Re:Using code is voluntary, folks
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
To a GPL advocate, it's "If I don't like your license, I'll use your code anyway and change it to GPL, if your license doesn't allow me to do that that, then you are a facist."
If you want to see rhetoric, then go to www.gnu.org. (An example quote, slightly paraphrased: "Control over your own ideas is really control over other people's lives".)
You should expect at least as much rhetoric from the other side.
"Communistic philosophies" is appropriate, Stallman's views on software have many parallels to Marx's views on socio-economics, he even went so far as to call his mission statement the "GNU manifesto", which by name association will make people think of the Communist Manifesto.
Stallman and the FSF are above criticism, and any attempt to do so is mearly flamebait?
What's wrong with taking exception to parts of the GPL? He raises some good points, I see few good answers, only flames.
Re:Best of both worlds?
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
For me, the best of both world license is one that allows code to become proprietary only under the author(s) terms.
The GPL is totally against proprietary software, BSD allows anyone to make it proprietary.
Some people have told me that the GPL works this way, if you want to allow your code to be used in a proprietary project, then you simply relicense it. This is true, but it goes against the spirit of the GPL
They have been giving Linux lip-service, but haven't really been Linux's bwst ally as you say.
A year or two ago, the Linux Journal magazine ran a feature on non-Intel Linux distributions, and they wanted to put a picture of a SparcStation on the cover. Sun refused because they said "Linux is a competitor".
Linux can offer corporations many things, that don't fall under the "Mission Critical" category. Anybody who knows Linux knows that it doesn't have the infrastructure to do MC. I.E. Nobody will guarantee to send a tech to your site 24/7 within an hour or so if your Linux system goes down. There's no 99.9% uptime guarantees, etc.
What Linux is good for is development, non-MC web servers, email servers, file & print servers, dial up servers, and many other things.
I think the Standish group is trying to scare people away from Linux here.
However, this i not what many counselers do: they try to force you to fit in.
As someone who was sent to a counselor in grade school for being "too detached", I can say that the counselor did not try to force me to conform, she was more concerned with finding out why I was the way I was.
Tell me, are some peopleborn gay, or do they become gay?
That depends on who you ask, I personally believe that some are born that way (or are at least nurtured that way from an early age), and others do it out of choice.
honestly, I don't think we know. But, people are born with the capacity to choose, and the fact that they do should, by itself, not be a reason to deprive them of their rights.
It all depends on the choices you make. Just because one has the ability to make choices doesn't guarantee that all choices will be good ones, IE the choice to harm others.
My question to you would be, if a child makes the choice to become a skinhead, and adopts the racist views that go with it, should we as a society say, "Aw look, little Johnny has decided to express his individuality!", or should we attempt to do something?
I am specifically referring to lifestyle choices, not the way one was born. I too fall in the "geek" (always hated that term because it was used as a pejorative in the 80's when I grew up) category, liking computers and stuff.
I too was ridiculed for it, however this is not a destructive lifestyle.
However there are lifestyle choices that lead people down the path of destruction, (I don't think the "geek" lifestyle is destructive), with drugs, excessive alcohol, crime, etc. I've seen this first hand with many of the people I grew up with, and my point is why do we make such lifestyles the moral equivalence of other non-destructive ones?
What good is being (gay/black/other disenfranchised minority) if you are mocked/beaten/killed?
But these are not lifestyle choices, they are not what I'm referring to.
Often the victim of lifestyle choices is the person who makes them. I've seen people destroy themselves with drugs and alcohol, and children before they are out of high school, and I just wonder, "This doesn't have to happen! Why do we glorify this stuff?"
What you said above is entirely different from your original post.
It sounds different because it's often difficult to condense all of your thought's into one of these posts. When I reread my original message, it sounded as though I was promoting blind conformity, which I'm not, so I had to post followups to clarify, unfortunatly I think I was a little late judging from all the messages.;-)
True some people want to be different, but others adapt to extreme lifestyles as sort of a cry for help.
If anything, I'm for diversity in OSes, but I think you will even admit that not all OSes are ed equal.
In the same way, not all lifestyle choices are equal, as I stated in another post, I grew up in the 80s, and had several friends who became "non conformists", and ended up destroying their lives with drugs, alcohol, crime, etc. I believe that there are definatly negative lifestyle choices, and I think anyone who is intellectually honest will have to agree with this statement.
The problem is that our culture seems to be more and more buying into ethical relativism -- all choices are equal, there is no right and wrong, etc. I think this is going to bite us in the *ss more and more with tragedies such as Littleton.
that "different" implies "evil and violent" is not necessarily true.
agreed
Your line of thinking is frighteningly close to how Hitler managed to strip Jews of their basic rights, and kill them by the millions.
