OSS has the potential of transferring the massive wealth from the few MBA types, back to the coders and grunts on the front lines.
Nonsense. "MBA-types" would still be needed to run companies if all software was open source. They can work with "support" or "solution" companies instead of retail software. Programmers won't have nearly as much opportunity to make money. Sure, some companies like Red Hat might hire them, but most software companies rely on the proprietary model and it's hard to programmers expecting to be paid to compete with ones who work for free. Most independent developers, who I often find make the best software, would not be able to make money.
As for your comment about bloat, that occurs in open source software also.
There is a very small chance that thatf might happen, but to say that it is advocated based on racism is completely incorrect. It is advocated to stop fraud.
Yeah, successful businesses like Microsoft who spend three years ignoring a government directive to document server interoperability APIs.
So Microsoft's server's API's documentation is the government's business? Wow. I would have thought that something like that would be handled by employees at Microsoft, not a busybody in the European Union government.
Oh, those poor, successful companies who did nothing wrong. Other than defying the government.
Many would that that is a good thing to do when the government intrudes in private affairs. Civil disobedience, and all that good stuff, you know. But wait, this is Microsoft, so normal rules don't apply.
It's good to know you'll be the first to speak out against GNU and the Linux project if they refuse to add a government necessitated security backdoor to their software. After all, they'll be defying their government.
They didn't do anything. They don't have a monopoly. European courts just like to go after successful businesses. It probably makes them feel better about themselves.
Getting a new lock is easy. Unless, of course, you need to replace dozens of them and have a secure building in the meantime. And they aren't hard to lose.
The best thing is keycards. They are incredibly easy to replace and reconfigure and easy to make on the spot. They can also be tracked. RFID keycards can make it possible to just walk though doors.
No, that is centrist. Neutral is not taking a bias. e.g.
Neutral: Political Party A is a political party in Elbonia that was formed by Joe Average. It's platform includes x and y, with a strong opposition to z. It is generally considered a reltist party in Elbonia, although from a worldwide perspective it is more light of center. It currently holds 40% of the Elbonian legislature.
Centrist: Political Party A is an okay party, with some disagreeable views. It has good policies in areas x and z, although they are a tad extreme, but its y policies are less than desirable. It has made some good laws, but others were less satisfactory.
They can do what they want, but users can also complain if they want.
Conservatives don't complain about talk radio because those shows are billed as being conservative. As are many liberal radio shows. Conservatives don't complain about Al Franken being biased.
Youtube is supposed to be a video hosting site, not a liberal advocacy site. Most major media outlets are supposed to be nonpartisan.
Regardless, due to the nature of this, YouTube is not at fault. It was just a few jerks.
If you toute your program as open source, yet say that if anyone makes any changes to the program that you do not approve of, that they cannot use your trademark, then that certainly doesn't sound "open" and "free" to me.
No one will let you use their trademark. It reflects back on them. If anyone could call a product Firefox, and put all of the Firefox graphics on there, then they can do anything in Mozilla's name. Anything includes making spyware, a virus, or just plain bad software. That would cripple Mozilla's reputation. If I took some of your code, messed with it to make it destroy a linux installation when used, and released it as your software, would you like that?
Maybe Debian should be allowed to use the name for small patches, but that would have to be a special accommodation.
It's not targeted at people who are starving. It's meant for those who, while they have enough food and have a place to live, are uneducated and stuck in poverty.
I doubt that laptops are going to magically educate people, and even if they do help somewhat, maintaining them won't be feasible.
Russia has almost twice as many nuclear weapons as the U.S., and has somewhat more active warheads.
The U.S. isn't going to go out and nuke people without huge provocation. Neither is the U.K., France, or Russia. You can't safely say the same thing about North Korea or Iran.
First of all, they aren't protecting intellectual property. They are protecting their reputation.
I am not comparing the work of the Debian maintainers to that of virus writers. But if Mozilla let anyone using their trademarks, they could be thought responsible for something that wasn't theirs.
Maybe they should make an exception for Debian, as they obviously are only trying to improve the software. But they would still be in the position of being responsible for something that isn't theirs.
What you said makes little sense. You can port FireFox to any operating system you want. You just can't claim it to be Mozilla's project, which calling it Firefox effectively does.
Would you like it if someone made a virus and advertised it is being yours, and most users would never learn that it wasn't?
No software product lets you do that. Otherwise, anyone could add an "rm -R/" to the program, and distribute it as a respected project. That would cripple that product's reputation. You can use the source, but you can't claim your modifications to be the official software of an organization or person.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. "MBA-types" would still be needed to run companies if all software was open source. They can work with "support" or "solution" companies instead of retail software. Programmers won't have nearly as much opportunity to make money. Sure, some companies like Red Hat might hire them, but most software companies rely on the proprietary model and it's hard to programmers expecting to be paid to compete with ones who work for free. Most independent developers, who I often find make the best software, would not be able to make money.
