I still believe that if I had no regular job and had to live by selling my free (as in speech) software, I'd starve to death within weeks
Me too.;)
That's the rub, that makes people chafe. Free software raises the bar. It's hard to get someone to pay you to write free software, because when you reduce software to commodity status, the returns are lower. On the other hand, I don't really dislike the idea of applying a little natural selection to the developer pool. I think fewer, higher quality developers, who have access to each other's work, can produce better software faster than a whole bunch of overpaid amateurs all working in isolation. I worry about the future of the software industry not a bit.
So if I sell my piece of free software, whoever buys it is explicitly allowed to redistribute it unmodified... How is this economically viable for me?
It probably isn't. You may need to find someone to pay you to produce the software in the first place. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Oh, I know, I'm conjuring images of working in a sweatshop. Who wants to do work for hire?
But consider this. How many MS employees own the software they write? If they decided to change jobs, do they get to bring their code along? For some reason, it always seems that the purported advanges of IP rights only accrue to the big shots. Why should someone who spends years developing code somewhere be compelled to start from scratch again if they decide to switch careers?
But the proof of free software's viability is empirical. Just look around. The catalog of free software is growing and improving daily. So obviously people find a way to make it work. That's what I don't get. How can people continually make theoretical arguments against free software's viability when the quantity and quality of free software is growing by leaps and bounds?
For a concrete example of who's spending money on free software, look at IBM. They support programmers all around the world. Good for the programmers, and good for IBM.
Oh, I must have misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were concerned about the welfare of programmers. You're paying for "added value", you say? Umm, how about the "added value" of creating the software in the first place? I don't disagree with your decision to use Red Hat or Mandrake. Just don't try to pass yourself off as some kind of morally superior developer advocate.
he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.
Yeah, whatever. I love a good rant, but at least try to get your facts straight.
On the button. We have lawmakers in congress who would like to throw the author of this article in jail. What are they afraid of? Are they really afraid that the economics of free distribution will render musicians homeless? Or are they afraid that the publishing and distribution business will evaporate and leave them without a juicy corporate sponsor?
It's clear that everyone on all sides of this discussion values musicians. Everyone has the interest of musicians in mind. That's a good sign. The debate rages over how best to protect their interests. The RIAA and their ilk would have us believe that we should all pay them some protection money to keep musicians from getting mugged. How ironic. I will pay to go to concerts, especially in an inviting venue. I will pay to see a movie in a nice theatre. There is really no need for some crack-head new dot-com business model to see us through this difficult time.
I think it's time to start compiling a list of who's up for election and where, with a short summary of where the candidates stand w/ respect to DMCA, SSSCA, etc. These issues will hold more sway over my vote than any other.
I'd recommend ladder rack instead. Easier to access; and properly laid out, helps organize your wiring. Once you fill up the room, getting into a subfloor is a pain. Plus you'll probably lose that floor lifter upper thingie somewhere, and then your magazines^H^H^H^H^H^H cables will be lost to the mists of time.
A cheap way manage wire around the perimeter is to fasten 2-4' long U-shaped troughs to the wall at 7' high or so, with a few inches separation between each section to drop wires down. In a small room like yours, that may be all you need.
On an unrelated note, don't forget to stash some clean underwear somewhere for when the doors slam shut and the halon goes off.
I've been in many places where Air Conditioners go out in server rooms and those things jump to 100 degees in just a few hours.
Yup. And then you end up with the door propped open so you can run a fan.
If you care at all about security, do yourself a big (and cheap!) favor. Install an emergency exhaust fan. Don't forget you'll need air in from somewhere to. If you live in a cold climate, you might like to pull air from outside the building. Otherwise, you might choose to use building air.
Something cheap like this can keep you up and running while you fix the expensive HVAC gear; without leaving the door open overnight.
If you want your software to be guaranteed to have feature 'x', then demand that your vendor sign on the dotted line a promise that the product meets your expectations. And be prepared to pay money to get what you want.
Otherwise, read the damn license. You know, the one that says "NO GUARANTEE OF FITNESS TO RUN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS BLAH BLAH BLAH". If a vendor is explicitly telling you that they are NOT promising you anything, then you are just plain stupid to think that you have the right to demand more. If you don't like it, put your money back in your pocket.
Where you might take issue with are products that hide the fine print inside the shrink wrap. Of course you have no such problem when you can see the source.
If the HURD just MUST stick to some politically correct position no matter what...
