"Open source phones will do just fine because there are great big markets for them on every continent except North America."
Do you think so? Well, I won't tell otherwise then, except that you don't know the European market (at least the European market which is the one I know): implementation details are, of course, different, but European carriers are as much freak controls and as much in control as their USA counterparts.
They control the media and they control the way to access it with ease. I for one am starting looking for a new terminal: the ones I'm considering are in the sorroundings of 500 or 50-70 under carrier contract. Even me, well known of the carriers practices I'm having a hard day to convince myselft to go after a free terminal, imagine the sheep. So even in Europe you will have (for the most part) whatever the carriers want at the prices they want; network effect will do the rest.
"If you have no patents then you have little incentive for innovation."
That a common rationale basically unstated. Anyone can come with obvious examples of technology fields flourishing without the need of patent protection. I.e.: software on its flourising days. Even more: it's arguably that the day patents entered the software field in the USA is the day software innovation started to stagnate.
"If you have patents that last too long then you also retard innovation."
That's obviuos: you cannot freely base your own work on protected innovations.
"Owning a gun to protect the nation is as much true today as it was in the late 18th century."
Well, Irak was of the same opinion. It seemed to stand not so very well against a properly standing army, not against the USA one at least.
On that mood, do you think the privately owned weapons by USA civilians would be of much use against the USA army power, nukes and all included? I don't think so.
"In Switzerland, they still believe it"
Not. In Switzerland they believe on civilians custoding part of their military means as a way to push forward their national spirit. What History demonstrates is exactly the opposite: Switzerland doesn't beleive on military means *at all* as a way to protect their national identity against external threats.
"to this day they don't waste any money on a standing army. Instead, every militia member (which is every male 18-45) has a fully-automatic rifle in his house, ready to defend his nation if necessary."
Bullshit: a) Being a tiny country, the militia members *are* the standing army (they can allow for that: the town major just cries out of his bedroom's windows and in five minutes everybody can be by his door). b) The "fully-automatic rifle in his house" of the militia is payed with the country's money as it is the yearly train camps and the on-duty on public buildings and such. *Of course* it takes money from the public arks. c) For major threats they believe much more on their historic stanza as "sacred, untouchable money" deposit than of any kind of army. They know they couldn't stand against the army of any of the sorrounding countries but they know no one of the principals of those countries would have any intention to go for Switzerland since it protects their retirement's money.
"When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this."
Ha, Ha and HA!!! Switzerland was not occupied because: a) It was not an immediate military target b) Because of its History c) Mainly because a) and b) Switzerland was the insurance policy for the Nazi tycoons which put their money on Switzerland's banks.
"There's nothing wrong with the concept of copyrights and patents."
Yes, there is.
"Even the Founding Fathers realized the value of them."
That's why the Founding Fathers explicitly negated copyright for English works between 1790 and, what? 1891?
"A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation."
Not only a "decent" one, but a constitutionally abidden one: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Any copyright law that doesn't abide to this basic premise (like if it's focus is "to promote the benefit of some corporation") is against USA constitution.
Not? Corporations are in *deep* love with free market.
"Any large, profit oriented corporation would be happy to have regulations"
Yes. And under true free market, profit oriented corporations are more than able to *buy* regulations. Free market on its very essence.
"In fact, many large corporations lobby specifically for such regulation. "
They have the money, don't they? Market is free, isn'it? So they are free to use their hard earned money the way they see better fits their interests, don't they? Like buying congressmen, don't you think so?
"Free markets favor the general population"
Free markets favour the general population as much as free weight boxing competitions favour flyweight boxers.
"Regulation helps the ones who have the power to make regulation."
And on a real free market environment you are free to buy as much regulation as you can and need, aren't you?
"GT 4/5 with a good screen and good wheel/pedals is not a game. It is a simulator as high or higher quality than what is available for military training."
Uh! that must explain why militars expend quite a lot of money on simulators instead of just grabbing a copy of GT... oh, wait!
"Many/most of the skills in GT are directly transferable to the race track."
Idiomatick can attest that since all his race track skills come from playing GT... and all we know how many times his hard earned abilities allowed him to rise to the podium... oh, wait (again)!
"I have a feeling that a lot of those problems are caused by management, your company's lawyers, or auditors that don't understand what you're doing, rather than the law itself."
