After not being able to see source code, more strict DRM management, and monitoring of incoming/outgoing connections, yet another freedom that goes away: the one to code wtf-ing algo you want (oh, sorry: I forgot software patents, of course).
Instead of investing in informing developers that those algorithms aren't really secure, and letting university CS courses around the world to do their job, Microsoft just forbids you to use them.
Btw, how can you write an application that has to retain compatibility with old formats, for example, if it used these functions?
(Probably the output will be a warning, not actually a fatal error, but who knows with MS? "banned" sounds like a strong word to me.)
For me and you, probably, the reasons to use GNU/Linux are the same than {ten,five,three,n}-years ago.
For the [wo]man out there that knows just that "they has Internet, which is that blue icon right on the screen", it is Yet Another Reason to continue using XP/win98.
If everybody loved Free OSes we would probably live in a better world. If everybody was able to get along quietly with their neighbour without starting wars every few days, we would live in a better world.
Unfortunately neither will happen, due to the intrinsic nature of humanity, which includes stupidity, stubborness, and the need of a pointy stick.
The Free Software Foundation says it is mulling over plans to introduce some kind of patent retaliation clause into the next version of Richard Stallman's General Public Licence.
The clause would seek to restrict the distribution and use of free software to parties prepared to forgo patent infringement lawsuits against free software developers.
[..]
"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software".
Quite different story, then. Please,./ editors, don't be too eager to flame everyone and eveything. At least, report both sides' declarations.
Which makes me think about Betamax. A good format, working well, quite used between professionals and so on. Many considered it better than VHS (I'm too young to express my own opinion). Who won, in the end? See also Joliet vs. RockRidge (no real winning there, though)... and many others.
Just to say that who holds the biggest market shares, and has the sneakest bastard lawyers, is likely to impose their opinion over the others.
// the momentum is decidedly shifting [...] it seems the market is moving towards a combination of the two
Er... actually it has been *Unix* on servers for two decades, and now instead of switching to GNU/Linux when need arises (where they should feel at home) a lot of them are switching to Windows[*]. We should ask us why. PR & Marketing is a truly important thing for "Fortune 500 & Co." pinheads.
So, in a different sense you're right: on the server market, we're moving towards a combination of the two AND IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
Whereas, GNU/Linux gained some _little_ momentum in desktop, and so started being more talked about by people that don't even *know* what a server is (e.g. journalists that writes for big newspapers?). That's why you can talk outside./ of GNU/Linux, and start hearing "uh, wait... I knew, I knew it... it's a kind of a toaster, is it?"
But let's face it: I use GNU/Linux only (and|because) I'm a FSF member, but how many of your non-geek friends do use it at home and have throwed completely away Windows? [**]
[*] Note: it's not that people don't switch to GNU/Linux (or *BSD) at all. It's the fact that not everybody do this choice.
[**] Please don't start throwing in messages like "why people can't use both? why they can't live on the same hd?". It's MY ethics, I ain't forcing you to see it the same way I do.
Where's the problem? Just disable interrupts while you're managing one, and re-enable when ended. People will keep calling until they don't get some CPU share.
Else, the overhead for context switching is known to be terrible. Just be sure to schedule calls from your boss in real time priority, if you don't want to get fired.
I mean, isn't there enough things to research - without having to break out the need for transportation for house vermin?
Considering the number of accidents happening on the roads nowadays, maybe they're submitted to find a new DDT substitute. Pack a cartload of all those damn roaches in a nice Ferrari, all drunk, and see them smash at 180Mph on the guard rails! The pure violence of the scene would compensate for the costs of a full scale research on the balistics of roaches intestines!
Which makes me think about the philosophical side of the whole thing... are we just roaches running on a almost-spherical Earth, waiting for a divine LED to show us the way, just randomly selfdestructing on the first wall available[1]? Don't miss the theological impact of this valuable research on the human mankind. We could even question the final Answer of Life, the Universe and Everything[2]! Heck, it may even be: "How many roaches do you have to smash before reaching compassionate happiness?"
