And coming from someone who equated differences in software licensing to slavery, that's saying something.
Slavery is an interesting concept in human history. We have, with the enslavement of Africans in the U.S.A. a vivid example of a very specific type of slavery. There are other kinds.
James Madison, one of the architects of the U.S. Constitution, advocated separation of church and state and that anything less would destroy democracy and make slaves of men.
Similarly, I believe, and I'm sure RMS would agree, that software that compels us to do something or controls what we are allowed to do is tantamount to a form of slavery.
Absurd semantic arguments are what is used by people who can't argue substantive points.
There is *always* a conflict between the exercise of personal liberties in balance with the liberties of others. It is an absurd argument that "freedom to have slaves" is a defensible freedom.
If you want to have some esoteric philosophical debate about it, please go hang out the the philosophy department at Stanford, they have a whole library for people like you.
What about people who want to be "slaves"?
Hop on over to Craigslist and put a personal ad: "Would be slave looking for master." I suspect you will be quite pleased.
One does not have a right to make copies of something, just because copying that something is easy. Or do you believe that anyone who buys a book or newpaper should have the right to make copies of it and sell or give away those copies?
There in lies a complex discussion, and not one with a clear answer as much as you'd like to make it a black and white issue. You can't say that *all* copying is wrong. I won't say that *all* copying is right.
Copyright has ALWAYS been a balance between author and society, RMS obviously leans more in one direction than yourself.
Under your argument, when one buys a radio, one should be given a complete set of plans for not the radio, but also the factory that created the radio, the machines in the factory, the software that runs the machines, and the software used to design the radio.
That isn't even rational enough to call an argument.
The same with a new car which probably has a computer in it. The software that runs your car is not documented and open to inspection.
Yea, and there are people and organizations pushing for discloser. Car guys like myself and private mechanics are frustrated by ECMs in cars. From the founding of the nation to present, numerous food products have been sold that do not come with the recipe used to create the food.
They do come with the ingredients.
With a radio, one is free to take apart the radio and figure out how it works. With software, the same is possible.
Except that with a radio, the soruce or schematics are usually glued to the inside of the chassis. Same with televisions, washing machines, etc.
However, I think Stallman has a narrow mind re the difference between open source and free software. He goes on tirades about the BSD license which is far more open than the GPL.
I think the BSD license does not protect against the "freedom to create slaves," and is thus while an actual piece of software may seem "more free" the net result is less freedom for down-stream users. The BSD license allows a proprietary organization to eliminate down-stream freedom.
In some ways, Stallman is killing his own cause in his zeal.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Stallman would be better off embracing all forms of open source software.
Obviously, we must agree to disagree.
Petty infighting between BSD and GPL must stop.
If you honestly believe and can articulate why a particular action is immoral within the context of an important ideology, how could you maintain your integrity and violate your ideals?
For instance, RMS believes "free (as in freedom) software protects freedom, and the BSD license harms effective freedom." Why would you assume RMS could choose a course of action counter to his ideals?
Historically speaking, the claim of "pragmatism," is the swan song capitulation.
There is one thing about RMS that constantly amazes me. He is always on the right side of things. It usually takes several years before people start to understand what he is saying, but eventually everyone comes around.
The biggest misunderstanding that people have about Stallman's positions is the assumed fundamental disconnect between "capitalism" and "free software." He's not a communist, but he values his freedom above profit. If anything, that is historically a very "American" position.
He has no problem with making money, but he has a problem relinquishing his ownership rights and control over his property (his computer) to some other entity (proprietary software).
It is a reasonable and rational position, especially since Microsoft, Apple, and so many other companies are in bed with MPIAA, RIAA, etc. Web sites collect so much data about us. Are we really free? Is our own computer really our own property?
In many ways, and this my sound radical, the right to create proprietary software is similar to the right to own slaves. Look at proprietary software in voting machines! Is there a better example of the destruction of human rights and democracy by proprietary software?