I am not suggesting sending these kids to the gas chamber, but what harm is there in having them talk to a couseler? The counceler should be competant enough to sort out which kids merely "look different" and which ones are truly disturbed and need help
I had friends during high school who got into the Metal lifestyle (1980's), and they ended up destroying themselves (though they didn't really hurt others). One kid became an alcoholic and drug addict. He was divorced at 18! by 20 he had two children by different women, and he landed in jail several times. When I first met him, he was a clean cut kid. I'm not saying the lifestyle itself is to blame, but if someone had intervened early on, and saved him, wouldn't it have been worth it? Another similar clean cut kid I knew got into the same lifestyle, and ended up robbing a gas station.
population with true stories in the media of Jewish rapists, murderers, thieves. (We tend to do the same thing with non-whites, sadly) To simply be Jewish was now enough reason to "investigate" and act.
You are born a jew, you are born black, these are not lifestyle choices. One is not born a Goth, one is not born with body-piercings all over ones body, etc..
In short, I have seen friends destroyed by destructive lifestyles, and I can't take people like Katz seriously who seem to suggest that there's no such thing as a destructive lifestyle.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that everyone look and act the same, when I say "different", I'm talking about the extremes. When I see people who get into lifestyles that glorify nihilism, death, destruction, violense, just what is the cultural value?
You used to not be able to buy a telephone, you had to lease it from AT&T. They were usually hardwired into your wall. The modular phone jack didn't exist.
Before the AT&T breakup, standards were forced so that you could go buy phones and phone equipment from different suppliers.
That's a reason why early modems had acoustic couplers-- because the modular jack was just coming into use!
The "tobacco deal" could certainly be called extortion, where the states got tons of money from big tobacco companies allegedly to pay for smoking related health-care, and then spending the money on non-smoking, non-health care related activities. The tobacco companies broke no law, they were just dishonest about the health effects of their products. In all fairness, what business is willingly going to tell you that their product is bad for you?
However, this is different. MS is clearly in violation of anti-trust laws
Slashdot Mirror
To a GPL advocate, it's "If I don't like your license, I'll use your code anyway and change it to GPL, if your license doesn't allow me to do that that, then you are a facist."
If you want to see rhetoric, then go to www.gnu.org. (An example quote, slightly paraphrased: "Control over your own ideas is really control over other people's lives".)
You should expect at least as much rhetoric from the other side.
"Communistic philosophies" is appropriate, Stallman's views on software have many parallels to Marx's views on socio-economics, he even went so far as to call his mission statement the "GNU manifesto", which by name association will make people think of the Communist Manifesto.
Stallman and the FSF are above criticism, and any attempt to do so is mearly flamebait?
What's wrong with taking exception to parts of the GPL? He raises some good points, I see few good answers, only flames.
For me, the best of both world license is one that allows code to become proprietary only under the author(s) terms.
The GPL is totally against proprietary software, BSD allows anyone to make it proprietary.
Some people have told me that the GPL works this way, if you want to allow your code to be used in a proprietary project, then you simply relicense it. This is true, but it goes against the spirit of the GPL
Well if 90% of the code is mine, and 10% is yours, then I have to adopt your license? That's what's wrong with it.
If I am unwilling or unable to change my license to GPL, then I can't use your code, and your so-called "free" GPL code is not so "free", is it?
It appeared on Linux Today sometime last week, but the article itself dates back to 1998.
But license wars never get old!
I've met some practical managers, you can tell who they are because they are the ones who work for other companies ;-)
Possible? Yes,
Although Mesa itself seems rather slow in software-only rendering.
They have been giving Linux lip-service, but haven't really been Linux's bwst ally as you say.
A year or two ago, the Linux Journal magazine ran a feature on non-Intel Linux distributions, and they wanted to put a picture of a SparcStation on the cover. Sun refused because they said "Linux is a competitor".
Linux can offer corporations many things, that don't fall under the "Mission Critical" category. Anybody who knows Linux knows that it doesn't have the infrastructure to do MC. I.E. Nobody will guarantee to send a tech to your site 24/7 within an hour or so if your Linux system goes down. There's no 99.9% uptime guarantees, etc.
What Linux is good for is development, non-MC web servers, email servers, file & print servers, dial up servers, and many other things.
I think the Standish group is trying to scare people away from Linux here.
As someone who was sent to a counselor in grade school for being "too detached", I can say that the counselor did not try to force me to conform, she was more concerned with finding out why I was the way I was.
Tell me, are some peopleborn gay, or do they become gay?
That depends on who you ask, I personally believe that some are born that way (or are at least nurtured that way from an early age), and others do it out of choice.
honestly, I don't think we know. But, people are born with the capacity to choose, and the fact that they do should, by itself, not be a reason to deprive them of their rights.
It all depends on the choices you make. Just because one has the ability to make choices doesn't guarantee that all choices will be good ones, IE the choice to harm others.
My question to you would be, if a child makes the choice to become a skinhead, and adopts the racist views that go with it, should we as a society say, "Aw look, little Johnny has decided to express his individuality!", or should we attempt to do something?
