Yeah... if Bill Hilf worked for IBM, then he must have HUGE contributions to OSS, right ?
Oh please... point to at least one major contribution to OSS that he has done.
You OSS zealots (particularly twitter) are doing more harm than good.
Ironically, anti-OSS zealots are a lot more widespread and a lot more poisonous.
Fortunately, you are wrong:)
It is not GTK+ that's the platform, GTK+ is just a GUI toolkit.
You should take a look at GPE and GPE Phone Edition.
And also take a look at OPIE, a Qtopia fork.
I don't know what white papers you are talking about, but if I were to build a phone, I wouldn't want any other kind of software on it, other than open-source that is. And that's because I would get total freedom to modify it in any way that suits my needs. And I would get a great community behind me (too bad Trolltech thought to cripple its Greenphone with that awful licensing).
And that's especially important in a market with multiple hardware platforms, and with huge resources limitations.
And also... lets not forget that JavaME was also crippled by mobile carriers... that's why I don't give a damn about what they say.
For more information on licensing, which is a real PITA for open-source developers, see here: Greenphone SDK.
On the bright side, with projects like OpenMoko and OLPC I think the world will start to realize the power and potential of these little Internet-enabled devices when combined with open-source software.
Yeah... when Microsoft got sued for the Eolas patent I remember a favorable reaction from the Slashdot crowd regarding Microsoft.
Maybe companies should improve, innovate and respect their customers.
Microsoft rarely does that.
And SCO was the one that sued IBM, and its own customers, not the other way around... from a moral point of view, it got what it deserves.
So please stop bitching and moaning about how companies are supposed to make money.
Companies should respect its customers, and because Microsoft is a convicted monopoly it has the liberty to screw its customers, and guess what, it does screw us;)
Communism is an economic system; democracy is a political system. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and freight elevators.
Yes, Soviet Communism is named stalinism, which was both a political and economic system.
And it is the communism I am familiar with.
Your quote is like taken from books or something:) For communism to be sustained it needs to be political, because communism is first of all an ideology.
Democracy (pure or representative democracy) can be separated from capitalism in theory, but in practice it does not happen... in practice democracy became wide spread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism.
Economy is always closely tied with politics in practice;)
> it's about everybody getting an equal say in matters
No, you got that backwards;)
Communism is about equality between people, and it failed because obviously humans are not equal, and because you have to have at least one person that's above all other... hence communism is a dictatorship with all that implies.
Democracy is based on a simple idea that "nobody is above the law"... thus empowering the weak to defend their freedoms. For example... that is why in USA it is legal to have guns. And yes, it is about transfer of power to the weak because in the old days if you weren't a part of the local aristocracy and you questioned the methods used by those who were "in charge"... you literally risked to loose your head:)
In communism, since all people are equal in theory, in theory you are able to question the way things are running. But that's very far from reality because as we could see... in communism you automatically have people that become untouchable.
If you think about it, democracy is some heavy idealistic shit that only succeeded because it is based on current realities... that human nature cannot be trusted:)
To get back on topic... I consider the GPL to be more democratic than not. The GPL is not about equality (and as an example, Red Hat is clearly not equal to other Linux vendors), but it is about protecting freedoms, and it is based on a harsh reality that people and companies are not all full of love and warmth.
As an example of how GPL works and BSD doesn't... Apple took the BSD kernel, stuffed their user interface on top, and behold, we have the new Mac OS X. Apple profits, only contributes back when it serves their interests, and the BSD developers cry out that they don't have enough fundings.
The world is flat,
earth is the center of the universe,
the telephone has too many shortcomings,
everything that can be invented has been invented,
a rocket will never leave the earth's atmosphere,
etc...
Red Hat says it better in their Truth Happens campaign.
And the truth is that every generation has people fearing that their butts will get kicked when things they don't understand start changing the world.
And the latest and greatest news is the industry's attempt to kill the Internet Radio.
Pretty disturbing I would say.
