Why should the words and actions of the author of a document affect my opinion of the document? I agree that it's hard to not be biased by the author's personality and/or history. But really, a document should be judged on its own merits.
For example, I've read that many of the great scientists and mathematicians in history were pretty big jerks. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shrug off the results of their work. Likewise, I'm sure that some of the U.S. Founding Fathers had personalities and at least some beliefs that I wouldn't care for. But that doesn't mean that I don't support the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
If an individual or company found the GPL useful without knowing anything about the authors, why would they change their mind after learning about the authors? It's not like everytime someone uses the GPL, RMS gets a check.:)
Hehe. I get a kick out of the people who think they're doing such a favor by giving licensing advice to FOSS developers, many of whom have probably been in the business longer than most proprietary software firms. Somehow I think the OpenBSD team has a much better understanding of the pros and cons of their chosen software license than those passing out the advice.
When I see these "advice" posts, I'm often left with the impression that the author feels somewhat threatened by the mere existence of FOSS. "Please change your licensing! It's for your own good! See kids? This is why you should never consider an Open Source license." I guess the concern seems somewhat disingenuous.
Your point was not missed by me. I agree. My original repsonse was an attempt to say that your original response didn't mean killing oneself for the almighty dollar, but just getting to one's "happy point", as you put it. I think you put it very well in this post.
Cool. Nice response. Thanks. I appreciate a reasonable response as much as you do. As you suggest, such responses are hard to come by on Slashdot (or the internet in general).:)
I agree with much of what you say. But over the last decade or so, I've come to believe the problem is with corporations running the show more than with either the Republican or Democratic party. I believe that most members of both parties really do want to make things better for the common person, with most of the differences being in the respective methods. But corporate influence flows too heavily throughout our political system. And corporations are soulless entities that have only their own growth in mind.
Also, I think the two-party system is definitely not the ideal. Several of the U.S. founding fathers felt the same way. We need a multi-party system that requires compromise and coalitions.
Give me a three (or more) party (or totally party-less) Democratic system that keeps corporations in check and I think I'd feel much more comfortable about our future. Probably not realistic, but hey I can dream, can't I?:)
I'm no political debater, so I don't want to get into anything deeper than we've already mentioned. But I'd like you to know that I appreciate your point of view. We're all in this together, so I try to show some compassion for the other person's situation.
There are extremes at either end of most issues. Your comments represent one end of this particular issue, basically saying, "Why try to make a better life. It's not worth the risk or effort."
I do agree with you that there are much more important things in life than "working for the man." But I didn't interpret the parent post as saying that everyone has to work themselves into the grave, but rather that it is possible to improve one's life if willing to put forth the necessary effort. Note that I said possible, not guaranteed or even probable.
So what I'm saying is, negative attitudes suck.:) Negativity doesn't accomplish anything, and way too many people use it as a cop out. So just chill and take your own advice, finding and enjoying the things in life that are important to you.:)
The Dutch cannot in and of themselves prove that the rest of the world is uncivilized. That would be a task for the non-Dutch world.
It just so happens that most of the non-Dutch world has indeed proven themselves to be uncivilized. The jury's still out on Iceland and a small village in Peru.
So I'll give an 90% for your comment. I would've given you more points if you had shown your work.
And they all have the same levels of resources (i.e., cash) to work with, don't they. I guess you missed that part.;)
The point is that I'm not aware of any OSS project that intentionally cripples their product in order to lock in customers or maximize revenues. Microsoft clearly does so over and over.
I have no doubt that Microsoft could "program" even better if their developers' efforts weren't being limited by upper management's primary directive to do whatever it takes to ensure market control and do no more. That may not be entirely the case, but it's the only way that I can forgive the development teams for some of the crap coming out of a company with as much cash as Microsoft.
Sorry, but the analogy is accurate enough to make my point. At least as accurate as most analogies comparing software and physical items get. The point that I was making is that it's rather silly to complain about volunteers placing restrictions on their products when the only signicant restriction is that of keeping others (mostly big companies) from making a profit off of their work without giving anything back.
