bash RPM or.deb for their faults.
We hate car analogies because they suck. I had to get a driver license to learn to drive a car. And in the process I learned what all little buttons do in my car. I also learned what to do when I get into an accident with my car, when somebody breaks into it, etc. I even know that I should check my tires before I go on long trips to see if they're at the right pressure. I know a heck of a lot about cars because of that driver's license.
OTOH a computer is nothing like that. Somebody comes by your house, sets it up for you, shows you a thing or two and most people think that's when they're ready to go. Makes you think a driver's license for computers wouldn't be such a bad idea (of course the concept is not bad, just that the execution is impossible).
From another perspective: a car is designed to get from point a to point b. But that doesn't mean that all the lights on your car are useless and that you shouldn't know how to use them.
Windows does come with a user manual you know. If those users don't get what he's saying they should read it. Using windows is no excuse to being ignorant.
A project that you can work on freely with no immediate goal of applicability, but rather a long term commitment to new technology is R&D. If they're working on this project 1 day every week that's 1/5 of their time they're spending on R&D. It's not because they don't do it in a 'lab' and that they don't spend all their time on it that it's not research.
It should be quite configurable though, so you don't loose logs. Some sites require logs to be kept for a long time (also helps if you have an intrusion into your systems which started 6 months ago or so). Needless to say, you will generally want to filter off the stuff you're interested in, zip it and move it to a backup.
Even if viruses do exist, you should be given the choice if you want to install the protection. I know people who keep their windows box clean without having to install a virus scanner. (with all the remote vulnerabilities, some firewall-ish thing is mostly necessary though)
Slashdot Mirror
If slavery were legal and your competitors were employing slaves at 1$/day where you were employing people at 10$/hour you would have the choice to follow their example or go out of business. I'm not saying you would do it, but I am saying that's what caused a lot of hardship at the beginning of the industrial revolution, when some people DID think that capitalism would solve all problems. Over time they realized that some basic principles are best transcribed to law and constantly guarded.
Do not ask 'would I do it if it were possible', do ask 'would other people do it'. The answer is yes.
I sorta agree. I've never really liked CSI:M, especially compared with CSI. What I've always thought is that not only the acting is worse, the political undertones are also much more conservative in CSI:M. It's more the 'tough on crime'-show than the original CSI. Perhaps this all sells a bit better with the somewhat older (florida-based?) population.
Me, I can't help but cringe whenever they get 'tough' on crime.
I mostly agree, but you have to take into consideration that Microsoft's tendency to support ancient ABI's for windows 2.0 applications greatly increases the complexity of their product. In fact, it is often cited as the very reason for windows's relative instability (and linux's stability). So perhaps it's better this way.
Exactly. I mean, to quote the article:
[boy3] teleios you gurl, pix plz?
[boy3] kthxxb ai
If this is the kind of people you're hanging out with, are you really that surprised they'll make crazy assumptions? I can tell you right now that on the IRC channels I frequent anybody using the phrase "kthxbye" for anything more than laughs will be tagged a moron. But apparently chicks prefer hanging out with them. Hmm, real world analogies.
Now seriously, we all now this isn't true. Write any website that you want to work in IE 5.5 and you're gonna have to pull some serious tricks to have it work in IE about the same way it would in Firefox. You can say "I only support the latest" (thus probably already ignoring 10% of your clients, depending) and go for IE 6. Still, if you try to do your formatting with CSS there's gonna be loads of inconsistencies and display problems.
And then there's the ActiveX of course. Which you could replace by a number of technologies. Most not free and open. Usually ActiveX is useless though, but try convincing the business leader who invested money in it of that fact.
I once got a wasp in my mouth after it had been in my soda. Spit it out the moment I felt it though and it didn't sting me. Must have been a bit dazed by all the sugar goodness I guess. :-)
If it's just for displaying, the government could probably convert it to PDF, HTML, rtf, .doc(?) on the fly. So indead, the problem is only when information needs to be entered in the forms.
The real cost introduced from a government point of view (and not the citizen) is that certain things to process the documents will have to be rewritten. If they were formerly using word macro's to process these documents, they will now need to switch to something a bit more robust. That will cost money, but I think they factored that in when they compared the cost with a new version of windows.
In any case, I think this is what the OP was referring to. But since the citizen will do no or little processing on the documents, I don't see how that actually could increase costs for them.
I think he contracted idealist and demagogue actually.
What this simply says is that you are not granted the permission to distribute or modify the program if you have not accepted the license. But since the program was distributed to you, you still have general copyright law to back you up. Nobody can keep you from modifying the program, even if you didn't accept the license. And no court would hold that modifying the software meant you accepted the license, since the license really doesn't have a say about it. A copyright license merely governs the terms for redistribution. (and in some countries, also use, eg. moral rights of the author)
Of course, if the "program" was protected by a copy protection mechanism (rot26 on the Makefile ^_^), you would be violating the DMCA or EUCD depending on your location. Yet another erosion of our basic rights. Anyway, I could also be completely wrong about all of this of course. Apparently even lawyers have great difficulty figuring this stuff out.
