There's a difference : you don't have a choice but to use the roads build by the government.
It would be nice if someone asked me what kind of roads i wanted , but that's not really practical:-)
However , for an OS , you can make that choice , and that a good thing . Remember 'Trusted Computing' ? I sure don't trust any OS that would use that , so i won't use it.
There's a difference : you don't have a chance but to you the roads build by the government.
It would be nice if someone asked me what kind of roads i wanted , but that's not really practical:-)
However , for an OS , you can make that choice , and that a good thing . Remember 'Trusted Computing' ? I sure don't trust any OS that would use that , so i won't use it.
Therefore , corporations are people , or at least run by people ( the term people here defines the actual being , and does not refer to the set of morals required to be considered a human being)
The Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. Neither is there to help you. Both have a long history of trying to steal elections. Democrats claim to be liberal, and Republicans claim to be conservative, but both parties are actually populist. Both want to tell you what you can do in your home and what you can do in business, only in different ways (and honestly, it's not uniform across the parties either.)
Well , that's exactly the opposite of populism . (populism means you stand for something just because many people want it , not because it's reasonable or part of your ideology ) .
The word you are looking for is authoritarian. They both want total control of everything , and they want everyone to follow their way of thinking.
I guess the best way is somewhere in between it ( between populist and authoritarian)
Sure, Stallman has made some noteworthy contributions, but his crack-pot political agenda has arguably done just as much to inhibit the adoption of open-source software as it has to promote it.
True , but then again you said Open Source. You need to talk to Eric S. Raymond.
RMS prefers the term Free Software.
RMS is an ideologist, doing what he believes is right. That on it's own deserves respect.It doesn't make him the easiest person to work with though.
"No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior."
More like, no company can use linux to make money, which is exactly the reason why OSX now has a 6% desktop market share and linux is still in the bottom 1%.
As the GNU 3 (and now the AGPL) become more popular (and more restrictive), businesses will start to reject all forms of open source.
You compare 'company making money' with 'desktop market' . You never heard of servers ? They make the most difference in money , and a high percentage of those is running Linux , because it's a lot cheaper , and just as good .
And i'm sure you mean GPLv3 , not GNU 3. Which is indeed more restrictive , the exact reason why many open source projects stay with GPLv2 . Which is fine.
This sounds exactly like software licensed under the GNU license. It's owned by the community, rather than an individual (or the state...which in this case is the FSF).
No , you are wrong , it's not owned by the public.It's owned by the author. Only difference is that in the case of GPL,the author gives you the right to copy and modify it , as long as your modifications are also released under GPL.
Those modifications are yours , and so you are the owner of those modifications, not off the original source.
It basically comes down to this : Even though you realize everything freely , you are allowed to get credit for your work . If you made changes , you are allowed credit for those changes , but the original author still has to be named.
If it were purely communism , than you wouldn't be allowed to get credit , the state would get the credit.
Actually every time you download a song not only are you contributing to terrorism, communism, and kitten killing, the Earth actually heats up by a fraction of a degree. By fighting piracy the G8 are actually fighting global warming.
Next we will see a video of Bin Laden , threathening to share copies of some unreleased popular movie ( some bad cam version). That would surely disrupt the American economy
If they aren't downloading or uploading much, why throttle?:)
And if they are , they are paying for a high bandwidth connection , so why bother ?
If it's a bandwith problem , yes , P2P use lots of bandwith , but they also pay for it ( as there are limits to how much you download/up).
If it's about piracy , then it's not for to target P2P , as nearly any Linux distro is shared on bittorent (for the same bandwith reasons).
Apparently , some ISP's are obsessed into believing than P2P will hurt them , while in reality , it's making them rich.
So then, your two reasons for thinking this is a good thing pretty much boil down to "fear of terrorism" and "people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves".
Off course that's the reason. Why else would people give up their hard earned freedom ?
Slashdot Mirror
i wonder why they didn't call it make && make install.
Ok , drinking and typing is a bad idea . Take 2 :
There's a difference : you don't have a choice but to use the roads build by the government.
It would be nice if someone asked me what kind of roads i wanted , but that's not really practical :-)
However , for an OS , you can make that choice , and that a good thing . Remember 'Trusted Computing' ? I sure don't trust any OS that would use that , so i won't use it.
There's a difference : you don't have a chance but to you the roads build by the government.
It would be nice if someone asked me what kind of roads i wanted , but that's not really practical :-)
However , for an OS , you can make that choice , and that a good thing . Remember 'Trusted Computing' ? I sure don't trust any OS that would use that , so i won't use it.
I guess that depends on the definition of free.
Acording to GPL , it's more free because it makes sure that any derivatives are also under GPL , and thus free.
According to BSD , it's more free because this restriction doesn't apply , thus giving more freedom to derivative work.
I guess freedom is relative.
While free software for the Linux desktop is obviously better , proprietary software can be useful until there's a good free alternative.