Anyone who knows much about the GPL also knows that the freedom that it offers is meant primarily for the end user, not for developers who don't share their code. As others have said, no one is arm-twisting the proprietary software firms to open their code. But they certainly shouldn't come looking for free labor either.
If all you can do is argue details of an analogy, I guess you missed the real issue. If you don't agree with the purpose or reasons for the GPL, that's your choice. But don't try to make the developers who choose the GPL out to be somehow disingenuous. People who do so only show their lack of understanding the GPL and its purpose.
I suppose you think the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. (name your favorite charitable organization) consist of a bunch greedy wankers because they only give to the "needy". After all, if they were truly charitable, they wouldn't put restrictions on their giving. They would give equally to those worth millions.
I feel sorry for you. Someday you might grow to actually understand the subject about which you've been spouting off here. And then you'll have to deal with the knowledge that you have these public comments, eternally archived to your embarrassment.
In my opinion, the bottom line is that, like it or not, people are judged by their communication skills. I think very few people (if any) have perfect grammar, spelling, and punctuation in everything they write. But most of us can forgive the occasional error, because it's usually clear that it was a typo or a "minor" infraction. Plus the content and intent of the message are not usually lost.
On the other hand, people who consistently misspell common words, place five question marks at the end of every question, don't capitalize anything they write, etc.---in other words *blatant* offenders---tend to come across as writing without thinking or just plain "less learned", so to speak. Or the reader may feel that the author doesn't care enough about the audience to take a little more time to construct proper sentences.
So I try to put some time and thought into my communcations for my own sake. I don't want my messages to be confusing or brushed off because of poor preparation. But I'll be the first to say that my posts often contain typos and "there" vs. "their" types of errors. So cut me some slack, eh?:)
I'm sorry, but I don't agree. If you look at the history of copyright law and the original reasoning behind it, it's rather easy to argue that the current state of affairs goes far beyond the original intent of simply encouraging advances in the arts and sciences.
Just because most of the American public has grown up under the Draconian extensions of U.S. copyright law in the 20th century doesn't mean that it is as it should be. Comparisons with real property theft are way off base.
The only reason I responded as I did is because your comments come across as whining about having no control over the way things are. I guess I'm either more optimistic than you or more willing to work towards making a better future. It's similar to those who complain about the government, but never vote, claiming that it doesn't make any difference anyway. If everyone acted in that manner, there indeed would be no change. Same with the software industry. If we all acted in the manner that your comments suggest, there would be no Linux, no Open Source software, etc.
As to your suggestion that my "lead and explore" comment was arrogant, I won't get into the details of my software development career, because it's not particularly impressive. But I have done my share of Open Source development, and I advocate the implementation of Open Source software in my job on a regular basis. Also, I've introduced several friends to Linux and helped most of them convert their systems at their request. So I would say that I am much closer to the "lead and explore" end of the software usage spectrum than most, including you, based on your comments. One doesn't need to be a lone explorer. There's plenty of room for more to step away from the flock and build, support, and advocate improved tools.
Bottom line is, I saw your comments as condoning acceptance of the status quo, with implied criticizm of those who dare to suggest that the status quo could change in favor of Open Source software sometime in the near future. I tend to think that such change is indeed possible, and I plan to do my part to make it happen.
Sorry to hear that you're trapped by your own unwillingness to investigate alternatives. I couldn't bear to leave myself reliant on others to define my future tools and applications. I guess some are born to lead and explore, but most are predisposed to be followers. I'll be watching for you to be coming grudgingly down the well-worn path someday.
Ummm...yes. Linux was a horrible bitch for me to get working. I have mainstream hardware that Windows has no problem with, and Linux choked on it. I honestly don't think most everyday users would have put as much effort as I did into getting Linux to work as easily as Windows.
Most everyday users wouldn't bother with installing any version of Windows either. They buy a computer and use whatever is preinstalled.
I did have an interest, probably more of an interest than your average user who Linux people are trying to convert to their OS. That interest quickly faded when I realized I had to recompile the freakin kernel to get 3d acceleration working. The most windows has ever asked me to do to solve ANY problem as been to install the latest driver of whatever hardware I am having a problem with. Point, click, done. I like that windows is going to get competition for the desktop sometime in the future from Linux, but I can admit that that time is definitely not now.
