The entire point of codeplex, and the entire point of this article, is to trick some more gullible fans of "open source" into believing Microsoft is not their enemy after all - but their "ally" as it were.
To condense the argument: Let's all have faith. See the softer side of the thug trying to destroy free software with lawsuits and FUD. Be nice to him - give him the benefit of the doubt, or it will just make it harder for him to be nice to you later. See how mean RMS is? Nothing ever makes him happy.
They know how ridiculous they look trying to claim that Microsoft may be friendly to free software (especially while they work daily to destroy it), so they must insinuate it instead, and deny it when confronted.
By forcing de Icaza and his fans deny it, I have forced them to undercut their own main thrust today. Richly satisfying to watch, if I do say so myself.
To my amusement, the pro-Microsoft squad's account farm still didn't get all my posts to -1, even despite it looking like I soaked up their whole mod point budget for today.
Ah well. I'm sure they'll be back tomorrow to finish the job. Good luck with metamod, guys.:)
My analogy is just fine, and I noticed you didn't provide any actual arguments to the contrary.
Groklaw is keeping good records of Miguel and Microsoft's behavior, so their account is hardly irrelevant.
Miguel hasn't done anything but hurt the community in quite a while. See my point about Groklaw above. So my own perspective is that your defense of him, and his employers, and implicitly their practices, is ugly, mendacious, and verging on silly.
In short, I'm losing faith that you are arguing in good faith.:) If it took IBM decades of good works to build their current brand, don't look for Microsoft to have an easier road for having behaved far worse than IBM ever dreamed.
Honestly, this is just about positioning in the marketplace, reputation, marketing and PR.
Take my own beliefs out of it. Microsoft's behavior towards free software has been flagrantly execrable for a number of years. This is a marketplace, not a therapy session. You may have a powerful and inexplicable optimism and capacity for forgiveness, but you are in a very tiny minority. Most of us simply want nothing to do with this company or its products, and we are going with their competitors, both free and commercial. They should be concerned over their reputation and competing for their dinner like everyone else. That would be the market working.
It is as if your sister was advocating public transit and fuel efficiency policies, and Ford's CEO was trying to have her framed, and prosecuted, for stealing his SUV. This is exactly where every user of free software finds him or herself. Would you then be talking about how great Ford's latest car is for driving to the train station and "trying to change minds from within the system?" Or you will you be looking for the courts for redress and, when you must needs drive, buying Hondas? What do you really expect us to do?
I can't claim to know exactly how Novell and Microsoft have structured their arrangement, but something tells me you should have been there to tell MS this from the beginning; it probably would have saved them some dollars.
Such words might be effective against someone who doesn't read both articles, but it seems fairly clear RMS has important content, namely that codeplex's positioning seems designed to add confusion on software freedom issues, which is both dangerous and consistent with Microsoft's notorious predatory policies towards free software and its developers.
Only those without principles or with friends in perfect agreement all the time have the benefit of never "attacking their friends." Perhaps you are more concerned with relationships than principles.
If in your own post you pointed out all of the places where codeplex and Microsoft clearly do understand the open source and free software distinction, and make a clear effort to avoid confusion... If you had some possible explanation for Microsoft's massively ugly behavior towards linux, or open document standards bodies, etc...
But you have none. You seem to find the incidental, but correct observation of your widely-known status as a Microsoft apologist to be the greater issue, and you devote most of your words to denying that, along with some vague name calling, a few appeals to emotion by metaphor, and (probably ill-advised) political sniping.
It is your own writing that is quite clearly without content, and it's my professional opinion that you know it. Thus, the term "cynical hypocrisy."
I find your suggestion that Microsoft could be an ally (however much you deny you've made it, or if you even choose to) to be laughable.
Vilifying RMS is another meme I cannot understand - even despite his outsized personality. The man's strident defense of your freedoms against a cadre of ill-mannered and ignorant fools apparently has earned him your distrust. How, I have no idea. Being polite, shy and retiring in the defense of freedom is not normally considered a requirement...
What did you want, an eloquent, handsome, personable defender of free software principles?:)
I've had to use all kinds of MS products, including.Net. It doesn't make Miguel's nonsense any more credible than it was yesterday, or RMS's warnings about Microsoft's conduct any less trenchant. Microsoft is still run by the same people. You expect us to believe they've just turned over a new leaf somehow? You may as well ask for our credit card numbers if you think we're that naive.
I knew someone would make this exact nit-pick when I wrote that.
If you want me to think of them like a corporation, let me repeat:
Microsoft's brand is "incompatible" with open source. They can no more credibly change it now than Volkswagen can become an American automaker. They made their bed on that through carefully and assiduously lying and suing the shit out of people for many, many years.
There are limits to our credulousness, even in America.
Since he is in Microsoft's employ, literally if not indirectly, the distinction is moot. Yet how did I know someone might make that nit-pick anyway?
