(I'd blame your lack of reading comprehension skills, but that would probably be troll baiting, and troll baiting is wrong.)
Wow, you comment on my "reading comprehension skills", and then you go on to demonstrate your own... Appearantly you "miscomprehended" what you have just written; what you are doing isn't called "troll baiting" - you weasel - it's called "insulting". "Comprehend?"</sarcasm>
Sorry, Grandparent is right; you're misinformed.
My only satement that your entire post is focused on seems to be this: "The only time the GPL isn't legally binding is if there is no such thing as IP." Now, it may be my "reading comprehension skills" working against me, or something, but how does anything you say negate that particular statement (or any one after it, for that matter)? Your explanation is great and all, but you're just elaborating on that very same idea. I'm also a little amused at the fact that my previous post was just a knee-jerk reaction to someone who is deliberately trying to misinform others into thinking that Stallman is this evil, little bastard, who is trying to facilitate the "death of the software industry" (sic!). Yet it is I who is misinformed?! BRILLIANT!
To the rest of the/. community, thanks for making me a strawman. Go ahead and keep digging your own graves (that's a metaphor - for the unimaginatives). I will not save you (... also a metaphor). You won't let me:P.
If you care, I prefer to be modded funny. Cause it is... Like the rest of this braindead situation.
It means you failed highschool english (well, what we teach here in the US). Google for literature rhetoric.
Nice try. First, let us assume I am not from the US (which is true), and that I couldn't care less about "highschool english" (which is arbitrary, as it changes from school to school, let alone towns/cities - provinces/states). Given even those two (supposed) facts, I still suspect that it is you has missed something from my statement. Here is a short explanation of what that question means: I do not agree with the statement.
And I go and buy a car, and it's called a "labor" (sorry, I'm American) too, right? Oh wait, that's a "product".
If you are going to draw parallels like these, and actually believe them, then one of two things is true, you are regurgitating something you've heard elsewhere and you didn't bother thinking about what you've heard, or, what is even more likely (for you Americans), you refuse to give it any more thought by choice. Again, a simple explanation: A car is a product. The labour happens when that car is being built/fixed/serviced, much like the labour happening while software is being written/tested/debugged. BUT, a car is also material, something software is not. So tell me, how is this not comparing apples to oranges again?
You are on the right track as far as logic goes, but you aren't arguing any of the points either the parent, or I made. People like me, are refusing to accept information as an object. This is what the whole IP controversy is about. Terminology such as "information wants to be free" may not be a bad analogy if it didn't have any of the attached implications. Now it may seem that I'm just picking words apart, and yes, to some extent that is true, but don't for a moment think that proponents of IP aren't, at the same time, using language to twist how people percieve IP in the first place.
As far as what you are saying with regards to information "leaks". Yes, in that context, and that context alone, one could imagine that information wants to be free. But please understand that you are refering a completely different situation all together.
Stallman, is a famous hippy who envisioned nothing that you have just described. What is really funny is that you still cannot grasp what the GPL is. Let me explain this to you in simple terms: as long as there is IP, the GPL is supposed to hold. The only time the GPL isn't legally binding is if there is no such thing as IP. As for "other software IP issues", there are none. Lastly, there is no so called goal to appeal to commercial software. Whether the software is commercial or not is in the hind sight. Whether someone should be able to tell you what to do with your own things (be they electronics or otherwise) is what this is all about. Ignoring this is to miss the point, and if you miss _this_ point, you have no ground to argue anything related to free software, as it is simply irrelevant to what it actually is.
What the hell is that supposed to even mean?! As far as I can tell, information is a pretty damn abstract concept, and it is people, if anything, that ever want something. Someone slaving away at the keyboard to make something work cannot be described as "information". It is called "labour".
Hey, the argument works for other IP. Why should RH be an exception?
First, to clarify it to anyone who may actually be misinformed enough to believe this nonesense, the whole idea behind the GPL is to undermine the concept of IP. Therefore, RH is most definately an exception to IP. While companies like Microsoft rely primarily on distribution sales (sometimes almost to the point of competing with themselves), RH is relying on providing customers with services (and they probably sell things too, but I don't feel like checking). So, no, this argument doesn't work, at all, without exception.