So it was only a passing interest. That's fine by me. (Of course you realize the hardware support issues are due to market size and vendors not releasing specs, not any misgivings of the Open Source community.)
Meanwhile, I've had much fewer problems with Linux over my 8 years of regular use than I have ever had with anything from Microsoft. And I use it as my desktop at work as well as at home. I listen to friends and coworkers complaining about XP or Windows apps and just appreciate my Linux desktops.
A real surprise for me is how my wife, a definite non-techie, advocates Linux to her friends and coworkers. She dual boots only for Quicken and uses OpenOffice on Linux for most of her computing. Once again, never a significant problem.
If you're happy with XP, fine. Stick with what works for you. Meanwhile I've installed Linux on probably around 30 different hardware combinations since 1995 with very few problems. And I'm very happy to be using a system that doesn't have any of the standard MS issues regarding stability and security.
Hmmm. So you let a hardware issue with your particular system shape your entire opinion of the operating system, pushing you away from further interest. Ok. Note that the same could also happen with particular combinations of Windows and hardware when not preinstalled. Oh well. Your loss, not mine.
I just wanted to share that my experiences with using Linux almost exclusively since 1995 have been very much different, in part, no doubt, because I have spent a small bit of time researching any new hardware I purchase. And over the past couple of years, that research time has dwindled to practically nothing.
And just to be clear, you "don't have to deal with these issues." Supported hardware abounds, and it is relatively cheap and much less stressful to replace a piece of unsupported hardware than to curse the situation. That is, of course, if you truly have an interest in using a new environment. Otherwise it's only so much sound and smoke.:)
Best of luck to you with your chosen path. We all have varying experiences, both good and bad. But I try not to assume that my experiences might define a universal truth without extensive support from other observers.
Geeze, how many years has it been since you've tried Linux? There's been no need to deal with "obscure shell commands", "make sure kernels were compiled with bug fixes" and "get fonts to appear correctly" for several years with most distributions.
And maybe you can explain why you consider Open Source a religion rather than just a chosen CompSci development practice. You know, code reuse, input from multiple developers, etc.
If the Linux developers choose to push for Open Source drivers, who are you to tell them they're wrong?
Open Source is no more a religion than closed source.
What people here don't seem to know is that TeX was around when Frame was originally written, and FrameMaker (and InterGraph) still went on to dominate the Unix publishing market.
Yeah, shows what a good marketing campaign can do for a product!
Too bad one has to learn to code in yet another cryptic language to use it. Some of us would just like to concentrate on the content and the layout, you know.
Too bad WYSI(almost)WYG word processors don't allow any method for others to figure out the cryptic sequence of keystrokes and mouse clicks used to generate a given effect. Some of us would just like to concentrate on the content and let the tool provide the professional layout, you know. I often hear coworkers (tech writers, who spend much of their time using Word) wrestling with Word while trying to resolve some issue that they had tackled in a previous session!
At least the TeX/LaTeX "cryptic" markup language shows others how to produce all of the effects seen in the final document. I often refer to other LaTeX documents to see/remember how to create a given affect.
Another plus for *any* ASCII-based document format is that the content will always be available. In the case of TeX/LateX, the language is extremely mature and not prone to gratuitous changes that leave older documents unprocessible. What is the half-life of a Word document again?
I was in Walmart today, and the friendly greeter dude told me that Walmart struck a deal with SCO such that the 10th and 17th customers to order Linux pre-install systems tomorrow are getting sued for $14,345! A little surprise from Darl & Co.
I'm not going to argue your lone example regarding handwriting recognition (a rather narrow field). Unfortunate as it is for your world view, extremely broad extrapolations of single points of data can be misleading.
Sorry. I know the truth can hurt. Might I suggest you partake in a little more investigation into the various factors driving open source development. It may keep you from embarrassing yourself in the future.
Just consider this a friendly suggestion from an open source developer who has no problems "bring[ing] in money and [putting] food on the table."
There's the obvious "Parent/Child" possibility,...