I'm not saying the Linux desktop should be free , i say there should be a completely free Linux desktop.
In other words , it's a good idea to work towards a free desktop , but it shoudn't be imposed as the only 'good' way .
People are legal entities too !
Therefore , corporations are people , or at least run by people ( the term people here defines the actual being , and does not refer to the set of morals required to be considered a human being)
The Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin. Neither is there to help you. Both have a long history of trying to steal elections. Democrats claim to be liberal, and Republicans claim to be conservative, but both parties are actually populist. Both want to tell you what you can do in your home and what you can do in business, only in different ways (and honestly, it's not uniform across the parties either.)
Well , that's exactly the opposite of populism .
(populism means you stand for something just because many people want it , not because it's reasonable or part of your ideology ) .
The word you are looking for is authoritarian. They both want total control of everything , and they want everyone to follow their way of thinking.
I guess the best way is somewhere in between it ( between populist and authoritarian)
Maybe it's also because a computer with Linux will be cheaper than one with Windows , since there's no cost for the OS.
So housewives might think : 'hey this one's a lot cheaper and it looks the same(from the outside). I'm taking this. '
Geeks would probably look for a more powerfull pc , wich will probably come with Windows , since many games are played on Windows.
Well , i'm killing your session , and i'm banning you from the house. Don't even try chrooting into the window.
Google's lawyers are hard at work to make sure that their trademark doesn't become a verb and fall to common use status (nullifying the trademark).
They should be happy , it's free advertisement.
Then again , they might see that as competition ( they are in the ad business )
Sure, Stallman has made some noteworthy contributions, but his crack-pot political agenda has arguably done just as much to inhibit the adoption of open-source software as it has to promote it.
True , but then again you said Open Source. You need to talk to Eric S. Raymond.
RMS prefers the term Free Software.
RMS is an ideologist, doing what he believes is right. That on it's own deserves respect.It doesn't make him the easiest person to work with though.
"No company can use the work of others on Linux to engage in adversarial, tricky, sneaky behavior."
More like, no company can use linux to make money, which is exactly the reason why OSX now has a 6% desktop market share and linux is still in the bottom 1%.
As the GNU 3 (and now the AGPL) become more popular (and more restrictive), businesses will start to reject all forms of open source.
You compare 'company making money' with 'desktop market' . You never heard of servers ? They make the most difference in money , and a high percentage of those is running Linux , because it's a lot cheaper , and just as good .
And i'm sure you mean GPLv3 , not GNU 3. Which is indeed more restrictive , the exact reason why many open source projects stay with GPLv2 . Which is fine.
This sounds exactly like software licensed under the GNU license. It's owned by the community, rather than an individual (or the state...which in this case is the FSF).
No , you are wrong , it's not owned by the public.It's owned by the author. Only difference is that in the case of GPL ,the author gives you the right to copy and modify it , as long as your modifications are also released under GPL.
Those modifications are yours , and so you are the owner of those modifications, not off the original source.
It basically comes down to this : Even though you realize everything freely , you are allowed to get credit for your work . If you made changes , you are allowed credit for those changes , but the original author still has to be named.
If it were purely communism , than you wouldn't be allowed to get credit , the state would get the credit.
Actually every time you download a song not only are you contributing to terrorism, communism, and kitten killing, the Earth actually heats up by a fraction of a degree. By fighting piracy the G8 are actually fighting global warming.
Next we will see a video of Bin Laden , threathening to share copies of some unreleased popular movie ( some bad cam version). That would surely disrupt the American economy
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Watch out ,that's a line from the song 'Put Your Records On' .
'You know who' might be spying on this thread.
2001 : A Space Odyssey , by Arthur C. Clarke.
Great book.
If they aren't downloading or uploading much, why throttle? :)
And if they are , they are paying for a high bandwidth connection , so why bother ? If it's a bandwith problem , yes , P2P use lots of bandwith , but they also pay for it ( as there are limits to how much you download/up).
If it's about piracy , then it's not for to target P2P , as nearly any Linux distro is shared on bittorent (for the same bandwith reasons).
Apparently , some ISP's are obsessed into believing than P2P will hurt them , while in reality , it's making them rich.
So then, your two reasons for thinking this is a good thing pretty much boil down to "fear of terrorism" and "people are stupid and need to be protected from themselves".
Off course that's the reason. Why else would people give up their hard earned freedom ?
Puppy for President !
Actually , i like the idea. :-)
Let's fork Notepad++ to do just that
If it's keyword based , it should be possible to browse an SSL encrypted site (https). Unless they completely block SSL.
well ,Mars has two moons .So what responsible for that then ?
You do know that Java is used more in Server Side technology , dont you ?
Tomcat , Jboss , just to name a few .
There's no doubt that using a more native approach will lead to better performance
Mod parent up!
How is this a troll ?I prefer links :-)