You'll see a Solaris there. Occasionally. I don't think I've ever seen a Linux. It's exclusively BSD/OS and FreeBSD most of the time.
The reason why is explained on the site, particularly the FAQ entry why don't some operating systems show an uptime above 497 days?. Another choice quote from the FAQ: "HP-UX, Linux, NetApp NetCache, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days." I think you'd likely see a fairly good distribution of different operating systems, including the BSDs and Linuxes (Linices?), if this 497 day limitation weren't there.
Re:Credit and collections
on
Robosaurus
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Those 2 thing go together. "Free" as in freedom (as in GPL) gets you no-strings.
Actually, the GPL is not no-strings. No strings would be public domain. GPL is more like 1 string -- if you release it, provide source. Depending on your philosophy and whether or not you agree with the GNU Manifesto, that's either a whisper-thin thread or a big thick rope that weighs you down.
Either you believe in freedom or you don't, right? Wrong! These bootleggers are (presumably) profiting off the work of the Mozilla collective, without contributing anything back. That goes against the spirit and the letter of the project. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is wrong. The point of free software is to provide a common base from which all people can profit. Read the GNU Manifesto... the goal is to have software available for free. This would allow someone to setup an internet cafe, setup computers running a Linux distro, provide Mozilla to users for web browsing, and charge for access. In such an example, the internet cafe owner would be profiting from Open Source works, and there's nothing wrong with that.
What people tend not to understand is that Open Source gets written as a contribution to society. Mozilla wasn't written so that the developers could profit from releasing it -- because it's GPL'd, they are specifically opting out of the ability to profit from selling licenses.
"I believe the era of exorbitant profit for software should end," said Li, the science ministry's deputy director in charge of new technology. "Basic software services should be cheap, just like water, electricity and gas."
This is great news for Open Source, whose goal is to make software cheap and affordable for everybody. Microsoft has been making exorbitant profits from their products for way too long, and I'm glad that China is embracing the new way of Open Source where software is a basic social right of all citizens.
This move isn't solely in support of Linux, because China wants its own software industry to have a chance to grow and flourish before Microsoft gains total dominance there. Once the Chinese software industry has grown, the largest software companies there can be socialized and given to the People of China.
I realize you're joking, but they really should. Open up the code and make it Open Source! Actual license costs for Windows account for a small fraction of the TCO for a company. Along with buying a copy, there's service and support, areas which Microsoft could make a killing on.
And if other companies are offering "Windows distros", this would enable Microsoft to regain a leadership position in the industry. Not to mention that they would get the benefits of Open Source as well -- when you open the code, you get a lot of developers who are willing to work on it. Microsoft could significantly reduce their development staff and have developers mainly organize contributions from the community. With the headcount reduction, Microsoft's share price would soar as they'd save billions on payroll.
It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.
Oops, I linked to the Microsoft letter. Here is the Peru congressman's reply. Specifically, here's a good summary:
"To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*."
Companies should be legally required to disclose vulnerabilities to government, with stiff penalties for failing to do so. It should also be made available via the Freedom of Information Act because we have a right to know that our information is being protected.
What's next? Microsoft doesn't disclose a vulnerability in SQL Server and the IRS database is leaked to hackers?
This is just one more reason why we need Open Source in government. The official in Peru who blasted Microsoft over closed source got it right. The citizen's right of information protection comes first and this can only be achieved through Open Source software, where every citizen has the right to make sure their data is being handled properly.
Closed source products have no business in government (or really anywhere for that matter) and should be outlawed.
This is just one more reason why Microsoft needs to open up the source for Windows. After all, what is it afraid of? There's nothing in there so secret that it needs protecting. I'm sure anything sensitive has already been patented anyway.
The real reason Microsoft wants to keep the source closed is because of all their shoddy programming! As we've already seen, this has opened up a whole can of security worms. Has anyone noticed the increase in new viruses lately?
Look, it's all right there in the GNU Manifesto which is the basis for GNU software so prevalent in Open Source. Rather than going over it with you, I shall refer you to that excellent treatise on why software should be free.
Oh, so its unethical for me to make something, and then make a deal with you where I can give you what I made and charge a price of my choosing?
In the case of software, this would make you nothing better than a digital pimp. You create a product once. Great! The labor you put into that is worth some value. But you then take those digital bits and keep on extorting people for labor you're no longer putting into it. It's like getting paid to fill a habitat on the moon with oxygen, but then once you've done that and you're paid, you keep on charging people for the right to breathe the air.
