Yes, those damn mother fucking Open Source developers. You pay them to finish a project so it suits you and then they don't bother. I mean, they are obviously doing it for you, since you are paying them the big bucks. It isn't possible that they happen to be doing these projects because they just feel like doing it...
This just shows how uninformed you are. Are you honestly stupid enough to think that all OSS devs hang out on Slashdot? It generally isn't OSS devs saying these things, it is enthusiastic users. To criticize OSS devs because of what someone on Slashdot says is moronic.
Add on to that the fact that businesses selling software solutions do it to please your business and keep your business, and that this isn't the goal of OSS devs, and I see it as a bigger problem for the proprietary software world.
With OSS, the aquisition cost is zero. Meaning you can test the software, decide whether it fits your needs and do this for no cost. Then, if you decide you want support, you simply call up Novell or Red Hat.
If an end user decides they need to have their hand held like a little child, they can pay for that support from a company like Linspire or Xandros.
Aren't Open Source devs doing enough giving you free software? Why should they have to tutor you on its use too? Companies are set up for this sort of thing because no one is going to take support calls for free.
I'm really sick of this weird idea people have that just because someone releases a free product that they made because they happened to feel like it that they are obligated to provide world class support for it. If you don't think an unpaid developer is doing a good enough job then *gasp* pay for support. Gee...what a fucking concept eh?
You misunderstand. Most Sourceforge coders could care less about Microsoft. They aren't a bunch of rabid MS hating freaks like news outlets make them out to be. I even read on a board once where a lead programmer for a project went to work for MS, and the others wished him luck and told them they were happy for him.
Just because Slashdot, Newsforge, Red Hat and Novell make OSS coders out to be the defeaters of a monopoly and wishing to take MS on, doesn't mean they are. Red Hat and Novell want to play with the big boys in Redmond...but I doubt unpaid programmers like the ones working on projects like leafpad, liferea, azureus etc could care less.
You say OSS developers and we don't understand how the business world works, yet maybe it is you that doesn't understand how the OSS world works. Most OSS programmers do it because they enjoy it, or else they do it to scratch an itch. Someone doesn't wake up one day and say "Hey, prisoner-of-enigma on Slashdot needs a new CRM database to run his business on, let's start a Sourceforge project to help him out!!!". In other words, they don't give a shit whether or not their application is suitable for your business or not, because they are not in the market of selling their software to companies like yours. Their attitude is "I'll write some good code that solves my problem, and if someone decides it runs good for their business, excellent, go ahead and use it. If someone decides they want to modify it to make it suitable for their business, even better, because they can share the changes with myself." (assuming it is GPL'd or under a similar license).
Essentially, what I am saying is, if you expect a high end solution for your business, go to Red Hat or Novell. But to shop around Sourceforge for business applications and then to criticize developers for not making their software suitable for your business, when that wasn't their primary goal in the first place is childish and selfish at best.
And, if you don't wish to pay these people for their work, then take their software as a base and make it suitable for your business....or, even better, buy something from Microsoft. I don't think the average Open Source coder on Slashdot or Sourceforge will lose any sleep over it.
So, to reiterate, Red Hat and Novell care whether OSS suits your business, your average Sourceforge coder does not, so go and bitch to them.:)
Yes, I'm sure the CIO's at corporations migrating to Linux on the desktop have an intense hatred of Microsoft and stay up until 4 in the morning posting about it on Slashdot.
Simply use urpmi to download any packages missing since it is only one CD. You are actually using less bandwidth that way, since you are only downloading the packages you need.
What is this obsession of the Slashdot community towards calling everything a degrading name. Examples:
Deadhat
Winblows
M$
LinSux
etc.
Can't you people get out of your mom's basement and grow up? Try getting a job in IT and then explaining to your CIO why you shouldn't use deadhat or winblows and see how long it takes for them to laugh in your face.
Sorry, just a small gripe of mine.
Actually, no, there is no goal in Linux that says that all providers have to provide their products for free. Perhaps you should retake GPL 101. Actually, since you are cheap, just skip the course (doesn't really exist btw) and read the GPL.