Don't understand or don't *want* to understand? As the old Latin motto goes, 'Qui prodes?' who is benefited by all that papertrail? Those managers and lawyers that get empowered by the very paper mess they create, I say.
"I find it interesting that you implicitly assume that the winner of the auction might intend to use the typewriter to produce something."
There's a common on all usable devices: you want them to be usable. It really doesn't matter if it's a sword, a motorcycle or a typewritter; they *must* be ready to go. A very different thing is in fact using them.
"It is unethical to knowingly provide your customer with a poorly designed system"
It isn't. It's unethical to knowingly provide your customer with a poorly designed system hiding that fact.
It is not unethical to explain the alternatives, the costs and the trade-offs and then deploy for your customer whatever it wants, even if that means a poorly designed system.
Yes, but they do quite slowly and more slowly as they come more expensive.
"And displaying status isn't stupid"
I didn't mean that: I was simply perusing the parent's words under its own acceptions. If you want the bad feelings out of it just rewrite it as "the kind of people that value owning expensive and exclusive things are not going to disappear anytime soon".
"There has been a continual push to make programming something that untrained monkeys could do in no time for no pay for as long as I've been in the business."
And they has been quite successful at it: most software seems indeed to be developed by untrained monkeys in no time for no pay.
"The reason VB got a bad rap isn't because of VB, which IMHO is fine if it is used as intended, it is the fact that too many folks tried to stick a square peg in a round hole and use VB where it didn't belong."
Now ask yourself why this happened more with VB than, say, with C++ and you'll see why and to what extent VB's bad reputation is a well earned one.
"I'm glad you mentioned prototyping because I think that is a real benefit of an easy programming language."
I want to pull off my hair any time somebody mentions "fast prototyping" and think "oh, no! another chance for a PHB to pass a mock up for real production code".
"we've been trying to bring software developing to the average user for a long time now."
We? The ones that want to bring software developing to the average Joe Sixpack are the PHBs that want to pay Joe Sixpack wages and those naive enough to think that coding is about plasting together sintactically correct code instead of about proper problem-solving and algorithm understanding.
If you really want to make a productive developer out of a Joe Sixpack don't dumb down the programming language, it won't work. Try instead to produce Joe Sixpackers with enough problem-solving and algorithm understanding abilities. If you manage to do that you will probably find all of a sudden that such kind of a mind finds C syntax not to be quite a big problem after all.
"You mean it's not a good idea for Joe Sixpack to write his own code?"
I don't think that's the point. The point is that if Joe Sixpack can hack together something that renders then you will end up with Joe Sixpack writing your production code (as in fact has been the case for the last 25 years). And you really don't want that.
"That's just ignorance speaking. After extensive experience with both operating systems in both corporate and home environments, I can assure you that BSD is the clear winner for consistency of quality and use as a serious server. "
Well, I always say that it's very easy to say "this is that way" when you know the answer but it is always very dangerous to say "that's impossible" or "that's not the case" because you don't know everything.
In example, all you are really saying is that after extensive experience *you* were unable to achieve good enough results using Linux as a "serious server" (whatever that exactly means). Provided facts like those offered by Netcraft, top500 or my own extensive experience that says more about *your* limitations than about those of Linux.
"Anyway my only point is that BSD has pf and rocks the free world."
Anyway that was *not* your "only point" or else I would do nothing but agree.
"Go back to playing Quake on your penguin box. Nobody wants to hear about your gay rainbow diversity hypothesis."
Again, that says much more about you than anything else.
"First of all, there is no reason to act like a douche when someone asks a question."
Any kind of question? Yours was obviously a "flamebait" one. And your answer to mine is too, so I betted my opinion on the first answer and I'm sure of it on this second.
"it is THAT kind of attitude that has non Windows/OSX platforms labeled as Operating Systems for the maladjusted. Nobody likes THAT guy"
You seem not to understand -again. All your rant basically begs for this answer: so what?
"My question is very simple- is there a large corporation putting the kind of funds into BSD in the network appliance arena that Redhat puts into Linux on the enterprise server arena? Is there any corporations putting millions directly into one of the BSDs?"
Your question might be very simple but: a) It has a very simple answer. So simple indeed that anybody with genuine interest, not acting on pure facade can get to it in about five seconds: www.freebsd.org->support->vendors; right there, on high visibility on the top menu of the front page and... b) It shows -again, your lack of understandment. Of course there are companies that push money on BSD in exactly the same way as Red Hat does on Linux: for their own profit (a different issue is if or to what extent do affect *BSD and Linux development and corporations' involvement their different "basic license" choice).
