There is nothing more disingenuous in this article than Nathan Myhrvold's statement that: "Software sucks because users demand it to." Talk about shifting the blame. Take some fucking responsibility, fat pig.
The ever-growing size of software applications is what makes Moore's Law possible: 'If we hadn't brought your computer to its knees, why would you go out and buy a new one?'
-NATHAN MYHRVOLD, Group VP, Microsoft
The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard.
This has nothing to do with loyalty. It's business.
Posolutely.
How did the boss get to be the boss? Was he born that way? Did he graduate from college, walk into an interview, and say "I want to be the boss of this company!".
Bzzzt.
No one cares more about your best interests than you. And any company that begrudges your desire to look out for yourself isn't worth your loyalty. If they don't care about you, why should you care about them?
...getting all of the inovations together requires a (large) corporation.
First of all, learn how to spel.
Second, explain why "large" should be parenthesized.
Third, please provide an iota of support for your forgone conclusion. Certain large scale enterprises require the cooperation of many individuals. This is neither insightful nor novel. That such cooperative ventures must manefest themselves in the form of a corporation requires a bit more than a leap of faith.
I don't agree with your assesment that home users are paying for an unlimited connection. However, I agree with your solution: throttle bandwidth during times of over-utilization.
Many moons ago, I used to manage some server filespace on an OS lacking quota support. It was the same situation the ISP's are complaining about: a couple of people used at least half of the fileserver. The solution: switch operating systems, and implement soft and hard quotas.
It's not a perfect analogy, because bandwidth is a different type of resource. But it's similar. People want flat fees because they are simple. No one wants to have to constantly monitor the meter.
The only way these "bandwidth hogs" cost the ISP's money is if the ISP's feel compelled to upgrade their infrastructure in order to cope with their demands. They can avoid this situation entirely by simply putting the brakes on abuse. It's not complicated, and the ISP's know it. Their whining is only meant to elicit simpathy for yet another money grab. And as you can see here on/., it works.
Re:One thing I've NEVER seen here....
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2
The evidence that software patents are unecessary is empirical. The discussion we are having right now is happening without the support of software patents (at least on my end, and I presume most of the middle). Free software abounds.
I think the burden of proof should work the other way around. You tell me why software patents are necessary. Software patents restrict people's rights. Why should society elect to limit their rights, in the support of a few? Why should putting knowledge, knowledge that is freely available, to good use make me a criminal?
"To promote progress in science and the useful arts."
Bah. As another poster aptly put. Michaelangelo. Beethoven. Shakespeare. Ad infinitum sans Brittany.
I guess I was thinking more in terms of the/. crowd; than society as a whole, PHB's, etc. People might vociferously object to saying "GNU/Linux" (I'm rather agnostic, myself), but the very fact that they have such principled objections belies that they understand the GNU philosophy.
It's a weird kind of anti-marketing: getting people all riled up to get your point across. RMS's "GNU/Linux" campaign is to marketing what copyleft is to copyright. I dunno. Just a brainfart I had over lunch...
I do think at this point that it would be unfair to characterize this 'GNU thing' as a joke. Sure the etymology is odd, but that's pretty much in keeping with the *nix tradition; and no one says *nix is a joke.
Wether people choose to say "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux", it seems to me that RMS's campaign for the GNU/Linux name is having the desired effect. The very fact that it inflames so many passionate discussions puts GNU in the forefront of people's conciousness - whether they go along with the name or not. It's really not the name that's important. If we take RMS's words at face value, the reason he wants people to use the name is to make people conscious of the free software philosophy. The more people rail about whether the name should be GNU/Linux or Linux, the more successful RMS's campaign becomes.
Yes and no. There's the code you use, and there are the laws that govern how we can use it. In the larger scheme of things, whether you use Jack or Jill's text-mogrifier code probably doesn't matter a whole lot. But the politics surrounding code use does matter. A lot.
No? Think about what it would mean if general purpose computing were outlawed, for example. Impossible, you say? If you think that goes to far, well maybe we can scale back and just criminalize the production and use of free software. The only people that would affect are a few wing-nut hippie communists anyway.
The issues are very real. Jail is very real. Ask Dmitry.
Re:the beauty of credit cards
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 2
the first thing I would do after this is call my credit card company and tell them that you've canceled these accounts and that there should be 1 final payment to them and no more after that.