I disregard these possibilities as foolish. In the words of others:
Microsoft is pushing software patents and DRM around the world. These are the two main things blocking free software from being compatible, so this is holding back the technical progress and the spread of free software.
MS's policies are getting worse and worse, so I can't see why helping them is in our interest.
I've been documenting Microsoft's patent activity [swpat.org], and I fail to see any change for the better.
This ordering of ideas to suggest something while later being able to deny it is an elementary trick more worthy of a speed seduction practitioner than a software engineer. It is marketing.
You make my argument for me in your own words as you go on. The whole concept of his article is to suggest that Microsoft is an ally, or if not, a potentially ally if we will only "build bridges" rather than "burn bridges." That, and throwing vague insults at Stallman. Did I mention it is also basically inept, since Miguel so badly misjudges (most of) his audience's intelligence?
You may choose to read it however you like. I doubt many are fooled.
He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.
"I merely happen to have a different perspective on Microsoft than he has. I know that there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen. I have blogged about this for the last few years.
At the end of the day, we both want to see free software succeed. But Richard, instead of opening new fronts to promote his causes, attacks his own allies for not being replicas of himself."
He suggested that either himself, or Microsoft, or both, was his "ally." If you consider this feeble attempt to construct it in a deniable way to be successful, let's agree to disagree.:)
RMS is a hardliner with zero tolerance or forgiveness.
Or "forgiveness?" LOL. You suggest he can do anything other that use harsh language? RMS needs no license to be as free with his words as Microsoft certainly is.
Also, is Java not "forgiven?" I would think that would rather make the contrary point that RMS is obviously issue driven, rather than "revenge" driven as you seem to imply.
de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder
de Icaza is a shill. It is impossible to believe he is so big a fool to believe otherwise.
Microsoft's brand is "incompatible" with open source. They can no more credibly change it now than Volkswagen can pretend to be an American automaker. They made their bed on that through carefully and assiduously lying and suing the shit out of people for many, many years.
Bridge building? How big of a sucker can you possibly ask us to be?
Microsoft should ask for its money back. de Icaza is a terrible troll.
Stallman is of course right to point out that he is a Microsoft apologist - he is a notorious one. It is beyond argument that Microsoft spends significant dollars in direct and "personal" attempts to crush free software development projects such as Linux through the most indefensible barratry. It's also widely known that this is only one of a multi-prong strategy that includes coopting competing projects, through many means, including hiring key team members, and PR efforts, including hiring astroturfing firms - some of which patronize this very site, and you will meet some of their employees (or contractors) today.:)
Miguel must chuckle at himself when he writes things like "Fear mongering is a vibrant industry." It is too rich in irony for him not to know it. Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.
If you judge someone by their actions, then there is no need to discuss how we judge Microsoft and their relationship to free software. It is easy to understand the lense through which we see codeplex even if they were to say nothing controversial. But apparently one of their goals is already clear - to throw another line of men at the front of the rhetorical "war" between free as in beer and free as in speech.
Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software. It's quite easy to understand - most people, when they give away their work, have a common moral compass, and they share certain values about how they would like to see that work go out into the world. i.e. They would rather some 3rd party not get paid for what they did for free. And they would rather others have the freedom to tinker, just as they did. Most ("important, widely used, active") open source software is free software for this reason. Of course, the "debate" will never end, either. But let's just keep it in perspective.
Ah Miguel. His rant may have virtually zero actual content, but at least he gets points for plugging "The Power of Nightmares." Just a few years too late, alas. From that and his Bush-based name calling, he may lose the conservative portion of the audience he is supposed to be reaching, but as I said, MS should get a refund.
Can someone give a little depth to the vague and unsubstantiated comment in TFA, referencing i.e. google: "...with closed data networks making it difficult to impossible to move data into competing services."
So which is it? Difficult or impossible? Or both?
I'm not at all surprised that facebook or myspace are not jumping up and down to allow various kinds of data export. But the fact that these obstacles are conflated with google and EC2 policies in the same paragraph without giving any details whatsoever makes it tough to take this post very seriously.
What would stop you from taking your data out of the cloud? SFTP not allowed? Can't access Mysql DB from outside? I'm asking honestly - I'd love to know.
Oh oh look at all the "tinfoil hat" loonies who think Apple might actually sue someone. NO WAI. That's just a crazy conspiracy theory. It's not like they go on earnings calls and promise their shareholders they will sue anyone who...
Well, maybe we're still crazy and paranoid. Why wouldn't Apple just license one of their UI crown jewels to a competing smartphone maker? I'm sure they do that all the time.
Google and/or HTC has licensed multitouch, right?
Right?
Funny, when you google that, all you get are articles where Google team members contradict this guy.
But no, this is crazy. He must still be right. The Android team was just so goddamn busy that they couldn't possibly find the time to do multitouch. I mean, sure, they ship phones with multitouch hardware. And have a kernel with a device driver that supports it. That sort of thing is happening by accident all the time.
I mean, it's practically any phone where a lone hacker can reenable multitouch in the APIs _and_ get it working with a few of the apps in a few weekends.
