I'm not an American, but I can clearly see the two-party-system is wrong and undemocratical. How can you even try to divide the views of 300 million people in two giant categories, one being right-wing and another being slightly less right-wing? I think it's time for some serious fragmentation in the american political landscape. As a side effect, it will become much harder for large corporations to buy off political parties when there's more of them...
Some of you even seem to believe they have different policies
Well, they do have different policies. Otherwise they would just agree on everything wouldn't they? Personally, I think the Democrats to be the lesser evil. At least they're not trying to strip down the social security system, which is already down on one knee, so to speak.
Just blink for a second Microsoft filing chapter 11 tomorrow.
I am.
Wonderful.
Thanks a lot.
But seriously now, in a free-market economy, you can't just say: "What if X of Y weren't there any more? What would happen?"
Simple: the gaps in the economy would simply be filled. In this case: the competent MS-programmers (if any) could easily step over to some other company and all others would be sentenced to death. As for the stockholders, bad luck I guess...
I think this point is very similar to the misconception that software piracy harms the global economy. It does not, because most people who saved/stole money using pirate software will most likely use that money to buy something else, thus supporting another branch of the economy tree.
As for the users of pirate software too poor to actually buy the legitimate software, they simply don't exist in the free-market economy, and so their impact on the economy is zero whatsoever.
Piracy in the Open-source world will manifest itself in GPL violations.
Yup, it certainly will. The only way in which the GPL can be violated, however, is when somebody modifies/enhances the code to release the new software without the code, thus not contributing to the project.
If users outside the US are OK with duplicating copyrighted material, they're most likely not going to comply with the GPL as we currently see it.
1) I don't think you have to go outside of the US to find users duplicating copyrighted material.
2) I think all users will be more than happy to comply with the GPL, since they can do whatever they want with the GPLed software. Install/Run/Copy it as much as they want. The ones more likely not to comply with the GPL are software companies, who see all this great code flying around, without it making profit for them. SCO anyone?
The Vietnamese gov't could say "we don't intend on sharing our improvements and you can't do much about it."
1) They don't have to share their improvements, the GPL doesn't oblige them to. (although it would be in their best interest to do so, as further improvement would come back to them)
And since the Vietnamese government is not a company, they cannot make any profit by selling the improved software without releasing the code (violating the GPL), and will most likely not do so.
2) IANAL, but can't a government be held accountable for its actions before an international court or something ?
Thanks for telling me man. I never realized this. I always sympathized with the fundamental communist idea because I thought it meant that all resources of the country would belong to the people, that the people would decide what to do with it, and that every gain extracted from those resources would again belong to the people. Boy was I wrong all along. It turns out that communism is nothing more than simple despotism, with some trivial propaganda thrown in.
Thanks man, you saved my life.
I guess I was wrong about the meaning of the Latin word communis too, right?
But whatever you say is true.
Your crazy attempt to rewrite history in one Slashdot comment failed. Last time I checked, Vietnam won the war. Quite shamefully for the US, don't you think? Apparently their state-of-the-art military technology wasn't enough to beat a bunch of people who have nothing better to do then to Quote:spend all day in the rice fields or staring at a donkey's asshole thinking up new ways to cook rat.
And apparently they're not learning from their mistakes and still unrequestedly mingle in the affairs of other countries.
It's the US soldiers who are the real victims in this case of course. Bush couldn't care less about their fate, it seems.
In this case, however, that would more accurately read "But by default you are forcing people to look at a new system, which also happens to be free."
You're not forcing people to look at it. They can, after having installed the hardware, boot directly from their Windows cd, erase all the OSS, and replace it by Windows. It's their loss;)
With Windows pre-installed on a new pc, however, people are still not forced to take a look at it, but they are forced to pay for it, since the pc reseller doesn't get the Windows licenses for new pc's for free either.
> Of course the problem is, how do we know when Microsofts position have been weakened enough to let go again?