And of course I don't think Apple pushes any money "in the network appliance arena" since I don't know about Apple having much to do "in the network appliance arena" to start with.
And of course I don't know what has to do talking about "the network appliance arena" when talking in this thread about FreeBSD in the desktop.
And of course I don't know what has so much to do focusing "seriously" about FreeBSD on the desktop when the news is about a general anouncement of a new FreeBSD release for whoever may take benefit of it, be it on the server, on the desktop or on the network appliance.
And of course I don't know where your fixance about FreeBSD for network or security appliances when both NetBSD and OpenBSD are more popular choices on that niche comes from.
"And I'm sorry that nobody can know everything about every OS. My expertise is Windows on the desktop and Windows/Linux on the server, I've never really had the time or inclination to learn yet another OS"
Still you find yourself authorised to talk about what the OS you declare to ignore can and can't do and to question the validity of those that both know the system and believe on its abilities yet I am the douche.
"So for me and my customers the new Win7 "just works"."
And finally everything comes clear (as if it were not from the very beginning).
"I'm talking about people running high-availability and high-traffic servers, and workstation users who need a stable and reliable operating system."
Oh, you mean like there are high-availability and high-traffic servers and stable workstation perfectly running Linux?
"Most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer."
Which is a great tribute at both the versatility and diversity of the Linux ecosystem. There are Linux distributions almost for everything. There's no problem if "most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer" even if that were true. It's enough that *some* Linux distributions can do it. And you can bet they are up to the task just as FreeBSD is.
"Seriously though, is there even enough BSD desktop users to even worry about? That must be a truly itty bitty number, like 0.0001% or something."
Seriously though, does it matter a damn? If it's good for the purpouse, then it's good for the purpouse no matter how many (or how little) people use it. If number of users were a quality indicator, Windows would be the best system by an order of magnitude (hint: no, it's not).
And then again, for the casual desktop user, there's no difference between KDE on FreeBSD, KDE on Debian or KDE on Ubuntu. For the expert user differences between FreeBSD and, say, Debian or Red Hat are quite within the same league (and certainly they are much more akin between them than the three compared to any Microsoft offer).
"it is just from what I understand BSD is THE distro to go to to make routers, firewalls, all kinds of uber hardened network appliances for corporate and enterprise usage."
It is just that your understandment fails. That maybe can be the 'vox populi' about OpenBSD, not BSD as a whole.
"I have never really heard of anybody doing large BSD desktop deployments like you do with RHEL or SUSE."
Do you know that exactly your very flipplant rant can be used for unix-like systems as a whole, do you? ("I have never really heard of anybody doing large unix-like desktop deployments like you do with Windows"). Now, so what?
"So is there really enough users out there to make all this hard work worth it?"
Of course yes. Proof: the ones doing the hard work consider themselves enough of a user pool to push for it -and in fact do it.
"I would think that since BSD is so widely used in the network appliance role that someone would build a Redhat style corporation around BSD and most of the funding would be that way."
Again you miserably misundestand what BSD is but, anyway, there *is* in fact a "Redhat style corporation around BSD" and it's even bigger than Red Hat. You may recognize its name: Apple.
"If the old theory correctly described the experiment and the new theory also correctly describes the experiment, then there must be a limit of the new theory in which you can obtain the old theory."
Well, tell me then at which point copernican heliocentric theory "reducts" itself to the older ptolemaic one. You won't get into epycicles and deferents by any "reduction" of copernican's: it's a complete new paradigm.
Slashdot Mirror
"Open source phones will do just fine because there are great big markets for them on every continent except North America."
Do you think so? Well, I won't tell otherwise then, except that you don't know the European market (at least the European market which is the one I know): implementation details are, of course, different, but European carriers are as much freak controls and as much in control as their USA counterparts.
They control the media and they control the way to access it with ease. I for one am starting looking for a new terminal: the ones I'm considering are in the sorroundings of 500 or 50-70 under carrier contract. Even me, well known of the carriers practices I'm having a hard day to convince myselft to go after a free terminal, imagine the sheep. So even in Europe you will have (for the most part) whatever the carriers want at the prices they want; network effect will do the rest.
