If you are outraged by the governments insistance of proof of identity before giving you a drivers license or passport please visit www.TheDangerOfNoPrivacy.com
The right of privacy isn't absolute. You are forced to give your identity for tons of stuff, for the most part this is just a responsible requirement. If you REALLY want privacy, go buy a shack in the mountains of Montana and put on your tinfoil hat.
Nobody is forced to register a domain! If you really don't want to give this info to NTIA, there is a VERY easy solution. Don't register a.us domain!
Besides the tin-foil hat folks who really wants to hide who runs a domain?
It'll be the phishers, spamer, ect. I have no problem with getting rid of "proxy" registrations. I'm not a fan of "big brother" knowing everything about me, but really if you want to host a domain I think that should be public knowledge. The only reasons I can think of the not want to give this is your a tin-hatter, up to some nafarious activity, or would be ashamed to have your name associated with the site. In any of those cases, either live with it or you shouldn't host the domain.
I'm certainly not an expert on GPL law, but I've always read this another way. Please let me know how wrong or right I am, 'cause I could just be reading it wrong (not a lawyer;-)
I thought basically if you take GPL'ed code and make any changes to it your new version must be licensed under the GPL as well. However, having an application dependant on GPL'ed code doesn't mean you have to GPL your code.
Otherwise all Linux applications, drivers, and maybe even a monitor (since it ultimately depends on Linux GPL'ed code) MUST be GPL'ed. This doesn't sound correct.
What CherryOS has done is certainly dirty, but if they just took Pear's code (didn't change a thing) and put a GUI layer on top, I think they'd be fine. Now if they made changes to Pear's code, then they would have to release that (and not the GUI stuff) as GPL'ed. However, as long as they aren't modifying the GPL'ed code and just using it as a dependancy I think they are OK.
Dirty maybe, but OK as far as GPL. This may be why they need donations and the EFF hasn't jumped at the chance to litigate the case.
This seems pretty far fetched for a number of reasons when thinking about real enterprise level applications, but I used to think the same thing about code generators.
After years of improvements, code generators are now a VERY important part of my development. Now code generators can never build an application for you (well at least not one that I'd want to put my name on), but there are a number out there now which can dramatically reduce development time. I don't think I've ever just taken and used any generated code, but building templates to generate code can save TONS of repetitive coding and only leaving a little cleanup and adding more advanced business intelligance than the generator can.
I'd hope eventually, the type of technology described in this article would act like a next generation code generator. Allow developers to build up templates (preferablly in XML) to direct it in how to act. Again, this system wouldn't really be used to build real applications without programmers, but could be a great productivity tool by allowing us to avoid even more tedious work and consintrate on business logic more than typing out 20,000 lines of basic structure.
This is/. If you say anything which may in anyway be taken as a negitive commentary (true or not) about FF, Linux, or any F/OSS then you are a troll.
Sorry, thats just the way it is. If you don't like it, go find another community where open free discussion of all ideas is encouraged. We don't do that here!
Two types of posts will be accepted here. 1) Flowing praise for any/all F/OSS projects or 2) Spewing hatred toward MS$. Any other ideas or discussions are strictly prohibited!
Point #2 would be true of the ActiveX era, but again MS addressed this quite well in.NET (not sure about MONO's implementation of this). The client certificates go away (actually can still be used as additional security), and you specific exactly what types of access each type of application gets, and the best part is you don't need to be a sysadmin guru to use it. MS provides a.NET Framework Security wizard which allows you to specifically set how to treat applications that originate locally, intranet, trusted internet, and untrusted internet. Plenty of settings within each of those as well.
Now there are TONS of other security settings a developer/sysadmin can choose from, but to make it SOOOO easy for Joe Six-Pack to secure his own machine really is pretty impressive.
Completely agree, historically it was so easy because it let you to BAD and STUPID stuff. I never liked for those reasons (and others).
However, the.NET framework really is pretty slick stuff (mostly ideas copied from JAVA). It isn't that bad anymore. Yes, there are still issues (but what doesn't have issues), but for the most part the changes they've made here really do fix a lot of their stupid past mistakes.