I understand the desire to sell your product and keep the source code a secret, but no other aspect of human technology works that way. Every electronic component is documented. Every part in a car is documented. Every building is built with approved materials and is inspected. Every switch, nail, screw, and device is documented and open to public inspection. Why is not software? Why do we allow large corporations to sell us software that does not necessarily operate in our best interests? Do you think DRM is in any way beneficial to you a stake holder? Do you think it is right that YOUR DVD player will *not* let you skip a commercial?
The freedom to restrict another's freedom is not freedom, it is tyranny. There may be financial gain in such actions, but is freedom something that we fight for only to sell to the highest bidder?
That's like saying the Encyclopedia Brittannica can't enforce copyright on its stories, because they don't own the facts.
It owns the "articles," true, but it can't prevent the "facts" from being transfered.
In other words: no, OCLC doesn't own the books, or the facts about them, but they do own the database.
Sort of true, the copyright in this case *only* applies to when original work incorporated in to the collection of facts, making the "collection" a copyrighted entity.
although you're forgiven for having to dig around to find the real issue
The arrogance of Slashdot posters astounds me. Most are all too quick to assume that someone does not know the specifics. You always lead with some a-hole comment intended to ad-hominem rather than rely on your own merit of argument.
Leave *me* out of your debate, address facts and issues alone, thank you very much.
At issue is a court ruling that a database collection of publicly known facts can comprise an original work. However, there must be original work involved, not merely the simple aggregation of data, but original work that augments the data.
A database of books based on the standard library card catalog is not something whose collection would be protected by copyright. If, however, they incorporated original work such as reviews and ratings, then the database could be protected by copyright.
So, when I say "they can claim what they want, but they can't enforce property rights on that which they do not own," the statement is true and accurate, so much so that it is inarguable. The issue is what constitutes an original work worthy of copyright protection.
As part of the sales contract on a commercial product you typically negotiate a certain minimum length of time that support, patches, updates will be available.
There is a HUGE difference between "shrink-wrap" and vendor/channel supported software. "Shrink-wrap" does not typically come with a "negotiation" step.
Conversely, "vendor" or "channel" supported software is typically not sold as a piece of software but the service that the software accomplishes. And yes, you can get length of support and maintenance agreements in place. It is interesting to note, a lot of this software, like Oracle for instance, is moving to open source platforms like Linux because of length of support.
I think, in all honesty, that is a wet dream. While I am a "Free Software," not just open source, developer I am neither a socialist nor a communist. In over 12 years of doing it and, at times, very actively contributing, I have *never* gotten a donation. At one point I had over a thousand users. It just isn't going to happen. Unless you have a *big* project that a lot of "big" companies use, you ain't making money off it. (As per my original qualification that any aggregate generalized trend will have a few exceptions)
I am a capitalist with a sense of social responsibility. I write what I need, share it if it does not harm my business to do so. I do this as a way to "give back" to the free software environment that enriches me. I have come to expect nothing more from it. If, per chance, I develop something that snowballs and makes me rich, whoo hoo! but I won't bank on it.
The problem is there is no guarantee, and outside of a few vendors like Red Hat or IBM, the developers don't have the resources to credibly commit to a guarantee even if they wanted to.
Perhaps you have not read a EULA recently. Most all guarantees cover nothing more than the purchase price. They don't even warrant that it is fit for the purpose intended.
Most businesses, if support duration become the deciding factor, will go with Software B because they can count on that duration.
This *sounds* like a logical claim, but having been in the industry over 25 years, I can say with 100% confidence it is not the norm, nor even a sizable percent of the way purchase decisions are made.
Purchases are made by gut decisions and personal preferences, with the selection criteria cherry picked after the fact. Using hyperbole for the marginally useful features, and down right flawed and twisted logic to dispel the short comings.
There are good reasons to take OSS into businesses, but expected duration of support is not typically one of them.
Again, for reasons already spelled out in the original post, this is a flawed premise.
If support is available for longer - i don't think so. OSS projects are far more likely to tell you "just get the newest version before we even try to talk about your problem", which is easier in OSS because getting the newest money doesn't cost software maintenance or a license upgrade.