Google was just so busy, who had a few weekends to spare?
After all, it's not like anyone really cares about multitouch... right?
Right?
Hello? Is this thing on?
The guy's ridiculous. Why defend them? Google was chicken on this, and they caved. They didn't want a feud with Apple - that's bad for business. Google could come out of safari. Out of the iphone. Oh the humanity. Maybe it was even a smart business decision. Who knows.
Now Palm, I respect.
Yeah, they intentionally violated Apple's patent. They probably sent Steve a free Pre just to taunt him.
Oh Apple and their sacred patents. We sometimes forget that by making any smartphone at all, you intentionally violate about 4,000 Palm patents. Doh!
Apple has been down that road, with Microsoft for instance. It ends up with a lot of fat 2nd, 3rd and 4th homes occupied by the children and wives and girlfriends of patent lawyers. And Palm has much less to lose in a feud with Apple. So, cest la vie.
Yes, I see your point. You may be right. At least, it looks like the act specifically defines personal information as including an "identifier" that, while defined broadly, wouldn't cover aggregate statistical information culled from these raw data streams.
I wonder if there still isn't a COPPA angle to prosecute, for some enterprising DA.
If EchoMetrix is like most American marketing data firms, they have no safeguards or controls, so raw data may be going to partners, subcontractors, "affiliates," etc. That could constitute a disclosure, with the caveat:
"...except where such information is provided to a person other than the operator who provides support for the internal operations of the website and does not disclose or use that information for any other purpose..."
Consider, too, that the rules are quite broad. For instance, if you simply track users with an "anonymous" ID in a cookie, and the rest of the data stream could ever conceivably include something identifying (i.e. the child identifying themselves accidentally), then your data is covered under the act. If you are thinking this means sites aimed at children effectively cannot use cookies, you are correct - this is the net effect of the law, AFAIK.
I doubt the parent's use of "net nanny" style software constitutes the necessary consent to disclose.
But who knows. At any rate, I think I stand corrected. This looks like a reach at best.
IANAL, but I have worked on a number of projects which had to comply. Based on what is said here, this seems in flagrant violation. Somebody call the cops.
It's a good point, although I doubt many people run Linux on Niagara, let alone in production. Although maybe I'm wrong? I'd love to hear from whoever's doing that.
Linux's multiprocessing capabilities probably have their sweet spot closer to the scientific, military and large corporate (i.e. IBM) supercomputers where Linux is more popular.
Second question, do I believe Murdoch's propaganda is Nazi-esque (my actual words)? Yes. Murdoch uses many of the same tricks and techniques of Hitler's propaganda machine.
You dropped the word "trust" from your own recounting of your own words. You assert they're "posh nobs" and "money grabbing"... and do you "trust" the BBC much more than you do Murdoch? No. And that makes you kind of funny. In fact, you're still making me laugh with that even now, and it's been over a day since you said it.
Well, there's the argument of principles and the argument of today's facts on the ground. On principles, at least, it's a slightly interesting discussion as to whether PBS (or BBC) should live or die. But when you say:
"I don't really trust the posh nobs that form the upper echelons of the modern BBC much more than I trust the Murdoch empire."
Stop, it's too funny, it hurts.
The BBC isn't calling Obama a racist, or suggesting that FDR wanted to privatize social security. Equating Murdoch's sick, Nazi-esque propaganda machine with the BBC is kind of like saying, yeah crack cocaine, McDonald's french fries, they're both kind of addictive and unhealthy.
You want to match incident for incident, have a little BBC versus "Murdoch empire" duel? Or do you know how it will end.
So the scion of the world's most notorious propagandist has the audacity to speak publicly about media policy.
If voters wish their government to do something for them, they vote for politicians that promise it, and it gets done. Those in England have voted to have a "public option" for news. Some will say that because it's "government owned" its objectivity cannot be trusted, and this is indeed a danger, just as it is a danger that privately owned media cannot be trusted, let alone under the laissez faire regulation regime that Murdoch Sr. and Jr. lobby for. Power is power, and it is not a foregone conclusion that power controlled by elected representatives is more dangerous than power controlled by corporate sponsors or the whims of billionaires.
It's reasonable that a government-run news organization could do a better job than a privately run organization. Similarly for electric power, firefighting services, courts, schools, etc. It's not guaranteed to succeed, but there is no fundamental problem with it in principle, as long as a nation has a free press (the government can say what they like, but so can everyone else).
The Murdoch's underscore the point by running some of the most servile and ludicrous propaganda instruments in mass media today. For those concerned about the difficulty of competing with the government to make news, one must simply examine reality to see how it is done. Amusingly, Murdoch himself is not always concerned with profit - he runs propaganda instruments such as the New York Post in the red simply to gain influence and push competitors out of business.
While some could make this story into a discussion about the principles of government, media and democracy, that would be elevating Murdoch's ploy far above what it is: a transparent attempt to destroy another competitor and gain even more unified control over the world's mass media. It is breathtakingly hypocritical on his part to cloak it in the rhetoric he does.
