But you're wrong, a free encoder would promote Microsoft standards.
Mod this up (+1, Insightful). I agree 100%. Free players are available for every format, and have to be; listeners aren't going to pay for them. (RealNetworks gets almost no revenue from its "premium" players, despite the constant nagging to buy them.) Therefore, the main way to promote the use of a format is to provide a free server.
This is why Microsoft's Windows Media has become popular; the server comes free with Windows NT/2000. Providing a decoder actually reduces the manufacturer's grip on the market, in the same way that providing a wordprocessor that can read Microsoft formats allows people to use alternatives.
It's very important to understand just how restrictive the LGPL really is, and also the history and the motivations behind this.
You see, in the late 1990's, RMS -- flush with the success of Linux and other GPLed software -- wanted to eliminate the LGPL altogether. (He had always seen the LGPL as a temporary compromise to placate developers.) Now that some GPLed programs had gained momentum, he felt that it was time for the LGPL to go away. But there was so much outcry at the notion of doing this that RMS instead did two other things. First, he redubbed it the "Lesser GPL," and wrote several essays saying that the FSF did not recommend its use. Then, he published a new version of the license that was much, much more restrictive. Since the LGPL was generally known as allowing commercial use of the unmodified library, and many people did not read the new verbiage that was inserted into the new version, the majority of people did not notice the switch.
The "new" LGPL says that you are only exempt from providing the compiler, linker, etc. if they are included with the OS you are targeting. If they're not already included with the OS, you must supply them. Oh, and if they happen to be commercial software and you're not allowed to give them away, tough cookies. The same is true if you use a commercial library that you're not allowed to give away to everyone. You can't use the LGPLed code. Again, see Section 6 of the LGPL.
The answer to this question is simple. Many streaming media sites use Windows Media because the server is given away for free and does not limit the number of streams you can serve (unlike RealNetworks' products, where you pay by the number of streams). Webcasters, already squeezed by huge fees from the RIAA, unions, etc., don't want to pay high prices for the streaming software. So, they go with Microsoft's free server. And you, if you want to listen to their programming, must have a CODEC that lets you listen to a Windows Media stream.
As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, the fact that the CODEC mentioned here is licensed under the LGPL is likely to prevent its use in players for some operating systems, which is a shame. Whether or not we like Microsoft or Windows Media, I think you'll agree that all authors of players, and all end users, should be able to play streams that are encoded in that format.
The only thing the LGPL prevents competitors from doing is modifying the codec source and keeping the modifications to themselves while publishing binaries of the result.
Not true. The LGPL is much more restrictive than that. In fact, it often precludes even the use of the unmodified library in a commercial product. See my comment here
for a more detailed explanation.
The LGPL doesn't preclude anybody from releasing a closed-source media player with this new codec, as long as they don't tinker with the codec itself.
That was generally true of the "old," or "library," GPL. But it is not true of the license used by the CODEC -- the "new" LGPL (which the FSF calls the "lesser" GPL).
Read it yourself, at this link. Section 6 says, in part:
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that you distribute.
The requirement to include all "utility programs" required to produce the product -- including the compiler, linker, etc. -- is not difficult to satisfy if the target happens to be an operating system that includes these tools. But if it's an operating system such as PalmOS, BeOS, MacOS, Windows, etc., which does not come by default with a complete set of developer tools, the requirement is not possible to satisfy. (I can't give away, for example, Metrowerks' compiler or linker with my product.) So, in fact, the new "Lesser GPL" has a hidden booby trap that makes it virtually impossible to produce products for many operating systems. (There are other problems with it as well, but this one alone is a show-stopper.)
What's more, as the text above points out, you're out of luck if you also use commercial code libraries in your product -- because, again, you can't give away someone else's product.
In short, the "new" LGPL is incredibly restrictive. I know for a fact that due to the restrictions mentioned above we could not include the CODEC mentioned in this item in our products.