Anyway, without goind too OT: in my times, if you had a complex AI system, you tried to bring the damn bugs out, not _into_ it.
...ok, sorry, I'll stop drug abuse, I promise.
[1] Loosely ref. "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" ending
[2] Ref. Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy"
You can't have both brilliant people and people with good intentions at Microsoft: only brilliant dishonest people or stupid good intentioned ones stays.
I've been a projectonist for a year. You don't get scratchy film the first day a movie is out in theatres! It takes usually > 30 proj. before a film starts getting quite unfocused. And that in most cases doesn't affect sound (dolby surround is a tiny track on the left of the film read by a laser, and quite hard to scratch).
Anyway, you can report the film is damaged by using the attached form, and the film will be substituted via UPS / or it will be substituted for the next theatre (at least, if it is a big hit, that's it: unsuccesful movies doesn't pay back for the costly substitution).
Instead, you can say that 90% it's up to old machinery or bad equalization, as well as bad adjustements to the object glass. E.g. we still used a Prevost from the first '90, and it did its work quite well, although not the best. Most small theatres have machinery back from those years.
Mounting the two pizzas won't usually damage the film, too ("pizza" is the slangword for the mounted movie since its shape, and usually you end with two or more of them due to their size and weight), it's just normal usage that wears them out and brings in deterioration.
Although both are wonderful products, I always found that Opera renders pages in a sloppy way, as well as it doesn't always respect w3c recommendations (even in its last release).
As pointed out, I'd continue using Firefox even if it was "worse" than Opera (because it's Free Software), but this lack of consistency by Opera is another heavy drawback.
Re:This is not a troll, but a query...
on
Practical Common Lisp
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I can just say what it helped for me, so it's subjective, but:
1. Opened my eyes on how recursion should really be used, and improved my software design abilities a lot, since you're encouraged on writing new small functions and then put pieces together. LISP is built on LISP, and I found it a really educative language (and that's the same reason because I dislike Java, with its too-easy-to-become spaghetti-code). Moreover, in LISP it isn't just that a program has to work; it has to do it in an elegant way.
2. It is both a functional and object oriented programming language. Along with SmallTalk, in the '80 it revolutionized the programming language zoo, and some damn big programs started using it as an extension language (Autocad comes to mind). It has left me surprised studying it how much newer languages take from LISP, even something like Java.
3. It is a really high level language! A lot of libraries is already ready to use. Although the learning curve is really slow at first, LISP repays you a lot of your effort. Unfortunately there aren't many books on the subject. I really welcome this book, and I'll read it asap. Me, I've learned it using the wonderful Graham's book.
I also noted that in LISP finally you can "test code as you write", as they teach you in CS courses, but tight schedules and other languages often make that difficult in a real world scenario. And in a hundred of lines you can write your own ray-tracer (see always Graham's book).:-)
Ah: 4. Extend GNU Emacs. That's the "c00l" factor that makes you geeky, at least for me.;-)
What I noted looking at the control panel screenshot, is that it looks a lot more complicate than what I remembered back from the days when I still used Windows (:grins:).
I mean, people always say "GNU/Linux is difficult to master, you need to be a genius to use that"... "what a mess of options, how can I find a way through that"... and then... please compare:
Windows (Ok, the "classic view" link is there, but that's just an example) - A GNU/Linux desktop
This seems a common trend while time passes: systems become bigger and more difficult to use if you're not a literate (who, ten years ago, would have cared about what's a gateway being on Windows? who _doesn't_ now?).
Good luck for GNU/Linux, then. It has been ten more years of experience in being complex.:-)
Seriously, computer literacy is becoming a prerequisite for every system out there, and this makes switches easier from Windows to anything else. Even if this isn't the matter, they're all becoming "more to read and less to click".
(PS: Counting the seconds before someone says something about how MacOSX solves all these problems by being the most simple system in the world yaddayaddayadda.:-) )
Confusing the growth of Linux in the Business world (and likely the rest of the world) with the ethics of the free software movement is blowing sunshine where it doesn't belong.