That's the idea. And you're right, this idealism is often at odds with attaining the greatest market penetration and OEM support. What I'm wondering is: why are you so upset about this? Maybe you should direct your frustration at nVidia et al instead.
Everyone's saying "it should be designed like such and so" and "keep it out of the water" (duh) and so on. That's all well and good, but the question here is about measurement. You've got your theories, you've implemented them, now how do you decide whether they hold up?
The only way I can think of is to do some good old fashioned actuarial analysis. It's a lot of work and a lot of time, but basically answering this question involves (1) collecting gobs of data and (2) analysing it. As well intentioned, well-researched, and sensible as the rest of the front end design advice might be, it's basically a lot of handwaving. It's about where the rubber hits the road, not a theoretical discussion about what chemicals should be used to make tires.
Re:another Linux user's experiences with OSX
on
Penguin2Apple
·
· Score: 2
Good list. I'd add that the SMB support isn't so great yet. I'm certainly no great fan of SMB, but the world would be a much better place if we would only have to run one file sharing protocol.
Hopefully sometime soon we can give SMB the boot, and replace it w/ NFS4, or somesuch. I don't care if I have to install a non-native client on every MS box, the sooner I can shut off netbios, the better.
XS4ALL may be the finest ISP around. But that doesn't negate the point: if the ruling is based on the premise that an ISP has this degree of control over the resources it makes available to its customers, then it opens the door for ISP's to censor content. It destroys what Lessig calls the "end-to-end" quality that makes the Internet so appealing. Maybe we don't need to worry about XS4ALL - that's great. The problem is how the legal precedent could be used by other less discriminating operators.
I'm on your side, but I'd rather not see any technology banned. I don't want to see general purpose PC's and non-copy-protected CDs banned, for example. Let the assholes build an industry on an anachronistic fantasy. And perish because of it. Won't bother me one bit. The only way these jerks win is if they succeed in criminalizing alternatives.
...they assume no private person can create anything. All art comes from the generous people at Disney. There are no independent artists.
Like Cinderella. And Beauty and the Beast. And Pinnochio. And Snow White. And Winnie the Poo (another pantless role-model). And Robin Hood. Sheriff Eisner, do you remember the story of Robin Hood?
Let me break down this analogy, since you're obviously incapable of comprehending it. Modern farming is more efficient; therefore there are fewer farmers. If software design were made more efficient; we would need fewer programmers. That's the analogy. I am not comparing the application of patents and copyrights in heavy industry to the application of patents and copyrights in the software industry. You are in order to prop up a bunch of handwaving nonsense.
And for the umpteenth time, no you are notentitled to earn a living programming. From www.m-w.com:
to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something
The word "entitlement" is neither obscure nor difficult to interpret in this context. Please explain to me how you are able to earn a living without getting paid! How can you properly claim to deserve to earn a living being a programmer if no one wants to pay you?!
You can respond with as much symantic sophistry as you like. It doesn't bolster your point or flatter your intelligence. The only flat-out-wrong use of the English language here is yours.
Now, if you'd like to have a discussion about the pros and cons of patent and copyright law as applied to the software industry, that's fine.
I am entitled to make a living programming, but entitlement comes with pre-requisites - including the qualification that I be a good programmer.
Why do you continue to gloss over the fact that it also requires that someone find it worthwhile to pay you for your efforts?! You'd rather abuse the English language than answer the question.
As for how my farming analogy pertains to patents and copyrights - well it all depends on whether you believe patents and copyrights promote or hinder progress, doesn't it? And since I'm explicitly stating that I believe removing or alleviating the chilling effect that these regulations have on the software industry would promote progress, in that context my analogy stands. Again, you'd rather quibble usage than address the point.
If you'd like to specifically address the issue of how patents and copyrights promote progress, feel free to respond. But don't waste my time with quibbles and anectodal arguments about what kind of software you personally happen to prefer.
I think you're absolutely right. There's a bigger problem here - I want to use the word "globalization", but that words been so overused of late I'm not even sure it really has a meaning any more. Call it the smothering of nationalism. When nations are sovereign, it's much harder for the evil robber barrons to impose such draconian legislation. People can always route around the damage.
When I was a kid, I used to think "Wouldn't it be great to have one world government?! No wars. Peace and prosperity for everyone." Now the notion scares me to death. Soon there will be no place to turn. Mega-corporations will rule the world.