"If you have no patents then you have little incentive for innovation."
That a common rationale basically unstated. Anyone can come with obvious examples of technology fields flourishing without the need of patent protection. I.e.: software on its flourising days. Even more: it's arguably that the day patents entered the software field in the USA is the day software innovation started to stagnate.
"If you have patents that last too long then you also retard innovation."
That's obviuos: you cannot freely base your own work on protected innovations.
"Owning a gun to protect the nation is as much true today as it was in the late 18th century."
Well, Irak was of the same opinion. It seemed to stand not so very well against a properly standing army, not against the USA one at least.
On that mood, do you think the privately owned weapons by USA civilians would be of much use against the USA army power, nukes and all included? I don't think so.
"In Switzerland, they still believe it"
Not. In Switzerland they believe on civilians custoding part of their military means as a way to push forward their national spirit. What History demonstrates is exactly the opposite: Switzerland doesn't beleive on military means *at all* as a way to protect their national identity against external threats.
"to this day they don't waste any money on a standing army. Instead, every militia member (which is every male 18-45) has a fully-automatic rifle in his house, ready to defend his nation if necessary."
Bullshit:
a) Being a tiny country, the militia members *are* the standing army (they can allow for that: the town major just cries out of his bedroom's windows and in five minutes everybody can be by his door).
b) The "fully-automatic rifle in his house" of the militia is payed with the country's money as it is the yearly train camps and the on-duty on public buildings and such. *Of course* it takes money from the public arks.
c) For major threats they believe much more on their historic stanza as "sacred, untouchable money" deposit than of any kind of army. They know they couldn't stand against the army of any of the sorrounding countries but they know no one of the principals of those countries would have any intention to go for Switzerland since it protects their retirement's money.
"When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this."
Ha, Ha and HA!!! Switzerland was not occupied because:
a) It was not an immediate military target
b) Because of its History
c) Mainly because a) and b) Switzerland was the insurance policy for the Nazi tycoons which put their money on Switzerland's banks.
"There's nothing wrong with the concept of copyrights and patents."
Yes, there is.
"Even the Founding Fathers realized the value of them."
That's why the Founding Fathers explicitly negated copyright for English works between 1790 and, what? 1891?
"A decent copyright/patent system promotes innovation."
Not only a "decent" one, but a constitutionally abidden one: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Any copyright law that doesn't abide to this basic premise (like if it's focus is "to promote the benefit of some corporation") is against USA constitution.
"Free markets in no way favor corporations."
Not? Corporations are in *deep* love with free market.
"Any large, profit oriented corporation would be happy to have regulations"
Yes. And under true free market, profit oriented corporations are more than able to *buy* regulations. Free market on its very essence.
"In fact, many large corporations lobby specifically for such regulation. "
They have the money, don't they? Market is free, isn'it? So they are free to use their hard earned money the way they see better fits their interests, don't they? Like buying congressmen, don't you think so?
"Free markets favor the general population"
Free markets favour the general population as much as free weight boxing competitions favour flyweight boxers.
"Regulation helps the ones who have the power to make regulation."
And on a real free market environment you are free to buy as much regulation as you can and need, aren't you?
"It's a well-known Hungarian expression."
"Exploding nipples"? I don't think so. You might refer to nipplesExp or maybe ExplodingNipples; that would be quite on the mark.
"Denny Hamlin did win after training with a video game by papyrus:"
Person X did Y about Z. How does this mean anything about person X''s performance about Z'?
"GT 4/5 with a good screen and good wheel/pedals is not a game. It is a simulator as high or higher quality than what is available for military training."
Uh! that must explain why militars expend quite a lot of money on simulators instead of just grabbing a copy of GT... oh, wait!
"Many/most of the skills in GT are directly transferable to the race track."
Idiomatick can attest that since all his race track skills come from playing GT... and all we know how many times his hard earned abilities allowed him to rise to the podium... oh, wait (again)!
"I have a feeling that a lot of those problems are caused by management, your company's lawyers, or auditors that don't understand what you're doing, rather than the law itself."
Don't understand or don't *want* to understand? As the old Latin motto goes, 'Qui prodes?' who is benefited by all that papertrail? Those managers and lawyers that get empowered by the very paper mess they create, I say.
"Well at least now they'll spend all that money on making sure things are actually secure!"