Hmmm, dunno. Programmers have been advocating the killing of children by their parents (processes) for quite a few years now! How would our esteemed legislators look upon this practice?
Slashdot Mirror
For example, I've read that many of the great scientists and mathematicians in history were pretty big jerks. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shrug off the results of their work. Likewise, I'm sure that some of the U.S. Founding Fathers had personalities and at least some beliefs that I wouldn't care for. But that doesn't mean that I don't support the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
If an individual or company found the GPL useful without knowing anything about the authors, why would they change their mind after learning about the authors? It's not like everytime someone uses the GPL, RMS gets a check. :)
When I see these "advice" posts, I'm often left with the impression that the author feels somewhat threatened by the mere existence of FOSS. "Please change your licensing! It's for your own good! See kids? This is why you should never consider an Open Source license." I guess the concern seems somewhat disingenuous.
Take care.
I agree with much of what you say. But over the last decade or so, I've come to believe the problem is with corporations running the show more than with either the Republican or Democratic party. I believe that most members of both parties really do want to make things better for the common person, with most of the differences being in the respective methods. But corporate influence flows too heavily throughout our political system. And corporations are soulless entities that have only their own growth in mind.
Also, I think the two-party system is definitely not the ideal. Several of the U.S. founding fathers felt the same way. We need a multi-party system that requires compromise and coalitions.
Give me a three (or more) party (or totally party-less) Democratic system that keeps corporations in check and I think I'd feel much more comfortable about our future. Probably not realistic, but hey I can dream, can't I? :)
I'm no political debater, so I don't want to get into anything deeper than we've already mentioned. But I'd like you to know that I appreciate your point of view. We're all in this together, so I try to show some compassion for the other person's situation.
Take care.
I do agree with you that there are much more important things in life than "working for the man." But I didn't interpret the parent post as saying that everyone has to work themselves into the grave, but rather that it is possible to improve one's life if willing to put forth the necessary effort. Note that I said possible, not guaranteed or even probable.
So what I'm saying is, negative attitudes suck. :) Negativity doesn't accomplish anything, and way too many people use it as a cop out. So just chill and take your own advice, finding and enjoying the things in life that are important to you. :)
It just so happens that most of the non-Dutch world has indeed proven themselves to be uncivilized. The jury's still out on Iceland and a small village in Peru.
So I'll give an 90% for your comment. I would've given you more points if you had shown your work.
The point is that I'm not aware of any OSS project that intentionally cripples their product in order to lock in customers or maximize revenues. Microsoft clearly does so over and over.
I have no doubt that Microsoft could "program" even better if their developers' efforts weren't being limited by upper management's primary directive to do whatever it takes to ensure market control and do no more. That may not be entirely the case, but it's the only way that I can forgive the development teams for some of the crap coming out of a company with as much cash as Microsoft.
Anyone who knows much about the GPL also knows that the freedom that it offers is meant primarily for the end user, not for developers who don't share their code. As others have said, no one is arm-twisting the proprietary software firms to open their code. But they certainly shouldn't come looking for free labor either.
If all you can do is argue details of an analogy, I guess you missed the real issue. If you don't agree with the purpose or reasons for the GPL, that's your choice. But don't try to make the developers who choose the GPL out to be somehow disingenuous. People who do so only show their lack of understanding the GPL and its purpose.
I suppose you think the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. (name your favorite charitable organization) consist of a bunch greedy wankers because they only give to the "needy". After all, if they were truly charitable, they wouldn't put restrictions on their giving. They would give equally to those worth millions.
I feel sorry for you. Someday you might grow to actually understand the subject about which you've been spouting off here. And then you'll have to deal with the knowledge that you have these public comments, eternally archived to your embarrassment.
On the other hand, people who consistently misspell common words, place five question marks at the end of every question, don't capitalize anything they write, etc.---in other words *blatant* offenders---tend to come across as writing without thinking or just plain "less learned", so to speak. Or the reader may feel that the author doesn't care enough about the audience to take a little more time to construct proper sentences.
