I have noted a trend of similar parental behavior in situations of this sort. The availability of pornography to his children has, like the screaming majority of other plaintiffs, enabled him to communicate far above and beyond normal volumes while simultaneously removing his desire to contaminate his arguments with facts or logic. It's an amazing problem, really, and for the sake of parents everywhere, I hope our nation's libraries get a good working-over by Czarina Dole.
Ok, you spend your time modifying an existing robust, stable, fast, proven web serving system (dynamic content gateways, server and authentication daemons, remote administration facilities) to lose flexibility, throw away capabilities, and lower all-around usefullness so it can attain the utterly meaningless goal of saturating your network with content that doesn't ever change. I'll spend my time doing something worthwile.
I've never had a Linux install be "useless." You boot, select packages, hit "go" and the disk grinds, the network lights blink, etc. Then you hit Alt-F2, log in again, go read mail, news, etc.
Re:Honest questions...
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
The GPL does not prohibit you from making cold hard cash from selling your software, selling other peoples' software, selling services to maintain, develop, enhance, convert, package, document, install, remove, or configure your own or existing software, or create new software. Claiming "I can't 'own' bits so I'm poor" is not using your brain. You can't disprove a business plan by finding one scenario and quitting.
Care to explain how companies like VA Linux Systems, Red Hat, etc. are making much money if "their model is broken?"
You can get blank CD-R media for less than 50 cents USD each. You can buy a cheap CD-R for $150 USD, and a good one for under $300 USD. And they can also read music CDs. They can write music CDs. They can read data CDs. They can write data CDs. Many can read DVDs.
Tapes? Linear access? Analog media? Rewinding? No thanks.
Duh. Everyone knows clock speed (measured in megahertz) isn't even a good measure of performance. It's all a matter of how much current is flowing through the chip. My calculations lead me to believe the industry is heading in the wrong direction--larger circuits will lower resistance, allowing massive amounts of current through to the very core of the processor!
If you can't afford to change the frequency of your house power supply, you can always buy bigger fuses.
GPL'd software can NEVER NEVER NEVER be released as anything but GPL'd software.
Yes it can. If you own the copyright, you can re-license your copyrighted material under any other license you choose, conflicting with the GPL or not. Licensing your copyrighted works is a step above the GPL; the GPL is just one of the many you could choose. You could choose to distribute only base-64 encoded MIPS executables of GNU Foo if you hold the copyright and declare a new Foo Proprietary License.
You can not make a proprietary version of the Linux kernel. Period.
Maybe you or I couldn't, but if all copyright holders of Linux kernel code (every developer with code in the tree) got together and agreed to release their code under an alternate license, persuaded by offerings of large sums of cash or for no reason at all, the new license is good and legal.
This is very unlikely to happen given the great number of Linux kernel contributors, but it's possible.
Perhaps you intended to argue that users of software licensed under the GPL can not make proprietary the modifications to said software. This is true if, as you said, the changes are ever published.
I believe the primary reason XFS hasn't "dropped right in" is because it hasn't been released yet, let alone with a license which allows use by GPLed code. If I missed the proper release, please let me know.
What a detailed and eloquent response. Unfortunately I still don't understand what you're problem with BeOS is. You claim BeOS lacks sufficient technology to be of any use to you, but you've never used it? And to defend the point you never had, you just shout "moron" and run away?
This ZDNet article is probably the most fact-filled piece I've read from them.
I tend to agree with the theory that many of these companies still think like start-ups; they act like they don't have any money to spend! Perhaps they're just not aware of where their money is best spent. I can't say I know the start-up web content business mentality to its very ends, but when money is tight you start betting against catastrophe, and hope your odds are good. Duplicate server hardware is expensive for a small shop, but when you have billions of dollars in revenue, and your _entire_ business relies on your information infrastructure, the least you should do is build a duplicate server farm right down to the cables on the power supplies.
Yeah, you'll blow a million dollars on it, and you might not need it, but the maintenance costs are lower than the cost of losing your auction site, on-line trading service, bank, or retail market for five days.
You co-locate services at multiple network access points. You use reliable software--the kind you have source code to, so you're not on the phone at midnight with a "knowledge engineer" across the country who is trained in taking bug reports. You need to fix the problem so you hire people who can.
You spread the load at all points (you have multiple web servers, multiple database servers, multiple administration access points, redundant networking hardware), and you always have ample staff around for that 4:00 AM breakage.
You sure do a lot of considering. Have you considered _using_ BeOS? BeOS isn't "internet aware?" You "assume" the web browser isn't "up to snuff" with Netscape's? You're not a BeOS expert like you probably don't study quantum mechanics on the toilet.
I think you missed the point. Emacs only does everything if you configure it that way. In fact, you can have all the lisp installed you want, but none of it is sitting in RAM unless you load it.
I use vi all day for tasks like system administration or a quick e-mail, but I use XEmacs to write code--it's just a better environment. If I want to write a book, I can start LaTeX mode and start writing. I might even start GNUS to read news. I can then close these buffers and keep my code open. Emacs doesn't crash.