If this really was the goal of Linux, perhaps releasing it under a license that specifically allows you to charge money for the software wasn't such a good idea, no?
Oh, and just to let you know, Red Hat and Mandriva do in-fact provide full source code for every open source component in their products, as they are required to by copyright law (they cannot distribute others code unless adhering to the attached license).
It really disgusts me some people around here. Half of you that bitch about Red Hat are sitting there running kernels and other Open Source packages that contain code that Red Hat paid to have contributed to these projects so you could use them FOR FREE, yet you get in a huff when these companies try to make some money. Quit being so fucking selfish I say. Don't want to pay for something...great I say...Red Hat could care less. Let all of the companies and enterprises that do value Red Hat's value-add pay for their services. If I were you, I'd be happy Red Hat is doing this. It lets them continue to pay people to improve code you are using.
Oh, and one last thing. You can download Mandriva x86_64 edition for free.
PS I'm not saying you HAVE to pay for Linux....I am running a free distro myself, one that is based extremely heavily on Red Hat's products (CentOS). But to use their code and complain when they try to make money is really low.
OpenOffice's default format is OpenDocument (for 2.0 beta). You can set the default yourself to another format (MS Office for instance).
What I am saying is that no one is asking MS to make OpenDocument the default for all customers of Office. Making OpenDocument the default and allowing customers to make OpenDocument the default are two entirely different things.
Not only that, but a reason MS gave for not supporting the format is that it doesn't support all of the features of the MS Office XML formats. So they won't add write or read support for OpenDocument.
I find that really strange, considering MS Office currently has read and write support for plain text and rich text documents. Are they really trying to tell us that plain text documents support more features than OpenDocument documents?
I call bullshit on that statement. It is an utterly stupid reason for them to give. No one is asking Microsoft to make OpenDocument the default format for Office, but to simply support it, just like they do RTF and TXT files.
This is simply a case of Microsoft kicking and screaming and throwing a tantrum because someone is telling them to take their lockin schemes and shove it up their ass.
Discussing the security vulnerabilities is entirely appropriate, but bringing them up on every Firefox article when it is completely off-topic is flamebait.
Actually, QT is a cross platform C++ toolkit. The KDE developers develop their own GUI using QT.
It would be the same as saying that GTK is a gui...which makes no sense whatsoever. GTK is a widget set, Gnome is the GUI.
There is a contract between the KDE Developers and Trolltech that states that if Trolltech doesn't release a new version of QT under the GPL within 12 months, the older versions are automatically BSD licensed, or something along those lines.
In other words, this would be stupid for Trolltech to do.
Already did. The MS solution was cheaper at the time. Munich still decided on Linux. They want full control over their IT infrastructure in the future, right down the souce code level, something Microsoft can't offer.
This was a post on lwn.net from the President of FSFE
Hi all,
there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters article published today and copied to several locations, including MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.
The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others will do the same.
As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.
Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring the true facts.
So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.
It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, those damn mother fucking Open Source developers. You pay them to finish a project so it suits you and then they don't bother. I mean, they are obviously doing it for you, since you are paying them the big bucks. It isn't possible that they happen to be doing these projects because they just feel like doing it...
Oh...nevermind...
This just shows how uninformed you are. Are you honestly stupid enough to think that all OSS devs hang out on Slashdot? It generally isn't OSS devs saying these things, it is enthusiastic users. To criticize OSS devs because of what someone on Slashdot says is moronic.
Add on to that the fact that businesses selling software solutions do it to please your business and keep your business, and that this isn't the goal of OSS devs, and I see it as a bigger problem for the proprietary software world.
With OSS, the aquisition cost is zero. Meaning you can test the software, decide whether it fits your needs and do this for no cost. Then, if you decide you want support, you simply call up Novell or Red Hat.
If an end user decides they need to have their hand held like a little child, they can pay for that support from a company like Linspire or Xandros.
Aren't Open Source devs doing enough giving you free software? Why should they have to tutor you on its use too? Companies are set up for this sort of thing because no one is going to take support calls for free.