Obviously you aren't a long term Microsoft customer or are having a memory lapse. With the exception of Windows XP, Microsoft's M.O. had always been "buy an upgrade"
While in the commercial, you have very clear timelines which software is supported from when to when
Complete fantasy. Some systems *may* promise a support schedule, I have not seen this in any way a common practice. I have lots of hardware in my basement that runs on Linux, but does not run on Windows because the OEM companies don't support their hardware.
As an open source author, this is a difficult question. I can't "support" people who don't pay me. Period.
If I had a bigger project that had some sponsors, maybe I could. As it is, I can't even work on my projects on a regular basis. Currently, I just make what I need for my own purposes, and make it generally available to others. The community support we hope for is almost non-existent on most of the open source projects.
Sure, the Apache, PostgreSQL, MySQL, et. al. get lots of attention and some funding, but the vast majority of projects are just one or two guys (gals?) writing what they need and sharing.
Support for open source? No. However, I see no reason to take down an existing site to create a new one. Even if you have only one machine, you can still handle two sites.
One of the hazards of the trade is that some software may cease to be supported. This goes double for OSS, where the developers are often unpaid.
I think your premise is faulty. It has been my experience that commercial products become unsupported far faster than open source projects. Of course, with all aggregate generalizations there are specific instances that counter the general trend, but I think it is safe to say that you are safer banking on open source support than you are commercial support for a few reasons:
(1) As mentioned, generally speaking, support is longer term with open source. (2) Unlike proprietary solutions, the code is generally available, it is less likely that a useful project will ever *really* become unsupported. (3) If it is a marginal project, you have the source, you can pay someone to support you.
If a party ever got 60 senators though, God help us!
Well they do have 56, they only need 4 republicans to break ranks. While they do not have a filibuster proof majority, they do have a SOLID majority that will render almost any republican bill dead. To even have a chance to pass any legislation, there had better be some cooperation because you can only filibuster so much before the public starts to blame you for gridlock.
.Until the Aussie government considers SSH, VPN's, and anonymizing proxies to be "hacking"(illegally circumventing a la DMCA) and takes steps to outlaw them.
While one can never account for the cluelessness and stupidity of so called "conservative" government, tools like SSH and general encryption are foundations of a lot of necessary infrastructure.
Sorry, I disagree. The usability of voter "machines" *MUST* be easy. It isn't about "stupid" it is about computer literacy. There is still a very large segment of the population that is not "stupid" but IS computer illiterate. John McCain comes to mind.
My father in-law runs his own business with about 10 employees, he's 76 years old, sharp as a tack. He understands the issues and while we don't tend to agree, he absolutely is in charge of his faculties, but he has to call me to check web pages for him because he does not own a computer.
Should he be denied his vote? The correct answer is no. Just because a large majority of people are computer literate, we must not exclude those who are not.
Computers are not so old as to be a defining part of citizenship.
Re:I'm not convinced they know what they're doing
on
Is Ubuntu Getting Slower?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Indeed, but supposedly the rest of the system was mostly idle, it shouldn't have slowed down a CPU-bound calculation by 50%, otherwise it's a scheduler regression.
The supposition is not part of the facts. My point was there are some benchmark number that should have remained constant but showed variability.
The benchmark is utterly useless until they can explain the variability in tests that should be constant.
I'm not convinced they know what they're doing
on
Is Ubuntu Getting Slower?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Some of the benchmarks were hardware testing, and those showed variation. They should not, unless the compiler changed the algorithms used to compile the code between distros.
Benchmarking a multi-tasking system like Linux is a tough thing to quantify. The Linux kernel recently had a big scheduler change, this alone could account for shifting benhmark numbers. It may not actually "slowing down," but running multiple programs more evenly. The effective work is the same or better, which would mean "faster," but an almost useless benchmark would look slower.
I had a coule extension in PHP, but they eventually got pulled. No biggie, I guess, but my experience with PHP was not pleasant.