If you want to attract good programmers who are used to coding to the API instead of having it propped up accomodate their bugs, upgrade GNUstep and track Cocoa and Mac OS X...
Yes, having those would be great too! Problem is we always yell "come to us, our stuff is better, please come to us". We want to take over for Windows (or at least eat into its monopoly) and the BEST way to do that is take their developers (even if they are bad and stupid). Right now we have a great base! We just need TONS of more applications to make the platform more appealing to Joe Six-Pack. Guess who made a vast majority of the applications we want for Linux? Windows developers!!!!
I'm not saying their as smart as you or code as well as you. Just saying winning them over would be a great step. You can never use MONO. Remain with C++, your applications will faster and thinner (better), but to build an audiance for your application we need more people using Linux in the first place. MONO could well, help for the above stated reasons.
Give MONO a chance people!!!! Even if you never use it, please don't bad-mouth it!!! I could be one of the biggest weapons Linux has to grow its user base!!!!
I know that.NET has never been horribly well understood (even by.NET developers) because of the marketing mess MS came up with, but Mono is a VERY good thing.
This is especially GREAT for those Linux lovers out there. Linux has MANY advantages over Windows, but for the most part this doesn't matter (sorry talking about desktops here not servers). Yes, lots of techies have jumped on board but that is pretty much a spec on the radar. For Linux (or any OS) to make real gains (especially in desktop) there needs to be HUGE 3-rd party software market for the OS. We need video editing, tax, accounting, etc, etc, etc. And this means broad developer support.
This is where MS has always had a huge advantage. For good or bad, it has always been VERY easy to develop applications for Windows. In my opinion the.NET framework (a great technology) was perhaps one of the most dangerous weapons against Linux. Very powerful, and makes things VERY easy. So developers of Windows applications will move to.NET framework (where before.NET framework more and more Windows developers were looking at Java, etc) and BAM these developers (and their software) are again locked into Windows. So Windows will remain domainant since its so easy to get applications for.
Enter MONO. Yes, it a copy of a MS technology and we all hate MS so we think its bad. ITS NOT!!!!! This is great! Those millions of Windows developers who move to.NET (wait for it) have also just learned what they need to develop for MONO (Linux). The millions of software titles which will be developed in.NET (wait for it), can now be fairly easily ported to Linux. So most of those products won't be F/OSS, big deal if it makes software companies jobs of porting their propietary software to Linux easier thats all we need! Once such software exists on Linux, may be I can suggest Linux to non-tech family and friends. Until then I know Windows is better for them as they cannot tell a line of code from a line of anceint san-script. They just want a huge variety of software to choose from.
OK I've go on too long, but MONO is GREAT!!! It can only help the Linux (F/OSS) community even if it is a port of evil (MS) technology.
I fully realize there is a great difference between what Utah (and other states) are doing compared to China/Iran as the programs are "opt-out" instead of state mandated, but I find the situation a bit funny. Imagine this conversation:
Bush: China, you are evil! You need to give your people "free" access to the internet so they can have free access to all ideas and opinion, not just yours!
China: But this is just our socities norms, we think there are certain things they shouldn't see.
Bush: Yeah, but your socity is STUPID, you atheist bastards. You are all going to HELL!
China: I'm sorry you feel that way, but its our right to decide that on our own.
Bush: If you didn't have so many people worried about blocking the internet and spent the time developing useful technology you could bring more wealth to your people, you are just being stupid!!!
Utah Gov: Psst, Mr President the people of our state want to block pornographic sites.
Bush: Hey, thats a great idea! My lord and saviour will love that!!! Hey, China can we get a download of that blocking software you have?
Me too! I'm always skeptical of new claims of 3D, but then I looked at the Sharp marketing materials! Did you see the way the dolphins are coming right out of the screen!!!
I love dolphins!!!! I'm going to buy one of these right now!