Why, oh why!!!???
No sir: they'll spend all that money on making sure they earn even *more* money. What else?
"I find it interesting that you implicitly assume that the winner of the auction might intend to use the typewriter to produce something."
There's a common on all usable devices: you want them to be usable. It really doesn't matter if it's a sword, a motorcycle or a typewritter; they *must* be ready to go. A very different thing is in fact using them.
"It is unethical to knowingly provide your customer with a poorly designed system"
It isn't. It's unethical to knowingly provide your customer with a poorly designed system hiding that fact.
It is not unethical to explain the alternatives, the costs and the trade-offs and then deploy for your customer whatever it wants, even if that means a poorly designed system.
"Anyone is clueless until they manage the first transition."
WRONG!!!
As stupid as saying that anyone is clueless until they manage the first brain surgery.
"it doesn't work like this in the real world."
And then you get the results you paid for.
"Depends, since many times that's exactly when you need a lawyer lol"
And they you pay him at on-call rates.
"Status symbols change over time."
Yes, but they do quite slowly and more slowly as they come more expensive.
"And displaying status isn't stupid"
I didn't mean that: I was simply perusing the parent's words under its own acceptions. If you want the bad feelings out of it just rewrite it as "the kind of people that value owning expensive and exclusive things are not going to disappear anytime soon".
"There has been a continual push to make programming something that untrained monkeys could do in no time for no pay for as long as I've been in the business."
And they has been quite successful at it: most software seems indeed to be developed by untrained monkeys in no time for no pay.
"The reason VB got a bad rap isn't because of VB, which IMHO is fine if it is used as intended, it is the fact that too many folks tried to stick a square peg in a round hole and use VB where it didn't belong."
Now ask yourself why this happened more with VB than, say, with C++ and you'll see why and to what extent VB's bad reputation is a well earned one.
"but I think we're reaching the limits on our ability to make a language that is actually easy to program, not just for a novice to read."
And there you nailed it: PHBs pretending they know what the f* is going under the hood because they think they are able to actually read the code.
It's a conspiration.
"I'm glad you mentioned prototyping because I think that is a real benefit of an easy programming language."
I want to pull off my hair any time somebody mentions "fast prototyping" and think "oh, no! another chance for a PHB to pass a mock up for real production code".
"we've been trying to bring software developing to the average user for a long time now."
We? The ones that want to bring software developing to the average Joe Sixpack are the PHBs that want to pay Joe Sixpack wages and those naive enough to think that coding is about plasting together sintactically correct code instead of about proper problem-solving and algorithm understanding.
If you really want to make a productive developer out of a Joe Sixpack don't dumb down the programming language, it won't work. Try instead to produce Joe Sixpackers with enough problem-solving and algorithm understanding abilities. If you manage to do that you will probably find all of a sudden that such kind of a mind finds C syntax not to be quite a big problem after all.
"You mean it's not a good idea for Joe Sixpack to write his own code?"
I don't think that's the point. The point is that if Joe Sixpack can hack together something that renders then you will end up with Joe Sixpack writing your production code (as in fact has been the case for the last 25 years). And you really don't want that.
"That's just ignorance speaking. After extensive experience with both operating systems in both corporate and home environments, I can assure you that BSD is the clear winner for consistency of quality and use as a serious server. "
Well, I always say that it's very easy to say "this is that way" when you know the answer but it is always very dangerous to say "that's impossible" or "that's not the case" because you don't know everything.
In example, all you are really saying is that after extensive experience *you* were unable to achieve good enough results using Linux as a "serious server" (whatever that exactly means). Provided facts like those offered by Netcraft, top500 or my own extensive experience that says more about *your* limitations than about those of Linux.
"Anyway my only point is that BSD has pf and rocks the free world."
Anyway that was *not* your "only point" or else I would do nothing but agree.
"Go back to playing Quake on your penguin box. Nobody wants to hear about your gay rainbow diversity hypothesis."
Again, that says much more about you than anything else.
"First of all, there is no reason to act like a douche when someone asks a question."
Any kind of question? Yours was obviously a "flamebait" one. And your answer to mine is too, so I betted my opinion on the first answer and I'm sure of it on this second.
"it is THAT kind of attitude that has non Windows/OSX platforms labeled as Operating Systems for the maladjusted. Nobody likes THAT guy"
You seem not to understand -again. All your rant basically begs for this answer: so what?