Never! Since Open-Source Software has the lowest costs for computer manufacturers to install on new pc's, it should be the default choice anyway. The only alternative to force buyers to actively choose their own OS, would be to sell the computers with a brand new hard disc! But I don't think many buyers will like that.
> So if I buy a computer for home, the government is telling private companies what to install.
That's correct, but since they can download an iso of whatever Linux distro they want, burn it, and install it on as many pc's as they want, that won't really be a problem for those companies.
You, as a paying customer purchasing the pc, will still have the choice of buying a copy of Windows and installing it on your new pc.
In the West, however, we continue to pay too much for a pc due to the Microsoft Tax.
Why was this modded flamebait?
In fact, the GPL has a lot in common with the socialist economical model. Everybody is free to use what they need, and to contribute what they can.
Exactly the fundamental principles of Socialism. History proved them to fail for a country's economy, but so far they're doing great for a software development model (or what should I call it?)
I agree the words "eliminate Microsoft" sound a bit harsh, but nowhere in the article is mentioned that the Vietnamese government is planning to put an official ban, or import tax on Microsoft products. They just want to shrink down their marketshare as much as possible by encouraging the use of OSS. If a Vietnamese PC-owner wants to pay for his own Windows license, that is still entirely his choice.
The Vietnamese government has a problem with software piracy indeed, but they're trying to do something about it by encouraging open-source software, which is a perfectly legal (and human) way of producing and releasing software...
- They are NOT saying:
"Fuck the US, fuck the West, let's copy M$ software like nobody has copied before."
- They are NOT violating any international rules of trade by encouraging open-source software.
And then you come around, calling them greedy communist dictatorships. *confused*
Do you actually want to FORCE Vietnamese people to buy M$-software? Then here's a hint for you: a trade embargo on Vietnam might not be the right way to do it.
(P.S: boy am I crazy to reply to a troll like this)
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that when calling someone a liberal, you're essentially calling him/her a promotor of freedom, right? Right? Freedom, as in "liberty".
I think the term "liberal" is wrongly chosen.
Now children, they're a great network and they do a lot of quality programming too... *bursts out in laughter*
I'm not an American, but I can clearly see the two-party-system is wrong and undemocratical. How can you even try to divide the views of 300 million people in two giant categories, one being right-wing and another being slightly less right-wing?
I think it's time for some serious fragmentation in the american political landscape.
As a side effect, it will become much harder for large corporations to buy off political parties when there's more of them...
Some of you even seem to believe they have different policies
Well, they do have different policies. Otherwise they would just agree on everything wouldn't they? Personally, I think the Democrats to be the lesser evil. At least they're not trying to strip down the social security system, which is already down on one knee, so to speak.
Just blink for a second Microsoft filing chapter 11 tomorrow.
I am.
Wonderful.
Thanks a lot.
But seriously now, in a free-market economy, you can't just say: "What if X of Y weren't there any more? What would happen?"
Simple: the gaps in the economy would simply be filled. In this case: the competent MS-programmers (if any) could easily step over to some other company and all others would be sentenced to death. As for the stockholders, bad luck I guess...
I think this point is very similar to the misconception that software piracy harms the global economy. It does not, because most people who saved/stole money using pirate software will most likely use that money to buy something else, thus supporting another branch of the economy tree.
As for the users of pirate software too poor to actually buy the legitimate software, they simply don't exist in the free-market economy, and so their impact on the economy is zero whatsoever.
I hope I made myself clear enough.
Piracy in the Open-source world will manifest itself in GPL violations.
Yup, it certainly will. The only way in which the GPL can be violated, however, is when somebody modifies/enhances the code to release the new software without the code, thus not contributing to the project.
If users outside the US are OK with duplicating copyrighted material, they're most likely not going to comply with the GPL as we currently see it.
1) I don't think you have to go outside of the US to find users duplicating copyrighted material.
2) I think all users will be more than happy to comply with the GPL, since they can do whatever they want with the GPLed software. Install/Run/Copy it as much as they want. The ones more likely not to comply with the GPL are software companies, who see all this great code flying around, without it making profit for them. SCO anyone?