I don't want to bash the project because there are a number of very good people on it, but there is a tendency to operate in isolation and the team sort of falls into a click. They'll make decisions on IRC and you don't hear about it until they screw with your extension. It is run by a relatively small group of people who don't think much bigger than that.
So, when they come up with an obviously brain-dead boner like this, no one should be surprised.
I am a computer consultant and part time entrepreneur. I am periodically contracting or starting a business. I haven't hit it "BIG" yet, but maybe someday.
I live and die by open source. My services and ventures are dependent on the environment that is available for free. That's why when I need to make improvements to the core projects I use, I contribute back to them. I don't look upon my work as "done for free" but as "done for me."
Contributing back? well, that's just good business. (1) it gives me some sales/expert cred when I say "I contribute to these projects." (2) When I contribute to the projects, my code gets great peer review and gets maintained. (3) On a personal note, it is the right thing to do.
IMHO the economy will SERIOUSLY hurt the proprietary vendors most. When cash is flowing, bottom lines rise with the tide. When times are tight, it becomes harder to justify expensive alternative.
If the standard for judgment is actual damages plus treble damages, i.e $0.99 per song and $0.99 * 3 for damages, that's more like it.
While I don't mean to incite violence, but I'm really starting to think that "we the people" need to find a way to rid ourselves of these parasites who write the laws, pay the legislatures to pass the laws, pay the executive branch to sign the law, "influence" the judiciary to uphold the laws, and destroy the lives of defenseless citizens.
Sorry, but they suck, and they all need to be on a plane that crashes in the ocean.
I understand all the concerns, but its worth noting that you are not committing to a single vendor lock-in. A Google Apps customer can choose to switch vendors or run their own mail server, as long as they control the domain name.
Not in a way that is easy to do during an outage. It takes planning to move emails, passwords, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
And coming from someone who equated differences in software licensing to slavery, that's saying something.
Slavery is an interesting concept in human history. We have, with the enslavement of Africans in the U.S.A. a vivid example of a very specific type of slavery. There are other kinds.
James Madison, one of the architects of the U.S. Constitution, advocated separation of church and state and that anything less would destroy democracy and make slaves of men.
Similarly, I believe, and I'm sure RMS would agree, that software that compels us to do something or controls what we are allowed to do is tantamount to a form of slavery.
Absurd semantic arguments are what is used by people who can't argue substantive points.
There is *always* a conflict between the exercise of personal liberties in balance with the liberties of others. It is an absurd argument that "freedom to have slaves" is a defensible freedom.
If you want to have some esoteric philosophical debate about it, please go hang out the the philosophy department at Stanford, they have a whole library for people like you.
What about people who want to be "slaves"?
Hop on over to Craigslist and put a personal ad: "Would be slave looking for master." I suspect you will be quite pleased.
You seem to be in favor of tyranny.
So, fighting against the "freedom to create slaves" is a form of tyranny?
An absurd semantic argument.
One does not have a right to make copies of something, just because copying that something is easy. Or do you believe that anyone who buys a book or newpaper should have the right to make copies of it and sell or give away those copies?
There in lies a complex discussion, and not one with a clear answer as much as you'd like to make it a black and white issue. You can't say that *all* copying is wrong. I won't say that *all* copying is right.
Copyright has ALWAYS been a balance between author and society, RMS obviously leans more in one direction than yourself.
Under your argument, when one buys a radio, one should be given a complete set of plans for not the radio, but also the factory that created the radio, the machines in the factory, the software that runs the machines, and the software used to design the radio.
That isn't even rational enough to call an argument.
The same with a new car which probably has a computer in it. The software that runs your car is not documented and open to inspection.
Yea, and there are people and organizations pushing for discloser. Car guys like myself and private mechanics are frustrated by ECMs in cars.
From the founding of the nation to present, numerous food products have been sold that do not come with the recipe used to create the food.
They do come with the ingredients.
With a radio, one is free to take apart the radio and figure out how it works. With software, the same is possible.