Yes, I share your view here.
Hence the concern over what was changing in GPL 3, would it force people off Linux and on to BSD?
That is unlikely: it will be discussed broadly before the final draft is made official, and in that time (we're talking about a year or so) also companies will be able to have their saying.
As a side note, I think that Google decided recently (not more than two weeks ago) to become a member of the FSF also for this reason.
I think that the FSF doesn't want to make GPL-2 users unhappy, and that the change will be more headed towards unwinding details that in '90 didn't seem fundamental (patents, translations, etc.), in the spirit of the previous version.
Hopefully, I've been clear this time. Hopefully you understand I have nothing against F/OSS, I use it, I like it. Hell, I've given away free code for about 20 years of my life. But I stand by my original point: the ethics of Free Software are not the motivatng factor in the business world/marketplace and are unlikely to become the motivating factor anytime soon.
Yes, and I think that RMS does understand it. He needs ro remain the "purist" he is, or he would lose credibility (and, after all, there's plenty of OpenSource advocates out there -- Torvalds, Perens and Raymond to name three), and a lot of _users_ and _students_ (let alone companies) would forget about freedom "as in speech" if there were only companies out there to do evangelism. In other words, we need RMS being integralist, we can't do without someone like him.
I think the point is, if you have a FS program that you used to use and it is part of a dead project, you employ someone other to make the changes necessary to adapt it to you needs / fix bugs (at least, if you need it for business usage, that is), or also to continue development if you, e.g., got to short terms with the old developer.
After all, this is one of the reasons why RMS says programmers won't die starving. A passage from a taylorist position to a "paid per hour" (dunno how it is said in english, I hope you understand) job. Which, btw, means more stability for us devs (imho).
However, for closed source what happens if the company goes out of business? If you previously relied on some piece of software you can't access the code, and you need a particular update / fix, you must have a totally _new_ program written by someone other. Not to mention the costs to convert all your old data to (maybe) the new format. If you work in small-middle sized business you know what I mean. I see hundreds of thousand of euros being wasted in proprietary solutions that are gonna being unsupported for softwarehouse's bankrupt every very day. Some proprietary software becomes obsolete anyway while the sw-house is going well, because they want you to upgrade to the new improved 2006 edition that has a niftier "about" dialog.
Please remember, anyway, that more than 60% of software in the world is produced on a custom basis.
What even if it is true? You're pointing out that he used a proprietary tool to write some substitutive free equivalent?
Doesn't seem a contradiction to me. If that's all that you got, you use it to write your free program to the point it is usable, and then you make the switch dropping the not-libre version.
After all, Stallman wrote most of his tools on a UNIX system, to have a GNU( GNU is not *Unix*) os.
He's perfectly right and you're perfectly wrong. He [Stallman] started the Free Software movement because of ethics, and thus it will _always_ be an ethical issue. Look, I give you a hint: it's even *in the name* of it: FreeSoftware. The GNU project started for this exact reason, and doesn't give a fuck (if not as a collateral effect) if it has a monetary income whatsoever.
Just because some arrogant kid came screaming that "OpenSource is good for bussines and can make you rich" 10yrs later the GNU Manifesto was published, it doesn't arrogates him to dismiss the whole political issue. Or, if he does so, not to claim it is FreeSoftware. In fact, a new term was created: OpenSource, aka : "FreeSoftware where we don't care for the Free (as in speech) part".
Let me reiterate that again: you're talking about OpenSource, NOT FreeSoftware. If this distinction is not clear for you, maybe you should consider reading some literature on the subject, before posting misinformed crap.
But possibly, you're just a damn ignorant troll that I shouldn't had to feed in the first stance.
Well thanks ! Yes it was a simple joke . The reason is that the woman really does deserve no respect in this industry and yet she continues to get constant coverage. Im willing to bet she makes a fair bit from sponsership through links.