The same is true of software. You do the effort once, for which you're entitled a reasonable amount. But if you keep on charging people you might as well be charging them to breathe. People are so concerned with fattening up their wallets using their ill-gotten gains that they ignore their responsibilities to society.
Say I have a software idea. Its pretty good. But it will take me 8 months to make it. The problem is, as soon as I make it, somone will copy my idea. What motivation do I have to work 8 months on something and not hope to at least eat.
Your idea is a contribution to society. Just as mathematicians don't work to make a discovery and then try to peddle it to the highest bidder... they freely give away their discoveries by publishing the results for anyone to see. Why should your software be any different? Does it do society any good for you to horde your invention and extort money from people for something which should be freely usable for the benefit of everyone?
The Open Source world would work if all people followed it and we could tweak the system so that those for whom which nothing is enough (new boat, new jet, new car, five houses etc.) could be gotten rid of.
This could easily be achieved by passing a law where people could own only one car and one house. People don't need to live in two places at once, and they can only drive one vehicle at a time. The thought of someone getting filthy rich by exploiting the sale of mere information is repugnant, and they then use the ill-gotten spoils to purchase excessive luxury items when their neighbor down the street has to do without!
Open Source is one of the first steps towards a society where everybody is treated equally.
I hope also that open universities, where tuition is free, will prevail here as well. This is very common in Europe where your university education is completely free. Soon we'll be living in a world where people can get an education simply because they're interested, in addition to getting software without being extorted, and where the hungry can get free food without having to work for it. This is the post-scarcity world which we're eventually going to have to move towards if society is to have any hope of surviving.
Why are you worried about someone stealing your idea? How can an idea be stolen, anyway? Ideas are what has shaped society and has acted as a social force for change. Ideas are not any one individual's to selfishly horde, but must be shared with whomever is interested.
If your research project produces good results, then publish those results. If you're keeping things secret then you're no better than a closed source company who selfishly keeps everything hidden rather than sharing that knowledge with society.
And nobody is forcing you to keep your job either. It's like someone standing on a street corner making faces and then complaining that they don't get paid for it. If it's something you enjoy, then keep doing it. But don't expect society to pay you for it.
The performance is done by the machine not the musician. As such the entire industry system is based on a single performance and then a stream of endless payments for not performing it again is totally unrealistic.
You've hit the nail on the head. This is why commercial, closed-source software is inherently unethical. It's when companies create commercial, closed-source products by writing the code a single time and then get a stream of endless payments for not writing it again.
I would appeal to everyone to write your congressperson and ask that the laws be changed to favor Open Source software instead of the abuses forced upon us by closed-source commercial entities. This kind of attitude by anti-social companies needs to be outlawed.
It goes against the finest of academic traditions going back centuries. Mathematics, for example, has progressed because mathematicians have been willing to work on a stipend basis to figure out the fundamental laws of the universe. They then shared this knowledge openly with their peers for anyone to use. You never hear of "closed source mathematics" because it would make absolutely no sense. Similarly, Open Source is the only way to go because then programmers would be able to do their work as an art form, and freely give it to the world at no cost as a gesture of their social responsibility to fellow citizens.
Isn't the goal to have as much software availible to as many people as possible?
Of course it is. It is also the goal to have as much food available to as many people as possible. It is our social responsibility to ensure that the entire world is fed, even if that means us giving up some of our free time to labor in the fields.
Open source is the only way to provide software to the world. Not everyone in this world is a rich white American.
Yes, similarly a related concept known as Open Farms is the only way to provide food to the world. Not everyone in this world is a rich first world nation citizen. The concept is remarkably similar to Open Source. Farmers work in their fields for no pay, producing crops. They then give those crops out for free to anyone who needs them. They don't make money from selling their produce, but they can make sure their families don't go bankrupt by supporting them in other ways -- selling vegetable washing services, vegetable product support, offering cooking classes, etc.
Granted, the farmers won't make as much money as before but the needs of the world come before the rights of any individual farmer. And nobody's forcing them to be farmers either. After all, everybody in this world needs food and they will steal it if there were no free food available.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll see a Solaris there. Occasionally. I don't think I've ever seen a Linux. It's exclusively BSD/OS and FreeBSD most of the time.