Except that with a radio, the soruce or schematics are usually glued to the inside of the chassis. Same with televisions, washing machines, etc.
These are by and large well written comments.
Thanks.
However, I think Stallman has a narrow mind re the difference between open source and free software. He goes on tirades about the BSD license which is far more open than the GPL.
I think the BSD license does not protect against the "freedom to create slaves," and is thus while an actual piece of software may seem "more free" the net result is less freedom for down-stream users. The BSD license allows a proprietary organization to eliminate down-stream freedom.
In some ways, Stallman is killing his own cause in his zeal.
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Stallman would be better off embracing all forms of open source software.
Obviously, we must agree to disagree.
Petty infighting between BSD and GPL must stop.
If you honestly believe and can articulate why a particular action is immoral within the context of an important ideology, how could you maintain your integrity and violate your ideals?
For instance, RMS believes "free (as in freedom) software protects freedom, and the BSD license harms effective freedom." Why would you assume RMS could choose a course of action counter to his ideals?
Historically speaking, the claim of "pragmatism," is the swan song capitulation.
There is one thing about RMS that constantly amazes me. He is always on the right side of things. It usually takes several years before people start to understand what he is saying, but eventually everyone comes around.
The biggest misunderstanding that people have about Stallman's positions is the assumed fundamental disconnect between "capitalism" and "free software." He's not a communist, but he values his freedom above profit. If anything, that is historically a very "American" position.
He has no problem with making money, but he has a problem relinquishing his ownership rights and control over his property (his computer) to some other entity (proprietary software).
It is a reasonable and rational position, especially since Microsoft, Apple, and so many other companies are in bed with MPIAA, RIAA, etc. Web sites collect so much data about us. Are we really free? Is our own computer really our own property?
In many ways, and this my sound radical, the right to create proprietary software is similar to the right to own slaves. Look at proprietary software in voting machines! Is there a better example of the destruction of human rights and democracy by proprietary software?
I understand the desire to sell your product and keep the source code a secret, but no other aspect of human technology works that way. Every electronic component is documented. Every part in a car is documented. Every building is built with approved materials and is inspected. Every switch, nail, screw, and device is documented and open to public inspection. Why is not software? Why do we allow large corporations to sell us software that does not necessarily operate in our best interests? Do you think DRM is in any way beneficial to you a stake holder? Do you think it is right that YOUR DVD player will *not* let you skip a commercial?
The freedom to restrict another's freedom is not freedom, it is tyranny. There may be financial gain in such actions, but is freedom something that we fight for only to sell to the highest bidder?
That's like saying the Encyclopedia Brittannica can't enforce copyright on its stories, because they don't own the facts.
It owns the "articles," true, but it can't prevent the "facts" from being transfered.
In other words: no, OCLC doesn't own the books, or the facts about them, but they do own the database.
Sort of true, the copyright in this case *only* applies to when original work incorporated in to the collection of facts, making the "collection" a copyrighted entity.
although you're forgiven for having to dig around to find the real issue
The arrogance of Slashdot posters astounds me. Most are all too quick to assume that someone does not know the specifics. You always lead with some a-hole comment intended to ad-hominem rather than rely on your own merit of argument.
Leave *me* out of your debate, address facts and issues alone, thank you very much.
At issue is a court ruling that a database collection of publicly known facts can comprise an original work. However, there must be original work involved, not merely the simple aggregation of data, but original work that augments the data.
A database of books based on the standard library card catalog is not something whose collection would be protected by copyright. If, however, they incorporated original work such as reviews and ratings, then the database could be protected by copyright.
So, when I say "they can claim what they want, but they can't enforce property rights on that which they do not own," the statement is true and accurate, so much so that it is inarguable. The issue is what constitutes an original work worthy of copyright protection.
They can claim anything that they want, but they can't enforce property rights on something they don't own.
As part of the sales contract on a commercial product you typically negotiate a certain minimum length of time that support, patches, updates will be available.