Yes, and look what: here at./ we continue providing her with some zillions hits on articles she wrote. Next time it will be her editor the one submitting the main title to Slashdot, just forelooking for the money he gets from displaying ads on Forbes or wherever her bullshit is published.
Unfortunately, I agree that we can't ignore these biased (euf.) sources anymore. They're a danger, and some of the above posters confirmed my opinion that misinformation widens. We must respond with diplomacy, though: being more "political" and less "zealots". You can like it or not, but it's a political battle we're fighting, even if you take a (stupid, imho) "i-like-OSS-and-not-FS-because-it's-apolitical" stance. BEING a stance, it *is* a political choice. It's not up to me remembering the difference between participating in politics and supporting a particular party.
The point is: we must be integralists when it comes to defend our freedom, and coherent with our views. Nevertheless, this also means we must always be well-informed, have ready sharp-tongued and thought-provoking responses, and always be *polite* with who doesn't take our point of view. Not building a wall by arrogance, but demolishing it by nice and smart observations to the fact that, however you look at how things are, your thesis always stands.
I've talked to developing nations, representatives from academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL software into their products, then...found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back into the world
They put the instructions on the box for a reason, you know. Read them.
This just prove a thing: it can be the GPL, it can be the X11L, it can be the MS EULA, even a Sun's one... nobody, never reads and/or understand the license.
Slashdot Mirror
After not being able to see source code, more strict DRM management, and monitoring of incoming/outgoing connections, yet another freedom that goes away: the one to code wtf-ing algo you want (oh, sorry: I forgot software patents, of course).
Instead of investing in informing developers that those algorithms aren't really secure, and letting university CS courses around the world to do their job, Microsoft just forbids you to use them.
Btw, how can you write an application that has to retain compatibility with old formats, for example, if it used these functions?
(Probably the output will be a warning, not actually a fatal error, but who knows with MS? "banned" sounds like a strong word to me.)
Yes, but there won't be a poor family spamming from Bergamo (Italy) which can afford ADSL too, I can assure you (living less than two hours away...).
Boys, they give us IP addresses of spammers! You know what that means?
Finally we can seek revenge! Where is my nmap? Let's teach them a lesson...
-- My name's Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die!
No.
For me and you, probably, the reasons to use GNU/Linux are the same than {ten,five,three,n}-years ago.
For the [wo]man out there that knows just that "they has Internet, which is that blue icon right on the screen", it is Yet Another Reason to continue using XP/win98.
If everybody loved Free OSes we would probably live in a better world. If everybody was able to get along quietly with their neighbour without starting wars every few days, we would live in a better world.
Unfortunately neither will happen, due to the intrinsic nature of humanity, which includes stupidity, stubborness, and the need of a pointy stick.
The Free Software Foundation says it is mulling over plans to introduce some kind of patent retaliation clause into the next version of Richard Stallman's General Public Licence.
The clause would seek to restrict the distribution and use of free software to parties prepared to forgo patent infringement lawsuits against free software developers.
[..]"The basic idea is that if someone uses software patents against a Free Software program under the GPL, he might lose the right to distribute that particular software, to use it for their products. We have no interest in restricting the way people can use and develop software".
Quite different story, then. Please, ./ editors, don't be too eager to flame everyone and eveything. At least, report both sides' declarations.
My first VCR [...]
Which makes me think about Betamax. A good format, working well, quite used between professionals and so on. Many considered it better than VHS (I'm too young to express my own opinion). Who won, in the end? See also Joliet vs. RockRidge (no real winning there, though)... and many others.
Just to say that who holds the biggest market shares, and has the sneakest bastard lawyers, is likely to impose their opinion over the others.
// use some sort of MSN Desktop Search tool in order to find "content"
Exactly. And that puts Google Desktop Search out of the way, as IE did for Netscape, MSJVM did to Sun JVM, and MediaPlayer did with RealPlayer.
Nothing new under the sun there. I just wonder who has (most of) the patents for "Desktop Search".
