Get a life. It's just a fucking tool. Speaking of tool, do you have any idea how much of a corporate tool you are?
Whew! Take it easy man!
That said... How are YOU not a "corporate tool"? You own a Windows PC, no? Are you sure that you just haven't had that "it's a tool argument" beat into your head one too many times?
Seriously... I know a lot of people in a lot of different professions, and most of them are pretty particular about what tools they use.
Come to think of it, the "it's a tool" argument could be applied to just about everything in our lives. Clothes are a tool, they keep us warn and protected from the elements. I'm sure you don't just wear any old clothes. You probably have some sense of style, whether you buy expensive, trendy crap, or whatever suits your taste. Food is a tool, it provides our bodies with sustenence, but I'm sure you eat food you enjoy.
Also, your screwdrive analogy is flawed. Most people don't care about screwdrivers, but some do. But more importantly, a lot of people really like particular power-tools. Find any carpenter, or anyone who uses a lot of power-tools, and I'm sure many of them will have a particular taste regarding what tools they use.
Their compilers have always been reasonably prices
And just what planet have YOU been living on?
And no, you're wrong anyway. The problem will be that MS will have complete control over everything, and said "everything" will be the black box I mentioned.
Software will have to be signed by MS, and only those MS chooses to allow to program will be able to program.
Hmmmm... Excluding MS and a few others, the U.S. itself has a LOT to gain from Open Source.
Sun, IBM, HP, RedHat, and etc., all have investments in free software and stand to gain from all free software development around the world.
Really, Microsoft in particular, and a few other companies, are the only ones who stand to lose. And just think about it, Microsoft DOES NOT help the U.S. economy. Remember, MS/BillG, has over 40B in cash that is not invested back into the U.S. economy. Microsoft forces a lot of companies out of business, while they fill their coffers instead of allowing that money to go back into the economy.
How can anyone argue that MS helps the U.S. economy; they are a damn leech. I say we burn that damn thing off:)
Apparently, many of our foreign ambassadors must be MS shills, because they have been favoring MS over companies that support free software, like IBM, HP, and RedHat, companies that arguably are much more healthy for the U.S. economy than MS.
Microsoft is also attempting to lock down the computer so it is no longer a general computing device. The are attempting to turn it into a black box that you can't fiddle with.
If they are successful, where are all of the U.S.'s future programmers going to come from? They won't be allowed to tinker with computers in any way not sanctioned by MS, enforced by U.S. law, so either the pool of programmers will shrink to the point of disappearing, or they will come from outside the U.S.
But what about security profressionals? While we will still have some programmers, because MS will allow people to learn the MS way of doing things in schools, security professionals depend on researching how to break systems, hack into them, how the system works on the lowest level, etc.. Are we going to hire foreign security experts to work on things our national security depends on? It will become literally impossible to legally become a security expert in the U.S., and in fact that is already starting to happen.
We're really shooting ourselves in the head, over here in the land of the "free".
That's not fair. Most FS/OSS advocates, including myself, are not THAT extreme; we simply want to 1. apply a large amount of pressure to companies like MS to help keep them more honest, and 2. create good software that is useful.
Granted, people here can/do get pretty worked up, but such is the nature of communication mediums where you can't actually see/hear the persons you're communicating with, I think.
But this is your strawman argument - you continue to try to make the case that I'm somehow morally inferior to you because I tend to keep my technical interests away from
*snipped silly stuff about spotted owls*
I do not feel morally superior to you, and I never said as much. I do, however, feel morally superior to those who lie, cheat, and steal to further their own agendas, as some MS shills have been caught doing. Note, I'm not condemning the whole of MS, just certain people and practices.
Oh for fuck's sake. RMS is a crackpot.
That is unfair to RMS. Yes, he is a rather unlikable person, but, he does have some redeeming qualities. He does cause damage, as he often makes a fool of himself. However, without Stallman, there would be no GNU, and without GNU, there wouldn't have been Linux.