> I'm not certain how much the "Communist Manifesto" style crap (like your "dreaming of a better world" bit)...
I live in an ex-communist country and believe me... you have no idea of what that means. And I am sick and tired of people equating idealism with communism, when those same people wouldn't recognize communism even if it bit them.
We are human beings, we think, we rationalize, we help each other when things get tough... we should not allow ourselves to think as animals do;) Remember... democracy is all about transferring power to the weak and the poor.
Just a simple fact: if it weren't for the GNU tools, the Linux kernel would not have been possible at the time. Linux depends on the GNU tools, especially on the excellent set of compilers and libraries provided by GNU... GCC, GDB, libc, etc...
Of course... we could not talk about the "success" of Free Software and Open Source without the excellent Linux kernel that we now have, but that is not the issue here. Linus Torvalds made a huge contribution to the world... but to deny the involvement of the FSF foundation, especially the involvement of Richard Stallman... that just shows stupidity and ignorance.
How can Stallman hurt Free Software and Open Source when Stallman was one of the few people that made it possible ? I say to you... it was the GPL license that gave Linux its edge over BSD... it was politics and idealism... dreaming of a better world. GPL contributed to a sort of common ground between companies... which now happily hack together on common projects (like Linux itself);)
So this idealistic fool made this collaboration possible between long time rival companies because of the wonderful GPL and its idealistic approach, and now we don't trust his judgment anymore ?
Evolution is not a proven fact... and that's a fact;)
There are things in the fabric of this universe that we as human beings will never be able to understand. There's no theory, proven or not, that can explain how this universe was created... and we will never have one. And that's a proven fact;)
Being an atheist is as implausible as being a Christian. But you just keep believing otherwise, I don't care.
Re:Because it didn't affect him?
on
Is Vista a Trap?
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure you will change your mind once all media will be required by law to be DRM-encrypted.
It already started to happen, and in case you missed it, here's a sample:
Senators aim to restrict Net, satellite radio recording
And I'm pretty sure that when all your freedoms will be gone you will blame everyone else but yourself;)
The "open source" label came out of a strategy session[3] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source" and also included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond.
For all we know... they could disguise themselves as mice or dogs and keep us under constant surveillance.
- Oh Honey, look how cute this puppy is:)
"Yeah, keep smiling at me you imbecile... you won't smile so much when we will rule your galaxy... muwahahahaha"
No, you don't get it... its not about the GPL license... its about the right to do whatever you want with your copyrights. A copyright holder can prevent an individual or a company from having access to the GPL license. If Novell doesn't have the right to use the GPL license of Samba, Novell cannot redistribute it.
A software's author that licensed the project under the GPL or any other license STILL RETAINS THE COPYRIGHTS of that project.
Thus... the author of a software project can specifically forbid a certain individual or company from distributing that software.
If the Samba team holds the copyrights of Samba... go figure, they can.
Windows NT started from the OS/2 3.0 codebase which was developed jointly by Microsoft and IBM... so Microsoft cannot receive full credits for it.
Windows 9x had pre-emtive multitasking for 32 bit applications, and cooperative multitasking for 16 bit applications, at least theoretically. And everyone here knows that Windows 9x provided real quality, especially Windows Millennium;)
Mac OS Classic sucked, yes, but it was much better than Windows 9x which was replaced by Windows XP in late 2001.
> You know somewhow, I can't see everyone who has bagged Novell over it coming out and saying "oops I was wrong".
>
> So, what if Eben finds that it is compatible with GPL?
Legally it may be compatible... but it is not compatible with the purpose of GPL... and that's to use, modify and redistribute GPL software freely (as in freedom).
And, yes, you won't see anyone suddenly coming out expressing feelings of sorrow and regret... simply because, legally or not, Novell fucked up all confidence we had in it... and that's because Novell didn't asked the community or its customers first.
Comprendre ?
Slashdot Mirror
That's marketing talk.
... if Bill Hilf worked for IBM, then he must have HUGE contributions to OSS, right ?
... point to at least one major contribution to OSS that he has done.