Though I see your point, I don't really see how it takes that much courage to fly into space. Hell, I'd give my left arm and leg just to switch places with one of those guys, and I suspect many other people also do. They do great work, but IMHO they are very privileged compared to the rest of us.
And once you realize it's not the same people making those comments you'll understand. The reason both types of comments are made is because there are those (crazy) people out there who really want linux to become a popular desktop OS. (I still don't get why?) And then there are those who don't care. I think with them are a hell of a lot of developers who just had an "itch to scratch" and went out and created something.
Personally, I don't mind writing a program and then sharing the code. But if I'm not getting paid to do support for it, I'm not gonna stand for people coming around to me and saying "Hey, this doesn't work, I demand you fix this for me", when it's not a bug but just their broken ass way of doing things. Don't like it, pay somebody else to do it. I think that's only normal. As soon as you're a paying customer, then you can make demands. (not to say that there aren't companies doing support, pay them and let it be their problem)
You forgot:
5. Embedded market
which is bigger than the desktop market and one of the area's where linux is really stirring things up. The wealth of software available for the linux platform gives it an edge in this market. And it's customizability is a real plus... Most people here seem to forget about embedded all the time, but it's a place a free or open source software philosophy really shines.
If you link to gpl'd code from a propietary program you often do it with the intent of distribution. Of course it is not an issue for in-house stuff, but I thought that would be clear enough. Copyright is mostly about distribution rights anyway.
I do know the FSF actively enforces the GPL by contacting individual vendors etc. Many open source projects probably contact individual vendors when they learn about a violation of their license. Usually, the vendor quickly complies (at least from what I have seen).
On a side note, I think the biggest problem with the GPL is the whole 'derivative work' confusion. Are you or are you not allowed to link against GPL code from different-licensed programs? I haven't really seen anybody reach a conclusion on that yet. Note that the FSF FAQ takes a quite extreme position on this.
Wait... you don't drink during football?
Meanwhile the ATI and other FLOSS drivers will implement it about 8 months later.
I don't know if that's what you meant to say, but ATI drivers are neither free nor open source. (except for the older chips) The problem with ATI drivers being that apparently their engineers suck, since they can't do what nVidia does with such apparent ease.
Don't think you're going to find one but the FSF definition is very narrow as it is. Compatible in there book means relicensed under GPL. However, many people still argue that linking against a certain library, whether it is statically or dynamically doesn't, is allowed from any program that is not a direct extension of that library. (eg a wrapper around libssl)
The problem off course being in the interpretation of the GPL. I think we'll only know for sure once the GPL gets tested in court.
I find the other answer a good one. I would like to add a small point. You seem to assume that the people wanting to have the linux desktop in homes everywhere are the same people who are commenting in this thread (eg. me). I don't really give a rat's ass about desktop linux acceptance, as long as people go for open standards I'm already happy.
Another point to my comment. I personally do not believe that installing software should be easy. It should be easier than compiling your own (which off course has its caveats). But constantly lowering the barrier is exactly what is wrong with the windows use case. Linspire did this too with its "click'n'run". If you don't know what you're doing, you're better off letting somebody else install your software. That's the great thing about good multi-user systems, somebody can maintain them for you.
I know this attitude is very controversial, especially since it's hard to find good, cheap tech support. But in the future, people are going to be held more and more responsible for what their computer is used for. And they should either wisen up now, or let somebody else do things for them. (so you got somebody else to blame)
That's so 1999. I hardly ever compile software from source anymore. If you want to bash installation user friendliness in Linux (the lack thereof not necessarily being a bad thing) then bash RPM or .deb for their faults.
We hate car analogies because they suck. I had to get a driver license to learn to drive a car. And in the process I learned what all little buttons do in my car. I also learned what to do when I get into an accident with my car, when somebody breaks into it, etc. I even know that I should check my tires before I go on long trips to see if they're at the right pressure. I know a heck of a lot about cars because of that driver's license.
OTOH a computer is nothing like that. Somebody comes by your house, sets it up for you, shows you a thing or two and most people think that's when they're ready to go. Makes you think a driver's license for computers wouldn't be such a bad idea (of course the concept is not bad, just that the execution is impossible).
From another perspective: a car is designed to get from point a to point b. But that doesn't mean that all the lights on your car are useless and that you shouldn't know how to use them.
Windows does come with a user manual you know. If those users don't get what he's saying they should read it. Using windows is no excuse to being ignorant.
A project that you can work on freely with no immediate goal of applicability, but rather a long term commitment to new technology is R&D. If they're working on this project 1 day every week that's 1/5 of their time they're spending on R&D. It's not because they don't do it in a 'lab' and that they don't spend all their time on it that it's not research.
There's already a chip which can directly execute java, if that's what you mean, check out the picojava chip.
It should be quite configurable though, so you don't loose logs. Some sites require logs to be kept for a long time (also helps if you have an intrusion into your systems which started 6 months ago or so). Needless to say, you will generally want to filter off the stuff you're interested in, zip it and move it to a backup.
Even if viruses do exist, you should be given the choice if you want to install the protection. I know people who keep their windows box clean without having to install a virus scanner. (with all the remote vulnerabilities, some firewall-ish thing is mostly necessary though)