Eisner testifies at the SSSCA hearings. Why? How many ordinary citizens, who will shortly be declared criminals, had an opportunity to speak to these assholes? None. Zippo. So much for social progress. The corporate CEO has become the fuedal lord of the new milleneum.
The register is running a story relating ESR's frustration with Linus' ability to review and apply patches. The article doesn't happen to mention that ESR has made a habit of publically admonishing and patronizing Linus on the kernel list. Or that ESR has patches of his own that just don't seem to get merged into the main tree. I really wish ESR, RMS, Ballmer, Theo, Bill, Larry, et al (who's al?) had spent just a few hours of their childhood watching Sesame Street instead of taking their toys and playing by themselves in the corner.
But like you say, the community generally seems able to route around the damage.
Never mind that as long as the physical properties of wire remain the same, I can always reproduce a movie or a song.
Not if the data is encrypted between playback and display. You'll need to do your data capture elsewhere. If hardware manufacturers, either for financial gain or because of legislation such as the SSSCA collude to produce secure playback devices, this could become very difficult. Of course you only need to attain a single publically accessable copy... which is why these guys push so hard for ever more draconian legislation. Pretty soon, everyone who's not a card carrying member of the Intellectual Property Assholes Association will be declared a criminal.
Of course I am entitled to make a living programming
You're entitled to try to make a living programming. The value of your services is, or rather should be, determined by the law of supply and demand. In a world where legal entanglements restrict consumers rights, that is however not the case. That is the problem free software attempts to redress.
The issue at the core of this discussion, the issue that started this thread, concerns to role of free market dynamics on the software industry. The issue is that the software industry as it stands is very much insulated from free operation by patent and copyright laws.
The argument has always been that such protections are necessary to promote progress. The runaway success of free software empirically demonstrates the falsehood of that premise, at least as it applies to the software industry. We gain nothing from these protections. Quite the contrary - we lose a great deal. We lose the ability to modify software we pay for. We lose the ability to recycle useful algorithms - even when you develop that algorithm yourself. We lose the ability to share. We have abdicated the rights of priviledges accorded to consumers of virtually every other type of product in a misguided attempt to promote progress. But we are not promoting progress, we are promoting servitude. The system is badly broken, and needs to be fixed.
The imbalance this system creates is clear. Witness Microsoft's utter domination of the software industry. Economists refer to this effect as positive feedback in the economy. It leads to a gross imbalance of wealth and power.
The software industry does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of the total economy. Your ability to run a hospital, an airport, an auto-body shop, a hair salon - these are all affected by what happens in the software industry. Yes, I believe that improved market efficiencies in the software industry will cause that industry to be accorded a smaller percentage of the pie. Overall, I think that's a good thing. Yes, it means some people will get squeezed out of business. That's not fun, but that will improve the overall health of the economy; and that is what really matters.
I both agree and disagree with your sentiments at the same time. Yes, code access makes a programmer's life easier. But no, you are not *entitled* to make a living however you choose. Tough noogies. On the other hand, I see no end in sight to the demand for new applications. As a result, I'd expect programmers should be able to earn a decent living for the forseable future. That's the problem with analogies: if you interpret them completely literally, they can fall apart. My beef is with those greedy parasites who would rob your mother to feed their voracious appetite for cash. These people are nothing but a burden on society, and should be done away with. Read/. for a just a second or two, and you will quickly discover that it is rife with prima donna programmers who think that the world owes them high honors. Fuck 'em. They can work or go screw, like the rest of society.
How the fuck are people supposed to support themselves by writing software if everything has to be free?
I'd like to be a farmer. My father owns a farm. Farmed it his whole life. My father's father owned the same farm, and his father before him. I bet I have lot more emotional investment in farming than you do in programming. But you know what, I decided it's not a practical decision to follow in my father's footsteps.
Farming has been mechanized. Farms are larger, and there are fewer farmers. Do you long for the days of yore, when farming was less efficient? I do. But I also realize that that is stupid.
I'm sorry if you're having a hard time making a living programming. The world is tough that way some times. But really, when you look at the big picture, it's better that way.
When you use software, you have to abide by the terms of the license it is released under. Unless you've been living under a rock, you must realize that licensing terms may vary, and that the choices you make about what licenses are and aren't acceptable profoundly affect your rights. Discussing the licensing terms associated with software is always topical.
Slashdot Mirror
I still believe that if I had no regular job and had to live by selling my free (as in speech) software, I'd starve to death within weeks
;)
Me too.
