It's a huge insult to the FOSS contributors to suggest it's all a reactionary movement.
Who said it was all due to a reactionary movement?
It's really hard to believe that in an alternate universe, without MS, a similar populist-driven software movement wouldn't have occurred.
People vote with their feet. If they like what they are being served, they will stay for more courses. Once you start pissing in their soup, they make a move.
If you could do everything you wanted with Microsoft products and were perfectly happy with everything they produced, why would you take the time to write alternative software? Because of a personal interest? Perhaps.
But your personal interest doesn't produce mass appeal. If I'm wrong, then every project on Sourceforge would be stable, production software.
Way to revise history, pal! Neither RMS nor Linus..
You mean only Linus and RMS use open source?
Apache... Sendmail
Would still be unix workstation projects without the support of thousands of former Microsoft customers who have now switched to open source projects because they are fed up with sub-par software at premium prices....projects that were designed and developed in direct response to Microsoft...
There are thousands of projects on sourceforge that were written as replacement for Microsoft products.
How quickly does this descend into The Two-Step Plan for Denying All Problems With Open Source While Also Ignoring Them Because They Hurt
It doesn't have to. You just seem to have an anger management issue that needs attention.
I used to be a rabid Microsoft advocate in the early 80's because they were freeing computer enthusiasts from terminal-based mini-computers. I was happy as hell to run my MSDOS-based applications and was freely describing the benefits of the Microsoft-Intel platform vs. Apple due primarily to the fact that the combination of the two companies meant most folks could get a PC on their desks cheaply.
But then the bullshit began about "no bugs" and the Microsoft denials that they were crippling their competitors software in favor of their own until finally I couldn't stand to take one more marketing turd in my software.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, I could care less whether they run tractor-trailer rig size security holes in their software. I don't use their stuff any longer. If they had been straight up and admitted their problems, I might have stayed in the Microsoft camp.
What it comes down to is how you treat your customer. Microsoft was paid to give me good customer service. Instead they chose to lie to me. You may think this is Microsoft vs. open source when it is actually Microsoft vs. themseleves.
That most applications break under such a scenario is Microsoft's fault to a certain extent, but not entirely so. Software vendors are just too lazy to code that way and they assume that they have the go of the entire machine.
Now you know why I don't use Microsoft products. They NEVER take responsibility for their mistakes. They have ALWAYS claimed that the problems with their OSs and Office products are the result of third parties.
I would like to point another type of hypocrisy however...
That seems to be your job, doesn't it? Why do you READ slashdot if you find it so overwhelmingly anti-Microsoft?
Is it our fault that you can't find a home where everyone likes what you like and Microsoft is the savior for the world's software woes?
The problem with your assesment of this problem..
We have no problems with our problems. YOU, however, have major issues.
So what is your solution to the problem? More carping and whining?
If you object to how the open source community handles discussion the of Microsoft, then put together a community-driven support website that advocates Microsoft products and denegrates open source projects.
Or would that just be an arm of Microsoft's marketing group?
Open source software exists because of Microsoft. I wouldn't be using any open source software if it weren't for Microsoft. And no, it isn't because of/. or other pro-FOSS websites because I was getting fed up with Microsoft's crap in 1992.
Microsoft is its own worst enemy. You can accuse the FOSS community of all levels of hypocrisy and it still won't make a difference on whether people use open source or not. People use open source because they are looking for an alternative to Microsoft.
Talk about having your cake and eating it while telling everyone they can't have any.
If Microsoft hadn't treated their customers as mindless cash-flow spigots perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The question wasn't, as you claimed, whether NASA did any of the fundamental research leading to the SS1, but whether NASA had provided any valuable research to the manned spaceflight effort. From the article comment:
"...reaching space, on a budget embarrassingly smaller than NASA's.."
