While FOSS has its place, there are times when going with the proprietary solution has more inherit value.
What does this have to do with tax software? A business could certainly offer paid indemnification even while giving away the software under a F/OSS license. I won't guarantee that it's a successful business model -- I haven't tried it -- but there's nothing inherent to the business or the software which prevents this approach.
For example, fanfic where Spock beams himself to Middle Earth, and has a meaningful discussion with Aragorn, before shooting his ray gun at Magneto, is not "Realistic."
AFAIK, Cardinal -- the main Ruby-on-Parrot project -- is mostly dead and has been so for months if not years.
The most recent commit was less than a month ago. Rubinius (as one example) definitely has more work put into it, but Cardinal is not dead by any means.
The next stable release of Rakudo (Perl 6 in Parrot) comes out next Tuesday. This will be the 24th stable monthly release of Perl 6 on Parrot in a row. You can also see daily Rakudo spectest progress, if you like.
It's also two keystrokes shorter. What's wrong about borrowing good ideas from other languages? (I'd tell you what's wrong about borrowing bad ideas from other languages, but you didn't ask.)
You're also years out of date on the string concatenation operator. I leave it as an exercise for readers to form their own conclusions about the accuracy of the rest of your post.
What makes ActiveState Perl different from Perl as seen on Linux et al?
In core Perl itself, nothing. ActiveState uses the same source code. The problem is ActiveState's PPM repository.
Why cant you just run the same Perl code from Linux on ActiveState?
It's the same source code.
And if it sucks so much, why has no-one done a more straight port from the Linux code (or is that what Cygwin Perl is for?)
ActivePerl and Strawberry Perl are distributions of Perl. They don't change the source code. The difference is that Strawberry Perl includes other tools so that you can configure, build, and install modules from the CPAN rather than hoping that they're part of ActiveState's PPM repository.
ActivePerl has like a brazillion modules available for it.
Not really. ActiveState made bizarre PPM binary compatibility decisions, which meant that their version of Scalar::Util didn't include the XS components. As the 5.8.x series continued, more and more modules relied on that XS component, which meant that increasing amounts of the CPAN weren't available as PPMs. I don't know the exact figures, but it wouldn't surprise me if one-third to one-half of the CPAN were unavailable from AS's repositories.
(Did you know Alias is one of the CPAN administrators?)
So rather than having a system which works and is convenient....
The words "works" and "convenient" aren't as loaded as the word "free", but they're definitely loaded terms. I'm sure you'll have an entertaining time explaining to hundreds of Linux kernel developers why your definition of "convenient" and "works" is more important than their copyrights.
[If] the guys contributing all that code to Fedora are doing a good job and really helping to make RHEL a better product, then why the hell don't they give them something?
How about source code under an OSI-compliant license?
What happens is that they miss the dividing line between "the development" and "the use" of the programs.
I think you mean "the redistribution" instead of "the development", because the GPL applies when you redistribute the program regardless of whether you've modified it.
Of course, the president is also not able to introduce legislation, and it is not his job to push agendas, laws, etc. through congress (read the Constitution).
You'd think someone who taught Constitutional Law for 12 years would know this. At least, I would have thought that.
Suppose I live in an area with half a dozen large Intel plants which employ tens of thousands of workers. Suppose those Intel plants take advantage of shared municipal infrastructure, such as roads, fire protection, and police services. Intel's headquarters is in another state.
You could make the argument that Intel's operations here should not be taxed -- but the Intel plants here use a lot of government-provided services. If Intel didn't have to pay for them, who would?
(For a more extreme example, consider the Google datacenter in The Dalles, Oregon. Google has megabucks. The Dalles does not.)
[If] you give a corporation more money with no strings attached...
Who's "giving" a corporation anything? Cutting or removing a tax doesn't "give" anyone anything. It merely ceases to take away something -- otherwise a mugger who declined to lighten your wallet by $20 could increase your net worth merely by doing nothing.
... they'll do things like hoard it, give big raises and bonuses to their CEO, and expanding in ways that do little to help the country actually giving them the break.
Where do you think a corporation keeps its liquid and semi-liquid assets? Under a large mattress somewhere?
You're somewhat right in that a corporation which does not pay taxes in a municipality or country may not benefit said taxation area if it spends or invests that money in other taxation areas, but the situation is by no means as simple as you make it sound.