As an IT person, you should already know the answer to this;-)
Yes, Mac OSX has historically had very few problems with viruses or exploits. However it only takes one;-) And in my experience when that one hits users/bosses aren't very understanding to "I didn't even realize there was anything to worry about." as an answer from IT about why they weren't protected. If there is a SUPER tight budget, yes you can probably get away without it, but I NEVER would. If for no other reason than to CYA. We only have a few OSX computers in the network, but they are all protected. The price of the Macs VS price of some basic anti-virus its really not much of an issue better to spend the extra few bucks than be sorry;-)
Here is a decent summary of OSX historical vulnerabilities (there are still a couple unfixed ones out there).
What I guess I'm trying to say above is I think they should either have done nothing or just specifically forced it to be released as OSS. It just feels like they wussed out. Maybe this is as far as they law would allow them to go, but this half-ass approach seems it could end up making things worse instead of helping.
I just envision MS eventually putting forward a license just OS friendly enough to get some takers and then sit back and wait to attack.
The EU decision, really leaves me scratching my head. Is this good or bad?
First, I use, develop for, and generally enjoy Windows (I also use, develop for, and enjoy Linux F/OSS). Point being I'm not a MS basher, but I think all can agree this license is RIDICULOUS!!!
In general however, I don't know what to think of the EU decision. In general I don't like a company being forced to release IP, but in this case it is as punishment so I guess I'm OK with that.
However, the wording of the decision just leaves me confused. They are allowed to charge licensing fees, but also apparently are supposed to make it accessable to OS software. First even with reasonable fees, I'm not sure how this would REALLY work.
So they adjust fee structure to make it reasonable and an OS project licenses it (maybe backing from one of big boys (IBM, etc) will pay for this). However, once this code is included in OS projects then anyone can look at this code and not have much need to license from MS. Then code from MS begins showing up in other OS projects because they have seen it in other projects (even though they don't have license from MS).
This just seems like a dream situation for MS to me (or am I crazy). Yes, there is IP associated with these protocals MS would probably rather keep secret, but really its not like they are being forced to give away Windows or Office. So they are "forced" to start making some (not horribly valuabe in the grand scheme) IP available. All they have to do is wait for some OSS projects to start using this inappropriatly (without license) and BAM they get what they've always wanted!!!
They can of sue these projects (which no doubt they will), but more importantly it gives them VERY valuable ammunition for there PR department. They can then point to examples where OSS community is STEALING and are pirates and basically go on the offensive like MPAA has. PR and public perception is SO important in this fight, I worry this could give MS a chance to point at some bad apples as concrete examples of the evils of OSS.
This would let them spread lots of FUD, but I think it could really work and hurt OSS!!! Enough companies still have problems understanding/supporting OSS this would just give MS a huge bullhorn to use to warn other companies "Look what these OSS guys did to us and our IP!!!! Do you want to let them steal your stuff????".
Just seems for giving up something reaitivly unimportant to them, they could potentially take a HUGE swipe at F/OSS and gain support for what they've been saying all along (F/OSS is bad!)
Just don't know what to think? Or do I just worry too much?
We'll I don't think we will convince each other on this one as both seem to think each other arguments are rediculous. Actually I do see your point about not sending money to US even though I'm from the US so rather like it coming here:-) And I guess we both made assumptions about MS costing the program (or not) as my initial reading MAY not be correct. But neither can you say #3 of your arguments is correct as the article doesn't spell it out in enough detail (but I still think I'm right;-)
Even though I am unintelligent and a retard (aparently), thanks for taking the time to reply. Slahdot wouldn't be the same with out it;-)
That said, I still think CHOICE IS GOOD (nucular options not withstanding);-)
To the above all I can say is "Choice is never a negetive!!!!". But let me respond to each of your reasons one by one.
1. Money spent for MS software is wealth being sent from Brazil to the US
Welcome to the world economy, this happens! Neither Intel or AMD have plants in Brazil (even if they did most profits would go to US) so what processor would you suggest?