I'm really sick of this weird idea people have that just because someone releases a free product that they made because they happened to feel like it that they are obligated to provide world class support for it. If you don't think an unpaid developer is doing a good enough job then *gasp* pay for support. Gee...what a fucking concept eh?
You misunderstand. Most Sourceforge coders could care less about Microsoft. They aren't a bunch of rabid MS hating freaks like news outlets make them out to be. I even read on a board once where a lead programmer for a project went to work for MS, and the others wished him luck and told them they were happy for him.
Just because Slashdot, Newsforge, Red Hat and Novell make OSS coders out to be the defeaters of a monopoly and wishing to take MS on, doesn't mean they are. Red Hat and Novell want to play with the big boys in Redmond...but I doubt unpaid programmers like the ones working on projects like leafpad, liferea, azureus etc could care less.
You say OSS developers and we don't understand how the business world works, yet maybe it is you that doesn't understand how the OSS world works. Most OSS programmers do it because they enjoy it, or else they do it to scratch an itch. Someone doesn't wake up one day and say "Hey, prisoner-of-enigma on Slashdot needs a new CRM database to run his business on, let's start a Sourceforge project to help him out!!!". In other words, they don't give a shit whether or not their application is suitable for your business or not, because they are not in the market of selling their software to companies like yours. Their attitude is "I'll write some good code that solves my problem, and if someone decides it runs good for their business, excellent, go ahead and use it. If someone decides they want to modify it to make it suitable for their business, even better, because they can share the changes with myself." (assuming it is GPL'd or under a similar license). :)
Essentially, what I am saying is, if you expect a high end solution for your business, go to Red Hat or Novell. But to shop around Sourceforge for business applications and then to criticize developers for not making their software suitable for your business, when that wasn't their primary goal in the first place is childish and selfish at best.
And, if you don't wish to pay these people for their work, then take their software as a base and make it suitable for your business....or, even better, buy something from Microsoft. I don't think the average Open Source coder on Slashdot or Sourceforge will lose any sleep over it.
So, to reiterate, Red Hat and Novell care whether OSS suits your business, your average Sourceforge coder does not, so go and bitch to them.
Yes, I'm sure the CIO's at corporations migrating to Linux on the desktop have an intense hatred of Microsoft and stay up until 4 in the morning posting about it on Slashdot.
Since going to www.mandrivalinux.com and clicking download is apparently too difficult, I'll provide a link :)
n ux/official/iso/10.2/x86_64/
http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/ftp.php3
http://gulus.usherbrooke.ca/pub/distro/Mandrakeli
Simply use urpmi to download any packages missing since it is only one CD. You are actually using less bandwidth that way, since you are only downloading the packages you need.
What is this obsession of the Slashdot community towards calling everything a degrading name. Examples: Deadhat Winblows M$ LinSux etc. Can't you people get out of your mom's basement and grow up? Try getting a job in IT and then explaining to your CIO why you shouldn't use deadhat or winblows and see how long it takes for them to laugh in your face. Sorry, just a small gripe of mine.
dedhat and winblows....how very mature indeed. How old are you exactly...12?
Actually, no, there is no goal in Linux that says that all providers have to provide their products for free. Perhaps you should retake GPL 101. Actually, since you are cheap, just skip the course (doesn't really exist btw) and read the GPL.
If this really was the goal of Linux, perhaps releasing it under a license that specifically allows you to charge money for the software wasn't such a good idea, no?
Oh, and just to let you know, Red Hat and Mandriva do in-fact provide full source code for every open source component in their products, as they are required to by copyright law (they cannot distribute others code unless adhering to the attached license).
It really disgusts me some people around here. Half of you that bitch about Red Hat are sitting there running kernels and other Open Source packages that contain code that Red Hat paid to have contributed to these projects so you could use them FOR FREE, yet you get in a huff when these companies try to make some money. Quit being so fucking selfish I say. Don't want to pay for something...great I say...Red Hat could care less. Let all of the companies and enterprises that do value Red Hat's value-add pay for their services. If I were you, I'd be happy Red Hat is doing this. It lets them continue to pay people to improve code you are using.