There is a HUGE difference between "shrink-wrap" and vendor/channel supported software. "Shrink-wrap" does not typically come with a "negotiation" step.
Conversely, "vendor" or "channel" supported software is typically not sold as a piece of software but the service that the software accomplishes. And yes, you can get length of support and maintenance agreements in place. It is interesting to note, a lot of this software, like Oracle for instance, is moving to open source platforms like Linux because of length of support.
encourage more people to donate
I think, in all honesty, that is a wet dream. While I am a "Free Software," not just open source, developer I am neither a socialist nor a communist. In over 12 years of doing it and, at times, very actively contributing, I have *never* gotten a donation. At one point I had over a thousand users. It just isn't going to happen. Unless you have a *big* project that a lot of "big" companies use, you ain't making money off it. (As per my original qualification that any aggregate generalized trend will have a few exceptions)
I am a capitalist with a sense of social responsibility. I write what I need, share it if it does not harm my business to do so. I do this as a way to "give back" to the free software environment that enriches me. I have come to expect nothing more from it. If, per chance, I develop something that snowballs and makes me rich, whoo hoo! but I won't bank on it.
The problem is there is no guarantee, and outside of a few vendors like Red Hat or IBM, the developers don't have the resources to credibly commit to a guarantee even if they wanted to.
Perhaps you have not read a EULA recently. Most all guarantees cover nothing more than the purchase price. They don't even warrant that it is fit for the purpose intended.
Most businesses, if support duration become the deciding factor, will go with Software B because they can count on that duration.
This *sounds* like a logical claim, but having been in the industry over 25 years, I can say with 100% confidence it is not the norm, nor even a sizable percent of the way purchase decisions are made.
Purchases are made by gut decisions and personal preferences, with the selection criteria cherry picked after the fact. Using hyperbole for the marginally useful features, and down right flawed and twisted logic to dispel the short comings.
There are good reasons to take OSS into businesses, but expected duration of support is not typically one of them.
Again, for reasons already spelled out in the original post, this is a flawed premise.
If support is available for longer - i don't think so. OSS projects are far more likely to tell you "just get the newest version before we even try to talk about your problem", which is easier in OSS because getting the newest money doesn't cost software maintenance or a license upgrade.
Obviously you aren't a long term Microsoft customer or are having a memory lapse. With the exception of Windows XP, Microsoft's M.O. had always been "buy an upgrade"
While in the commercial, you have very clear timelines which software is supported from when to when
Complete fantasy. Some systems *may* promise a support schedule, I have not seen this in any way a common practice. I have lots of hardware in my basement that runs on Linux, but does not run on Windows because the OEM companies don't support their hardware.
As an open source author, this is a difficult question. I can't "support" people who don't pay me. Period.
If I had a bigger project that had some sponsors, maybe I could. As it is, I can't even work on my projects on a regular basis. Currently, I just make what I need for my own purposes, and make it generally available to others. The community support we hope for is almost non-existent on most of the open source projects.
Sure, the Apache, PostgreSQL, MySQL, et. al. get lots of attention and some funding, but the vast majority of projects are just one or two guys (gals?) writing what they need and sharing.
Support for open source? No. However, I see no reason to take down an existing site to create a new one. Even if you have only one machine, you can still handle two sites.
One of the hazards of the trade is that some software may cease to be supported. This goes double for OSS, where the developers are often unpaid.
I think your premise is faulty. It has been my experience that commercial products become unsupported far faster than open source projects. Of course, with all aggregate generalizations there are specific instances that counter the general trend, but I think it is safe to say that you are safer banking on open source support than you are commercial support for a few reasons:
(1) As mentioned, generally speaking, support is longer term with open source.
(2) Unlike proprietary solutions, the code is generally available, it is less likely that a useful project will ever *really* become unsupported.
(3) If it is a marginal project, you have the source, you can pay someone to support you.
If a party ever got 60 senators though, God help us!