That's the rub, that makes people chafe. Free software raises the bar. It's hard to get someone to pay you to write free software, because when you reduce software to commodity status, the returns are lower. On the other hand, I don't really dislike the idea of applying a little natural selection to the developer pool. I think fewer, higher quality developers, who have access to each other's work, can produce better software faster than a whole bunch of overpaid amateurs all working in isolation. I worry about the future of the software industry not a bit.
So if I sell my piece of free software, whoever buys it is explicitly allowed to redistribute it unmodified ... How is this economically viable for me?
It probably isn't. You may need to find someone to pay you to produce the software in the first place. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Oh, I know, I'm conjuring images of working in a sweatshop. Who wants to do work for hire?
But consider this. How many MS employees own the software they write? If they decided to change jobs, do they get to bring their code along? For some reason, it always seems that the purported advanges of IP rights only accrue to the big shots. Why should someone who spends years developing code somewhere be compelled to start from scratch again if they decide to switch careers?
But the proof of free software's viability is empirical. Just look around. The catalog of free software is growing and improving daily. So obviously people find a way to make it work. That's what I don't get. How can people continually make theoretical arguments against free software's viability when the quantity and quality of free software is growing by leaps and bounds?
For a concrete example of who's spending money on free software, look at IBM. They support programmers all around the world. Good for the programmers, and good for IBM.
Oh, I must have misunderstood your previous post. I thought you were concerned about the welfare of programmers. You're paying for "added value", you say? Umm, how about the "added value" of creating the software in the first place? I don't disagree with your decision to use Red Hat or Mandrake. Just don't try to pass yourself off as some kind of morally superior developer advocate.
he characterizes any attempt to charge money for software as evil.
Yeah, whatever. I love a good rant, but at least try to get your facts straight.
If you'd like to spend some money on software, why don't you consider purchasing some software from GNU?
https://agia.fsf.org/
On the button. We have lawmakers in congress who would like to throw the author of this article in jail. What are they afraid of? Are they really afraid that the economics of free distribution will render musicians homeless? Or are they afraid that the publishing and distribution business will evaporate and leave them without a juicy corporate sponsor?
It's clear that everyone on all sides of this discussion values musicians. Everyone has the interest of musicians in mind. That's a good sign. The debate rages over how best to protect their interests. The RIAA and their ilk would have us believe that we should all pay them some protection money to keep musicians from getting mugged. How ironic. I will pay to go to concerts, especially in an inviting venue. I will pay to see a movie in a nice theatre. There is really no need for some crack-head new dot-com business model to see us through this difficult time.
I think it's time to start compiling a list of who's up for election and where, with a short summary of where the candidates stand w/ respect to DMCA, SSSCA, etc. These issues will hold more sway over my vote than any other.
I'd recommend ladder rack instead. Easier to access; and properly laid out, helps organize your wiring. Once you fill up the room, getting into a subfloor is a pain. Plus you'll probably lose that floor lifter upper thingie somewhere, and then your magazines^H^H^H^H^H^H cables will be lost to the mists of time.
A cheap way manage wire around the perimeter is to fasten 2-4' long U-shaped troughs to the wall at 7' high or so, with a few inches separation between each section to drop wires down. In a small room like yours, that may be all you need.
On an unrelated note, don't forget to stash some clean underwear somewhere for when the doors slam shut and the halon goes off.
I've been in many places where Air Conditioners go out in server rooms and those things jump to 100 degees in just a few hours.
Yup. And then you end up with the door propped open so you can run a fan.
If you care at all about security, do yourself a big (and cheap!) favor. Install an emergency exhaust fan. Don't forget you'll need air in from somewhere to. If you live in a cold climate, you might like to pull air from outside the building. Otherwise, you might choose to use building air.
Something cheap like this can keep you up and running while you fix the expensive HVAC gear; without leaving the door open overnight.
If you want your software to be guaranteed to have feature 'x', then demand that your vendor sign on the dotted line a promise that the product meets your expectations. And be prepared to pay money to get what you want.
Otherwise, read the damn license. You know, the one that says "NO GUARANTEE OF FITNESS TO RUN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS BLAH BLAH BLAH". If a vendor is explicitly telling you that they are NOT promising you anything, then you are just plain stupid to think that you have the right to demand more. If you don't like it, put your money back in your pocket.
Where you might take issue with are products that hide the fine print inside the shrink wrap. Of course you have no such problem when you can see the source.