You're fucking retarded. That's not a troll or flamebait, it's simply the only rational reply to your comment.
Damn... stole the words right out of my head. See, they showed his comment on the page but not yours, and I really wanted to call the guy a moron. Then I clicked on that link... sigh. Cheers.
Believe me, even after 10 years, I was certainly ready to throw in the towel;)
And use what, exactly? This is exactly I find arguments like yours quite mystifying. Yes, I know you won't be busy doing the exact same thing on a different operating system, but, if you are telling me that you won't be scratching your head with some other issue, or issues, for that matter.
Of course I suspect that you've been led to believe that slapping a pretty face on something extremely complex will make it less complex.... somehow. This is ignoring the fact that the damn thing is called a PC (Personal Computer). That is, it's so general that it must be customized for a person. Do you really think that it's possible to build any one system that will be all things to all people at all times? A better question yet is, do you think that such a system exists?
Wow. You're like a sea reaping with good old wholesome linux knowledge. I can't believe that people like you actually do exist on this planet. Listen, just because there are certain things that you don't get, doesn't mean that all of a sudden linux can't "operate". You just can't set it up, and the reason is this: When you asked people that don't owe you anything, that have decided to help you by donating some of their time to you, what do you do? You're just feeding them your presupposed rhetoric about how it doesn't work? Ya, it won't work, at least not for you. And no, the software isn't at fault here, as it can't be when you're clueless.
No, this is not the same. First thing's first, objects are based on classes. What this means is that you can have several objects running in your program, sharing the same code. Second, the internal state of the objects can be very complex, however, you do not need to worry about it when using the object, since you are presented with a simple interface. Third, since having an internal state means it is completely isolated from the rest of the program, management and maintenance of complicated abstraction is a lot simpler.
HOWEVER, if the objects are not properly designed, you can, and probably will end up with very bad code. Arguably worse then bad procedural code, but I've never had that experience. That is, I did (sometimes still do) write bad OO code, but I hardly ever wrote any procedural code, at all, for serious work.
If you could do that, and it actually worked, wouldn't it already be happening. Seems like something, according to observation, is not working when this theory goes to practice.
As someone who has to actually envision these technical system which you describe in your article, I feel completely misrepresented. These people will simply not be able to function as an IT department since, as it states, they do not have IT "roots".
There is a reason why people go to school for programming, networking, graphic arts, and various other subsets of these general types of programs. These subjects are _hard_. They require a lot of time and dedication. If such time is not put into studying various aspects of technology, then quite frankly, the designs will be horribly unmaintainable, useless, and obsolete.
The point is, experienced developers, system designers, and graphic artists, still struggle to create even a workable system. This is why good systems drive up costs so much. There is _no_ blanket solution to this, other than realizing that it will take programmers & analysts to design and implement these things. To delegate this task to someone without even the basic knowledge of complex tools such as software and its inner workings, will not help anyone.
As a recommendation, allow someone with real-world IT experience, someone who has built a large, maintainable system (still in use today), to read your articles on the subject before posting it, and then analyze what information you can gather. Some people, whose expertise are in a different field, may actually think this is a good idea and put themselves in undesirable situations.
Thank you for your time.
Come to think of it, I hope they don't get the impression that I'm volunteering:\. I'm not.
Are you really trying to say that the developement of a system, which inherently is research & developement, by the mere fact of how it is achieved, is not research & development?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't done any serious programming work in your lifetime. That's too bad, because if you had any experience in that field, you'd quickly realise that throwing money at a programming problem only works if there's someone that can actually solve it. Without that, you can throw money at it for as long as your pockets have something in them, and you'd still be stuck with a programming problem. Here's why, someone needs to do research and analysis, and then develop a solution.
Sigh, unfortunately you sound like my boss, which is enough of a disclaimer in itself.
Because you're not solving the problem, you're merely delaying it. A person who cannot understand the problem will probably not be able to solve it. It doesn't matter whether it's in NA, EU, or India.