My point stands. I maintain that Rutan and others in the private space club have benefitted handsomely from the aeronautical research conducted by governmental space agencies. Individuals whose posts are generally of the vein "gee, Rutan did with $25M what it would take NASA billions of dollars to achieve" is bullshit. The data produced as a result of fifty years of NASA research, as well as research by the Russian and European space agencies, are now taught as foundation coursework in aeronautics courses. The posts that proclaim that Rutan and the private industry are going to do what took governments billions to do is a false economy.
The textbooks that these aerospace engineers are using to calculate the design parameters of their space craft were written by the engineers and scientists of people who worked for NASA and other governmental space programs.
To claim that private companies will invest the money necessary to generate a similar body of data making the next leap in space commerce possible is foolish. Business will need to be convinced that they can make a profit for their investment.
Yeah you'r right; those fucking NASA scientists and engineers didn't to shit.
While you're out throwing shit on the reputation of thousands of dedicated individuals, don't forget to take a piss on the graves of Chaffee, White, Grisham, and the crews of the two lost shuttles while you're at it.
I guess that would have constituted an answer to your last question. Repeating your question doesn't make the question any less answered, does it.
And repeating your question did not answer mine, did it:
"Are you and your scoffing colleages claiming that the investment that governments have made in funding and lives was a waste and that companies would have assumed those risks for free?"
Does that mean they should have a permanent monopoly on space?
Nope, but it also doesn't mean that we should forget the contribution of thousands of engineers and scientists who gave Rutan a leg up in reaching the boundaries of space.
I'm happy as hell to see a private company (more than one, as a matter of fact) reaching for space. But when I see posters dismissing the sacrifice that Russian and NASA scientists, not to mention the astronauts and cosmonauts, have made to get them there, it really pisses me off.
Ok so what you're saying is, if you dont count all the money spent on research.. NASA can build a ship like the SpaceShipOne for $25 million?
Nope.
I'm really sorry that I have to lead everyone who makes comments like yours around by the nose, but here goes:
Rutan and other flight designers are living off the backs of American, Russian and European space agencies whose fundamental research gave these private space ventures the information they needed to make spacecraft cheaper than their government counterparts.
Are you and your scoffing colleages claiming that the investment that governments have made in funding and lives was a waste and that companies would have assumed those risks for free?
Of course Rutan didn't perform any of the fundamental research that lead to the first manned flights, so his efforts are piggy-backing on those of NASA.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a huge insult to the FOSS contributors to suggest it's all a reactionary movement.
Who said it was all due to a reactionary movement?
It's really hard to believe that in an alternate universe, without MS, a similar populist-driven software movement wouldn't have occurred.
People vote with their feet. If they like what they are being served, they will stay for more courses. Once you start pissing in their soup, they make a move.
If you could do everything you wanted with Microsoft products and were perfectly happy with everything they produced, why would you take the time to write alternative software? Because of a personal interest? Perhaps.
But your personal interest doesn't produce mass appeal. If I'm wrong, then every project on Sourceforge would be stable, production software.
Way to revise history, pal! Neither RMS nor Linus..
...projects that were designed and developed in direct response to Microsoft...
You mean only Linus and RMS use open source?
Apache... Sendmail
Would still be unix workstation projects without the support of thousands of former Microsoft customers who have now switched to open source projects because they are fed up with sub-par software at premium prices.
There are thousands of projects on sourceforge that were written as replacement for Microsoft products.
How quickly does this descend into The Two-Step Plan for Denying All Problems With Open Source While Also Ignoring Them Because They Hurt
It doesn't have to. You just seem to have an anger management issue that needs attention.
I used to be a rabid Microsoft advocate in the early 80's because they were freeing computer enthusiasts from terminal-based mini-computers. I was happy as hell to run my MSDOS-based applications and was freely describing the benefits of the Microsoft-Intel platform vs. Apple due primarily to the fact that the combination of the two companies meant most folks could get a PC on their desks cheaply.