I won't bore you with the whole history of GNU/Linux though:)
Look - I admire that. When it's geared towards something worthy. But in the case of this whole argument, the target and execution of those ideals is less than exemplary 90% of the time. Surely you can see that?
Like I said, I would be more than willing to talk about my moral/ethical qualms regarding MS, and other proprietary software vendors, another time.
I will grant the latter, but 90% is overstating it, IMO.
OTOH, surely you can see the damage caused by companies like MS with regards to software patents, BSA audits(harrasment!), having to buy the same software over and over costing governments and companies billions of dollars?
My greatest fears, with regards to the computer industry, have to do with the U.S. economy, national security, and the future of software developers' education and employment. Surely these things aren't petty?
Note, I'm not an extremist who wants to rid the world of proprietary software vendors. It could happen a long ways down the road, as people no longer have to purchase the same software repeatedly, and companies and governments all help fund development of useful software. This is already happening a little.
Anyway, let's put this discussion to rest for now. I'll be happy to discuss some of these things another time.
You don't really see the problem here, do you? Do you understand why you (and people like you) tend to use those examples? Have you ever tried to pause and think before you post things like these?
I think you are trying to label me an insane extremist. This is a strawman, you're attempting to shift the argument to one you can beat with a stick, and you're misrepresenting my words in order to do so.
Yes, it was a VERY extreme example I used, which I stated upfront*. I used such an extreme example, because nearly everyone agrees that killing is wrong, not because I'm some kind of loon that equates anything MS has ever done to murder.
My original point was very simple. I was simply demonstrating that taking a pragmatic approach to business, politics, "getting stuff done" can be morally wrong to do.
No, I'm not attacking those who "criticize" Microsoft.
Ummm... yes you were. How can you say that? That is preposterous. You lambasted the general population of/. for being so extremely critical of Microsoft, for making jokes about Microsoft, etc. You made fun, calling them childish. You appeared to be intentionally offensive, and I took offense.
I'd be more than willing to discuss my ethical qualms with Microsoft another time. I will not, however, simply dismiss my qualms for pragmatic reasons. And I will take offense at being labeled extremist, immature, childish, etc. for standing up for my principles.
Coincidentally, I notice a growing trend, especially in the United States, that people who take a principled, moral approach to life, politics, etc., get labeled naive, extremist, immature, etc. People with principles they live by are the ones who have historically been know to change the world, not those who accept the status quo.
For a great example, in the small, relatively unimportant world of computers, I give you Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman has changed the computer industry to a large degree. He started GNU and the FSF. Because of GNU, Linux has been able to gain very large penetration into the server arena, and is starting to gain penetration into the corporate desktop. IBM, HP, many governments, etc., are switching many operations to GNU/Linux. Linux now stands as Microsoft's greatest threat in the server arena, and is a potential threat in the future of the desktop. Without Stallman, this would not have happened. Stallman's "extremist" has gotten things done. Stallman is acheiving his goals.
My point? My point is simply that standing up for ones' principles can change things, and therefore should not be dismissed as being childish, despite the trend I noted above.
* I said it was an extreme example in my original post, get over it.
Just how the hell was I nitpicking? He uses NT, but not really as his desktop computer. The software he actually uses is NOT Windows software. Besides, I don't see the relevence of this anyway.
I lost you there. Killing people? WTF does that have to do with computers and software again?
Nice strawman. Killing people was an example of doing something morally reprehensible. You were defending proprietary software vendors, who are often criticized here on/. for morally reprehensible acts. Killing was an extreme example, obviously, which I stated.
Eh... where am I defending Microsoft?
... In your post! Jesus...
Someone has to say it. Draw your own conclusions, etc. People have accused me of trolling in the past, but when I see something like this, all that FUD about Windows, all the Evil Empire snide remarks, all the lame 'M$' jokes, all the misleading and childish comments I've ever read here dissolve into a little white pixel and things are good again. The person who invented Unix is doing what the rest of the world does - use a desktop computer and desktop software that actually works - to be productive instead of to feel technically and morally "superior" (whatever that means). As Dr. Evil once said: put that in your pipe and smoke it. Yeah, I said pipe.