I am specifically referring to lifestyle choices, not the way one was born. I too fall in the "geek" (always hated that term because it was used as a pejorative in the 80's when I grew up) category, liking computers and stuff.
I too was ridiculed for it, however this is not a destructive lifestyle.
However there are lifestyle choices that lead people down the path of destruction, (I don't think the "geek" lifestyle is destructive), with drugs, excessive alcohol, crime, etc. I've seen this first hand with many of the people I grew up with, and my point is why do we make such lifestyles the moral equivalence of other non-destructive ones?
mocked/beaten/killed?
But these are not lifestyle choices, they are not what I'm referring to.
Often the victim of lifestyle choices is the person who makes them. I've seen people destroy themselves with drugs and alcohol, and children before they are out of high school, and I just wonder, "This doesn't have to happen! Why do we glorify this stuff?"
It sounds different because it's often difficult to condense all of your thought's into one of these posts. When I reread my original message, it sounded as though I was promoting blind conformity, which I'm not, so I had to post followups to clarify, unfortunatly I think I was a little late judging from all the messages. ;-)
True some people want to be different, but others adapt to extreme lifestyles as sort of a cry for help.
If you are "so smart" than why don't you answer the question instead of resorting to name calling?
If anything, I'm for diversity in OSes, but I think you will even admit that not all OSes are ed equal.
In the same way, not all lifestyle choices are equal, as I stated in another post, I grew up in the 80s, and had several friends who became "non conformists", and ended up destroying their lives with drugs, alcohol, crime, etc. I believe that there are definatly negative lifestyle choices, and I think anyone who is intellectually honest will have to agree with this statement.
The problem is that our culture seems to be more and more buying into ethical relativism -- all choices are equal, there is no right and wrong, etc. I think this is going to bite us in the *ss more and more with tragedies such as Littleton.
And when you see these "different" kids, are they alone? No they are with a group of kids who look just like them, so they are conforming.
agreed
Your line of thinking is frighteningly close to how Hitler managed to strip Jews of their basic rights, and kill them by the millions.
I am not suggesting sending these kids to the gas chamber, but what harm is there in having them talk to a couseler? The counceler should be competant enough to sort out which kids merely "look different" and which ones are truly disturbed and need help
I had friends during high school who got into the Metal lifestyle (1980's), and they ended up destroying themselves (though they didn't really hurt others). One kid became an alcoholic and drug addict. He was divorced at 18! by 20 he had two children by different women, and he landed in jail several times. When I first met him, he was a clean cut kid. I'm not saying the lifestyle itself is to blame, but if someone had intervened early on, and saved him, wouldn't it have been worth it? Another similar clean cut kid I knew got into the same lifestyle, and ended up robbing a gas station.
population with true stories in the media of Jewish rapists, murderers, thieves. (We tend to do the same thing with non-whites, sadly) To simply be Jewish was now enough reason to "investigate" and act.
You are born a jew, you are born black, these are not lifestyle choices. One is not born a Goth, one is not born with body-piercings all over ones body, etc..
In short, I have seen friends destroyed by destructive lifestyles, and I can't take people like Katz seriously who seem to suggest that there's no such thing as a destructive lifestyle.
Yeah,
And if you can't figure out what the problems are, then you are probably part of them
They released 1.0 and told us 2.0 would be next.
Then they released 1.1 and told us 2.0 would be next.
Next came 1.1.1...
What's next? 1.1.1.1?
2.0 is supposed to have great new features, I wish they would concentrate on that instead of the old release.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that everyone look and act the same, when I say "different", I'm talking about the extremes. When I see people who get into lifestyles that glorify nihilism, death, destruction, violense, just what is the cultural value?
Adolf Hitler was "different".
The people in the KKK dress "different".
The Heaven's Gate cult was "different".
Why is the attitude around here seem to be that people who deliberatly look and act different are somehow automatically superior to those who don't?
What good is "expressing ones individual identity" if everyone else thinks you are a freak, and treats you as such?
And how is society supposed to prevent future Littleton tragedies if they can't single out people who they suspect may have problems.
That's because standards were set.
You used to not be able to buy a telephone, you had to lease it from AT&T. They were usually hardwired into your wall. The modular phone jack didn't exist.
Before the AT&T breakup, standards were forced so that you could go buy phones and phone equipment from different suppliers.
That's a reason why early modems had acoustic couplers-- because the modular jack was just coming into use!
I can't tell if those pages are serious or a farce.
The "tobacco deal" could certainly be called extortion, where the states got tons of money from big tobacco companies allegedly to pay for smoking related health-care, and then spending the money on non-smoking, non-health care related activities. The tobacco companies broke no law, they were just dishonest about the health effects of their products. In all fairness, what business is willingly going to tell you that their product is bad for you?
However, this is different. MS is clearly in violation of anti-trust laws