"My question is very simple- is there a large corporation putting the kind of funds into BSD in the network appliance arena that Redhat puts into Linux on the enterprise server arena? Is there any corporations putting millions directly into one of the BSDs?"
Your question might be very simple but:
a) It has a very simple answer. So simple indeed that anybody with genuine interest, not acting on pure facade can get to it in about five seconds: www.freebsd.org->support->vendors; right there, on high visibility on the top menu of the front page and...
b) It shows -again, your lack of understandment. Of course there are companies that push money on BSD in exactly the same way as Red Hat does on Linux: for their own profit (a different issue is if or to what extent do affect *BSD and Linux development and corporations' involvement their different "basic license" choice).
And of course I don't think Apple pushes any money "in the network appliance arena" since I don't know about Apple having much to do "in the network appliance arena" to start with.
And of course I don't know what has to do talking about "the network appliance arena" when talking in this thread about FreeBSD in the desktop.
And of course I don't know what has so much to do focusing "seriously" about FreeBSD on the desktop when the news is about a general anouncement of a new FreeBSD release for whoever may take benefit of it, be it on the server, on the desktop or on the network appliance.
And of course I don't know where your fixance about FreeBSD for network or security appliances when both NetBSD and OpenBSD are more popular choices on that niche comes from.
"And I'm sorry that nobody can know everything about every OS. My expertise is Windows on the desktop and Windows/Linux on the server, I've never really had the time or inclination to learn yet another OS"
Still you find yourself authorised to talk about what the OS you declare to ignore can and can't do and to question the validity of those that both know the system and believe on its abilities yet I am the douche.
"So for me and my customers the new Win7 "just works"."
And finally everything comes clear (as if it were not from the very beginning).
"FreeBSD is way ahead for serious users."
Comparing to what?
"I'm talking about people running high-availability and high-traffic servers, and workstation users who need a stable and reliable operating system."
Oh, you mean like there are high-availability and high-traffic servers and stable workstation perfectly running Linux?
"Most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer."
Which is a great tribute at both the versatility and diversity of the Linux ecosystem. There are Linux distributions almost for everything. There's no problem if "most Linux distributions just can't provide the high level of quality that the FreeBSD project manages to offer" even if that were true. It's enough that *some* Linux distributions can do it. And you can bet they are up to the task just as FreeBSD is.
"Seriously though, is there even enough BSD desktop users to even worry about? That must be a truly itty bitty number, like 0.0001% or something."
Seriously though, does it matter a damn? If it's good for the purpouse, then it's good for the purpouse no matter how many (or how little) people use it. If number of users were a quality indicator, Windows would be the best system by an order of magnitude (hint: no, it's not).
And then again, for the casual desktop user, there's no difference between KDE on FreeBSD, KDE on Debian or KDE on Ubuntu. For the expert user differences between FreeBSD and, say, Debian or Red Hat are quite within the same league (and certainly they are much more akin between them than the three compared to any Microsoft offer).
"it is just from what I understand BSD is THE distro to go to to make routers, firewalls, all kinds of uber hardened network appliances for corporate and enterprise usage."
It is just that your understandment fails. That maybe can be the 'vox populi' about OpenBSD, not BSD as a whole.
"I have never really heard of anybody doing large BSD desktop deployments like you do with RHEL or SUSE."
Do you know that exactly your very flipplant rant can be used for unix-like systems as a whole, do you? ("I have never really heard of anybody doing large unix-like desktop deployments like you do with Windows"). Now, so what?
"So is there really enough users out there to make all this hard work worth it?"
Of course yes. Proof: the ones doing the hard work consider themselves enough of a user pool to push for it -and in fact do it.
"I would think that since BSD is so widely used in the network appliance role that someone would build a Redhat style corporation around BSD and most of the funding would be that way."
Again you miserably misundestand what BSD is but, anyway, there *is* in fact a "Redhat style corporation around BSD" and it's even bigger than Red Hat. You may recognize its name: Apple.
"If the old theory correctly described the experiment and the new theory also correctly describes the experiment, then there must be a limit of the new theory in which you can obtain the old theory."
Well, tell me then at which point copernican heliocentric theory "reducts" itself to the older ptolemaic one. You won't get into epycicles and deferents by any "reduction" of copernican's: it's a complete new paradigm.