How is that not defending Microsoft? You are defending Microsoft by attacking those who criticize Microsoft. You are basically saying that any evil Microsoft has done that it is criticized for is acceptable, hence, you are defending Microsoft.
I won't bother responding to you again, pointing out strawmen and rebutting blatant lies(whether they are intentional or through sheer stupidity) is not my idea of fun.
Of course it being "free" doesn't have much bearing on how well written the software is, although it can if it is a piece of software that gets scrutinized a lot. Examples include *BSD(especially OpenBSD), Linux, Mozilla. All much more secure and stable than their proprietary equivalents.
But what I meant by "have better software", if a company or organization is developing the software, they can customize it for themselves and make it more suitable for their needs.
OTOH, software being "free" can mean it's "better", depending on the needs of the user of said software.
First of all, he said he uses NT mostly as a terminal connecting to a server.
Second, how is having no sense of principle and decency a good trait? If killing people makes my life easier, should I do it(extreme example, I know)? Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you thinking?
Lastly, Linux works *for me*. I am not as comfortable using a windows machine as I am using Linux. I do not feel "elite" or any such nonsense. I do, however, feel morally superior to some of the shills from Microsoft, but that's another discussion that I won't get into now.
Does windows work for you? I would imagine it does, as it does for a lot of people. But why defend the actions of a company just because their product works for you? There are a lot of companies throughout history that are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, but they created products that worked for a lot of people...
Welcome to RMS' utopia, where software is free and no programmer has to worry about how they're going to eat, where they're going to live, how they're going to afford clothing, or anything else. Software doesn't spontaneously write itself, but if you're not getting paid to write software, you have to spend time doing something else to be able to survive. How long has it taken to get HURD to a semi-useable state again? And how much is that due to programmers only being able to work nights and weekends (assuming they have no lives) on the code, rather than having a significant core of developers who work on the project as a day job with all of the trappings -- ie, wages?
You, sir, have not even the faintest idea what you are talking about. There will always be a place for programmers, as 99% of software development is not done developing proprietary commercial software. People and companies will always need software, so there will always be people paying to have software developed, it doesn't matter how it's licensed, it's needed and will be paid for, or volunteer groups will develop it and/or businesses will help fund development. Just look at Mozilla, Linux, GNU, BSD(even more difficult as not all improvements make it back in), Open Office, Gnome, KDE, Konqueror fer Chrissake!, Gimp, Vim, Emacs, Wine(an open source reimplementation of windows!), MPlayer, Xine. Just browse around Freshmeat and SourceForge. There are some huge projects there, among all the little ones, done by volunteers. Then when businesses help out, even more gets done. IBM, HP, RedHat, etc. are all putting money into furthering Linux development, because it helps them. It might not make as much money over the short term as proprietary software, but proprietary software is a bad business.
Proprietary software is a bad business because you can't expect people to buy the same products over and over, forever. Physical products are a different matter, as they wear out, get damaged, etc. Think about it for a second. Businesses, schools, governments, all spend billions of dollars on the same software over and over again. Why should they do that? Some organizations that buy proprietary software spend so much(hundreds of millions of dollars per year) on software licensing, that they could fund development of their own software to replace said proprietary software. Depending on what they need, how much they spend, etc., after one year they could have already saved money. Being more conservative, a lot of organizations could look at things over the long term, and be saving money within 5 or 10 years by developing their own software, or helping develop existing free software.
Seriously, you're stupid if you don't see that. The only reason to stick with spending hundreds of millions on software is simply that that is the status quo. Governments and companies are starting to realize that. That's why so many European governments and companies, even the U.S. government and companies, are starting to get involved with "free software". They plan to save money, and have better software.
The things you are saying are unworkable, are already being put into practice.