Yeah
Oh please
You OSS zealots (particularly twitter) are doing more harm than good.
Ironically, anti-OSS zealots are a lot more widespread and a lot more poisonous.
I almost gave you credit for a good post, until I took a look at your signature.
Article demands a new tag: monopolywanted
Fortunately, you are wrong :)
... lets not forget that JavaME was also crippled by mobile carriers ... that's why I don't give a damn about what they say.
It is not GTK+ that's the platform, GTK+ is just a GUI toolkit. You should take a look at GPE and GPE Phone Edition.
And also take a look at OPIE, a Qtopia fork.
I don't know what white papers you are talking about, but if I were to build a phone, I wouldn't want any other kind of software on it, other than open-source that is. And that's because I would get total freedom to modify it in any way that suits my needs. And I would get a great community behind me (too bad Trolltech thought to cripple its Greenphone with that awful licensing).
And that's especially important in a market with multiple hardware platforms, and with huge resources limitations.
And also
For more information on licensing, which is a real PITA for open-source developers, see here: Greenphone SDK.
On the bright side, with projects like OpenMoko and OLPC I think the world will start to realize the power and potential of these little Internet-enabled devices when combined with open-source software.
Yeah ... when Microsoft got sued for the Eolas patent I remember a favorable reaction from the Slashdot crowd regarding Microsoft.
... from a moral point of view, it got what it deserves.
;)
Maybe companies should improve, innovate and respect their customers.
Microsoft rarely does that.
And SCO was the one that sued IBM, and its own customers, not the other way around
So please stop bitching and moaning about how companies are supposed to make money.
Companies should respect its customers, and because Microsoft is a convicted monopoly it has the liberty to screw its customers, and guess what, it does screw us
Communism is an economic system; democracy is a political system. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and freight elevators.
:) For communism to be sustained it needs to be political, because communism is first of all an ideology.
... in practice democracy became wide spread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism.
;)
Yes, Soviet Communism is named stalinism, which was both a political and economic system.
And it is the communism I am familiar with.
Your quote is like taken from books or something
Democracy (pure or representative democracy) can be separated from capitalism in theory, but in practice it does not happen
Economy is always closely tied with politics in practice
> it's about everybody getting an equal say in matters
;)
... hence communism is a dictatorship with all that implies.
... thus empowering the weak to defend their freedoms. ... that is why in USA it is legal to have guns. ... you literally risked to loose your head :)
... in communism you automatically have people that become untouchable.
... that human nature cannot be trusted :)
... I consider the GPL to be more democratic than not.
... Apple took the BSD kernel, stuffed their user interface on top, and behold, we have the new Mac OS X.
No, you got that backwards
Communism is about equality between people, and it failed because obviously humans are not equal, and because you have to have at least one person that's above all other
Democracy is based on a simple idea that "nobody is above the law"
For example
And yes, it is about transfer of power to the weak because in the old days if you weren't a part of the local aristocracy and you questioned the methods used by those who were "in charge"
In communism, since all people are equal in theory, in theory you are able to question the way things are running.
But that's very far from reality because as we could see
If you think about it, democracy is some heavy idealistic shit that only succeeded because it is based on current realities
To get back on topic
The GPL is not about equality (and as an example, Red Hat is clearly not equal to other Linux vendors), but it is about protecting freedoms, and it is based on a harsh reality that people and companies are not all full of love and warmth.
As an example of how GPL works and BSD doesn't
Apple profits, only contributes back when it serves their interests, and the BSD developers cry out that they don't have enough fundings.
The world is flat, ...
earth is the center of the universe,
the telephone has too many shortcomings,
everything that can be invented has been invented,
a rocket will never leave the earth's atmosphere,
etc
Red Hat says it better in their Truth Happens campaign.
And the truth is that every generation has people fearing that their butts will get kicked when things they don't understand start changing the world.
And the latest and greatest news is the industry's attempt to kill the Internet Radio.
Pretty disturbing I would say.