Anyone who'se been on the internet long enough will recall an argument or two where people got so mad at each other that they start threatening to sue or call the authorities. This is generally kind of funny - because you can sort of picture the look on the face of the cop or lawyer when you call them - "Someone has wilfully tarnished my good name by posting scurrilous insults about me on the Internets! How soon can they be clapped in irons?"
To say this exchange happens once per second in this country is probably dramatically understating it. There are days when it may happen once per second on Slashdot alone. The plain fact is, even as a civil matter, we as a society can very rarely be bothered to go through the difficult process of handling an internet libel, slander or even harassment case.
Yes, you have some theoretical recourse if someone google bombs your name with hate sites that accuse you of being an embezzling pedophile terrorist and feature your photo and home address prominently. For better or worse, even coping with such an extreme example is beyond the means of 99% of Americans - because of time and expense just for a start.
My first reaction to Ms. Cohen's plight is, how on earth is she so lucky and/or special as to be able to face her insulter in court? At least there is a vaguely plausible theory - that she has already been a crime victim and has convinced cops and courts that there may be an ongoing pattern of harassment/violence by an individual. But she is astoundingly privileged among internet insult victims.
And how lucky is she? One apparently needs to go the extremes of Pranket in order to get law enforcement to stir. In other words, 6 or 7 figures of property damage, or things like (no exaggeration, unfortunately) using social engineering to convince fast food employees to strip naked and pee all over each other).
Companies have vastly greater leadership problems every single minute of every single day. It is simply not news, it happens so prodigiously, so continuously. Because FOSS works so damn well, it shocks us when a project has a tiny glimmer of strife.
FOSS is a meritocracy. It's a popularity contest. By comparison, companies are based on money and the absolute, legal powers of those who posses it. You can, and do, have CEOs who make money every day at the expense of their customers/users. Corporate customer? You get fucked. You can, and do, have CEOs who are simply stupid or arrogant, and just fail to make money period. Corporate customer? You get fucked. Compare to FOSS, where no single asshole, no matter how powerful, can hold that power without others agreeing there is merit in it. Work can never be lost. Users can never be stranded. In fact, if some people like a leader and others dont, then you will have a split, two or more people in power, all without loss of work or disruption to customers. Then they may even cooperate sometimes, even if they hate each other. What parallels this, in the industry?
Torvalds has no power to take away the Linux software you use, or even control its future. All he can do is either lead effectively, or embarrass himself in public and watch the meritocracy pass the torch to another. Bill Gates can decide to take your platform (Windows XP), or your language (VB today, C# tomorrow) on a nose dive - even discontinue it - at any moment. You just get fucked. You have no recourse.
We go to the corporate marketplace for software because although the FOSS world is great, it will not naturally produce all the goods and services we need. It's just another set of trade-offs. It so happens that for software, they are particularly tricky. Would the market in cars be so efficient if it cost you x million dollars to change from being a Ford to a Honda customer? And where once you are locked in, Ford can charge you 10,000x cost for repairs? And then simply refuse to perform them when they feel the time is right for you to buy a new car? And they get away with it simply because (outside of FOSS) they make cars where opening the hood to fix it yourself is as hard as cracking a safe, and almost as dangerous.
This is the position software customers find themselves in. So you can start to see the appeal of FOSS, whose "leadership problems" are to being a corporate customer what a fucking afternoon spa treatment is to being Bubba's cellmate.
You seem eager to go to the FSF for terminology. Why not go to them and ask whether OSX is equivalent to RHEL, and Darwin is equivalent to CentOS? Or go to RHEL and ask them if their GPL binaries (as well as their source) are free, and you can copy them and give them to anyone?
The answers are so obvious that I wonder if you know you are dissembling.
Anyone can load proprietary applications on Linux. And I can even sell you Redhat Linux and MacOS in a bundle. Whoa. Does make Redhat Linux any less free? Does that blow your mind?:)
Redhat and MacOSX are based on utterly different premises, and if you doubt me, ask either RedHat or Apple? Or just try demanding the source code for everything linked against the BSD portions of OSX. Or try distributing both OSX and Redhat GPL binaries from your website. See what happens.:)
Hah! I would say good one, but your joke is not that good.
Well, I hope you're getting health insurance at least. Everyone's all about "contractors" these days. But too much typing can be hard on your wrists. Take regular breaks, that's my advice.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire point of codeplex, and the entire point of this article, is to trick some more gullible fans of "open source" into believing Microsoft is not their enemy after all - but their "ally" as it were.
To condense the argument: Let's all have faith. See the softer side of the thug trying to destroy free software with lawsuits and FUD. Be nice to him - give him the benefit of the doubt, or it will just make it harder for him to be nice to you later. See how mean RMS is? Nothing ever makes him happy.