How long has it taken to get HURD to a semi-useable state again?
Ok, now that's just absolute stupidity. Linux was developed, licensed under the GPL no less so there goes your implication that an OS kernel is too difficult a task to be completed by groups of volunteers, and HURD development was no longer necessary.
Not only are you flat out wrong, you are bordering on being, as another poster said, libelous, with your possibly intentional disinformation regarding software licensing.
Moderators, attention moderators! This guy actually knows what he's talking about, unlike the parent parent poster, who spouted off in an ill-informed manner.
You are so misinformed you become libelous.
People have a tendency to do that with regards to anything RMS has anything to do with. I suppose it's because he's a somewhat unlikable guy(although I like him just fine).
A zillion other people/companies came up with the infringing stuff on their own, without even being aware of Acacia's existence, so why the fuck should they have to pay a company that didn't do a damn thing to help them?
That being said, it is pretty slimy to hold a patent for 12 years and just now start to enforce it
The GPL doesn't give you shit. It's not worth the paper it's written on. I'm just waiting for the day someone tries to pursue this legally by suing someone for GPL violation. Any lawyer would laugh at this instead of taking the case. I'm being 100% serious.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! You are so fucking full of shit! The GPL *DOES* give you something. The GPL gives you the right to use the software any way you like, and the right to redistribute it and incorporate it into whatever you like, given you follow certain terms. Under copyright law, those are rights you don't normally have, the GPL gives you those rights. If you violate the terms of the GPL, then by distributing said GPL'ed software, you are comitting copyright violation.
You must have some pseudo-religious belief that paying for software is inherently wrong.
What the fuck? You do realize that people PAY for the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, don't you? You know, the GNU project made enough money to support itself by SELLING SOFTWARE for nearly a decade. You obviously don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Jealous of billg's riches? Well, too bad, some people are good businessmen and some aren't -- just because you're not the richest man in the world doesn't mean you should whine about it and make up all sorts of bullshit lies about how paying for software is "extortion," etc.
Again, WHAT THE FUCK? Most free software/open source advocates are not so blinded by money, are you are fuckin` asshole for making such accusations! Most of these people could make a lot more money working with proprietary software, often have been offered such, but they don't because they, get this, actually have principles they live by!
And your previous "then you steal it" comment was total flaimbait. The poster never said anything remotely implying anything of the sort.
Please stop this nonsense, you're furthering the FUD surrounding Mr. Mitnick's life.
What it means to abuse a position of trust, would be something like gaining employment somewhere to commit crimes against your employer. Such as a security professional getting a job at a company and then installing backdoors for himself on the company's systems.
Ever heard of inertia? Those ships would weight a shitload, so they would have a tremendous resistance to acceleration. Sure the Romulan ship would be pushed backwards, but depending on the materials they are made from, there will be serious smashing/meshing of the two ships. Given the extreme mass of each ship, it'd be highly unlikely that they could be made of anything strong enough to prevent that.
If you crash a moving airplane into a stationary airplane, the stationary one will be forced backwards.
I don't see your point. Perhaps the Romulan ship was forced backwards, but there really is no frame of reference to clearly see that. In your plane example, I assure you both planes would be quite smashed together.
People "grow up" and then proclaim that the music their kids listen to is crap. This does not mean ALL music is crap, not in the least. My father was one such individual who thought the music I listened to was crap(boy was he right), but he still bought bucket loads of new music.
Everyone over 40 I know has been the same, up till now. Now, it's next to impossible to listen to anything that's not top 40.
The only people who buy new music these days are the ones the RIAA are targeting, 12 year old girls.
You think I don't have the right to alter *my own* perceptions. Do I have to ask for permission before viewing a DVD after getting hit with a hockey puck in one eye and being temporarily partially blinded? Do I have to ask permission to fast-forward a boring part of a film I've seen a million times? Do I have to ask permission to wath a DVD on my TV that has a "bad spot" where the colors get skewed on occasion? Do I have to ask permission before I mute a scene that has a grating sound that causes painful shivvers up my spine? Do I have to ask permission to turn the volume down during an extremely loud scene that hurts my ears when listened to at normal volume? Do I have to ask permission to fast-forward the rape scene in Pulp-Fiction that is just too painful for me to watch again*?