That's what I thought. I too was an Earthlink customer. I was billed via my Americal Express. After I could no longer take the aggravation of attempting to cancel my Earthstinks account via legitimate channels, I called American Express with my tale of woe. They would happily void one month's charge. But they would not refuse to accept new charges. Every month I had to include another letter along with my bill explaining why the Earthstinks charge should be dropped. Every month Amex was happy to oblige. They also made attempts to get the other parties side of the story. I don't know if they ever did. I can't believe they don't know this shell game by now.
I pleaded. I begged. American Express said "No, we can't do that." I even suggested that I just cancel my card, and get a new one. They said the record for the new card would still be associated with my prior account, and would recieve charges to that old account. The Amex rep even sympathized with my position. He said the same thing had happened to him. Maddening and incomprehensible, but true.
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
but my guess is that what he really wants
Lot's of guessing about RMS around here...;)
rms@gnu.org
Here's an absolutely amazing thing about RMS: he answers email. Personally. No form letters. And I can assure you, the amount of email he wades through is huge.
But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?;) (I don't see you doing that, it's just a funny apropos expression).
Re:You cannot deny GCC is the heart of free softwa
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2
Is he really pushing the GNU prefix for Linux (the kernel)?
Don't present a smoke and mirrors handwaving routine. Just plain speaking will do you fine, I'd guess.
I'm going to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are developing an application which will be deployed in a GNU/Linux or BSD environment. I'd simply say "I'm able to provide this solution for you because other people have provided free license for use of their software. In exchange for my services you are paying me money. In exchange for the contributions (which are 99.9% of the total package) provided by the free/open source software community, you are simply agreeing to contribute something back."
The poster's point was that the studio will get the profits anyway.
More importantly, the comment was about the usefulness/validity of the law. There's a big difference between breaking the law and discussing the law. As a citizen of a democracy, it's not only your right, but your obligation, to consider such matters. These laws are not handed down from on high by some all-powerful potentate. They are our laws, created by our representatives, for us.
And what the fuck kind of idiot point are you attempting to make by contrasting a comment about Lucas' profit margins with breaking and entering and stealing and distributing home made pornography?
Re:What I found most interesting...
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You refer to Linus' recent remarks on the kernel dev mailing list. These comments were made in the context of a discussion about whether or not the kernel HOWTO should quote the FSF.
Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.
--
I'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works, works. When it comes to software, I much prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.
So in that sense I am an avid promoter of free software, and GPL'd stuff in particular (because once it's GPL'd I know it's going to stay free, so I don't have to worry about future releases).
However, that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to commercial software. Commercial software development has some advantages too -- the money-making aspects introduces some new incentives that aren't there for most free software. And those incentives often make for a more polished product.
--
The impression I get from all of this is that Linus prefers the GPL for pragmatic reasons, not ideological reasons. I can't speak for Linus, but I don't get the impression that he has an axe to grind w.r. RMS. RMS created the GPL, for ideological reasons. Linus uses the GPL for practical reasons. It's a win-win: good for RMS and good for Linus.
So I basically agree with the sentiments of the original poster here, but I would take exception with this statement:
There is very little need for evangelism
You may know RMS's story, but others still don't. I think it's fine that Linus doesn't want to walk this road. But that doesn't obviate the need for idealists. You don't have to agree with them. You don't even have to listen. But some people do listen - like Linus many years ago. And we are better off because of it.
RMS used to be a coder. Now he is largely a politician. There's a place for code. There is also a place for politics.
Who afraid of big bad RMS? Who's afraid of people who want other people to be silent?
Umm, sure. A headline mention on/. couldn't have anything to do with that now, could it?
Obviously the RIAA is out of touch with the reality on the ground. But there's no need to mollify them by essentially saying "Look guys, if you get with the program, you can rake in the bucks just like you always have!" That's a lie. The economics have changed, and continue to change; and not in the RIAA's favor. Don't worry yourself about Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti. She may have his panties in a bunch, but these lovebirds are doing just fine. Much better than you.
Your right, of course. This is what Congress can do, so this is what Congress does.
But is it all they can do? Can Congress revoke previous legislation? It only seems logical, but I really don't know.
The problem with all of this is that every time a new law is passed, multitudes of people who the day before could be considered perfectly respectable law abiding citizens are now classified as criminals. Why, as a society, are we so inclined pass judgement and prescribe punishment to ever increasing numbers of our peers? Why doesn't congress spend an equal amount of time attempting to redress their own sins?