PS: And this time the European commission isn't going to intervene. Just my two cents (was it useful last time, anyway?)
// the momentum is decidedly shifting [...] it seems the market is moving towards a combination of the two
./ of GNU/Linux, and start hearing "uh, wait... I knew, I knew it... it's a kind of a toaster, is it?"
Er... actually it has been *Unix* on servers for two decades, and now instead of switching to GNU/Linux when need arises (where they should feel at home) a lot of them are switching to Windows[*]. We should ask us why. PR & Marketing is a truly important thing for "Fortune 500 & Co." pinheads.
So, in a different sense you're right: on the server market, we're moving towards a combination of the two AND IT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
Whereas, GNU/Linux gained some _little_ momentum in desktop, and so started being more talked about by people that don't even *know* what a server is (e.g. journalists that writes for big newspapers?). That's why you can talk outside
But let's face it: I use GNU/Linux only (and|because) I'm a FSF member, but how many of your non-geek friends do use it at home and have throwed completely away Windows? [**]
[*] Note: it's not that people don't switch to GNU/Linux (or *BSD) at all. It's the fact that not everybody do this choice.
[**] Please don't start throwing in messages like "why people can't use both? why they can't live on the same hd?". It's MY ethics, I ain't forcing you to see it the same way I do.
Where's the problem? Just disable interrupts while you're managing one, and re-enable when ended. People will keep calling until they don't get some CPU share. Else, the overhead for context switching is known to be terrible. Just be sure to schedule calls from your boss in real time priority, if you don't want to get fired.
I mean, isn't there enough things to research - without having to break out the need for transportation for house vermin?
Considering the number of accidents happening on the roads nowadays, maybe they're submitted to find a new DDT substitute. Pack a cartload of all those damn roaches in a nice Ferrari, all drunk, and see them smash at 180Mph on the guard rails! The pure violence of the scene would compensate for the costs of a full scale research on the balistics of roaches intestines!
Which makes me think about the philosophical side of the whole thing... are we just roaches running on a almost-spherical Earth, waiting for a divine LED to show us the way, just randomly selfdestructing on the first wall available[1]? Don't miss the theological impact of this valuable research on the human mankind. We could even question the final Answer of Life, the Universe and Everything[2]! Heck, it may even be: "How many roaches do you have to smash before reaching compassionate happiness?"
Anyway, without goind too OT: in my times, if you had a complex AI system, you tried to bring the damn bugs out, not _into_ it.
...ok, sorry, I'll stop drug abuse, I promise.
[1] Loosely ref. "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" ending
[2] Ref. Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy"
Reverse engineering?
Why do it the hard way?
Not a really new idea, it's inside Andrew Tanenbaum's "Modern Operating Systems"!
The virus programmer has to have read the book.
You can't have both brilliant people and people with good intentions at Microsoft: only brilliant dishonest people or stupid good intentioned ones stays.
I've been a projectonist for a year. You don't get scratchy film the first day a movie is out in theatres! It takes usually > 30 proj. before a film starts getting quite unfocused.
And that in most cases doesn't affect sound (dolby surround is a tiny track on the left of the film read by a laser, and quite hard to scratch).
Anyway, you can report the film is damaged by using the attached form, and the film will be substituted via UPS / or it will be substituted for the next theatre (at least, if it is a big hit, that's it: unsuccesful movies doesn't pay back for the costly substitution).
Instead, you can say that 90% it's up to old machinery or bad equalization, as well as bad adjustements to the object glass. E.g. we still used a Prevost from the first '90, and it did its work quite well, although not the best. Most small theatres have machinery back from those years.
Mounting the two pizzas won't usually damage the film, too ("pizza" is the slangword for the mounted movie since its shape, and usually you end with two or more of them due to their size and weight), it's just normal usage that wears them out and brings in deterioration.
The fact that IE has more users (on just Windows, mac users start using Safari over it) doesn't automatically make it "popular".
In fact, I would say it is the most _unpopular_ cross-platform browser.