Well they do have 56, they only need 4 republicans to break ranks. While they do not have a filibuster proof majority, they do have a SOLID majority that will render almost any republican bill dead. To even have a chance to pass any legislation, there had better be some cooperation because you can only filibuster so much before the public starts to blame you for gridlock.
.Until the Aussie government considers SSH, VPN's, and anonymizing proxies to be "hacking"(illegally circumventing a la DMCA) and takes steps to outlaw them.
While one can never account for the cluelessness and stupidity of so called "conservative" government, tools like SSH and general encryption are foundations of a lot of necessary infrastructure.
If the hands are separated enough that they don't communicate about something like this,
Then an outright boycott of the company will help them better focus on their business obligations and customers.
Sorry, I disagree. The usability of voter "machines" *MUST* be easy. It isn't about "stupid" it is about computer literacy. There is still a very large segment of the population that is not "stupid" but IS computer illiterate. John McCain comes to mind.
My father in-law runs his own business with about 10 employees, he's 76 years old, sharp as a tack. He understands the issues and while we don't tend to agree, he absolutely is in charge of his faculties, but he has to call me to check web pages for him because he does not own a computer.
Should he be denied his vote? The correct answer is no. Just because a large majority of people are computer literate, we must not exclude those who are not.
Computers are not so old as to be a defining part of citizenship.
Indeed, but supposedly the rest of the system was mostly idle, it shouldn't have slowed down a CPU-bound calculation by 50%, otherwise it's a scheduler regression.
The supposition is not part of the facts. My point was there are some benchmark number that should have remained constant but showed variability.
The benchmark is utterly useless until they can explain the variability in tests that should be constant.
Some of the benchmarks were hardware testing, and those showed variation. They should not, unless the compiler changed the algorithms used to compile the code between distros.
Benchmarking a multi-tasking system like Linux is a tough thing to quantify. The Linux kernel recently had a big scheduler change, this alone could account for shifting benhmark numbers. It may not actually "slowing down," but running multiple programs more evenly. The effective work is the same or better, which would mean "faster," but an almost useless benchmark would look slower.
I had a coule extension in PHP, but they eventually got pulled. No biggie, I guess, but my experience with PHP was not pleasant.
I don't want to bash the project because there are a number of very good people on it, but there is a tendency to operate in isolation and the team sort of falls into a click. They'll make decisions on IRC and you don't hear about it until they screw with your extension. It is run by a relatively small group of people who don't think much bigger than that.
So, when they come up with an obviously brain-dead boner like this, no one should be surprised.
I am a computer consultant and part time entrepreneur. I am periodically contracting or starting a business. I haven't hit it "BIG" yet, but maybe someday.
I live and die by open source. My services and ventures are dependent on the environment that is available for free. That's why when I need to make improvements to the core projects I use, I contribute back to them. I don't look upon my work as "done for free" but as "done for me."
Contributing back? well, that's just good business. (1) it gives me some sales/expert cred when I say "I contribute to these projects." (2) When I contribute to the projects, my code gets great peer review and gets maintained. (3) On a personal note, it is the right thing to do.
IMHO the economy will SERIOUSLY hurt the proprietary vendors most. When cash is flowing, bottom lines rise with the tide. When times are tight, it becomes harder to justify expensive alternative.
If the standard for judgment is actual damages plus treble damages, i.e $0.99 per song and $0.99 * 3 for damages, that's more like it.
While I don't mean to incite violence, but I'm really starting to think that "we the people" need to find a way to rid ourselves of these parasites who write the laws, pay the legislatures to pass the laws, pay the executive branch to sign the law, "influence" the judiciary to uphold the laws, and destroy the lives of defenseless citizens.
Sorry, but they suck, and they all need to be on a plane that crashes in the ocean.
I understand all the concerns, but its worth noting that you are not committing to a single vendor lock-in. A Google Apps customer can choose to switch vendors or run their own mail server, as long as they control the domain name.
Not in a way that is easy to do during an outage. It takes planning to move emails, passwords, etc.
So, what do you do for electric power?
Almost every mission critical business has a back-up generator.