They know how ridiculous they look trying to claim that Microsoft may be friendly to free software (especially while they work daily to destroy it), so they must insinuate it instead, and deny it when confronted.
By forcing de Icaza and his fans deny it, I have forced them to undercut their own main thrust today. Richly satisfying to watch, if I do say so myself.
To my amusement, the pro-Microsoft squad's account farm still didn't get all my posts to -1, even despite it looking like I soaked up their whole mod point budget for today.
Ah well. I'm sure they'll be back tomorrow to finish the job. Good luck with metamod, guys. :)
My analogy is just fine, and I noticed you didn't provide any actual arguments to the contrary.
Groklaw is keeping good records of Miguel and Microsoft's behavior, so their account is hardly irrelevant.
Miguel hasn't done anything but hurt the community in quite a while. See my point about Groklaw above. So my own perspective is that your defense of him, and his employers, and implicitly their practices, is ugly, mendacious, and verging on silly.
In short, I'm losing faith that you are arguing in good faith. :) If it took IBM decades of good works to build their current brand, don't look for Microsoft to have an easier road for having behaved far worse than IBM ever dreamed.
OK, good point. In 2035 we'll talk.
Honestly, this is just about positioning in the marketplace, reputation, marketing and PR.
Take my own beliefs out of it. Microsoft's behavior towards free software has been flagrantly execrable for a number of years. This is a marketplace, not a therapy session. You may have a powerful and inexplicable optimism and capacity for forgiveness, but you are in a very tiny minority. Most of us simply want nothing to do with this company or its products, and we are going with their competitors, both free and commercial. They should be concerned over their reputation and competing for their dinner like everyone else. That would be the market working.
It is as if your sister was advocating public transit and fuel efficiency policies, and Ford's CEO was trying to have her framed, and prosecuted, for stealing his SUV. This is exactly where every user of free software finds him or herself. Would you then be talking about how great Ford's latest car is for driving to the train station and "trying to change minds from within the system?" Or you will you be looking for the courts for redress and, when you must needs drive, buying Hondas? What do you really expect us to do?
If you would like more background on MS and Miguel's behavior, groklaw has a long, detailed summary.
Fanboys come for free.
I can't claim to know exactly how Novell and Microsoft have structured their arrangement, but something tells me you should have been there to tell MS this from the beginning; it probably would have saved them some dollars.
Let me suggest an article from Groklaw if you would like some more background on MS's PR campaign and Miguel's role in it.
Such words might be effective against someone who doesn't read both articles, but it seems fairly clear RMS has important content, namely that codeplex's positioning seems designed to add confusion on software freedom issues, which is both dangerous and consistent with Microsoft's notorious predatory policies towards free software and its developers.
Only those without principles or with friends in perfect agreement all the time have the benefit of never "attacking their friends." Perhaps you are more concerned with relationships than principles.
If in your own post you pointed out all of the places where codeplex and Microsoft clearly do understand the open source and free software distinction, and make a clear effort to avoid confusion... If you had some possible explanation for Microsoft's massively ugly behavior towards linux, or open document standards bodies, etc...
But you have none. You seem to find the incidental, but correct observation of your widely-known status as a Microsoft apologist to be the greater issue, and you devote most of your words to denying that, along with some vague name calling, a few appeals to emotion by metaphor, and (probably ill-advised) political sniping.
It is your own writing that is quite clearly without content, and it's my professional opinion that you know it. Thus, the term "cynical hypocrisy."
I find your suggestion that Microsoft could be an ally (however much you deny you've made it, or if you even choose to) to be laughable.
Vilifying RMS is another meme I cannot understand - even despite his outsized personality. The man's strident defense of your freedoms against a cadre of ill-mannered and ignorant fools apparently has earned him your distrust. How, I have no idea. Being polite, shy and retiring in the defense of freedom is not normally considered a requirement...
What did you want, an eloquent, handsome, personable defender of free software principles? :)
I've had to use all kinds of MS products, including .Net. It doesn't make Miguel's nonsense any more credible than it was yesterday, or RMS's warnings about Microsoft's conduct any less trenchant. Microsoft is still run by the same people. You expect us to believe they've just turned over a new leaf somehow? You may as well ask for our credit card numbers if you think we're that naive.
I knew someone would make this exact nit-pick when I wrote that.
If you want me to think of them like a corporation, let me repeat:
Microsoft's brand is "incompatible" with open source. They can no more credibly change it now than Volkswagen can become an American automaker. They made their bed on that through carefully and assiduously lying and suing the shit out of people for many, many years.
There are limits to our credulousness, even in America.
Since he is in Microsoft's employ, literally if not indirectly, the distinction is moot. Yet how did I know someone might make that nit-pick anyway?
I disregard these possibilities as foolish. In the words of others:
Microsoft is pushing software patents and DRM around the world. These are the two main things blocking free software from being compatible, so this is holding back the technical progress and the spread of free software.
MS's policies are getting worse and worse, so I can't see why helping them is in our interest.