Although both are wonderful products, I always found that Opera renders pages in a sloppy way, as well as it doesn't always respect w3c recommendations (even in its last release).
As pointed out, I'd continue using Firefox even if it was "worse" than Opera (because it's Free Software), but this lack of consistency by Opera is another heavy drawback.
I can just say what it helped for me, so it's subjective, but:
:-)
;-)
1. Opened my eyes on how recursion should really be used, and improved my software design abilities a lot, since you're encouraged on writing new small functions and then put pieces together. LISP is built on LISP, and I found it a really educative language (and that's the same reason because I dislike Java, with its too-easy-to-become spaghetti-code). Moreover, in LISP it isn't just that a program has to work; it has to do it in an elegant way.
2. It is both a functional and object oriented programming language. Along with SmallTalk, in the '80 it revolutionized the programming language zoo, and some damn big programs started using it as an extension language (Autocad comes to mind). It has left me surprised studying it how much newer languages take from LISP, even something like Java.
3. It is a really high level language! A lot of libraries is already ready to use. Although the learning curve is really slow at first, LISP repays you a lot of your effort. Unfortunately there aren't many books on the subject. I really welcome this book, and I'll read it asap. Me, I've learned it using the wonderful Graham's book.
I also noted that in LISP finally you can "test code as you write", as they teach you in CS courses, but tight schedules and other languages often make that difficult in a real world scenario.
And in a hundred of lines you can write your own ray-tracer (see always Graham's book).
Ah:
4. Extend GNU Emacs. That's the "c00l" factor that makes you geeky, at least for me.
What I noted looking at the control panel screenshot, is that it looks a lot more complicate than what I remembered back from the days when I still used Windows (:grins:).
I mean, people always say "GNU/Linux is difficult to master, you need to be a genius to use that"... "what a mess of options, how can I find a way through that"... and then... please compare: Windows (Ok, the "classic view" link is there, but that's just an example) - A GNU/Linux desktop
This seems a common trend while time passes: systems become bigger and more difficult to use if you're not a literate (who, ten years ago, would have cared about what's a gateway being on Windows? who _doesn't_ now?). Good luck for GNU/Linux, then. It has been ten more years of experience in being complex. :-)
Seriously, computer literacy is becoming a prerequisite for every system out there, and this makes switches easier from Windows to anything else. Even if this isn't the matter, they're all becoming "more to read and less to click".
(PS: Counting the seconds before someone says something about how MacOSX solves all these problems by being the most simple system in the world yaddayaddayadda. :-) )
Confusing the growth of Linux in the Business world (and likely the rest of the world) with the ethics of the free software movement is blowing sunshine where it doesn't belong.
Yes, I share your view here.
Hence the concern over what was changing in GPL 3, would it force people off Linux and on to BSD?
That is unlikely: it will be discussed broadly before the final draft is made official, and in that time (we're talking about a year or so) also companies will be able to have their saying. As a side note, I think that Google decided recently (not more than two weeks ago) to become a member of the FSF also for this reason. I think that the FSF doesn't want to make GPL-2 users unhappy, and that the change will be more headed towards unwinding details that in '90 didn't seem fundamental (patents, translations, etc.), in the spirit of the previous version.
Hopefully, I've been clear this time. Hopefully you understand I have nothing against F/OSS, I use it, I like it. Hell, I've given away free code for about 20 years of my life. But I stand by my original point: the ethics of Free Software are not the motivatng factor in the business world/marketplace and are unlikely to become the motivating factor anytime soon.
Yes, and I think that RMS does understand it. He needs ro remain the "purist" he is, or he would lose credibility (and, after all, there's plenty of OpenSource advocates out there -- Torvalds, Perens and Raymond to name three), and a lot of _users_ and _students_ (let alone companies) would forget about freedom "as in speech" if there were only companies out there to do evangelism. In other words, we need RMS being integralist, we can't do without someone like him.