Exactly that. The forgone conclusion of this submission seems to be that a powerful minority needs congressional protection from the unwashed citizens. The very terminology - "pirate" - belies a concern for the public interest, when in fact it's that very public that's being branded criminal.
Not to worry. Read a few history books. When a minority, no matter how powerful, attempts to brand a majority of the populace 'criminal', their heads get handed to them on platters. Unfortunately, there's usually a lot of ugliness in between.
Quite the opposite. Those bozos in congress have done quite enough damage already. They need to undo the DMCA, for starters. And roll back micky mouse extensions to copyright term. And put a lid on the office of patents and trademarks.
Now, let's just assume for a minute that we can count on our representatives in congress to actually represent their constituents. If they truly have the best interests of the people in mind, perhaps they would consider passing legislation which eviscerates EULA's. Another way for them to put some time to good use would be to impose a tax on unsolicited bulk email.
Citizens rights to privacy and due consideration are being trammeled by a very powerful minority. Instead of inviting knuckleheads like Eisner for "hearings", they should be beating these petty tyrants upside the head.
...we forgot to account for the thrust generated by beaming all that power back to earth. We pushed the moon out of orbit, and sent the earth into an eccentric orbit eventually destined to rendevous with the sun.;)
IANAAOEAAA (I am not an astronomer or even an ameteur astronomer)
If the government can arbitrarily decide to compete with a business, what is the point of going into business?
If the government can't make decisions about how to conduct its affairs, what's the point of having government? Who's in charge around here? Maybe the government should stop paying congressmen, because they compete with your corporate board of directors.
Maybe the government might find that making some small modifications to existing free software will meet their needs better than obsequiously cowtowing to the whims of a shrink wrap license vendor attempting to please the exponentially increasing aspirations of its shareholders. Government should be interested in free software for the same reasons everyone else should be interested in free software. Freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing more disingenuous in this article than Nathan Myhrvold's statement that: "Software sucks because users demand it to." Talk about shifting the blame. Take some fucking responsibility, fat pig.
Let's do some more quotes, hmmm. From http://users.aol.com/machcu/mspquotes.html:
The ever-growing size of software applications is what makes Moore's Law possible: 'If we hadn't brought your computer to its knees, why would you go out and buy a new one?'
-NATHAN MYHRVOLD, Group VP, Microsoft
The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard.
-BILL GATES
This has nothing to do with loyalty. It's business.
Posolutely.
How did the boss get to be the boss? Was he born that way? Did he graduate from college, walk into an interview, and say "I want to be the boss of this company!".
Bzzzt.
No one cares more about your best interests than you. And any company that begrudges your desire to look out for yourself isn't worth your loyalty. If they don't care about you, why should you care about them?
"Only presidents, editors and people with tapeworm have the right to use the editorial 'we'."
- Mark Twain
...getting all of the inovations together requires a (large) corporation.
First of all, learn how to spel.
Second, explain why "large" should be parenthesized.
Third, please provide an iota of support for your forgone conclusion. Certain large scale enterprises require the cooperation of many individuals. This is neither insightful nor novel. That such cooperative ventures must manefest themselves in the form of a corporation requires a bit more than a leap of faith.
I don't agree with your assesment that home users are paying for an unlimited connection. However, I agree with your solution: throttle bandwidth during times of over-utilization.
/., it works.
Many moons ago, I used to manage some server filespace on an OS lacking quota support. It was the same situation the ISP's are complaining about: a couple of people used at least half of the fileserver. The solution: switch operating systems, and implement soft and hard quotas.
It's not a perfect analogy, because bandwidth is a different type of resource. But it's similar. People want flat fees because they are simple. No one wants to have to constantly monitor the meter.
The only way these "bandwidth hogs" cost the ISP's money is if the ISP's feel compelled to upgrade their infrastructure in order to cope with their demands. They can avoid this situation entirely by simply putting the brakes on abuse. It's not complicated, and the ISP's know it. Their whining is only meant to elicit simpathy for yet another money grab. And as you can see here on
The evidence that software patents are unecessary is empirical. The discussion we are having right now is happening without the support of software patents (at least on my end, and I presume most of the middle). Free software abounds.
I think the burden of proof should work the other way around. You tell me why software patents are necessary. Software patents restrict people's rights. Why should society elect to limit their rights, in the support of a few? Why should putting knowledge, knowledge that is freely available, to good use make me a criminal?