If you answered yes to any of that, go fist yourself! In Soviet Russia... Please don't continue to make that joke ironic here in America!
* I think that is a great scene in Pulp-Fiction. Two guys trying to kill each other, and one simply can't leave the other to be raped. The experience makes their dispute seem petty. I just can't stand to watch it again...
I read the followups to your response... and the one guy *STILL* didn't get it! That's even more stupid and annoying considering your post was in response to mine, where I had the excerpt from the MPlayer site explaining that the non-GPL code no longer was included and binary distributions were no longer forbidden! Gaaahh!
This type of thing just makes me want to bang my head into a brick wall, and I think I completely understand the MPlayer developers' frustrations.
*sigh* - even the Debian maintainers are having trouble with this...
Slashdot Mirror
Whew! Take it easy man!
That said... How are YOU not a "corporate tool"? You own a Windows PC, no? Are you sure that you just haven't had that "it's a tool argument" beat into your head one too many times?
Seriously... I know a lot of people in a lot of different professions, and most of them are pretty particular about what tools they use.
Come to think of it, the "it's a tool" argument could be applied to just about everything in our lives. Clothes are a tool, they keep us warn and protected from the elements. I'm sure you don't just wear any old clothes. You probably have some sense of style, whether you buy expensive, trendy crap, or whatever suits your taste. Food is a tool, it provides our bodies with sustenence, but I'm sure you eat food you enjoy.
Also, your screwdrive analogy is flawed. Most people don't care about screwdrivers, but some do. But more importantly, a lot of people really like particular power-tools. Find any carpenter, or anyone who uses a lot of power-tools, and I'm sure many of them will have a particular taste regarding what tools they use.
That's a _slight_ exaggeration. I get between 2 and 10 telemarketing calls per day. This is not an exaggeration, it's a conservative estimate.
For a couple weeks MCI (I think it was MCI, couldn't have been AT&T), was calling 3 - 5 times per day.
My local PD calls me every month asking an "annual" donation.
I want 2 DNC lists. 1 for companies, and 1 for charities. And the former should apply to companies that I already have a relationship if I want.
Ænima is probably my favorite Tool song...
And just what planet have YOU been living on?
And no, you're wrong anyway. The problem will be that MS will have complete control over everything, and said "everything" will be the black box I mentioned.
Software will have to be signed by MS, and only those MS chooses to allow to program will be able to program.
DOS isn't done, until [something] doesn't run.
I don't know if that's correct, but I've seen something like that before. Is that an actual quote?
And we already know MS hides certain API's to give themselves an advantage over competitors.
Sun, IBM, HP, RedHat, and etc., all have investments in free software and stand to gain from all free software development around the world.
Really, Microsoft in particular, and a few other companies, are the only ones who stand to lose. And just think about it, Microsoft DOES NOT help the U.S. economy. Remember, MS/BillG, has over 40B in cash that is not invested back into the U.S. economy. Microsoft forces a lot of companies out of business, while they fill their coffers instead of allowing that money to go back into the economy.
How can anyone argue that MS helps the U.S. economy; they are a damn leech. I say we burn that damn thing off :)
Apparently, many of our foreign ambassadors must be MS shills, because they have been favoring MS over companies that support free software, like IBM, HP, and RedHat, companies that arguably are much more healthy for the U.S. economy than MS.
If they are successful, where are all of the U.S.'s future programmers going to come from? They won't be allowed to tinker with computers in any way not sanctioned by MS, enforced by U.S. law, so either the pool of programmers will shrink to the point of disappearing, or they will come from outside the U.S.