The Vietnamese gov't could say "we don't intend on sharing our improvements and you can't do much about it."
1) They don't have to share their improvements, the GPL doesn't oblige them to. (although it would be in their best interest to do so, as further improvement would come back to them)
And since the Vietnamese government is not a company, they cannot make any profit by selling the improved software without releasing the code (violating the GPL), and will most likely not do so.
2) IANAL, but can't a government be held accountable for its actions before an international court or something ?
Just happy to share my views.
Thanks for telling me man.
I never realized this.
I always sympathized with the fundamental communist idea because I thought it meant that all resources of the country would belong to the people, that the people would decide what to do with it, and that every gain extracted from those resources would again belong to the people.
Boy was I wrong all along.
It turns out that communism is nothing more than simple despotism, with some trivial propaganda thrown in.
Thanks man, you saved my life.
I guess I was wrong about the meaning of the Latin word communis too, right?
But whatever you say is true.
Totally offtopic, but still...
You tell me who won the fucking war.
Your crazy attempt to rewrite history in one Slashdot comment failed.
Last time I checked, Vietnam won the war. Quite shamefully for the US, don't you think? Apparently their state-of-the-art military technology wasn't enough to beat a bunch of people who have nothing better to do then to
Quote: spend all day in the rice fields or staring at a donkey's asshole thinking up new ways to cook rat.
And apparently they're not learning from their mistakes and still unrequestedly mingle in the affairs of other countries.
It's the US soldiers who are the real victims in this case of course. Bush couldn't care less about their fate, it seems.
In this case, however, that would more accurately read "But by default you are forcing people to look at a new system, which also happens to be free."
;)
You're not forcing people to look at it. They can, after having installed the hardware, boot directly from their Windows cd, erase all the OSS, and replace it by Windows.
It's their loss
With Windows pre-installed on a new pc, however, people are still not forced to take a look at it, but they are forced to pay for it, since the pc reseller doesn't get the Windows licenses for new pc's for free either.
> Of course the problem is, how do we know when Microsofts position have been weakened enough to let go again?
Never! Since Open-Source Software has the lowest costs for computer manufacturers to install on new pc's, it should be the default choice anyway.
The only alternative to force buyers to actively choose their own OS, would be to sell the computers with a brand new hard disc! But I don't think many buyers will like that.
> So if I buy a computer for home, the government is telling private companies what to install.
That's correct, but since they can download an iso of whatever Linux distro they want, burn it, and install it on as many pc's as they want, that won't really be a problem for those companies.
You, as a paying customer purchasing the pc, will still have the choice of buying a copy of Windows and installing it on your new pc.
In the West, however, we continue to pay too much for a pc due to the Microsoft Tax.
Why was this modded flamebait?
In fact, the GPL has a lot in common with the socialist economical model. Everybody is free to use what they need, and to contribute what they can.
Exactly the fundamental principles of Socialism.
History proved them to fail for a country's economy, but so far they're doing great for a software development model (or what should I call it?)
I agree the words "eliminate Microsoft" sound a bit harsh, but nowhere in the article is mentioned that the Vietnamese government is planning to put an official ban, or import tax on Microsoft products. They just want to shrink down their marketshare as much as possible by encouraging the use of OSS. If a Vietnamese PC-owner wants to pay for his own Windows license, that is still entirely his choice.
What is this about?
The Vietnamese government has a problem with software piracy indeed, but they're trying to do something about it by encouraging open-source software, which is a perfectly legal (and human) way of producing and releasing software...
- They are NOT saying:
"Fuck the US, fuck the West, let's copy M$ software like nobody has copied before."
- They are NOT violating any international rules of trade by encouraging open-source software.
And then you come around, calling them greedy communist dictatorships. *confused*
Do you actually want to FORCE Vietnamese people to buy M$-software? Then here's a hint for you: a trade embargo on Vietnam might not be the right way to do it.
(P.S: boy am I crazy to reply to a troll like this)