My impression was that.NET had a lot to offer for users of Unix scripting languages
Pretty much, yeah. The integration still has some warts, but the Dynamic Language Runtime (additions to Mono and.NET alike) will help with those considerably.
( though I make sure to leave a strongly worded comment that any code contained MAY NOT be relicensed under the GPL, since GPL people tend to forget that importing doesn't imply relicensing )
Is that legally enforceable? If so, could you link me to a licensed piece of code? I'd like to take a look and see how that license would fit me.
That you think the GPL is about preventing commercial use of code is also prima facie stupidity. Just look at all of the commercial endeavors that are GNU licensed.
Very, very few actual commercial applications are GPL licensed--they're either based on support (which is a business model applicable only to a very narrow selection of software) with the applications being free, or they "abuse" the GPL through exposing functionality via web services. But I'm sure you know that.:)
As for how in the world GNU software could be "more free" and "more open" - well both of those terms have multiple meanings, you pick the meaning that applies and it makes sense, you apply an anti-GPL mindset and pick a meaning that doesn't make sense and doh! it doesn't make sense.
I knew what he's talking about, and my response was going to essentially be what you just said. "Proprietary" and "commercial" are, 99 times out of 100, the exact same thing, and trying to brush this aside by saying "but you CAAAAAAN do it...if you're willing to fuck yourself over, LOL!" is a joke.
Obviously; anyone who reads the GPL will say they specifically suggest commercial use. In the real world, however, "commercial" and "proprietary" are, 99 times out of 100, the same thing. It's a disingenuous suggestion by a politically-motivated lobby.
IIRC, MPL allows static linking and doesn't require the dynamic library exception (under the LGPL, you have to be able to recompile the library and replace the dynamic library file).
The MPL is similar to the GPL in that changes must stay open source, but code in other linked files is not required to be licensed under GPL. I personally like it a lot.
That's exactly why the GPL makes my eye twitch. Some of us don't care if our code is used commercially, and if you do, that's fine. Trying to say that you're "more free" and "more open" because you ban that is prima facie stupidity.
I would ordinarily agree with you...but experience has taught me otherwise. I've taught in schools (middle and high school, on college breaks) with OpenOffice and MS Office on machines in different computer labs. For some stuff--word processing, very-very-basic spreadsheet stuff--they're both fine. OpenOffice's PowerPoint knockoff completely sucks a bucket of dicks, though, and for anything remotely complex they generally have problems both figuring out the interface (which tries really hard to not follow the HCI conventions of any environment) whereas it's generally more fluid in Office.
Office is cheap for schools, better in most ways (OpenOffice's ultra-fringe features are better--Office's equation editor, a bolt-in, is notoriously shitty, whereas OO.o's is not) and it's the suite that more or less everyone uses in the real world. That's not going to change by forcing the kids of one school district to use it, and I would argue that it's pushing politics (software politics, but still) on the kids to force them to use something other than the de facto industry standard. If you want to install OO.o and MS Office side-by-side, gravy. Let the kids use what they want. Maybe they'll all love OO.o for some reason and you can cut out the MS Office licenses. But OO.o, as what amounts to an inferior product (and I wish it wasn't, because Office is expensive, but OO.o is inferior), should not be pushed upon them as the default and only choice.
Doesn't update all optional packs and updates, though, and doesn't host patches that require validation. (Which is a good thing, but it's still very limited.)
Seriously, for about a year now I've been seeing your posts around Slashdot; they're always the ones -- accurately -- modded down because you're acting like a spoilt child. Posting some petulant anti-Linux rubbish.
That's funny, seeing what I do for a living involves writing software for Linux. But go on with being full of shit, it's entertaining.
There are almost certainly third-party extensions to handle the rest of that functionality (though why you'd want to be using PHP is a valid question; even setting aside ASP.NET, which kicks all manner of ass, there are better open-source tools).
As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.
Whose alternative is better? And before you say Linux/OO.o, keep in mind what is the de facto worldwide standard, and you'd better have a good reason for forcing people to switch (gee, that doesn't sound very free-as-in-freedom to me...!) other than cost, because NZ$50mil (which, today, is about $34.3 million USD, which isn't a lot for a country-wide agreement whatoever) isn't much to a government. Free-as-in-freedom is also worthless, because let's be honest--nobody important really gives a shit about that (and they should, but trying to force them to care is laughable).
In the current climate, non-Windows systems can't work as well as Windows ones for most end users. Simple as that.
*nix? Sorry, no. The kids and the faculty are all used to Windows which, whether you like it or not, is the de facto standard in computing (yes, over 90% means that it's the standard). Usability--and, even today, Linux's usability sucks, just go read LinuxHater's blog for an assload of examples--is more important to an organization targeting those who aren't computer-savvy (and those accustomed to a way of doing things) than price.
And Dell/Microsoft's educational offerings are dirt-cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
In which case, he is retarded. (His blog seems to be blocked at work for me.)
You are quite right. But it still applies to evil creatures like PHP.
PHP6 may introduce an optional strong-typing feature down the line. Not for 6.0.0 (where it should be), but there may be hope.
Or write CSS-compliant browsers. Nobody implements CSS fully.
My impression was that .NET had a lot to offer for users of Unix scripting languages
Pretty much, yeah. The integration still has some warts, but the Dynamic Language Runtime (additions to Mono and .NET alike) will help with those considerably.
The post you replied to is just clueless.
Not necessarily; they may just not have enough support licenses and would rather go with something community-supported for the workstations.
Hah, I didn't even notice that. Gravy! :P
How do you know he isn't running CentOS on his local developer machine and RHEL on testing/production?