I've been documenting Microsoft's patent activity [swpat.org], and I fail to see any change for the better.
This ordering of ideas to suggest something while later being able to deny it is an elementary trick more worthy of a speed seduction practitioner than a software engineer. It is marketing.
You make my argument for me in your own words as you go on. The whole concept of his article is to suggest that Microsoft is an ally, or if not, a potentially ally if we will only "build bridges" rather than "burn bridges." That, and throwing vague insults at Stallman. Did I mention it is also basically inept, since Miguel so badly misjudges (most of) his audience's intelligence?
You may choose to read it however you like. I doubt many are fooled.
He never said nor suggested that Microsoft as a whole is your ally.
"I merely happen to have a different perspective on Microsoft than he has. I know that there are great people working for the company, and I know many people inside Microsoft that are steering the company towards being a community citizen. I have blogged about this for the last few years.
At the end of the day, we both want to see free software succeed. But Richard, instead of opening new fronts to promote his causes, attacks his own allies for not being replicas of himself."
He suggested that either himself, or Microsoft, or both, was his "ally." If you consider this feeble attempt to construct it in a deniable way to be successful, let's agree to disagree. :)
RMS is a hardliner with zero tolerance or forgiveness.
Or "forgiveness?" LOL. You suggest he can do anything other that use harsh language? RMS needs no license to be as free with his words as Microsoft certainly is.
Also, is Java not "forgiven?" I would think that would rather make the contrary point that RMS is obviously issue driven, rather than "revenge" driven as you seem to imply.
de Icaza seems to be more of a bridge builder
de Icaza is a shill. It is impossible to believe he is so big a fool to believe otherwise.
Microsoft's brand is "incompatible" with open source. They can no more credibly change it now than Volkswagen can pretend to be an American automaker. They made their bed on that through carefully and assiduously lying and suing the shit out of people for many, many years.
Bridge building? How big of a sucker can you possibly ask us to be?
(It's a rhetorical question.)
Microsoft should ask for its money back. de Icaza is a terrible troll.
Stallman is of course right to point out that he is a Microsoft apologist - he is a notorious one. It is beyond argument that Microsoft spends significant dollars in direct and "personal" attempts to crush free software development projects such as Linux through the most indefensible barratry. It's also widely known that this is only one of a multi-prong strategy that includes coopting competing projects, through many means, including hiring key team members, and PR efforts, including hiring astroturfing firms - some of which patronize this very site, and you will meet some of their employees (or contractors) today. :)
Miguel must chuckle at himself when he writes things like "Fear mongering is a vibrant industry." It is too rich in irony for him not to know it. Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.
If you judge someone by their actions, then there is no need to discuss how we judge Microsoft and their relationship to free software. It is easy to understand the lense through which we see codeplex even if they were to say nothing controversial. But apparently one of their goals is already clear - to throw another line of men at the front of the rhetorical "war" between free as in beer and free as in speech.
Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software. It's quite easy to understand - most people, when they give away their work, have a common moral compass, and they share certain values about how they would like to see that work go out into the world. i.e. They would rather some 3rd party not get paid for what they did for free. And they would rather others have the freedom to tinker, just as they did. Most ("important, widely used, active") open source software is free software for this reason. Of course, the "debate" will never end, either. But let's just keep it in perspective.
Ah Miguel. His rant may have virtually zero actual content, but at least he gets points for plugging "The Power of Nightmares." Just a few years too late, alas. From that and his Bush-based name calling, he may lose the conservative portion of the audience he is supposed to be reaching, but as I said, MS should get a refund.
Can someone give a little depth to the vague and unsubstantiated comment in TFA, referencing i.e. google: "...with closed data networks making it difficult to impossible to move data into competing services."
So which is it? Difficult or impossible? Or both?
I'm not at all surprised that facebook or myspace are not jumping up and down to allow various kinds of data export. But the fact that these obstacles are conflated with google and EC2 policies in the same paragraph without giving any details whatsoever makes it tough to take this post very seriously.
What would stop you from taking your data out of the cloud? SFTP not allowed? Can't access Mysql DB from outside? I'm asking honestly - I'd love to know.
Absolute nonsense.
Steve Jobs got on a stage in front of an audience of millions and could not have made it any clearer.
"And boy have we patented it!"
Oh oh look at all the "tinfoil hat" loonies who think Apple might actually sue someone. NO WAI. That's just a crazy conspiracy theory. It's not like they go on earnings calls and promise their shareholders they will sue anyone who...
Oh wait. NM!
Well, maybe we're still crazy and paranoid. Why wouldn't Apple just license one of their UI crown jewels to a competing smartphone maker? I'm sure they do that all the time.
Google and/or HTC has licensed multitouch, right?
Right?
Funny, when you google that, all you get are articles where Google team members contradict this guy.
Here. And here.
But no, this is crazy. He must still be right. The Android team was just so goddamn busy that they couldn't possibly find the time to do multitouch. I mean, sure, they ship phones with multitouch hardware. And have a kernel with a device driver that supports it. That sort of thing is happening by accident all the time.