The irony is that your attitude is what's actually blowing your money. This lack of foresight is exactly why money gets blown away in the first place (read: maintanance costs).
Most niche tasks are of the same difficulty regardless of OS.
They all require you to adopt an analogy; they are all just as abstract. GNU/Linux systems have various target audiences, evident by the countless distributions that are out there. In effect you're comparing apples to oranges, as the same task can be accomplished using different tools within the FS world.
Slashdot Mirror
"Doubters" should do fact checking. The people you're thinking of are "lazy".
Wow, you comment on my "reading comprehension skills", and then you go on to demonstrate your own... Appearantly you "miscomprehended" what you have just written; what you are doing isn't called "troll baiting" - you weasel - it's called "insulting". "Comprehend?"</sarcasm>
My only satement that your entire post is focused on seems to be this: "The only time the GPL isn't legally binding is if there is no such thing as IP." Now, it may be my "reading comprehension skills" working against me, or something, but how does anything you say negate that particular statement (or any one after it, for that matter)? Your explanation is great and all, but you're just elaborating on that very same idea. I'm also a little amused at the fact that my previous post was just a knee-jerk reaction to someone who is deliberately trying to misinform others into thinking that Stallman is this evil, little bastard, who is trying to facilitate the "death of the software industry" (sic!). Yet it is I who is misinformed?! BRILLIANT!
To the rest of the /. community, thanks for making me a strawman. Go ahead and keep digging your own graves (that's a metaphor - for the unimaginatives). I will not save you (... also a metaphor). You won't let me :P.
If you care, I prefer to be modded funny. Cause it is... Like the rest of this braindead situation.
Nice try. First, let us assume I am not from the US (which is true), and that I couldn't care less about "highschool english" (which is arbitrary, as it changes from school to school, let alone towns/cities - provinces/states). Given even those two (supposed) facts, I still suspect that it is you has missed something from my statement. Here is a short explanation of what that question means: I do not agree with the statement.
If you are going to draw parallels like these, and actually believe them, then one of two things is true, you are regurgitating something you've heard elsewhere and you didn't bother thinking about what you've heard, or, what is even more likely (for you Americans), you refuse to give it any more thought by choice. Again, a simple explanation: A car is a product. The labour happens when that car is being built/fixed/serviced, much like the labour happening while software is being written/tested/debugged. BUT, a car is also material, something software is not. So tell me, how is this not comparing apples to oranges again?
You are on the right track as far as logic goes, but you aren't arguing any of the points either the parent, or I made. People like me, are refusing to accept information as an object. This is what the whole IP controversy is about. Terminology such as "information wants to be free" may not be a bad analogy if it didn't have any of the attached implications. Now it may seem that I'm just picking words apart, and yes, to some extent that is true, but don't for a moment think that proponents of IP aren't, at the same time, using language to twist how people percieve IP in the first place.
As far as what you are saying with regards to information "leaks". Yes, in that context, and that context alone, one could imagine that information wants to be free. But please understand that you are refering a completely different situation all together.
Stallman, is a famous hippy who envisioned nothing that you have just described. What is really funny is that you still cannot grasp what the GPL is. Let me explain this to you in simple terms: as long as there is IP, the GPL is supposed to hold. The only time the GPL isn't legally binding is if there is no such thing as IP. As for "other software IP issues", there are none. Lastly, there is no so called goal to appeal to commercial software. Whether the software is commercial or not is in the hind sight. Whether someone should be able to tell you what to do with your own things (be they electronics or otherwise) is what this is all about. Ignoring this is to miss the point, and if you miss _this_ point, you have no ground to argue anything related to free software, as it is simply irrelevant to what it actually is.
I hope you're not just trolling...
What the hell is that supposed to even mean?! As far as I can tell, information is a pretty damn abstract concept, and it is people, if anything, that ever want something. Someone slaving away at the keyboard to make something work cannot be described as "information". It is called "labour".