If I want to write a quick letter to be printed and mailed I'll use a word processor, like AbiWord.
Emacs is a text editor and lisp interpreter. When you compile Emacs you get a base set of lisp which helps you with day-to-day editing. If you wish, you can download additional lisp programs to browse the web, read mail, read news, write books, etc. But none of these is required to use Emacs, nor does Emacs perform worse without them.
One can turn Microsoft Word into a (horribly slow and unstable) web browser or news reader via VBA. But you laugh at the thought.
This is the difference between Microsoft's technologies and the kind that survive.
Have you tried XEmacs? Read through some documentation on gdb and pick up a good Emacs tutorial and you'll be hacking away.
A busy session with "make", "gdb" and some interactive source-level debugging can look like this screenshot. XEmacs parses gcc's output and with a click you jump right to the warning or error.
Best yet, you can do everything with your hands on the keyboard, or you can use the mouse if you feel like it. XEmacs 21, the new beta series, also has a very nice package management system. Select a package source from the Options/Manage Packages menu and it'll retrieve them from the net and install them--modes for every language known to man.
I'm all for choice, but why should the ashamed, cowardly, shy or bashful have special priveledge or protection? Choosing not to give your name should be just like choosing to write with purple ink. There's no reason to outlaw it and all the reason to allow it.
Not giving your name is choosing what not to say, the same way one might refrain from spreading unfounded rumors. It's just like not giving out your address with every message you send, for whatever reason you choose, and I respect your right to not say what you don't wan't to say. Your rights don't, however, give you special protection from what other people might say about you.
The "special protection" is what I hear people clamor for here. People say that having your identity exposed and attached to a comment you really did make should be prevented if you don't wish that information to be revealed. Under few of these circumstances are both the author and carrier under any contract to each other to keep parties secret. This is like saying that if someone found out your address later on (from a phonebook, let's say) and then revealed it to your audience, even though you didn't want it to be in your message, that he's violating your rights.
It's not in the interest of any government to allow its citizens privacy. The only privacy you have is the kind you make through encryption, careful inspection of your interaction with society, or good old seclusion.
If it's really nasty, and you're thoroughly disgusted, why are you still working there? If you're not confident enough in yourself to make a stand for what you believe, why should I listen?
Slashdot Mirror
I have noted a trend of similar parental behavior in situations of this sort. The availability of pornography to his children has, like the screaming majority of other plaintiffs, enabled him to communicate far above and beyond normal volumes while simultaneously removing his desire to contaminate his arguments with facts or logic. It's an amazing problem, really, and for the sake of parents everywhere, I hope our nation's libraries get a good working-over by Czarina Dole.
Ok, you spend your time modifying an existing robust, stable, fast, proven web serving system (dynamic content gateways, server and authentication daemons, remote administration facilities) to lose flexibility, throw away capabilities, and lower all-around usefullness so it can attain the utterly meaningless goal of saturating your network with content that doesn't ever change. I'll spend my time doing something worthwile.
I've never had a Linux install be "useless." You boot, select packages, hit "go" and the disk grinds, the network lights blink, etc. Then you hit Alt-F2, log in again, go read mail, news, etc.
The GPL does not prohibit you from making cold hard cash from selling your software, selling other peoples' software, selling services to maintain, develop, enhance, convert, package, document, install, remove, or configure your own or existing software, or create new software. Claiming "I can't 'own' bits so I'm poor" is not using your brain. You can't disprove a business plan by finding one scenario and quitting.
Care to explain how companies like VA Linux Systems, Red Hat, etc. are making much money if "their model is broken?"
The "final" beta of Windows 2000 was released two or three times.
You can get blank CD-R media for less than 50 cents USD each. You can buy a cheap CD-R for $150 USD, and a good one for under $300 USD. And they can also read music CDs. They can write music CDs. They can read data CDs. They can write data CDs. Many can read DVDs.
Tapes? Linear access? Analog media? Rewinding? No thanks.
Duh. Everyone knows clock speed (measured in megahertz) isn't even a good measure of performance. It's all a matter of how much current is flowing through the chip. My calculations lead me to believe the industry is heading in the wrong direction--larger circuits will lower resistance, allowing massive amounts of current through to the very core of the processor!
If you can't afford to change the frequency of your house power supply, you can always buy bigger fuses.
200 amps of pure processing power.
This is very unlikely to happen given the great number of Linux kernel contributors, but it's possible.
Perhaps you intended to argue that users of software licensed under the GPL can not make proprietary the modifications to said software. This is true if, as you said, the changes are ever published.
I believe the primary reason XFS hasn't "dropped right in" is because it hasn't been released yet, let alone with a license which allows use by GPLed code. If I missed the proper release, please let me know.
What a detailed and eloquent response. Unfortunately I still don't understand what you're problem with BeOS is. You claim BeOS lacks sufficient technology to be of any use to you, but you've never used it? And to defend the point you never had, you just shout "moron" and run away?