I mean, it's practically any phone where a lone hacker can reenable multitouch in the APIs _and_ get it working with a few of the apps in a few weekends.
Google was just so busy, who had a few weekends to spare?
After all, it's not like anyone really cares about multitouch... right?
Right?
Hello? Is this thing on?
The guy's ridiculous. Why defend them? Google was chicken on this, and they caved. They didn't want a feud with Apple - that's bad for business. Google could come out of safari. Out of the iphone. Oh the humanity. Maybe it was even a smart business decision. Who knows.
Now Palm, I respect.
Yeah, they intentionally violated Apple's patent. They probably sent Steve a free Pre just to taunt him.
Oh Apple and their sacred patents. We sometimes forget that by making any smartphone at all, you intentionally violate about 4,000 Palm patents. Doh!
Apple has been down that road, with Microsoft for instance. It ends up with a lot of fat 2nd, 3rd and 4th homes occupied by the children and wives and girlfriends of patent lawyers. And Palm has much less to lose in a feud with Apple. So, cest la vie.
Yes, I see your point. You may be right. At least, it looks like the act specifically defines personal information as including an "identifier" that, while defined broadly, wouldn't cover aggregate statistical information culled from these raw data streams.
I wonder if there still isn't a COPPA angle to prosecute, for some enterprising DA.
If EchoMetrix is like most American marketing data firms, they have no safeguards or controls, so raw data may be going to partners, subcontractors, "affiliates," etc. That could constitute a disclosure, with the caveat:
"...except where such information is provided to a person other than the operator who provides support for the internal operations of the website and does not disclose or use that information for any other purpose..."
Consider, too, that the rules are quite broad. For instance, if you simply track users with an "anonymous" ID in a cookie, and the rest of the data stream could ever conceivably include something identifying (i.e. the child identifying themselves accidentally), then your data is covered under the act. If you are thinking this means sites aimed at children effectively cannot use cookies, you are correct - this is the net effect of the law, AFAIK.
I doubt the parent's use of "net nanny" style software constitutes the necessary consent to disclose.
But who knows. At any rate, I think I stand corrected. This looks like a reach at best.
In the US, children have special privacy protections afforded by law. It involves things like "opt-in" and parental consent.
http://www.coppa.org/comply.htm
IANAL, but I have worked on a number of projects which had to comply. Based on what is said here, this seems in flagrant violation. Somebody call the cops.
It's a good point, although I doubt many people run Linux on Niagara, let alone in production. Although maybe I'm wrong? I'd love to hear from whoever's doing that.
Linux's multiprocessing capabilities probably have their sweet spot closer to the scientific, military and large corporate (i.e. IBM) supercomputers where Linux is more popular.
First question. Is "profligating" a word?
Second question, do I believe Murdoch's propaganda is Nazi-esque (my actual words)? Yes. Murdoch uses many of the same tricks and techniques of Hitler's propaganda machine.
You dropped the word "trust" from your own recounting of your own words. You assert they're "posh nobs" and "money grabbing" ... and do you "trust" the BBC much more than you do Murdoch? No. And that makes you kind of funny. In fact, you're still making me laugh with that even now, and it's been over a day since you said it.
Well, there's the argument of principles and the argument of today's facts on the ground. On principles, at least, it's a slightly interesting discussion as to whether PBS (or BBC) should live or die. But when you say:
"I don't really trust the posh nobs that form the upper echelons of the modern BBC much more than I trust the Murdoch empire."
Stop, it's too funny, it hurts.
The BBC isn't calling Obama a racist, or suggesting that FDR wanted to privatize social security. Equating Murdoch's sick, Nazi-esque propaganda machine with the BBC is kind of like saying, yeah crack cocaine, McDonald's french fries, they're both kind of addictive and unhealthy.
You want to match incident for incident, have a little BBC versus "Murdoch empire" duel? Or do you know how it will end.
So the scion of the world's most notorious propagandist has the audacity to speak publicly about media policy.
If voters wish their government to do something for them, they vote for politicians that promise it, and it gets done. Those in England have voted to have a "public option" for news. Some will say that because it's "government owned" its objectivity cannot be trusted, and this is indeed a danger, just as it is a danger that privately owned media cannot be trusted, let alone under the laissez faire regulation regime that Murdoch Sr. and Jr. lobby for. Power is power, and it is not a foregone conclusion that power controlled by elected representatives is more dangerous than power controlled by corporate sponsors or the whims of billionaires.
It's reasonable that a government-run news organization could do a better job than a privately run organization. Similarly for electric power, firefighting services, courts, schools, etc. It's not guaranteed to succeed, but there is no fundamental problem with it in principle, as long as a nation has a free press (the government can say what they like, but so can everyone else).