> I'm not certain how much the "Communist Manifesto" style crap (like your "dreaming of a better world" bit) ...
... you have no idea of what that means.
... we should not allow ourselves to think as animals do ;) ... democracy is all about transferring power to the weak and the poor.
I live in an ex-communist country and believe me
And I am sick and tired of people equating idealism with communism,
when those same people wouldn't recognize communism even if it bit them.
We are human beings, we think, we rationalize, we help each other when things get tough
Remember
Just a simple fact: if it weren't for the GNU tools, the Linux kernel would not have been possible at the time. ... GCC, GDB, libc, etc...
... we could not talk about the "success" of Free Software and Open Source without the excellent Linux kernel that we now have, but that is not the issue here. ... but to deny the involvement of the FSF foundation, especially the involvement of Richard Stallman ... that just shows stupidity and ignorance.
... it was the GPL license that gave Linux its edge over BSD ... it was politics and idealism ... dreaming of a better world. ... which now happily hack together on common projects (like Linux itself) ;)
Linux depends on the GNU tools, especially on the excellent set of compilers and libraries provided by GNU
Of course
Linus Torvalds made a huge contribution to the world
How can Stallman hurt Free Software and Open Source when Stallman was one of the few people that made it possible ?
I say to you
GPL contributed to a sort of common ground between companies
So this idealistic fool made this collaboration possible between long time rival companies because of the wonderful GPL and its idealistic approach, and now we don't trust his judgment anymore ?
What's your contribution to this world ?
seems pretty stupid to consider yourself smarter because you have no faith.
Evolution is not a proven fact ... and that's a fact ;)
... and we will never have one. ;)
There are things in the fabric of this universe that we as human beings will never be able to understand.
There's no theory, proven or not, that can explain how this universe was created
And that's a proven fact
Being an atheist is as implausible as being a Christian.
But you just keep believing otherwise, I don't care.
I'm sure you will change your mind once all media will be required by law to be DRM-encrypted.
;)
It already started to happen, and in case you missed it, here's a sample:
Senators aim to restrict Net, satellite radio recording
And I'm pretty sure that when all your freedoms will be gone you will blame everyone else but yourself
The "open source" label came out of a strategy session[3] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source" and also included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#History
For all we know ... they could disguise themselves as mice or dogs and keep us under constant surveillance.
- Oh Honey, look how cute this puppy is :)
"Yeah, keep smiling at me you imbecile ... you won't smile so much when we will rule your galaxy ... muwahahahaha"
No, you don't get it ... its not about the GPL license ... its about the right to do whatever you want with your copyrights. A copyright holder can prevent an individual or a company from having access to the GPL license. If Novell doesn't have the right to use the GPL license of Samba, Novell cannot redistribute it.
A software's author that licensed the project under the GPL or any other license STILL RETAINS THE COPYRIGHTS of that project. Thus ... the author of a software project can specifically forbid a certain individual or company from distributing that software.
If the Samba team holds the copyrights of Samba ... go figure, they can.
Windows NT started from the OS/2 3.0 codebase which was developed jointly by Microsoft and IBM ... so Microsoft cannot receive full credits for it.
;)
Windows 9x had pre-emtive multitasking for 32 bit applications, and cooperative multitasking for 16 bit applications, at least theoretically. And everyone here knows that Windows 9x provided real quality, especially Windows Millennium
Mac OS Classic sucked, yes, but it was much better than Windows 9x which was replaced by Windows XP in late 2001.
> You know somewhow, I can't see everyone who has bagged Novell over it coming out and saying "oops I was wrong". > > So, what if Eben finds that it is compatible with GPL? Legally it may be compatible ... but it is not compatible with the purpose of GPL ... and that's to use, modify and redistribute GPL software freely (as in freedom).
And, yes, you won't see anyone suddenly coming out expressing feelings of sorrow and regret ... simply because, legally or not, Novell fucked up all confidence we had in it ... and that's because Novell didn't asked the community or its customers first.
Comprendre ?