2. F/OSS give the people more freedom.
OK, this is hard to argue since you don't even bother trying to qualify it in anyway, but I'll try (I'll probably end up sounding like a MS shill in the process "sorry"). Maybe the Brazilian people will want to use basic office applications? OK, F/OSS has that (even though users may already be know the worlds most widely used office applications, but they don't need the "freedom" to use that one they MUST use one of ours). Maybe they want to get some basic acounting software? Maybe they can find this without MS OS, but not near the options. Again, they don't need THAT much freedom! Maybe they REALLY want to use Photoshop? Who the HELL do they think they are????? Wanting the freedom to choose what applications they run, don't they realize my version of freedom with F/OSS is just better!!!!
3. Licenses for MS software increase the cost of teh program.
OK, I would say RTFA, but that isn't even required! The snipit I included shows this isn't true. If someone chooses to go with MS, THEY pay for it not the program.
Choice is NEVER a bad thing!!!!! Even if that gives you the choice to choose MS!
FTA
Some cabinet members think consumers should have a choice between buying a computer with open source software and paying slightly more for a machine with Microsoft software. They think this approach would make sense to reach consumers who are already familiar with Microsoft software.
But free-software advocates within Lula's administration believe Microsoft should be excluded from the program.
I'm all for Linux (OSS), but a bit disturbed when when advocates of any technology try to advocate less choice. Why NOT give the people the option to have MS or OSS? Trying to force "free" or "open" software upon the people doesn't sound open or free to me!
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly!!! With Bush, you get federal funding to help research drilling for oil in a nature preserve (Anwar) and cut funding for science/technology.
Longhorn client is to be released this year, Longhorn server has always been planned about a year after the client.
If you are outraged by the governments insistance of proof of identity before giving you a drivers license or passport please visit www.TheDangerOfNoPrivacy.com
.us domain!
The right of privacy isn't absolute. You are forced to give your identity for tons of stuff, for the most part this is just a responsible requirement. If you REALLY want privacy, go buy a shack in the mountains of Montana and put on your tinfoil hat.
Nobody is forced to register a domain! If you really don't want to give this info to NTIA, there is a VERY easy solution. Don't register a
Besides the tin-foil hat folks who really wants to hide who runs a domain?
It'll be the phishers, spamer, ect. I have no problem with getting rid of "proxy" registrations. I'm not a fan of "big brother" knowing everything about me, but really if you want to host a domain I think that should be public knowledge. The only reasons I can think of the not want to give this is your a tin-hatter, up to some nafarious activity, or would be ashamed to have your name associated with the site. In any of those cases, either live with it or you shouldn't host the domain.
Look at the group's (who are behind this effort) web site.
If this is the best web site they can put together I give this less than 0% chance of working.
Really I'm all for technological inovation, but really is this the best thing we can spend our money on.
I realize you never know what discoveries will result from this, but come on!!! It seems there are better uses for this money this will cost.
Thanks for the info! I figured I must be missing something with all the /. crowd in such an uproar ;-) So major Linux distros are LGPL and not GPL?
I'm certainly not an expert on GPL law, but I've always read this another way. Please let me know how wrong or right I am, 'cause I could just be reading it wrong (not a lawyer ;-)
I thought basically if you take GPL'ed code and make any changes to it your new version must be licensed under the GPL as well. However, having an application dependant on GPL'ed code doesn't mean you have to GPL your code.
Otherwise all Linux applications, drivers, and maybe even a monitor (since it ultimately depends on Linux GPL'ed code) MUST be GPL'ed. This doesn't sound correct.
What CherryOS has done is certainly dirty, but if they just took Pear's code (didn't change a thing) and put a GUI layer on top, I think they'd be fine. Now if they made changes to Pear's code, then they would have to release that (and not the GUI stuff) as GPL'ed. However, as long as they aren't modifying the GPL'ed code and just using it as a dependancy I think they are OK.
Dirty maybe, but OK as far as GPL. This may be why they need donations and the EFF hasn't jumped at the chance to litigate the case.
This seems pretty far fetched for a number of reasons when thinking about real enterprise level applications, but I used to think the same thing about code generators.