As for your comment about bloat, that occurs in open source software also.
Godwin
There is a very small chance that thatf might happen, but to say that it is advocated based on racism is completely incorrect. It is advocated to stop fraud.
Many would that that is a good thing to do when the government intrudes in private affairs. Civil disobedience, and all that good stuff, you know. But wait, this is Microsoft, so normal rules don't apply.
It's good to know you'll be the first to speak out against GNU and the Linux project if they refuse to add a government necessitated security backdoor to their software. After all, they'll be defying their government.
They didn't do anything. They don't have a monopoly. European courts just like to go after successful businesses. It probably makes them feel better about themselves.
Getting a new lock is easy. Unless, of course, you need to replace dozens of them and have a secure building in the meantime. And they aren't hard to lose.
The best thing is keycards. They are incredibly easy to replace and reconfigure and easy to make on the spot. They can also be tracked. RFID keycards can make it possible to just walk though doors.
Because calling it racism is a convenient way for the Democratic party to make people oppose it without a legitame argument.
No, that is centrist. Neutral is not taking a bias. e.g.
Neutral:
Political Party A is a political party in Elbonia that was formed by Joe Average. It's platform includes x and y, with a strong opposition to z. It is generally considered a reltist party in Elbonia, although from a worldwide perspective it is more light of center. It currently holds 40% of the Elbonian legislature.
Centrist:
Political Party A is an okay party, with some disagreeable views. It has good policies in areas x and z, although they are a tad extreme, but its y policies are less than desirable. It has made some good laws, but others were less satisfactory.
I meant that he didn't use files for his code.
A true nerd doesn't use files. He passes everything into gcc with cat, and rewrites it before every compile.
Google and Microsoft both hand offices near both of those places.
I know. I was looking for a funny moderation, not interesting. On the other hand, you can look at it like this:
No one buys XBox -> Microsoft stops making it and loses $500 on all of them already made.
Many people buy XBoxes -> Microsoft keeps making it and loses $100 on each for many years to come.
Honestly, though, I have no problem with Microsoft making money.
There is really no need for this. Wikipedia works. It isn't perfect, but nothing will be.
They should use the resources to work on Wikipedia v1.0 for those who need a stable source of information.
They can do what they want, but users can also complain if they want.
Conservatives don't complain about talk radio because those shows are billed as being conservative. As are many liberal radio shows. Conservatives don't complain about Al Franken being biased.
Youtube is supposed to be a video hosting site, not a liberal advocacy site. Most major media outlets are supposed to be nonpartisan.
Regardless, due to the nature of this, YouTube is not at fault. It was just a few jerks.
It is going to be released as open source in the future, check the wikipedia article.
Considering how much they lose on each one, it might. Even with the games, they haven't made money yet.
No one will let you use their trademark. It reflects back on them. If anyone could call a product Firefox, and put all of the Firefox graphics on there, then they can do anything in Mozilla's name. Anything includes making spyware, a virus, or just plain bad software. That would cripple Mozilla's reputation. If I took some of your code, messed with it to make it destroy a linux installation when used, and released it as your software, would you like that?
Maybe Debian should be allowed to use the name for small patches, but that would have to be a special accommodation.
It's not targeted at people who are starving. It's meant for those who, while they have enough food and have a place to live, are uneducated and stuck in poverty.
I doubt that laptops are going to magically educate people, and even if they do help somewhat, maintaining them won't be feasible.
Russia has almost twice as many nuclear weapons as the U.S., and has somewhat more active warheads.
The U.S. isn't going to go out and nuke people without huge provocation. Neither is the U.K., France, or Russia. You can't safely say the same thing about North Korea or Iran.
First of all, they aren't protecting intellectual property. They are protecting their reputation.
I am not comparing the work of the Debian maintainers to that of virus writers. But if Mozilla let anyone using their trademarks, they could be thought responsible for something that wasn't theirs.
Maybe they should make an exception for Debian, as they obviously are only trying to improve the software. But they would still be in the position of being responsible for something that isn't theirs.
Civil disobedience? It isn't a crime. There was no "disobedience".
What you said makes little sense. You can port FireFox to any operating system you want. You just can't claim it to be Mozilla's project, which calling it Firefox effectively does.
Would you like it if someone made a virus and advertised it is being yours, and most users would never learn that it wasn't?
No software product lets you do that. Otherwise, anyone could add an "rm -R /" to the program, and distribute it as a respected project. That would cripple that product's reputation. You can use the source, but you can't claim your modifications to be the official software of an organization or person.
Please, do give examples of where our first amendment rights are being violated in a significant way?
He leads a terrorist organization that has killed thousands of people.