If the HURD just MUST stick to some politically correct position no matter what...
That's the idea. And you're right, this idealism is often at odds with attaining the greatest market penetration and OEM support. What I'm wondering is: why are you so upset about this? Maybe you should direct your frustration at nVidia et al instead.
Everyone's saying "it should be designed like such and so" and "keep it out of the water" (duh) and so on. That's all well and good, but the question here is about measurement. You've got your theories, you've implemented them, now how do you decide whether they hold up?
The only way I can think of is to do some good old fashioned actuarial analysis. It's a lot of work and a lot of time, but basically answering this question involves (1) collecting gobs of data and (2) analysing it. As well intentioned, well-researched, and sensible as the rest of the front end design advice might be, it's basically a lot of handwaving. It's about where the rubber hits the road, not a theoretical discussion about what chemicals should be used to make tires.
Good list. I'd add that the SMB support isn't so great yet. I'm certainly no great fan of SMB, but the world would be a much better place if we would only have to run one file sharing protocol.
Hopefully sometime soon we can give SMB the boot, and replace it w/ NFS4, or somesuch. I don't care if I have to install a non-native client on every MS box, the sooner I can shut off netbios, the better.
Ahem ... guess I should go read the actual ruling, rather than making anectodal inferences based on what I read in /. posts... My bad.
XS4ALL may be the finest ISP around. But that doesn't negate the point: if the ruling is based on the premise that an ISP has this degree of control over the resources it makes available to its customers, then it opens the door for ISP's to censor content. It destroys what Lessig calls the "end-to-end" quality that makes the Internet so appealing. Maybe we don't need to worry about XS4ALL - that's great. The problem is how the legal precedent could be used by other less discriminating operators.
I'm on your side, but I'd rather not see any technology banned. I don't want to see general purpose PC's and non-copy-protected CDs banned, for example. Let the assholes build an industry on an anachronistic fantasy. And perish because of it. Won't bother me one bit. The only way these jerks win is if they succeed in criminalizing alternatives.
...they assume no private person can create anything. All art comes from the generous people at Disney. There are no independent artists.
Like Cinderella. And Beauty and the Beast. And Pinnochio. And Snow White. And Winnie the Poo (another pantless role-model). And Robin Hood. Sheriff Eisner, do you remember the story of Robin Hood?
Let me break down this analogy, since you're obviously incapable of comprehending it. Modern farming is more efficient; therefore there are fewer farmers. If software design were made more efficient; we would need fewer programmers. That's the analogy. I am not comparing the application of patents and copyrights in heavy industry to the application of patents and copyrights in the software industry. You are in order to prop up a bunch of handwaving nonsense.
And for the umpteenth time, no you are not entitled to earn a living programming. From www.m-w.com:
to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something
The word "entitlement" is neither obscure nor difficult to interpret in this context. Please explain to me how you are able to earn a living without getting paid! How can you properly claim to deserve to earn a living being a programmer if no one wants to pay you?!
You can respond with as much symantic sophistry as you like. It doesn't bolster your point or flatter your intelligence. The only flat-out-wrong use of the English language here is yours.
Now, if you'd like to have a discussion about the pros and cons of patent and copyright law as applied to the software industry, that's fine.
I am entitled to make a living programming, but entitlement comes with pre-requisites - including the qualification that I be a good programmer.
Why do you continue to gloss over the fact that it also requires that someone find it worthwhile to pay you for your efforts?! You'd rather abuse the English language than answer the question.
As for how my farming analogy pertains to patents and copyrights - well it all depends on whether you believe patents and copyrights promote or hinder progress, doesn't it? And since I'm explicitly stating that I believe removing or alleviating the chilling effect that these regulations have on the software industry would promote progress, in that context my analogy stands. Again, you'd rather quibble usage than address the point.
If you'd like to specifically address the issue of how patents and copyrights promote progress, feel free to respond. But don't waste my time with quibbles and anectodal arguments about what kind of software you personally happen to prefer.
I think you're absolutely right. There's a bigger problem here - I want to use the word "globalization", but that words been so overused of late I'm not even sure it really has a meaning any more. Call it the smothering of nationalism. When nations are sovereign, it's much harder for the evil robber barrons to impose such draconian legislation. People can always route around the damage.
When I was a kid, I used to think "Wouldn't it be great to have one world government?! No wars. Peace and prosperity for everyone." Now the notion scares me to death. Soon there will be no place to turn. Mega-corporations will rule the world.
