Viral? Do you even know what that word means? Stop repeating FUD. You sound like a nincompoop.
So what if he is the figurehead. Stop believing that life has to be artificial like television. Not everyone needs to be "attractive" to be valuable.
Why don't you go put on your "Axe" and metro-sexual yourself up and admire yourself in the mirror!
You make me sick!
Name calling and false assumptions... wouldn't expect anything less. I didn't say that was the only reason, there are some more negative aspects to RMS and his "ethics". I'll save those for another day, as it seems no one is getting through to you now.
Also, even if he is wrong, he is not putting a gun to your head and making you follow his way.
No, instead he creates a viral license and forces you to follow his way.
Also, what's the deal with everyone criticizing his personal appearance? What does that have to do with anything? When did "fair looks" become the be-all end-all of everything.
Maybe because he is the figurehead of the FSF, which involves quite a few people. Maybe those people don't want to be associated with or represented by this person that doesn't have a home and looks like a slob. Which, again, is a reason the "Open Source" movement was created and why I, like Linus, use that term instead of Free Software. Appearance does matter, anyone who says otherwise is selling something. No its not the be-all end-all and no one ever said it was (except you of course).
I don't understand why you choose to only go back far enough to acknowledge RMS' contributions. What about before RMS?
The truth is, no one could do it alone. Anyway, to me it seems there was first a "paradigm shift" to proprietary software, and now free and open software is making a comeback.
This is the first I've heard of this, can you tell me how you came to these conclusions? I always thought they sold support and that Mark Shuttleworth is a venture capitalist. Looks like they're selling stuff and want to make money to me. Is it possible that maybe you were talking out of your ass? Oh, and this "Ubuntu organization" you're talking about is called Canonical (the ones that handle the money, you should look it up!).
I don't feel I should have to slog through a text install in the year 2007, so I didn't give Feisty a second thought.
Good thing you don't have to install Winders huh? Seriously though, if you stopped because of that, you really shouldn't even bother. Plus, you would have no way of going back to the darkside with no gui install ono!
The officer would reply with something along the lines of "Tell it to the judge". The judge would reply with something along the lines of "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
If I take your bike, I am denying you the use of your bike for however long I have it.
That isnt the case with wireless access.
Whoever came up with the water fountain analogy above was right on the money.
How many two-person water fountains have you seen? I think we all understand the situation here which makes analogies worthless.
I realize I got a little out of hand and I'm sorry. But I've just had this conversation too many times:
Me: Oh ya, I'm very knowledgeable about Linux and love working with it
Interviewer(for proprietary software company): You know businesses are in this to make money, right?
Or:
Me: Oh ya, I use Linux
Friend: Linux makes sense, Windows makes dollars.
Come on people, that shouldn't be the first thing to enter someone's mind. It should be the technical merit of the technology, of which I think Linux has a lot. People don't want to commit to some FOSS ideology when they don't even understand it. First, introduce them to the technology, and then let them know about the philosophies upon which it was built. Right now, most mainstream people don't know what Linux is, and if they do know what it is they don't really understand it. It just seems like sometimes FOSS advocates don't think about how this looks to people on "the outside". No one wants to be preached at, and saying proprietary software is a moral wrong is a nonstarter for most people.
give everyone a vote for which projects they think are important.
Oh I know! The ballots can be money! Oh sorry, that's right, that makes it unethical all of a sudden.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree. Everything should be free. But A) This isn't communism B) Do you think a government official, or Joe American, gives a DAMN about any of this, much less is even able to make a good judgment on some random projects they have never heard of?
So, what are all these other, I'm sure equally creative, ideas do you have to organize ourselves? Any ideas that don't require a fundamental change in how our government is set up? No government involvement at all would be choice.
Blind ideology clashes? I use/write both open source and proprietary software, I have no "ideology clash". I don't write software to have some happy-fun-lets-all-get-together-and-hug-time, I write it because I need it and then I choose a license based on practicality (or in most situations, FORCED to choose a license). I'm having a very hard time understanding why proprietary and FOSS can't co-exist. Let me rephrase that, are there any practical reasons why they can't co-exist (RMS' morals aside)? I even *GASP* sometimes MIX proprietary and FOSS!
Listen, all I'm saying is that you can sit there all day and think of some pie-in-the-sky way for people to make money off of free software. Meanwhile, a community of others and I will still be writing software money or not. I'm just really fucking tired of getting thrown in with these FOSS zealots whenever I tell someone I use Linux [So seriously, FUCK ALL OF YOU GUYS]. I think that's why the term OpenSource was invented for Christs' sake, to slowly distance ourselves from RMS and be able to say "Oh no, he's from some other movement."