After years of improvements, code generators are now a VERY important part of my development. Now code generators can never build an application for you (well at least not one that I'd want to put my name on), but there are a number out there now which can dramatically reduce development time. I don't think I've ever just taken and used any generated code, but building templates to generate code can save TONS of repetitive coding and only leaving a little cleanup and adding more advanced business intelligance than the generator can.
I'd hope eventually, the type of technology described in this article would act like a next generation code generator. Allow developers to build up templates (preferablly in XML) to direct it in how to act. Again, this system wouldn't really be used to build real applications without programmers, but could be a great productivity tool by allowing us to avoid even more tedious work and consintrate on business logic more than typing out 20,000 lines of basic structure.
This isn't really bad politics (at least as they are today). This actually great politics. Just happens to be bad for the country (and its people).
Unfortunatly, good politics and what is good for the people seldom intersect and politicians of course will go with good politics almost everytime.
Shouldn't have bought that new EU version of Windows without media player ;-)
Sure to get trolled, but I wonder how many more posts like this you'll see once "media-less" Windows has been widely distributed?
This is /. If you say anything which may in anyway be taken as a negitive commentary (true or not) about FF, Linux, or any F/OSS then you are a troll.
;-)
Sorry, thats just the way it is. If you don't like it, go find another community where open free discussion of all ideas is encouraged. We don't do that here!
Two types of posts will be accepted here. 1) Flowing praise for any/all F/OSS projects or 2) Spewing hatred toward MS$. Any other ideas or discussions are strictly prohibited!
Point #2 would be true of the ActiveX era, but again MS addressed this quite well in .NET (not sure about MONO's implementation of this). The client certificates go away (actually can still be used as additional security), and you specific exactly what types of access each type of application gets, and the best part is you don't need to be a sysadmin guru to use it. MS provides a .NET Framework Security wizard which allows you to specifically set how to treat applications that originate locally, intranet, trusted internet, and untrusted internet. Plenty of settings within each of those as well.
Now there are TONS of other security settings a developer/sysadmin can choose from, but to make it SOOOO easy for Joe Six-Pack to secure his own machine really is pretty impressive.
Completely agree, historically it was so easy because it let you to BAD and STUPID stuff. I never liked for those reasons (and others).
.NET framework really is pretty slick stuff (mostly ideas copied from JAVA). It isn't that bad anymore. Yes, there are still issues (but what doesn't have issues), but for the most part the changes they've made here really do fix a lot of their stupid past mistakes.
However, the
If you want to attract good programmers who are used to coding to the API instead of having it propped up accomodate their bugs, upgrade GNUstep and track Cocoa and Mac OS X...
Yes, having those would be great too! Problem is we always yell "come to us, our stuff is better, please come to us". We want to take over for Windows (or at least eat into its monopoly) and the BEST way to do that is take their developers (even if they are bad and stupid). Right now we have a great base! We just need TONS of more applications to make the platform more appealing to Joe Six-Pack. Guess who made a vast majority of the applications we want for Linux? Windows developers!!!!
I'm not saying their as smart as you or code as well as you. Just saying winning them over would be a great step. You can never use MONO. Remain with C++, your applications will faster and thinner (better), but to build an audiance for your application we need more people using Linux in the first place. MONO could well, help for the above stated reasons.
Give MONO a chance people!!!! Even if you never use it, please don't bad-mouth it!!! I could be one of the biggest weapons Linux has to grow its user base!!!!
I know that .NET has never been horribly well understood (even by .NET developers) because of the marketing mess MS came up with, but Mono is a VERY good thing.
.NET framework (a great technology) was perhaps one of the most dangerous weapons against Linux. Very powerful, and makes things VERY easy. So developers of Windows applications will move to .NET framework (where before .NET framework more and more Windows developers were looking at Java, etc) and BAM these developers (and their software) are again locked into Windows. So Windows will remain domainant since its so easy to get applications for.
.NET (wait for it) have also just learned what they need to develop for MONO (Linux). The millions of software titles which will be developed in .NET (wait for it), can now be fairly easily ported to Linux. So most of those products won't be F/OSS, big deal if it makes software companies jobs of porting their propietary software to Linux easier thats all we need! Once such software exists on Linux, may be I can suggest Linux to non-tech family and friends. Until then I know Windows is better for them as they cannot tell a line of code from a line of anceint san-script. They just want a huge variety of software to choose from.