So I try to put some time and thought into my communcations for my own sake. I don't want my messages to be confusing or brushed off because of poor preparation. But I'll be the first to say that my posts often contain typos and "there" vs. "their" types of errors. So cut me some slack, eh? :)
Just because most of the American public has grown up under the Draconian extensions of U.S. copyright law in the 20th century doesn't mean that it is as it should be. Comparisons with real property theft are way off base.
As to your suggestion that my "lead and explore" comment was arrogant, I won't get into the details of my software development career, because it's not particularly impressive. But I have done my share of Open Source development, and I advocate the implementation of Open Source software in my job on a regular basis. Also, I've introduced several friends to Linux and helped most of them convert their systems at their request. So I would say that I am much closer to the "lead and explore" end of the software usage spectrum than most, including you, based on your comments. One doesn't need to be a lone explorer. There's plenty of room for more to step away from the flock and build, support, and advocate improved tools.
Bottom line is, I saw your comments as condoning acceptance of the status quo, with implied criticizm of those who dare to suggest that the status quo could change in favor of Open Source software sometime in the near future. I tend to think that such change is indeed possible, and I plan to do my part to make it happen.
Sorry to hear that you're trapped by your own unwillingness to investigate alternatives. I couldn't bear to leave myself reliant on others to define my future tools and applications. I guess some are born to lead and explore, but most are predisposed to be followers. I'll be watching for you to be coming grudgingly down the well-worn path someday.
Meanwhile, I've had much fewer problems with Linux over my 8 years of regular use than I have ever had with anything from Microsoft. And I use it as my desktop at work as well as at home. I listen to friends and coworkers complaining about XP or Windows apps and just appreciate my Linux desktops.
A real surprise for me is how my wife, a definite non-techie, advocates Linux to her friends and coworkers. She dual boots only for Quicken and uses OpenOffice on Linux for most of her computing. Once again, never a significant problem.
If you're happy with XP, fine. Stick with what works for you. Meanwhile I've installed Linux on probably around 30 different hardware combinations since 1995 with very few problems. And I'm very happy to be using a system that doesn't have any of the standard MS issues regarding stability and security.
I just wanted to share that my experiences with using Linux almost exclusively since 1995 have been very much different, in part, no doubt, because I have spent a small bit of time researching any new hardware I purchase. And over the past couple of years, that research time has dwindled to practically nothing.
And just to be clear, you "don't have to deal with these issues." Supported hardware abounds, and it is relatively cheap and much less stressful to replace a piece of unsupported hardware than to curse the situation. That is, of course, if you truly have an interest in using a new environment. Otherwise it's only so much sound and smoke. :)
Best of luck to you with your chosen path. We all have varying experiences, both good and bad. But I try not to assume that my experiences might define a universal truth without extensive support from other observers.
Are you still running Windows 95?
If the Linux developers choose to push for Open Source drivers, who are you to tell them they're wrong?
Open Source is no more a religion than closed source.
At least the TeX/LaTeX "cryptic" markup language shows others how to produce all of the effects seen in the final document. I often refer to other LaTeX documents to see/remember how to create a given affect.
Another plus for *any* ASCII-based document format is that the content will always be available. In the case of TeX/LateX, the language is extremely mature and not prone to gratuitous changes that leave older documents unprocessible. What is the half-life of a Word document again?
{
and so is this:
int i;
Doh! Damn you SCO! Now I have a hell of a lot of code to rewrite! (Anyone know if j is spoken for?)
I was in Walmart today, and the friendly greeter dude told me that Walmart struck a deal with SCO such that the 10th and 17th customers to order Linux pre-install systems tomorrow are getting sued for $14,345! A little surprise from Darl & Co.
I'm not going to argue your lone example regarding handwriting recognition (a rather narrow field). Unfortunate as it is for your world view, extremely broad extrapolations of single points of data can be misleading.
Sorry. I know the truth can hurt. Might I suggest you partake in a little more investigation into the various factors driving open source development. It may keep you from embarrassing yourself in the future.
Just consider this a friendly suggestion from an open source developer who has no problems "bring[ing] in money and [putting] food on the table."
There's the obvious "Parent/Child" possibility, ...
Hmmm, dunno. Programmers have been advocating the killing of children by their parents (processes) for quite a few years now! How would our esteemed legislators look upon this practice?