"To promote progress in science and the useful arts."
Bah. As another poster aptly put. Michaelangelo. Beethoven. Shakespeare. Ad infinitum sans Brittany.
the very fact that they have such principled objections belies that they understand the GNU philosophy
;)
Of course I meant "reveals", not "belies". If you're not smart, try harder...
I guess I was thinking more in terms of the /. crowd; than society as a whole, PHB's, etc. People might vociferously object to saying "GNU/Linux" (I'm rather agnostic, myself), but the very fact that they have such principled objections belies that they understand the GNU philosophy.
It's a weird kind of anti-marketing: getting people all riled up to get your point across. RMS's "GNU/Linux" campaign is to marketing what copyleft is to copyright. I dunno. Just a brainfart I had over lunch...
I do think at this point that it would be unfair to characterize this 'GNU thing' as a joke. Sure the etymology is odd, but that's pretty much in keeping with the *nix tradition; and no one says *nix is a joke.
Wether people choose to say "GNU/Linux" or just "Linux", it seems to me that RMS's campaign for the GNU/Linux name is having the desired effect. The very fact that it inflames so many passionate discussions puts GNU in the forefront of people's conciousness - whether they go along with the name or not. It's really not the name that's important. If we take RMS's words at face value, the reason he wants people to use the name is to make people conscious of the free software philosophy. The more people rail about whether the name should be GNU/Linux or Linux, the more successful RMS's campaign becomes.
Shit, it's just software
Yes and no. There's the code you use, and there are the laws that govern how we can use it. In the larger scheme of things, whether you use Jack or Jill's text-mogrifier code probably doesn't matter a whole lot. But the politics surrounding code use does matter. A lot.
No? Think about what it would mean if general purpose computing were outlawed, for example. Impossible, you say? If you think that goes to far, well maybe we can scale back and just criminalize the production and use of free software. The only people that would affect are a few wing-nut hippie communists anyway.
The issues are very real. Jail is very real. Ask Dmitry.
the first thing I would do after this is call my credit card company and tell them that you've canceled these accounts and that there should be 1 final payment to them and no more after that.
That's what I thought. I too was an Earthlink customer. I was billed via my Americal Express. After I could no longer take the aggravation of attempting to cancel my Earthstinks account via legitimate channels, I called American Express with my tale of woe. They would happily void one month's charge. But they would not refuse to accept new charges. Every month I had to include another letter along with my bill explaining why the Earthstinks charge should be dropped. Every month Amex was happy to oblige. They also made attempts to get the other parties side of the story. I don't know if they ever did. I can't believe they don't know this shell game by now.
I pleaded. I begged. American Express said "No, we can't do that." I even suggested that I just cancel my card, and get a new one. They said the record for the new card would still be associated with my prior account, and would recieve charges to that old account. The Amex rep even sympathized with my position. He said the same thing had happened to him. Maddening and incomprehensible, but true.
but my guess is that what he really wants
;)
;) (I don't see you doing that, it's just a funny apropos expression).
Lot's of guessing about RMS around here...
rms@gnu.org
Here's an absolutely amazing thing about RMS: he answers email. Personally. No form letters. And I can assure you, the amount of email he wades through is huge.
But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?
Is he really pushing the GNU prefix for Linux (the kernel)?
No.
Don't present a smoke and mirrors handwaving routine. Just plain speaking will do you fine, I'd guess.
I'm going to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are developing an application which will be deployed in a GNU/Linux or BSD environment. I'd simply say "I'm able to provide this solution for you because other people have provided free license for use of their software. In exchange for my services you are paying me money. In exchange for the contributions (which are 99.9% of the total package) provided by the free/open source software community, you are simply agreeing to contribute something back."
My dumb. I mistakenly associated your post with a different thread. Retract retract retract...
The poster's point was that the studio will get the profits anyway.
.
More importantly, the comment was about the usefulness/validity of the law. There's a big difference between breaking the law and discussing the law. As a citizen of a democracy, it's not only your right, but your obligation, to consider such matters. These laws are not handed down from on high by some all-powerful potentate. They are our laws, created by our representatives, for us
And what the fuck kind of idiot point are you attempting to make by contrasting a comment about Lucas' profit margins with breaking and entering and stealing and distributing home made pornography?
You refer to Linus' recent remarks on the kernel dev mailing list. These comments were made in the context of a discussion about whether or not the kernel HOWTO should quote the FSF.