The Murdoch's underscore the point by running some of the most servile and ludicrous propaganda instruments in mass media today. For those concerned about the difficulty of competing with the government to make news, one must simply examine reality to see how it is done. Amusingly, Murdoch himself is not always concerned with profit - he runs propaganda instruments such as the New York Post in the red simply to gain influence and push competitors out of business.
While some could make this story into a discussion about the principles of government, media and democracy, that would be elevating Murdoch's ploy far above what it is: a transparent attempt to destroy another competitor and gain even more unified control over the world's mass media. It is breathtakingly hypocritical on his part to cloak it in the rhetoric he does.
Anyone who'se been on the internet long enough will recall an argument or two where people got so mad at each other that they start threatening to sue or call the authorities. This is generally kind of funny - because you can sort of picture the look on the face of the cop or lawyer when you call them - "Someone has wilfully tarnished my good name by posting scurrilous insults about me on the Internets! How soon can they be clapped in irons?"
To say this exchange happens once per second in this country is probably dramatically understating it. There are days when it may happen once per second on Slashdot alone. The plain fact is, even as a civil matter, we as a society can very rarely be bothered to go through the difficult process of handling an internet libel, slander or even harassment case.
Yes, you have some theoretical recourse if someone google bombs your name with hate sites that accuse you of being an embezzling pedophile terrorist and feature your photo and home address prominently. For better or worse, even coping with such an extreme example is beyond the means of 99% of Americans - because of time and expense just for a start.
My first reaction to Ms. Cohen's plight is, how on earth is she so lucky and/or special as to be able to face her insulter in court? At least there is a vaguely plausible theory - that she has already been a crime victim and has convinced cops and courts that there may be an ongoing pattern of harassment/violence by an individual. But she is astoundingly privileged among internet insult victims.
And how lucky is she? One apparently needs to go the extremes of Pranket in order to get law enforcement to stir. In other words, 6 or 7 figures of property damage, or things like (no exaggeration, unfortunately) using social engineering to convince fast food employees to strip naked and pee all over each other).
This is the tip of a very large iceberg. Just check out any random Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Seriously. No, really.
Oh my god, have you never worked in a company?
Companies have vastly greater leadership problems every single minute of every single day. It is simply not news, it happens so prodigiously, so continuously. Because FOSS works so damn well, it shocks us when a project has a tiny glimmer of strife.
FOSS is a meritocracy. It's a popularity contest. By comparison, companies are based on money and the absolute, legal powers of those who posses it. You can, and do, have CEOs who make money every day at the expense of their customers/users. Corporate customer? You get fucked. You can, and do, have CEOs who are simply stupid or arrogant, and just fail to make money period. Corporate customer? You get fucked. Compare to FOSS, where no single asshole, no matter how powerful, can hold that power without others agreeing there is merit in it. Work can never be lost. Users can never be stranded. In fact, if some people like a leader and others dont, then you will have a split, two or more people in power, all without loss of work or disruption to customers. Then they may even cooperate sometimes, even if they hate each other. What parallels this, in the industry?
Torvalds has no power to take away the Linux software you use, or even control its future. All he can do is either lead effectively, or embarrass himself in public and watch the meritocracy pass the torch to another. Bill Gates can decide to take your platform (Windows XP), or your language (VB today, C# tomorrow) on a nose dive - even discontinue it - at any moment. You just get fucked. You have no recourse.
We go to the corporate marketplace for software because although the FOSS world is great, it will not naturally produce all the goods and services we need. It's just another set of trade-offs. It so happens that for software, they are particularly tricky. Would the market in cars be so efficient if it cost you x million dollars to change from being a Ford to a Honda customer? And where once you are locked in, Ford can charge you 10,000x cost for repairs? And then simply refuse to perform them when they feel the time is right for you to buy a new car? And they get away with it simply because (outside of FOSS) they make cars where opening the hood to fix it yourself is as hard as cracking a safe, and almost as dangerous.
This is the position software customers find themselves in. So you can start to see the appeal of FOSS, whose "leadership problems" are to being a corporate customer what a fucking afternoon spa treatment is to being Bubba's cellmate.
No, you're wrong again.
You seem eager to go to the FSF for terminology. Why not go to them and ask whether OSX is equivalent to RHEL, and Darwin is equivalent to CentOS? Or go to RHEL and ask them if their GPL binaries (as well as their source) are free, and you can copy them and give them to anyone?
The answers are so obvious that I wonder if you know you are dissembling.
Anyone can load proprietary applications on Linux. And I can even sell you Redhat Linux and MacOS in a bundle. Whoa. Does make Redhat Linux any less free? Does that blow your mind? :)
Redhat and MacOSX are based on utterly different premises, and if you doubt me, ask either RedHat or Apple? Or just try demanding the source code for everything linked against the BSD portions of OSX. Or try distributing both OSX and Redhat GPL binaries from your website. See what happens. :)
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Hah! I would say good one, but your joke is not that good.
Well, I hope you're getting health insurance at least. Everyone's all about "contractors" these days. But too much typing can be hard on your wrists. Take regular breaks, that's my advice.