I rebuild Mono (C# is a language in the CLI framework, and Mono implements the CLI) nightly. What's your point?
CentOS on the dev's workstation, RH on the test/production servers?
They're not that unusual (I do some of it on the side for local businesses, myself), but they are generally not enterprise-level support systems.
( though I make sure to leave a strongly worded comment that any code contained MAY NOT be relicensed under the GPL, since GPL people tend to forget that importing doesn't imply relicensing )
Is that legally enforceable? If so, could you link me to a licensed piece of code? I'd like to take a look and see how that license would fit me.
Thanks!
That you think the GPL is about preventing commercial use of code is also prima facie stupidity. Just look at all of the commercial endeavors that are GNU licensed.
Very, very few actual commercial applications are GPL licensed--they're either based on support (which is a business model applicable only to a very narrow selection of software) with the applications being free, or they "abuse" the GPL through exposing functionality via web services. But I'm sure you know that. :)
As for how in the world GNU software could be "more free" and "more open" - well both of those terms have multiple meanings, you pick the meaning that applies and it makes sense, you apply an anti-GPL mindset and pick a meaning that doesn't make sense and doh! it doesn't make sense.
That's because pro-GPL mindsets don't make sense.
I knew what he's talking about, and my response was going to essentially be what you just said. "Proprietary" and "commercial" are, 99 times out of 100, the exact same thing, and trying to brush this aside by saying "but you CAAAAAAN do it...if you're willing to fuck yourself over, LOL!" is a joke.
Thanks for commenting, though. :)
Obviously; anyone who reads the GPL will say they specifically suggest commercial use. In the real world, however, "commercial" and "proprietary" are, 99 times out of 100, the same thing. It's a disingenuous suggestion by a politically-motivated lobby.
IIRC, MPL allows static linking and doesn't require the dynamic library exception (under the LGPL, you have to be able to recompile the library and replace the dynamic library file).
The MPL is similar to the GPL in that changes must stay open source, but code in other linked files is not required to be licensed under GPL. I personally like it a lot.
It's a freetard, what did you expect?
That's exactly why the GPL makes my eye twitch. Some of us don't care if our code is used commercially, and if you do, that's fine. Trying to say that you're "more free" and "more open" because you ban that is prima facie stupidity.
I would ordinarily agree with you...but experience has taught me otherwise. I've taught in schools (middle and high school, on college breaks) with OpenOffice and MS Office on machines in different computer labs. For some stuff--word processing, very-very-basic spreadsheet stuff--they're both fine. OpenOffice's PowerPoint knockoff completely sucks a bucket of dicks, though, and for anything remotely complex they generally have problems both figuring out the interface (which tries really hard to not follow the HCI conventions of any environment) whereas it's generally more fluid in Office.
Office is cheap for schools, better in most ways (OpenOffice's ultra-fringe features are better--Office's equation editor, a bolt-in, is notoriously shitty, whereas OO.o's is not) and it's the suite that more or less everyone uses in the real world. That's not going to change by forcing the kids of one school district to use it, and I would argue that it's pushing politics (software politics, but still) on the kids to force them to use something other than the de facto industry standard. If you want to install OO.o and MS Office side-by-side, gravy. Let the kids use what they want. Maybe they'll all love OO.o for some reason and you can cut out the MS Office licenses. But OO.o, as what amounts to an inferior product (and I wish it wasn't, because Office is expensive, but OO.o is inferior), should not be pushed upon them as the default and only choice.
Doesn't update all optional packs and updates, though, and doesn't host patches that require validation. (Which is a good thing, but it's still very limited.)
In the working world, people aren't expected to have "office suite proficiency". They're expected to have Microsoft Word/Excel/whatever proficiency.
I guess you do, yeah.
Seriously, for about a year now I've been seeing your posts around Slashdot; they're always the ones -- accurately -- modded down because you're acting like a spoilt child. Posting some petulant anti-Linux rubbish.
That's funny, seeing what I do for a living involves writing software for Linux. But go on with being full of shit, it's entertaining.
Of those extensions, the only one I use is Web Developer; the rest don't provide significant benefits. And IE7 has virtually the same thing.
There are almost certainly third-party extensions to handle the rest of that functionality (though why you'd want to be using PHP is a valid question; even setting aside ASP.NET, which kicks all manner of ass, there are better open-source tools).
As for the whole trustworthiness angle, well, call it FUD if you want. It's easy enough to submit code for independent critical review. When organizations don't choose to do so, the uncertainty and doubt that remains is real and intentionally created. Personally, I don't use MS products any more for anything outside of testing my web apps in IE, and have no intention of ever doing so again. I do not choose to trust them.
Paranoia is unhealthy. Therapy will help.
Whose alternative is better? And before you say Linux/OO.o, keep in mind what is the de facto worldwide standard, and you'd better have a good reason for forcing people to switch (gee, that doesn't sound very free-as-in-freedom to me...!) other than cost, because NZ$50mil (which, today, is about $34.3 million USD, which isn't a lot for a country-wide agreement whatoever) isn't much to a government. Free-as-in-freedom is also worthless, because let's be honest--nobody important really gives a shit about that (and they should, but trying to force them to care is laughable).
In the current climate, non-Windows systems can't work as well as Windows ones for most end users. Simple as that.
*nix? Sorry, no. The kids and the faculty are all used to Windows which, whether you like it or not, is the de facto standard in computing (yes, over 90% means that it's the standard). Usability--and, even today, Linux's usability sucks, just go read LinuxHater's blog for an assload of examples--is more important to an organization targeting those who aren't computer-savvy (and those accustomed to a way of doing things) than price.
And Dell/Microsoft's educational offerings are dirt-cheap.