But then the bullshit began about "no bugs" and the Microsoft denials that they were crippling their competitors software in favor of their own until finally I couldn't stand to take one more marketing turd in my software.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, I could care less whether they run tractor-trailer rig size security holes in their software. I don't use their stuff any longer. If they had been straight up and admitted their problems, I might have stayed in the Microsoft camp.
What it comes down to is how you treat your customer. Microsoft was paid to give me good customer service. Instead they chose to lie to me. You may think this is Microsoft vs. open source when it is actually Microsoft vs. themseleves.
That most applications break under such a scenario is Microsoft's fault to a certain extent, but not entirely so. Software vendors are just too lazy to code that way and they assume that they have the go of the entire machine.
..
Now you know why I don't use Microsoft products. They NEVER take responsibility for their mistakes. They have ALWAYS claimed that the problems with their OSs and Office products are the result of third parties.
I would like to point another type of hypocrisy however...
That seems to be your job, doesn't it? Why do you READ slashdot if you find it so overwhelmingly anti-Microsoft?
Is it our fault that you can't find a home where everyone likes what you like and Microsoft is the savior for the world's software woes?
The problem with your assesment of this problem
We have no problems with our problems. YOU, however, have major issues.
Okay, you're right.
/. or other pro-FOSS websites because I was getting fed up with Microsoft's crap in 1992.
So what is your solution to the problem? More carping and whining?
If you object to how the open source community handles discussion the of Microsoft, then put together a community-driven support website that advocates Microsoft products and denegrates open source projects.
Or would that just be an arm of Microsoft's marketing group?
Open source software exists because of Microsoft. I wouldn't be using any open source software if it weren't for Microsoft. And no, it isn't because of
Microsoft is its own worst enemy. You can accuse the FOSS community of all levels of hypocrisy and it still won't make a difference on whether people use open source or not. People use open source because they are looking for an alternative to Microsoft.
Talk about having your cake and eating it while telling everyone they can't have any.
If Microsoft hadn't treated their customers as mindless cash-flow spigots perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation.
set the goal, and wait until someone completes it. then set another goal.
Best idea I've read yet.
Develop a zero emmisions vehicle able to travel 1,000 miles, carrying 4 people, minimum distance between stops being 200 miles.
Excellent idea. Pushing the boundaries of engineering and science at the same time.
All while driving a stake through the Oil companies hearts.
You have just defeated yourself.
The light-weight composites that you rely on for building your zero-emmissions car are derived from petrochemicals.
There is only one "oil" company left - Texaco. All the rest have been in the chemical market for decades.
Everyone in marketing knows that repetition is the key to creating a permanent impression.
They need to have an X-Cup every 6 months to keep the interest alive.
A few charred remains of a failed attempt would be a real crowd pleaser too.
Just like NASCAR.
I couldn't have said it better myself. How then will the Linux community and game publishers overcome this (IMHO) enormous obstacle?
They won't.
Just throw your collective hands in the air and admit that everyone should just use Microsoft products to play games.
Or Nintendo.....
Or Playstation.....
So you are saying that the X-prize that generated SS1 was foolish?
Read what I have written again:
"..to generate a similar body of data.."
Are you saying that Rutan has generated the same body of work in a few short years that NASA has over the last 40 years?
The NASA of today is a bloated politcal money-sink run by a visionless accountant.
I agree with the sentiment above. But the original comment didn't address this issue at all.
The original comment is the one that I took issue with.
Oh you mean the thing the Russians invented.
I've credited the Russian space agency in my posts.
Yeah, NASA helped them a lot, I'm sure.
They did. The Russians were reading the telemetry we were sending back from our space craft.
Not!
You apparently missed the joint mission in the 1970's.
The angry mods are out today. Your other post was modded 'overrated', despite the fact that I thought you made some good points.
The question wasn't, as you claimed, whether NASA did any of the fundamental research leading to the SS1, but whether NASA had provided any valuable research to the manned spaceflight effort. From the article comment:
"...reaching space, on a budget embarrassingly smaller than NASA's.."