The reason why is explained on the site, particularly the FAQ entry why don't some operating systems show an uptime above 497 days?. Another choice quote from the FAQ: "HP-UX, Linux, NetApp NetCache, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days." I think you'd likely see a fairly good distribution of different operating systems, including the BSDs and Linuxes (Linices?), if this 497 day limitation weren't there.
I'd be more worried about the missed car payment!
Those 2 thing go together. "Free" as in freedom (as in GPL) gets you no-strings.
Actually, the GPL is not no-strings. No strings would be public domain. GPL is more like 1 string -- if you release it, provide source. Depending on your philosophy and whether or not you agree with the GNU Manifesto, that's either a whisper-thin thread or a big thick rope that weighs you down.
Either you believe in freedom or you don't, right? Wrong! These bootleggers are (presumably) profiting off the work of the Mozilla collective, without contributing anything back. That goes against the spirit and the letter of the project. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is wrong. The point of free software is to provide a common base from which all people can profit. Read the GNU Manifesto... the goal is to have software available for free. This would allow someone to setup an internet cafe, setup computers running a Linux distro, provide Mozilla to users for web browsing, and charge for access. In such an example, the internet cafe owner would be profiting from Open Source works, and there's nothing wrong with that.
What people tend not to understand is that Open Source gets written as a contribution to society. Mozilla wasn't written so that the developers could profit from releasing it -- because it's GPL'd, they are specifically opting out of the ability to profit from selling licenses.
Quoted from the article:
"I believe the era of exorbitant profit for software should end," said Li, the science ministry's deputy director in charge of new technology. "Basic software services should be cheap, just like water, electricity and gas."
This is great news for Open Source, whose goal is to make software cheap and affordable for everybody. Microsoft has been making exorbitant profits from their products for way too long, and I'm glad that China is embracing the new way of Open Source where software is a basic social right of all citizens.
This move isn't solely in support of Linux, because China wants its own software industry to have a chance to grow and flourish before Microsoft gains total dominance there. Once the Chinese software industry has grown, the largest software companies there can be socialized and given to the People of China.
lucky me. I'm a vegetarian.
Hey, there's room enough for all God's creatures.
Right next to the mashed potatoes.
I realize you're joking, but they really should. Open up the code and make it Open Source! Actual license costs for Windows account for a small fraction of the TCO for a company. Along with buying a copy, there's service and support, areas which Microsoft could make a killing on.
And if other companies are offering "Windows distros", this would enable Microsoft to regain a leadership position in the industry. Not to mention that they would get the benefits of Open Source as well -- when you open the code, you get a lot of developers who are willing to work on it. Microsoft could significantly reduce their development staff and have developers mainly organize contributions from the community. With the headcount reduction, Microsoft's share price would soar as they'd save billions on payroll.
It's probably only a matter of time before Ballmer finally grasps the true benefits of Open Source.
Oops, I linked to the Microsoft letter. Here is the Peru congressman's reply. Specifically, here's a good summary:
"To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*."
Companies should be legally required to disclose vulnerabilities to government, with stiff penalties for failing to do so. It should also be made available via the Freedom of Information Act because we have a right to know that our information is being protected.
What's next? Microsoft doesn't disclose a vulnerability in SQL Server and the IRS database is leaked to hackers?
This is just one more reason why we need Open Source in government. The official in Peru who blasted Microsoft over closed source got it right. The citizen's right of information protection comes first and this can only be achieved through Open Source software, where every citizen has the right to make sure their data is being handled properly.
Closed source products have no business in government (or really anywhere for that matter) and should be outlawed.
This is just one more reason why Microsoft needs to open up the source for Windows. After all, what is it afraid of? There's nothing in there so secret that it needs protecting. I'm sure anything sensitive has already been patented anyway.
The real reason Microsoft wants to keep the source closed is because of all their shoddy programming! As we've already seen, this has opened up a whole can of security worms. Has anyone noticed the increase in new viruses lately?
Look, it's all right there in the GNU Manifesto which is the basis for GNU software so prevalent in Open Source. Rather than going over it with you, I shall refer you to that excellent treatise on why software should be free.
Oh, so its unethical for me to make something, and then make a deal with you where I can give you what I made and charge a price of my choosing?