First, to clarify it to anyone who may actually be misinformed enough to believe this nonesense, the whole idea behind the GPL is to undermine the concept of IP. Therefore, RH is most definately an exception to IP. While companies like Microsoft rely primarily on distribution sales (sometimes almost to the point of competing with themselves), RH is relying on providing customers with services (and they probably sell things too, but I don't feel like checking). So, no, this argument doesn't work, at all, without exception.
You are making me wish I did. Cause I would have.
Damn... stole the words right out of my head. See, they showed his comment on the page but not yours, and I really wanted to call the guy a moron. Then I clicked on that link... sigh. Cheers.
Why must there always be a troll who'll go against the tide no matter what. You're full of shit, and we see right through you.
I'd wager that the linux folk got that one covered too.
And use what, exactly? This is exactly I find arguments like yours quite mystifying. Yes, I know you won't be busy doing the exact same thing on a different operating system, but, if you are telling me that you won't be scratching your head with some other issue, or issues, for that matter.
Of course I suspect that you've been led to believe that slapping a pretty face on something extremely complex will make it less complex.... somehow. This is ignoring the fact that the damn thing is called a PC (Personal Computer). That is, it's so general that it must be customized for a person. Do you really think that it's possible to build any one system that will be all things to all people at all times? A better question yet is, do you think that such a system exists?
You are incorrect. Buddhism is a religion in which it is not necessary to recognize any deity what-so-ever.
Wow. You're like a sea reaping with good old wholesome linux knowledge. I can't believe that people like you actually do exist on this planet. Listen, just because there are certain things that you don't get, doesn't mean that all of a sudden linux can't "operate". You just can't set it up, and the reason is this: When you asked people that don't owe you anything, that have decided to help you by donating some of their time to you, what do you do? You're just feeding them your presupposed rhetoric about how it doesn't work? Ya, it won't work, at least not for you. And no, the software isn't at fault here, as it can't be when you're clueless.
You are simply uninformed. Please refrain from forming an ignorant opinion, since you are not fooling anyone but yourself.
No, this is not the same. First thing's first, objects are based on classes. What this means is that you can have several objects running in your program, sharing the same code. Second, the internal state of the objects can be very complex, however, you do not need to worry about it when using the object, since you are presented with a simple interface. Third, since having an internal state means it is completely isolated from the rest of the program, management and maintenance of complicated abstraction is a lot simpler.
HOWEVER, if the objects are not properly designed, you can, and probably will end up with very bad code. Arguably worse then bad procedural code, but I've never had that experience. That is, I did (sometimes still do) write bad OO code, but I hardly ever wrote any procedural code, at all, for serious work.
If you could do that, and it actually worked, wouldn't it already be happening. Seems like something, according to observation, is not working when this theory goes to practice.
Come to think of it, I hope they don't get the impression that I'm volunteering :\. I'm not.
Mods: If it itches, just go with funny.
Message to mods: If you can't see the irony, please turn off your computer.
Are you really trying to say that the developement of a system, which inherently is research & developement, by the mere fact of how it is achieved, is not research & development?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't done any serious programming work in your lifetime. That's too bad, because if you had any experience in that field, you'd quickly realise that throwing money at a programming problem only works if there's someone that can actually solve it. Without that, you can throw money at it for as long as your pockets have something in them, and you'd still be stuck with a programming problem. Here's why, someone needs to do research and analysis, and then develop a solution.
Sigh, unfortunately you sound like my boss, which is enough of a disclaimer in itself.
The irony is that your attitude is what's actually blowing your money. This lack of foresight is exactly why money gets blown away in the first place (read: maintanance costs).
Just to add to the first reply... do the words "Dot Com Bubble" mean anything to you?
Who will be solving the technical problems?
Most niche tasks are of the same difficulty regardless of OS.
They all require you to adopt an analogy; they are all just as abstract. GNU/Linux systems have various target audiences, evident by the countless distributions that are out there. In effect you're comparing apples to oranges, as the same task can be accomplished using different tools within the FS world.
If you truly believe that, then I pitty you. I hope that the world doesn't run you over.