Eisner testifies at the SSSCA hearings. Why? How many ordinary citizens, who will shortly be declared criminals, had an opportunity to speak to these assholes? None. Zippo. So much for social progress. The corporate CEO has become the fuedal lord of the new milleneum.
I've been able to buy these glasses from Marvel Comics for decades now.
The register is running a story relating ESR's frustration with Linus' ability to review and apply patches. The article doesn't happen to mention that ESR has made a habit of publically admonishing and patronizing Linus on the kernel list. Or that ESR has patches of his own that just don't seem to get merged into the main tree. I really wish ESR, RMS, Ballmer, Theo, Bill, Larry, et al (who's al?) had spent just a few hours of their childhood watching Sesame Street instead of taking their toys and playing by themselves in the corner.
But like you say, the community generally seems able to route around the damage.
Never mind that as long as the physical properties of wire remain the same, I can always reproduce a movie or a song.
... which is why these guys push so hard for ever more draconian legislation. Pretty soon, everyone who's not a card carrying member of the Intellectual Property Assholes Association will be declared a criminal.
Not if the data is encrypted between playback and display. You'll need to do your data capture elsewhere. If hardware manufacturers, either for financial gain or because of legislation such as the SSSCA collude to produce secure playback devices, this could become very difficult. Of course you only need to attain a single publically accessable copy
Of course I am entitled to make a living programming
You're entitled to try to make a living programming. The value of your services is, or rather should be, determined by the law of supply and demand. In a world where legal entanglements restrict consumers rights, that is however not the case. That is the problem free software attempts to redress.
The issue at the core of this discussion, the issue that started this thread, concerns to role of free market dynamics on the software industry. The issue is that the software industry as it stands is very much insulated from free operation by patent and copyright laws.
The argument has always been that such protections are necessary to promote progress. The runaway success of free software empirically demonstrates the falsehood of that premise, at least as it applies to the software industry. We gain nothing from these protections. Quite the contrary - we lose a great deal. We lose the ability to modify software we pay for. We lose the ability to recycle useful algorithms - even when you develop that algorithm yourself. We lose the ability to share. We have abdicated the rights of priviledges accorded to consumers of virtually every other type of product in a misguided attempt to promote progress. But we are not promoting progress, we are promoting servitude. The system is badly broken, and needs to be fixed.
The imbalance this system creates is clear. Witness Microsoft's utter domination of the software industry. Economists refer to this effect as positive feedback in the economy. It leads to a gross imbalance of wealth and power.
The software industry does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of the total economy. Your ability to run a hospital, an airport, an auto-body shop, a hair salon - these are all affected by what happens in the software industry. Yes, I believe that improved market efficiencies in the software industry will cause that industry to be accorded a smaller percentage of the pie. Overall, I think that's a good thing. Yes, it means some people will get squeezed out of business. That's not fun, but that will improve the overall health of the economy; and that is what really matters.
I both agree and disagree with your sentiments at the same time. Yes, code access makes a programmer's life easier. But no, you are not *entitled* to make a living however you choose. Tough noogies. On the other hand, I see no end in sight to the demand for new applications. As a result, I'd expect programmers should be able to earn a decent living for the forseable future. That's the problem with analogies: if you interpret them completely literally, they can fall apart. My beef is with those greedy parasites who would rob your mother to feed their voracious appetite for cash. These people are nothing but a burden on society, and should be done away with. Read /. for a just a second or two, and you will quickly discover that it is rife with prima donna programmers who think that the world owes them high honors. Fuck 'em. They can work or go screw, like the rest of society.
How the fuck are people supposed to support themselves by writing software if everything has to be free?
I'd like to be a farmer. My father owns a farm. Farmed it his whole life. My father's father owned the same farm, and his father before him. I bet I have lot more emotional investment in farming than you do in programming. But you know what, I decided it's not a practical decision to follow in my father's footsteps.
Farming has been mechanized. Farms are larger, and there are fewer farmers. Do you long for the days of yore, when farming was less efficient? I do. But I also realize that that is stupid.
I'm sorry if you're having a hard time making a living programming. The world is tough that way some times. But really, when you look at the big picture, it's better that way.
It's offtopic and petty, IMHO
When you use software, you have to abide by the terms of the license it is released under. Unless you've been living under a rock, you must realize that licensing terms may vary, and that the choices you make about what licenses are and aren't acceptable profoundly affect your rights. Discussing the licensing terms associated with software is always topical.