In the case of software, this would make you nothing better than a digital pimp. You create a product once. Great! The labor you put into that is worth some value. But you then take those digital bits and keep on extorting people for labor you're no longer putting into it. It's like getting paid to fill a habitat on the moon with oxygen, but then once you've done that and you're paid, you keep on charging people for the right to breathe the air.
The same is true of software. You do the effort once, for which you're entitled a reasonable amount. But if you keep on charging people you might as well be charging them to breathe. People are so concerned with fattening up their wallets using their ill-gotten gains that they ignore their responsibilities to society.
Say I have a software idea. Its pretty good. But it will take me 8 months to make it. The problem is, as soon as I make it, somone will copy my idea. What motivation do I have to work 8 months on something and not hope to at least eat.
Your idea is a contribution to society. Just as mathematicians don't work to make a discovery and then try to peddle it to the highest bidder... they freely give away their discoveries by publishing the results for anyone to see. Why should your software be any different? Does it do society any good for you to horde your invention and extort money from people for something which should be freely usable for the benefit of everyone?
The Open Source world would work if all people followed it and we could tweak the system so that those for whom which nothing is enough (new boat, new jet, new car, five houses etc.) could be gotten rid of.
This could easily be achieved by passing a law where people could own only one car and one house. People don't need to live in two places at once, and they can only drive one vehicle at a time. The thought of someone getting filthy rich by exploiting the sale of mere information is repugnant, and they then use the ill-gotten spoils to purchase excessive luxury items when their neighbor down the street has to do without!
Open Source is one of the first steps towards a society where everybody is treated equally.
I hope also that open universities, where tuition is free, will prevail here as well. This is very common in Europe where your university education is completely free. Soon we'll be living in a world where people can get an education simply because they're interested, in addition to getting software without being extorted, and where the hungry can get free food without having to work for it. This is the post-scarcity world which we're eventually going to have to move towards if society is to have any hope of surviving.
Why are you worried about someone stealing your idea? How can an idea be stolen, anyway? Ideas are what has shaped society and has acted as a social force for change. Ideas are not any one individual's to selfishly horde, but must be shared with whomever is interested.
If your research project produces good results, then publish those results. If you're keeping things secret then you're no better than a closed source company who selfishly keeps everything hidden rather than sharing that knowledge with society.
And nobody is forcing you to keep your job either. It's like someone standing on a street corner making faces and then complaining that they don't get paid for it. If it's something you enjoy, then keep doing it. But don't expect society to pay you for it.
The performance is done by the machine not the musician. As such the entire industry system is based on a single performance and then a stream of endless payments for not performing it again is totally unrealistic.
You've hit the nail on the head. This is why commercial, closed-source software is inherently unethical. It's when companies create commercial, closed-source products by writing the code a single time and then get a stream of endless payments for not writing it again.
I would appeal to everyone to write your congressperson and ask that the laws be changed to favor Open Source software instead of the abuses forced upon us by closed-source commercial entities. This kind of attitude by anti-social companies needs to be outlawed.
It goes against the finest of academic traditions going back centuries. Mathematics, for example, has progressed because mathematicians have been willing to work on a stipend basis to figure out the fundamental laws of the universe. They then shared this knowledge openly with their peers for anyone to use. You never hear of "closed source mathematics" because it would make absolutely no sense. Similarly, Open Source is the only way to go because then programmers would be able to do their work as an art form, and freely give it to the world at no cost as a gesture of their social responsibility to fellow citizens.
Isn't the goal to have as much software availible to as many people as possible?
Of course it is. It is also the goal to have as much food available to as many people as possible. It is our social responsibility to ensure that the entire world is fed, even if that means us giving up some of our free time to labor in the fields.
Open source is the only way to provide software to the world. Not everyone in this world is a rich white American.
Yes, similarly a related concept known as Open Farms is the only way to provide food to the world. Not everyone in this world is a rich first world nation citizen. The concept is remarkably similar to Open Source. Farmers work in their fields for no pay, producing crops. They then give those crops out for free to anyone who needs them. They don't make money from selling their produce, but they can make sure their families don't go bankrupt by supporting them in other ways -- selling vegetable washing services, vegetable product support, offering cooking classes, etc.
Granted, the farmers won't make as much money as before but the needs of the world come before the rights of any individual farmer. And nobody's forcing them to be farmers either. After all, everybody in this world needs food and they will steal it if there were no free food available.