But what about security profressionals? While we will still have some programmers, because MS will allow people to learn the MS way of doing things in schools, security professionals depend on researching how to break systems, hack into them, how the system works on the lowest level, etc.. Are we going to hire foreign security experts to work on things our national security depends on? It will become literally impossible to legally become a security expert in the U.S., and in fact that is already starting to happen.
We're really shooting ourselves in the head, over here in the land of the "free".
That's not fair. Most FS/OSS advocates, including myself, are not THAT extreme; we simply want to 1. apply a large amount of pressure to companies like MS to help keep them more honest, and 2. create good software that is useful.
Granted, people here can/do get pretty worked up, but such is the nature of communication mediums where you can't actually see/hear the persons you're communicating with, I think.
But this is your strawman argument - you continue to try to make the case that I'm somehow morally inferior to you because I tend to keep my technical interests away from
*snipped silly stuff about spotted owls*
I do not feel morally superior to you, and I never said as much. I do, however, feel morally superior to those who lie, cheat, and steal to further their own agendas, as some MS shills have been caught doing. Note, I'm not condemning the whole of MS, just certain people and practices.
Oh for fuck's sake. RMS is a crackpot.
That is unfair to RMS. Yes, he is a rather unlikable person, but, he does have some redeeming qualities. He does cause damage, as he often makes a fool of himself. However, without Stallman, there would be no GNU, and without GNU, there wouldn't have been Linux.
I won't bore you with the whole history of GNU/Linux though :)
Look - I admire that. When it's geared towards something worthy. But in the case of this whole argument, the target and execution of those ideals is less than exemplary 90% of the time. Surely you can see that?
Like I said, I would be more than willing to talk about my moral/ethical qualms regarding MS, and other proprietary software vendors, another time.
I will grant the latter, but 90% is overstating it, IMO.
OTOH, surely you can see the damage caused by companies like MS with regards to software patents, BSA audits(harrasment!), having to buy the same software over and over costing governments and companies billions of dollars?
My greatest fears, with regards to the computer industry, have to do with the U.S. economy, national security, and the future of software developers' education and employment. Surely these things aren't petty?
Note, I'm not an extremist who wants to rid the world of proprietary software vendors. It could happen a long ways down the road, as people no longer have to purchase the same software repeatedly, and companies and governments all help fund development of useful software. This is already happening a little.
Anyway, let's put this discussion to rest for now. I'll be happy to discuss some of these things another time.
Cheers.
I think you are trying to label me an insane extremist. This is a strawman, you're attempting to shift the argument to one you can beat with a stick, and you're misrepresenting my words in order to do so.
Yes, it was a VERY extreme example I used, which I stated upfront*. I used such an extreme example, because nearly everyone agrees that killing is wrong, not because I'm some kind of loon that equates anything MS has ever done to murder.
My original point was very simple. I was simply demonstrating that taking a pragmatic approach to business, politics, "getting stuff done" can be morally wrong to do.
No, I'm not attacking those who "criticize" Microsoft.
Ummm... yes you were. How can you say that? That is preposterous. You lambasted the general population of /. for being so extremely critical of Microsoft, for making jokes about Microsoft, etc. You made fun, calling them childish. You appeared to be intentionally offensive, and I took offense.
I'd be more than willing to discuss my ethical qualms with Microsoft another time. I will not, however, simply dismiss my qualms for pragmatic reasons. And I will take offense at being labeled extremist, immature, childish, etc. for standing up for my principles.
Coincidentally, I notice a growing trend, especially in the United States, that people who take a principled, moral approach to life, politics, etc., get labeled naive, extremist, immature, etc. People with principles they live by are the ones who have historically been know to change the world, not those who accept the status quo.
For a great example, in the small, relatively unimportant world of computers, I give you Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman has changed the computer industry to a large degree. He started GNU and the FSF. Because of GNU, Linux has been able to gain very large penetration into the server arena, and is starting to gain penetration into the corporate desktop. IBM, HP, many governments, etc., are switching many operations to GNU/Linux. Linux now stands as Microsoft's greatest threat in the server arena, and is a potential threat in the future of the desktop. Without Stallman, this would not have happened. Stallman's "extremist" has gotten things done. Stallman is acheiving his goals.