I think you'll have to do better than that.
This ZDNet article is probably the most fact-filled piece I've read from them.
I tend to agree with the theory that many of these companies still think like start-ups; they act like they don't have any money to spend! Perhaps they're just not aware of where their money is best spent. I can't say I know the start-up web content business mentality to its very ends, but when money is tight you start betting against catastrophe, and hope your odds are good. Duplicate server hardware is expensive for a small shop, but when you have billions of dollars in revenue, and your _entire_ business relies on your information infrastructure, the least you should do is build a duplicate server farm right down to the cables on the power supplies.
Yeah, you'll blow a million dollars on it, and you might not need it, but the maintenance costs are lower than the cost of losing your auction site, on-line trading service, bank, or retail market for five days.
You co-locate services at multiple network access points. You use reliable software--the kind you have source code to, so you're not on the phone at midnight with a "knowledge engineer" across the country who is trained in taking bug reports. You need to fix the problem so you hire people who can.
You spread the load at all points (you have multiple web servers, multiple database servers, multiple administration access points, redundant networking hardware), and you always have ample staff around for that 4:00 AM breakage.
You sure do a lot of considering. Have you considered _using_ BeOS? BeOS isn't "internet aware?" You "assume" the web browser isn't "up to snuff" with Netscape's? You're not a BeOS expert like you probably don't study quantum mechanics on the toilet.
I use vi all day for tasks like system administration or a quick e-mail, but I use XEmacs to write code--it's just a better environment. If I want to write a book, I can start LaTeX mode and start writing. I might even start GNUS to read news. I can then close these buffers and keep my code open. Emacs doesn't crash.
If I want to write a quick letter to be printed and mailed I'll use a word processor, like AbiWord.
Cool! This sounds great! Where do I download the kernel code?
Which kernel developer is that? The guy I'm thinking of doesn't seem to have any code in the kernel tree... as far as grep can tell.
/usr/src/linux/CREDITS:
N: Eric S. Raymond
E: esr@thyrsus.com
W: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/
D: terminfo master file maintainer
D: Editor: Installation HOWTO, Distributions HOWTO, XFree86 HOWTO
D: Author: fetchmail, Emacs VC mode, Emacs GUD mode
S: 6 Karen Drive
S: Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
S: USA
Emacs is a text editor and lisp interpreter. When you compile Emacs you get a base set of lisp which helps you with day-to-day editing. If you wish, you can download additional lisp programs to browse the web, read mail, read news, write books, etc. But none of these is required to use Emacs, nor does Emacs perform worse without them.
One can turn Microsoft Word into a (horribly slow and unstable) web browser or news reader via VBA. But you laugh at the thought.
This is the difference between Microsoft's technologies and the kind that survive.
GNU version of Code Warrior? Could you please explain, I hadn't heard of this.
A busy session with "make", "gdb" and some interactive source-level debugging can look like this screenshot. XEmacs parses gcc's output and with a click you jump right to the warning or error.
Best yet, you can do everything with your hands on the keyboard, or you can use the mouse if you feel like it. XEmacs 21, the new beta series, also has a very nice package management system. Select a package source from the Options/Manage Packages menu and it'll retrieve them from the net and install them--modes for every language known to man.
And 1.2.13 is much slower on anything newer than a 486, too. Can't beat that.
You could always use The Force to return them, though, right? And what about Jedi mind control?
"Sir you have five dollars in late fees."
"No, I have no late fees due."
"Sir, you have no late fees due. Have a nice day."
qmail works very, very well. It's not free software though.
I'm all for choice, but why should the ashamed, cowardly, shy or bashful have special priveledge or protection? Choosing not to give your name should be just like choosing to write with purple ink. There's no reason to outlaw it and all the reason to allow it.
Not giving your name is choosing what not to say, the same way one might refrain from spreading unfounded rumors. It's just like not giving out your address with every message you send, for whatever reason you choose, and I respect your right to not say what you don't wan't to say. Your rights don't, however, give you special protection from what other people might say about you.
The "special protection" is what I hear people clamor for here. People say that having your identity exposed and attached to a comment you really did make should be prevented if you don't wish that information to be revealed. Under few of these circumstances are both the author and carrier under any contract to each other to keep parties secret. This is like saying that if someone found out your address later on (from a phonebook, let's say) and then revealed it to your audience, even though you didn't want it to be in your message, that he's violating your rights.
It's not in the interest of any government to allow its citizens privacy. The only privacy you have is the kind you make through encryption, careful inspection of your interaction with society, or good old seclusion.
Replace "FBI" with "NSA", negate the negative, and let the rumors fly.
It's awkward, but I believe it's correct:
This person wants to remain anonymous because this person works for Xircom.
You could also just reword it:
This person who works for Xircom wants to remain anonymous.
If it's really nasty, and you're thoroughly disgusted, why are you still working there? If you're not confident enough in yourself to make a stand for what you believe, why should I listen?