This is especially GREAT for those Linux lovers out there. Linux has MANY advantages over Windows, but for the most part this doesn't matter (sorry talking about desktops here not servers). Yes, lots of techies have jumped on board but that is pretty much a spec on the radar. For Linux (or any OS) to make real gains (especially in desktop) there needs to be HUGE 3-rd party software market for the OS. We need video editing, tax, accounting, etc, etc, etc. And this means broad developer support.
This is where MS has always had a huge advantage. For good or bad, it has always been VERY easy to develop applications for Windows. In my opinion the
Enter MONO. Yes, it a copy of a MS technology and we all hate MS so we think its bad. ITS NOT!!!!! This is great! Those millions of Windows developers who move to
OK I've go on too long, but MONO is GREAT!!! It can only help the Linux (F/OSS) community even if it is a port of evil (MS) technology.
This is where Mono comes in.
I fully realize there is a great difference between what Utah (and other states) are doing compared to China/Iran as the programs are "opt-out" instead of state mandated, but I find the situation a bit funny. Imagine this conversation:
Bush: China, you are evil! You need to give your people "free" access to the internet so they can have free access to all ideas and opinion, not just yours!
China: But this is just our socities norms, we think there are certain things they shouldn't see.
Bush: Yeah, but your socity is STUPID, you atheist bastards. You are all going to HELL!
China: I'm sorry you feel that way, but its our right to decide that on our own.
Bush: If you didn't have so many people worried about blocking the internet and spent the time developing useful technology you could bring more wealth to your people, you are just being stupid!!!
Utah Gov: Psst, Mr President the people of our state want to block pornographic sites.
Bush: Hey, thats a great idea! My lord and saviour will love that!!! Hey, China can we get a download of that blocking software you have?
Sharp's marketing material talks about this being used for medical, educational, oil/gas, etc????
;-)
Who cares!!!!!! I just want to know what porn is optimized for this
Me too! I'm always skeptical of new claims of 3D, but then I looked at the Sharp marketing materials! Did you see the way the dolphins are coming right out of the screen!!!
I love dolphins!!!! I'm going to buy one of these right now!
As an IT person, you should already know the answer to this ;-)
;-) And in my experience when that one hits users/bosses aren't very understanding to "I didn't even realize there was anything to worry about." as an answer from IT about why they weren't protected. If there is a SUPER tight budget, yes you can probably get away without it, but I NEVER would. If for no other reason than to CYA. We only have a few OSX computers in the network, but they are all protected. The price of the Macs VS price of some basic anti-virus its really not much of an issue better to spend the extra few bucks than be sorry ;-)
Yes, Mac OSX has historically had very few problems with viruses or exploits. However it only takes one
Here is a decent summary of OSX historical vulnerabilities (there are still a couple unfixed ones out there).
http://secunia.com/product/96/
What I guess I'm trying to say above is I think they should either have done nothing or just specifically forced it to be released as OSS. It just feels like they wussed out. Maybe this is as far as they law would allow them to go, but this half-ass approach seems it could end up making things worse instead of helping. I just envision MS eventually putting forward a license just OS friendly enough to get some takers and then sit back and wait to attack.
The EU decision, really leaves me scratching my head. Is this good or bad?
First, I use, develop for, and generally enjoy Windows (I also use, develop for, and enjoy Linux F/OSS). Point being I'm not a MS basher, but I think all can agree this license is RIDICULOUS!!!
In general however, I don't know what to think of the EU decision. In general I don't like a company being forced to release IP, but in this case it is as punishment so I guess I'm OK with that.
However, the wording of the decision just leaves me confused. They are allowed to charge licensing fees, but also apparently are supposed to make it accessable to OS software. First even with reasonable fees, I'm not sure how this would REALLY work.