My point? My point is simply that standing up for ones' principles can change things, and therefore should not be dismissed as being childish, despite the trend I noted above.
* I said it was an extreme example in my original post, get over it.
Just how the hell was I nitpicking? He uses NT, but not really as his desktop computer. The software he actually uses is NOT Windows software. Besides, I don't see the relevence of this anyway.
I lost you there. Killing people? WTF does that have to do with computers and software again?
Nice strawman. Killing people was an example of doing something morally reprehensible. You were defending proprietary software vendors, who are often criticized here on /. for morally reprehensible acts. Killing was an extreme example, obviously, which I stated.
Eh... where am I defending Microsoft?
Someone has to say it. Draw your own conclusions, etc. People have accused me of trolling in the past, but when I see something like this, all that FUD about Windows, all the Evil Empire snide remarks, all the lame 'M$' jokes, all the misleading and childish comments I've ever read here dissolve into a little white pixel and things are good again. The person who invented Unix is doing what the rest of the world does - use a desktop computer and desktop software that actually works - to be productive instead of to feel technically and morally "superior" (whatever that means). As Dr. Evil once said: put that in your pipe and smoke it. Yeah, I said pipe.
How is that not defending Microsoft? You are defending Microsoft by attacking those who criticize Microsoft. You are basically saying that any evil Microsoft has done that it is criticized for is acceptable, hence, you are defending Microsoft.
I won't bother responding to you again, pointing out strawmen and rebutting blatant lies(whether they are intentional or through sheer stupidity) is not my idea of fun.
But what I meant by "have better software", if a company or organization is developing the software, they can customize it for themselves and make it more suitable for their needs.
OTOH, software being "free" can mean it's "better", depending on the needs of the user of said software.
Second, how is having no sense of principle and decency a good trait? If killing people makes my life easier, should I do it(extreme example, I know)? Jesus Christ, what the fuck are you thinking?
Lastly, Linux works *for me*. I am not as comfortable using a windows machine as I am using Linux. I do not feel "elite" or any such nonsense. I do, however, feel morally superior to some of the shills from Microsoft, but that's another discussion that I won't get into now.
Does windows work for you? I would imagine it does, as it does for a lot of people. But why defend the actions of a company just because their product works for you? There are a lot of companies throughout history that are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, but they created products that worked for a lot of people...
You, sir, have not even the faintest idea what you are talking about. There will always be a place for programmers, as 99% of software development is not done developing proprietary commercial software. People and companies will always need software, so there will always be people paying to have software developed, it doesn't matter how it's licensed, it's needed and will be paid for, or volunteer groups will develop it and/or businesses will help fund development. Just look at Mozilla, Linux, GNU, BSD(even more difficult as not all improvements make it back in), Open Office, Gnome, KDE, Konqueror fer Chrissake!, Gimp, Vim, Emacs, Wine(an open source reimplementation of windows!), MPlayer, Xine. Just browse around Freshmeat and SourceForge. There are some huge projects there, among all the little ones, done by volunteers. Then when businesses help out, even more gets done. IBM, HP, RedHat, etc. are all putting money into furthering Linux development, because it helps them. It might not make as much money over the short term as proprietary software, but proprietary software is a bad business.
Proprietary software is a bad business because you can't expect people to buy the same products over and over, forever. Physical products are a different matter, as they wear out, get damaged, etc. Think about it for a second. Businesses, schools, governments, all spend billions of dollars on the same software over and over again. Why should they do that? Some organizations that buy proprietary software spend so much(hundreds of millions of dollars per year) on software licensing, that they could fund development of their own software to replace said proprietary software. Depending on what they need, how much they spend, etc., after one year they could have already saved money. Being more conservative, a lot of organizations could look at things over the long term, and be saving money within 5 or 10 years by developing their own software, or helping develop existing free software.