_ 10_98_4.shtml:
Here are some more Linus quotes, all from http://www.webreview.com/1998/04_10/developers/04
--
Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.
--
I'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works, works. When it comes to software, I much prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.
So in that sense I am an avid promoter of free software, and GPL'd stuff in particular (because once it's GPL'd I know it's going to stay free, so I don't have to worry about future releases).
However, that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to commercial software. Commercial software development has some advantages too -- the money-making aspects introduces some new incentives that aren't there for most free software. And those incentives often make for a more polished product.
--
The impression I get from all of this is that Linus prefers the GPL for pragmatic reasons, not ideological reasons. I can't speak for Linus, but I don't get the impression that he has an axe to grind w.r. RMS. RMS created the GPL, for ideological reasons. Linus uses the GPL for practical reasons. It's a win-win: good for RMS and good for Linus.
So I basically agree with the sentiments of the original poster here, but I would take exception with this statement:
There is very little need for evangelism
You may know RMS's story, but others still don't. I think it's fine that Linus doesn't want to walk this road. But that doesn't obviate the need for idealists. You don't have to agree with them. You don't even have to listen. But some people do listen - like Linus many years ago. And we are better off because of it.
RMS used to be a coder. Now he is largely a politician. There's a place for code. There is also a place for politics.
Who afraid of big bad RMS? Who's afraid of people who want other people to be silent?
simply refusing to use a technology for "ethical" reasons is absurd
Damn right. Screw ethics. Who needs 'em?
Have you read the Moderator Guidelines yet?
The strategy appears to have paid off.
/. couldn't have anything to do with that now, could it?
Umm, sure. A headline mention on
Obviously the RIAA is out of touch with the reality on the ground. But there's no need to mollify them by essentially saying "Look guys, if you get with the program, you can rake in the bucks just like you always have!" That's a lie. The economics have changed, and continue to change; and not in the RIAA's favor. Don't worry yourself about Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti. She may have his panties in a bunch, but these lovebirds are doing just fine. Much better than you.
Your right, of course. This is what Congress can do, so this is what Congress does.
But is it all they can do? Can Congress revoke previous legislation? It only seems logical, but I really don't know.
The problem with all of this is that every time a new law is passed, multitudes of people who the day before could be considered perfectly respectable law abiding citizens are now classified as criminals. Why, as a society, are we so inclined pass judgement and prescribe punishment to ever increasing numbers of our peers? Why doesn't congress spend an equal amount of time attempting to redress their own sins?
Exactly that. The forgone conclusion of this submission seems to be that a powerful minority needs congressional protection from the unwashed citizens. The very terminology - "pirate" - belies a concern for the public interest, when in fact it's that very public that's being branded criminal.
Not to worry. Read a few history books. When a minority, no matter how powerful, attempts to brand a majority of the populace 'criminal', their heads get handed to them on platters. Unfortunately, there's usually a lot of ugliness in between.
Quite the opposite. Those bozos in congress have done quite enough damage already. They need to undo the DMCA, for starters. And roll back micky mouse extensions to copyright term. And put a lid on the office of patents and trademarks.
Now, let's just assume for a minute that we can count on our representatives in congress to actually represent their constituents. If they truly have the best interests of the people in mind, perhaps they would consider passing legislation which eviscerates EULA's. Another way for them to put some time to good use would be to impose a tax on unsolicited bulk email.
Citizens rights to privacy and due consideration are being trammeled by a very powerful minority. Instead of inviting knuckleheads like Eisner for "hearings", they should be beating these petty tyrants upside the head.
The Corporate States of America is no joke.
...we forgot to account for the thrust generated by beaming all that power back to earth. We pushed the moon out of orbit, and sent the earth into an eccentric orbit eventually destined to rendevous with the sun. ;)
IANAAOEAAA (I am not an astronomer or even an ameteur astronomer)
If the government can arbitrarily decide to compete with a business, what is the point of going into business?
If the government can't make decisions about how to conduct its affairs, what's the point of having government? Who's in charge around here? Maybe the government should stop paying congressmen, because they compete with your corporate board of directors.
Maybe the government might find that making some small modifications to existing free software will meet their needs better than obsequiously cowtowing to the whims of a shrink wrap license vendor attempting to please the exponentially increasing aspirations of its shareholders. Government should be interested in free software for the same reasons everyone else should be interested in free software. Freedom.