So they adjust fee structure to make it reasonable and an OS project licenses it (maybe backing from one of big boys (IBM, etc) will pay for this). However, once this code is included in OS projects then anyone can look at this code and not have much need to license from MS. Then code from MS begins showing up in other OS projects because they have seen it in other projects (even though they don't have license from MS).
This just seems like a dream situation for MS to me (or am I crazy). Yes, there is IP associated with these protocals MS would probably rather keep secret, but really its not like they are being forced to give away Windows or Office. So they are "forced" to start making some (not horribly valuabe in the grand scheme) IP available. All they have to do is wait for some OSS projects to start using this inappropriatly (without license) and BAM they get what they've always wanted!!!
They can of sue these projects (which no doubt they will), but more importantly it gives them VERY valuable ammunition for there PR department. They can then point to examples where OSS community is STEALING and are pirates and basically go on the offensive like MPAA has. PR and public perception is SO important in this fight, I worry this could give MS a chance to point at some bad apples as concrete examples of the evils of OSS.
This would let them spread lots of FUD, but I think it could really work and hurt OSS!!! Enough companies still have problems understanding/supporting OSS this would just give MS a huge bullhorn to use to warn other companies "Look what these OSS guys did to us and our IP!!!! Do you want to let them steal your stuff????".
Just seems for giving up something reaitivly unimportant to them, they could potentially take a HUGE swipe at F/OSS and gain support for what they've been saying all along (F/OSS is bad!)
Just don't know what to think? Or do I just worry too much?
We'll I don't think we will convince each other on this one as both seem to think each other arguments are rediculous. Actually I do see your point about not sending money to US even though I'm from the US so rather like it coming here :-) And I guess we both made assumptions about MS costing the program (or not) as my initial reading MAY not be correct. But neither can you say #3 of your arguments is correct as the article doesn't spell it out in enough detail (but I still think I'm right ;-)
;-)
;-)
Even though I am unintelligent and a retard (aparently), thanks for taking the time to reply. Slahdot wouldn't be the same with out it
That said, I still think CHOICE IS GOOD (nucular options not withstanding)
To the above all I can say is "Choice is never a negetive!!!!". But let me respond to each of your reasons one by one.
1. Money spent for MS software is wealth being sent from Brazil to the US
Welcome to the world economy, this happens! Neither Intel or AMD have plants in Brazil (even if they did most profits would go to US) so what processor would you suggest?
2. F/OSS give the people more freedom.
OK, this is hard to argue since you don't even bother trying to qualify it in anyway, but I'll try (I'll probably end up sounding like a MS shill in the process "sorry"). Maybe the Brazilian people will want to use basic office applications? OK, F/OSS has that (even though users may already be know the worlds most widely used office applications, but they don't need the "freedom" to use that one they MUST use one of ours). Maybe they want to get some basic acounting software? Maybe they can find this without MS OS, but not near the options. Again, they don't need THAT much freedom! Maybe they REALLY want to use Photoshop? Who the HELL do they think they are????? Wanting the freedom to choose what applications they run, don't they realize my version of freedom with F/OSS is just better!!!!
3. Licenses for MS software increase the cost of teh program.
OK, I would say RTFA, but that isn't even required! The snipit I included shows this isn't true. If someone chooses to go with MS, THEY pay for it not the program.
Choice is NEVER a bad thing!!!!! Even if that gives you the choice to choose MS!
Sounds much like the same reasoning MS used to use for having defaults set to a "user-friendly" setting.
;-)
;-) Its OK to admit it was bad or admit MS's settings were OK, but you cannot do both.
Now that its been found in Linux, its a "feature"
Come on, I love Linux but the hypocrocy is a bit much
FTA
Some cabinet members think consumers should have a choice between buying a computer with open source software and paying slightly more for a machine with Microsoft software. They think this approach would make sense to reach consumers who are already familiar with Microsoft software. But free-software advocates within Lula's administration believe Microsoft should be excluded from the program.
I'm all for Linux (OSS), but a bit disturbed when when advocates of any technology try to advocate less choice. Why NOT give the people the option to have MS or OSS? Trying to force "free" or "open" software upon the people doesn't sound open or free to me!