Seriously, you're stupid if you don't see that. The only reason to stick with spending hundreds of millions on software is simply that that is the status quo. Governments and companies are starting to realize that. That's why so many European governments and companies, even the U.S. government and companies, are starting to get involved with "free software". They plan to save money, and have better software.
The things you are saying are unworkable, are already being put into practice.
How long has it taken to get HURD to a semi-useable state again?
Ok, now that's just absolute stupidity. Linux was developed, licensed under the GPL no less so there goes your implication that an OS kernel is too difficult a task to be completed by groups of volunteers, and HURD development was no longer necessary.
Not only are you flat out wrong, you are bordering on being, as another poster said, libelous, with your possibly intentional disinformation regarding software licensing.
You are so misinformed you become libelous.
People have a tendency to do that with regards to anything RMS has anything to do with. I suppose it's because he's a somewhat unlikable guy(although I like him just fine).
That being said, it is pretty slimy to hold a patent for 12 years and just now start to enforce it
Exactly, be mad! :)
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! You are so fucking full of shit! The GPL *DOES* give you something. The GPL gives you the right to use the software any way you like, and the right to redistribute it and incorporate it into whatever you like, given you follow certain terms. Under copyright law, those are rights you don't normally have, the GPL gives you those rights. If you violate the terms of the GPL, then by distributing said GPL'ed software, you are comitting copyright violation.
You must have some pseudo-religious belief that paying for software is inherently wrong.
What the fuck? You do realize that people PAY for the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, don't you? You know, the GNU project made enough money to support itself by SELLING SOFTWARE for nearly a decade. You obviously don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Jealous of billg's riches? Well, too bad, some people are good businessmen and some aren't -- just because you're not the richest man in the world doesn't mean you should whine about it and make up all sorts of bullshit lies about how paying for software is "extortion," etc.
Again, WHAT THE FUCK? Most free software/open source advocates are not so blinded by money, are you are fuckin` asshole for making such accusations! Most of these people could make a lot more money working with proprietary software, often have been offered such, but they don't because they, get this, actually have principles they live by!
And your previous "then you steal it" comment was total flaimbait. The poster never said anything remotely implying anything of the sort.
Goddam, what a fuckin` asshole you are!
What it means to abuse a position of trust, would be something like gaining employment somewhere to commit crimes against your employer. Such as a security professional getting a job at a company and then installing backdoors for himself on the company's systems.
Mr. Mitnick never did anything remotely similar.
If you crash a moving airplane into a stationary airplane, the stationary one will be forced backwards.
I don't see your point. Perhaps the Romulan ship was forced backwards, but there really is no frame of reference to clearly see that. In your plane example, I assure you both planes would be quite smashed together.
1. this court system is totally foobar, ie. it no longer functions as intended, due to major "holes"
2. this court system is horribly corrupt
It all must come down to campaign contributions and conflicts of interest.
Government by and for the people? *laughs* - whatever. By the politicians for their own interests is more accurate.
Everyone over 40 I know has been the same, up till now. Now, it's next to impossible to listen to anything that's not top 40.
The only people who buy new music these days are the ones the RIAA are targeting, 12 year old girls.
If you answered yes to any of that, go fist yourself! In Soviet Russia... Please don't continue to make that joke ironic here in America!
* I think that is a great scene in Pulp-Fiction. Two guys trying to kill each other, and one simply can't leave the other to be raped. The experience makes their dispute seem petty. I just can't stand to watch it again...
I read the followups to your response... and the one guy *STILL* didn't get it! That's even more stupid and annoying considering your post was in response to mine, where I had the excerpt from the MPlayer site explaining that the non-GPL code no longer was included and binary distributions were no longer forbidden! Gaaahh!
This type of thing just makes me want to bang my head into a brick wall, and I think I completely understand the MPlayer developers' frustrations.
*sigh* - even the Debian maintainers are having trouble with this...