Ah, and sorry for the misundersanding, then. :-)
I think the point is, if you have a FS program that you used to use and it is part of a dead project, you employ someone other to make the changes necessary to adapt it to you needs / fix bugs (at least, if you need it for business usage, that is), or also to continue development if you, e.g., got to short terms with the old developer.
After all, this is one of the reasons why RMS says programmers won't die starving. A passage from a taylorist position to a "paid per hour" (dunno how it is said in english, I hope you understand) job. Which, btw, means more stability for us devs (imho).
However, for closed source what happens if the company goes out of business? If you previously relied on some piece of software you can't access the code, and you need a particular update / fix, you must have a totally _new_ program written by someone other.
Not to mention the costs to convert all your old data to (maybe) the new format.
If you work in small-middle sized business you know what I mean. I see hundreds of thousand of euros being wasted in proprietary solutions that are gonna being unsupported for softwarehouse's bankrupt every very day.
Some proprietary software becomes obsolete anyway while the sw-house is going well, because they want you to upgrade to the new improved 2006 edition that has a niftier "about" dialog.
Please remember, anyway, that more than 60% of software in the world is produced on a custom basis.
What even if it is true? You're pointing out that he used a proprietary tool to write some substitutive free equivalent?
Doesn't seem a contradiction to me. If that's all that you got, you use it to write your free program to the point it is usable, and then you make the switch dropping the not-libre version.
After all, Stallman wrote most of his tools on a UNIX system, to have a GNU( GNU is not *Unix*) os.
He's perfectly right and you're perfectly wrong. He [Stallman] started the Free Software movement because of ethics, and thus it will _always_ be an ethical issue. Look, I give you a hint: it's even *in the name* of it: FreeSoftware. The GNU project started for this exact reason, and doesn't give a fuck (if not as a collateral effect) if it has a monetary income whatsoever.
Just because some arrogant kid came screaming that "OpenSource is good for bussines and can make you rich" 10yrs later the GNU Manifesto was published, it doesn't arrogates him to dismiss the whole political issue. Or, if he does so, not to claim it is FreeSoftware. In fact, a new term was created: OpenSource, aka : "FreeSoftware where we don't care for the Free (as in speech) part".
Let me reiterate that again: you're talking about OpenSource, NOT FreeSoftware. If this distinction is not clear for you, maybe you should consider reading some literature on the subject, before posting misinformed crap.
But possibly, you're just a damn ignorant troll that I shouldn't had to feed in the first stance.
Well thanks ! Yes it was a simple joke . The reason is that the woman really does deserve no respect in this industry and yet she continues to get constant coverage. Im willing to bet she makes a fair bit from sponsership through links.
Yes, and look what: here at ./ we continue providing her with some zillions hits on articles she wrote. Next time it will be her editor the one submitting the main title to Slashdot, just forelooking for the money he gets from displaying ads on Forbes or wherever her bullshit is published.
Unfortunately, I agree that we can't ignore these biased (euf.) sources anymore. They're a danger, and some of the above posters confirmed my opinion that misinformation widens. We must respond with diplomacy, though: being more "political" and less "zealots". You can like it or not, but it's a political battle we're fighting, even if you take a (stupid, imho) "i-like-OSS-and-not-FS-because-it's-apolitical" stance. BEING a stance, it *is* a political choice. It's not up to me remembering the difference between participating in politics and supporting a particular party.
The point is: we must be integralists when it comes to defend our freedom, and coherent with our views. Nevertheless, this also means we must always be well-informed, have ready sharp-tongued and thought-provoking responses, and always be *polite* with who doesn't take our point of view. Not building a wall by arrogance, but demolishing it by nice and smart observations to the fact that, however you look at how things are, your thesis always stands.
Oh, no!
Still no support for LOGO, then!
I've been waiting it for *years*!
I've talked to developing nations, representatives from academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL software into their products, then...found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back into the world
They put the instructions on the box for a reason, you know. Read them.
This just prove a thing: it can be the GPL, it can be the X11L, it can be the MS EULA, even a Sun's one... nobody, never reads and/or understand the license.