Slashdot Mirror
What does this have to do with tax software? A business could certainly offer paid indemnification even while giving away the software under a F/OSS license. I won't guarantee that it's a successful business model -- I haven't tried it -- but there's nothing inherent to the business or the software which prevents this approach.
Suppose Google wants Chrome to run on the Linux-based Android.
Ah, you've been to Las Vegas.
No, but it is ubiquitous.
The most recent commit was less than a month ago. Rubinius (as one example) definitely has more work put into it, but Cardinal is not dead by any means.
The next stable release of Rakudo (Perl 6 in Parrot) comes out next Tuesday. This will be the 24th stable monthly release of Perl 6 on Parrot in a row. You can also see daily Rakudo spectest progress, if you like.
Rakudo (Perl 6 on Parrot) can do this now.
All of it.
If you use a Perl 6 implementation which supports Perl 5, yes.
Yes, if they're pure-Perl.
No.
That depends on the Perl 6 implementation. The answer is probably no, but there's no reason someone couldn't write a converter for the basic XS uses.
TIOBE isn't serious research. Counting "Chrome" for Delphi may skew the numbers, given that Google's browser is not written in Delphi.
It's also two keystrokes shorter. What's wrong about borrowing good ideas from other languages? (I'd tell you what's wrong about borrowing bad ideas from other languages, but you didn't ask.)
You're also years out of date on the string concatenation operator. I leave it as an exercise for readers to form their own conclusions about the accuracy of the rest of your post.
... or they'd become like American tobacco companies, which are poor examples of honesty, transparency, and customer service.
The third estate was commoners.
In core Perl itself, nothing. ActiveState uses the same source code. The problem is ActiveState's PPM repository.
It's the same source code.
ActivePerl and Strawberry Perl are distributions of Perl. They don't change the source code. The difference is that Strawberry Perl includes other tools so that you can configure, build, and install modules from the CPAN rather than hoping that they're part of ActiveState's PPM repository.
Not really. ActiveState made bizarre PPM binary compatibility decisions, which meant that their version of Scalar::Util didn't include the XS components. As the 5.8.x series continued, more and more modules relied on that XS component, which meant that increasing amounts of the CPAN weren't available as PPMs. I don't know the exact figures, but it wouldn't surprise me if one-third to one-half of the CPAN were unavailable from AS's repositories.
(Did you know Alias is one of the CPAN administrators?)
I'll give you one better. Apparently, Google Chrome is written in Delphi. TIOBE confirms it.
Which law is that? Can you cite a statute or caselaw?
The words "works" and "convenient" aren't as loaded as the word "free", but they're definitely loaded terms. I'm sure you'll have an entertaining time explaining to hundreds of Linux kernel developers why your definition of "convenient" and "works" is more important than their copyrights.
Who, precisely, is saying that you shouldn't?
How about source code under an OSI-compliant license?
I think you mean "the redistribution" instead of "the development", because the GPL applies when you redistribute the program regardless of whether you've modified it.
Google didn't have to make you to sell your eyeballs.
You'd think someone who taught Constitutional Law for 12 years would know this. At least, I would have thought that.
Suppose I live in an area with half a dozen large Intel plants which employ tens of thousands of workers. Suppose those Intel plants take advantage of shared municipal infrastructure, such as roads, fire protection, and police services. Intel's headquarters is in another state.
You could make the argument that Intel's operations here should not be taxed -- but the Intel plants here use a lot of government-provided services. If Intel didn't have to pay for them, who would?
(For a more extreme example, consider the Google datacenter in The Dalles, Oregon. Google has megabucks. The Dalles does not.)
Who's "giving" a corporation anything? Cutting or removing a tax doesn't "give" anyone anything. It merely ceases to take away something -- otherwise a mugger who declined to lighten your wallet by $20 could increase your net worth merely by doing nothing.
Where do you think a corporation keeps its liquid and semi-liquid assets? Under a large mattress somewhere?
You're somewhat right in that a corporation which does not pay taxes in a municipality or country may not benefit said taxation area if it spends or invests that money in other taxation areas, but the situation is by no means as simple as you make it sound.
What about "Can we release a new version of the software with new feature per user specifications in the next iteration?"