Oh, and one last thing. You can download Mandriva x86_64 edition for free.
PS I'm not saying you HAVE to pay for Linux....I am running a free distro myself, one that is based extremely heavily on Red Hat's products (CentOS). But to use their code and complain when they try to make money is really low.
LOL, Slashdot posters are on a roll today. I have never laughed at Slashdot so much in a day before :-P
I'm a Canadian and I thought it was pretty funny.
LOL!!! I love it when people make fun of us.
Lol, that is the funniest thing I've read all day. And I am a Canadian, born and raised. +10 Funny ROFLMAO
Ummm...why? Novell Linux Desktop and SUSE 9.3 Pro are both products made by Novell. Why would it matter exactly?
OpenOffice's default format is OpenDocument (for 2.0 beta). You can set the default yourself to another format (MS Office for instance).
What I am saying is that no one is asking MS to make OpenDocument the default for all customers of Office. Making OpenDocument the default and allowing customers to make OpenDocument the default are two entirely different things.
Ummm, I wasn't talking about this article specifically, they did give that reason in a Microsoft employee blog.
Not only that, but a reason MS gave for not supporting the format is that it doesn't support all of the features of the MS Office XML formats. So they won't add write or read support for OpenDocument.
I find that really strange, considering MS Office currently has read and write support for plain text and rich text documents. Are they really trying to tell us that plain text documents support more features than OpenDocument documents?
I call bullshit on that statement. It is an utterly stupid reason for them to give. No one is asking Microsoft to make OpenDocument the default format for Office, but to simply support it, just like they do RTF and TXT files.
This is simply a case of Microsoft kicking and screaming and throwing a tantrum because someone is telling them to take their lockin schemes and shove it up their ass.
Yes, because Firefox is a Linux/Unix only program. Gotcha. I totally understand now :)
-1 Flamebait.
Discussing the security vulnerabilities is entirely appropriate, but bringing them up on every Firefox article when it is completely off-topic is flamebait.
Actually, QT is a cross platform C++ toolkit. The KDE developers develop their own GUI using QT. It would be the same as saying that GTK is a gui...which makes no sense whatsoever. GTK is a widget set, Gnome is the GUI.
There is a contract between the KDE Developers and Trolltech that states that if Trolltech doesn't release a new version of QT under the GPL within 12 months, the older versions are automatically BSD licensed, or something along those lines. In other words, this would be stupid for Trolltech to do.
Already did. The MS solution was cheaper at the time. Munich still decided on Linux. They want full control over their IT infrastructure in the future, right down the souce code level, something Microsoft can't offer.
This was a post on lwn.net from the President of FSFE
Hi all,
there seems to be confusion spread about the GPLv3, based on a Reuters article published today and copied to several locations, including MSNBC from where Slashdot grabbed it. Unfortunately in this article Reuters displayed some items of pure speculation as facts and in doing so oversimplified them to the extent that they became false.
The true news is what you can see in this release: We have begun preparing the GPL Version 3 process for real and there will be a long discussion throughout 2006 about the changes made. Since that process will be quite a lot of work, the Free Software Foundations are very happy that Stichting NLnet supports this process and hope that others will do the same.
As to what the GPL version 3 draft will contain: Noone has that information right now, it is all in Richard Stallmans head, who has to gather the ideas and get to work on the draft. Until that draft has been published, everything is pure speculation and your guess is as good as mine.
Reuters picked up strongly on two of the the points which were made before by Eben Moglen in the eweek article and quoted me falsely. They later did some slight improvement in terms of reducing the oversimplification, but still portrayed things in a rather one-sided way, in particular making mere speculation seem fact, while ignoring the true facts.
So the best thing you can do is to ignore that article.
It is FUD and I am deeply sorry for this, for I have been centrally (if falsely) quoted as the contributor of it.
That has been a most unpleasant experience.
Regards,
Georg Greve
FSFE, President