My point stands. I maintain that Rutan and others in the private space club have benefitted handsomely from the aeronautical research conducted by governmental space agencies. Individuals whose posts are generally of the vein "gee, Rutan did with $25M what it would take NASA billions of dollars to achieve" is bullshit. The data produced as a result of fifty years of NASA research, as well as research by the Russian and European space agencies, are now taught as foundation coursework in aeronautics courses. The posts that proclaim that Rutan and the private industry are going to do what took governments billions to do is a false economy.
The textbooks that these aerospace engineers are using to calculate the design parameters of their space craft were written by the engineers and scientists of people who worked for NASA and other governmental space programs.
To claim that private companies will invest the money necessary to generate a similar body of data making the next leap in space commerce possible is foolish. Business will need to be convinced that they can make a profit for their investment.
I do better understand your point, however.
I think we are arguing past one another.
but nasa didnt give all their research to burt rutan
NASA published their research. I assume Rutan read it.
And you think NASA did all the fundamental research leading to manned flights?
Nope.
Yeah you'r right; those fucking NASA scientists and engineers didn't to shit.
While you're out throwing shit on the reputation of thousands of dedicated individuals, don't forget to take a piss on the graves of Chaffee, White, Grisham, and the crews of the two lost shuttles while you're at it.
No sir, they didn't do shit.
"well it was cmdrtaco who did the post :)"
;)
Figures...
Uh.. what?
I answered your question.
That still doesn't answer my question..
It did in the last post:
"Nope."
I guess that would have constituted an answer to your last question. Repeating your question doesn't make the question any less answered, does it.
And repeating your question did not answer mine, did it:
"Are you and your scoffing colleages claiming that the investment that governments have made in funding and lives was a waste and that companies would have assumed those risks for free?"
Think "balance sheet".
Does that mean they should have a permanent monopoly on space?
Nope, but it also doesn't mean that we should forget the contribution of thousands of engineers and scientists who gave Rutan a leg up in reaching the boundaries of space.
I'm happy as hell to see a private company (more than one, as a matter of fact) reaching for space. But when I see posters dismissing the sacrifice that Russian and NASA scientists, not to mention the astronauts and cosmonauts, have made to get them there, it really pisses me off.
I think what they were referring to is the cost per flight, in terms of dollars per pound raised.
Then they should have avoided the confusion and said so directly.
The fact that you are interpreting their "point" indicates that they didn't do such a bang-up job themselves.
Ok so what you're saying is, if you dont count all the money spent on research.. NASA can build a ship like the SpaceShipOne for $25 million?
Nope.
I'm really sorry that I have to lead everyone who makes comments like yours around by the nose, but here goes:
Rutan and other flight designers are living off the backs of American, Russian and European space agencies whose fundamental research gave these private space ventures the information they needed to make spacecraft cheaper than their government counterparts.
Are you and your scoffing colleages claiming that the investment that governments have made in funding and lives was a waste and that companies would have assumed those risks for free?
To use your own words: "Hahahahhaa ok"
Besides the fact that SpaceShipOne utilizes a completely different and more efficient aeronautical approach than NASA to reach space,..
Different than what?
Oh, you mean the one that worked for 40 years?
The fact that you have a comparison to make only reinforces my point.
How many hours of Rutan's work was spent on failed attempts to achieve space flight?
Wow, he didn't have to spend any because it had already been done.
Private industry outperforms big government yet again.
While I agree that the Demopublicans are hardly a great party, tell me which company landed men on the moon.
Oh, that's right - there aren't any.
And which private company launched a human into sub-orbital flight in the 1960's.
Oh, that's right - there aren't any.
The private company that landed probes on nearly all of the closest planets?
Oh, that's right - there aren't any.
I could go on for hours.
"budget embarrassingly smaller than NASA's"
Of course Rutan didn't perform any of the fundamental research that lead to the first manned flights, so his efforts are piggy-backing on those of NASA.
What a bullshit comparison.