Is there a reason you are incapable of encrypting the data yourself? You know, encrypt/decrypt locally on your computer. You would be sure they didn't have access to your key then.
Instructions are available here. 3.92.0 is not available as of this moment.
Re:Bad arguments and bad reasoning
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"When you list every major law implemented to "protect" life and property, they've all been broken. Can anyone think of a law which hasn't been broken, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't society just give up and go law-free?"
Oh what is this, a law analogy? What are you new here? Nerds don't understand laws, they understand cars. Watch and learn:
When you list every major car safety feature implemented to "protect" life and limb, they have all failed. Can anyone think of a car safety feature which hasn't failed, and of course this begs the obvious question: Why doesn't society just give up and go seatbelt-free?
If criminals take advantage of it and borrow both the identity and the money, the credit industry does not care because there is no serious liability to the lender who lent the money.
I noticed this in TFA too; you guys need to switch credit card companies if they make you pay for unauthorized use of your credit card. I've had it happen to me before, someone just stole my CC#, I told the CC company and they took it from there (it was around $200 spent online). It was a Visa CC from USAA but I also have a Bank of America CC, which I would expect the same from. Is this abnormal?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why you choose to only go back far enough to acknowledge RMS' contributions. What about before RMS?
The truth is, no one could do it alone. Anyway, to me it seems there was first a "paradigm shift" to proprietary software, and now free and open software is making a comeback.
There is a standard for version numbers? Oh please do tell.
Gotta love Weezer :)
I don't wear pants you insensitive clod!
If it's too loud, turn it down.
Plenty good? How about plenty free too.
The officer would reply with something along the lines of "Tell it to the judge". The judge would reply with something along the lines of "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
Umm, because it doesn't cost you any money (out of pocket) when you "donate" through the card.
I realize I got a little out of hand and I'm sorry. But I've just had this conversation too many times:
Me: Oh ya, I'm very knowledgeable about Linux and love working with it
Interviewer(for proprietary software company): You know businesses are in this to make money, right?
Or:
Me: Oh ya, I use Linux
Friend: Linux makes sense, Windows makes dollars.
Come on people, that shouldn't be the first thing to enter someone's mind. It should be the technical merit of the technology, of which I think Linux has a lot. People don't want to commit to some FOSS ideology when they don't even understand it. First, introduce them to the technology, and then let them know about the philosophies upon which it was built. Right now, most mainstream people don't know what Linux is, and if they do know what it is they don't really understand it. It just seems like sometimes FOSS advocates don't think about how this looks to people on "the outside". No one wants to be preached at, and saying proprietary software is a moral wrong is a nonstarter for most people.
[flamesuit off]
I understand what you're saying, and I agree. Everything should be free. But A) This isn't communism B) Do you think a government official, or Joe American, gives a DAMN about any of this, much less is even able to make a good judgment on some random projects they have never heard of?
So, what are all these other, I'm sure equally creative, ideas do you have to organize ourselves? Any ideas that don't require a fundamental change in how our government is set up? No government involvement at all would be choice.
Blind ideology clashes? I use/write both open source and proprietary software, I have no "ideology clash". I don't write software to have some happy-fun-lets-all-get-together-and-hug-time, I write it because I need it and then I choose a license based on practicality (or in most situations, FORCED to choose a license). I'm having a very hard time understanding why proprietary and FOSS can't co-exist. Let me rephrase that, are there any practical reasons why they can't co-exist (RMS' morals aside)? I even *GASP* sometimes MIX proprietary and FOSS!
Listen, all I'm saying is that you can sit there all day and think of some pie-in-the-sky way for people to make money off of free software. Meanwhile, a community of others and I will still be writing software money or not. I'm just really fucking tired of getting thrown in with these FOSS zealots whenever I tell someone I use Linux [So seriously, FUCK ALL OF YOU GUYS]. I think that's why the term OpenSource was invented for Christs' sake, to slowly distance ourselves from RMS and be able to say "Oh no, he's from some other movement."
[flamesuit on]
Is there a reason you are incapable of encrypting the data yourself? You know, encrypt/decrypt locally on your computer. You would be sure they didn't have access to your key then.
Instructions are available here. 3.92.0 is not available as of this moment.
You're just jealous because I've been online chatting with hot babes all day