The trouble is that the LGPL cripples Microsoft's competitors too much. Under the terms of the LGPL, those competitors cannot offer unique value -- the key to survival in a crowded marketplace. What's more, they are subjected to a plethora of other awkward or downright onerous requirements. Most people haven't read the most recent version of the LGPL and so do not realize how many requirements have been added since Stallman rechristened the "Library GPL" the "Lesser GPL." (One example: A company that ships its product as binaries must provide linkable object code, as well as makefiles, etc. This is not only awkward; it makes reverse engineering of their code by competitors trivially easy.)
Complying with the "old" LGPL was sometimes difficult, because a commercial software vendor often had to partition code in awkward ways to avoid being forced to give away his or her hard work. But with the new one, LGPLed code is really anything but "free." It comes at great cost -- often an intolerable cost -- to the developer. Our small company (we're trying hard to compete with Microsoft) has stopped using LGPLed code for this reason.
It's time for a move toward truly free licensing -- the Python, X, Artistic, Apache, BSD, and similar licenses. Publishing source code alone won't end Microsoft's dominance. The only thing that will end it is facilitating competition from other companies who, right now, can't afford to compete with Microsoft.
By licensing the CODEC under the LGPL, the authors are preventing Microsoft's competitors from publishing improved versions that might give BillG a run for his money. If Microsoft is to face some real competition, it's best to empower its competitors. Why not use an MIT-ish license, as does Ogg Vorbis?
This incident reflects a disturbing trend toward mob psycology and mob hysteria. The point of the proposed provisions was not to "ban open source" but to prevent the GPL, which in fact violates two provisions of the Open Source Definition(*), from being stamped onto software commissioned by the government and paid for with tax dollars.
Under the provision, those who supported the GPL could still use the code in their own work. However, the code would not be "poisoned" such that businesses and individual programmers would lose their own work, and the rewards from it, if they used it.
The argument that the provision was necessarily evil because Microsoft might have supported it is likewise a "straw man" argument. Many people, including Tim O'Reilly of O'Reilly and Associates, strongly support the use of truly free licenses such as the BSD license on the products of government research.
Yet, we saw a tremendous amount of energy expended to defend -- what? Not open source; the licenses recommended by the proposed provision were open source. The FSF? The FSF, which is flush with money and owns more code than Microsoft, hardly needs defending. Alas, the only purpose that this uproar may have accomplished is to make it possible for code to be locked away from the people who paid for its development. Not good.
--Brett Glass
(*) The GPL violates the Open Source Definition because it discriminates against a field of endeavor -- the creation of commercial software -- and against a class of individuals -- the people who write that software.
After checking out the facts, I've found out that the cries that the legislation would "outlaw the GPL" are alarmist.
The goal of the legislation would be to make sure that the GPL was not placed on code which was generated by Federal R&D monies. Instead, an MIT or BSD-style license -- in short, a truly free license -- would be used. This is quite different and in fact is a good thing. Businesses pay taxes and are therefore funding the research; to prevent them from creating commercial products based on that research (which is what the anti-commercialization provisions would do) not be reasonable or fair.
Note that the code could still be used in projects that are licensed under the GPL, so the GPL camp could rest assured that they could take advantage of the code. But the use of the code would not be limited to what could be done under that very complex and restrictive license. And that is a good thing. After all, the government is not allowed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion -- including the Church of the Great GNU (Grinning, ducking, and running)....;-)
They're immortal and more powerful than ordinary humans. People merely comprise their interchangable parts, which they change at will. They practice diplomacy, make war against other companies, make treaties, and more. And many of them -- especially monopolies that supply commodities that are vital to our survival (e.g. natural gas and electricity in cold climates) -- control resources on which we depend to live.
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Corporations aren't people; they're governments. What's worse, they are unelected governments. They must therefore be subjected to checks and balances imposed by elected government. Otherwise, there can be no democracy -- only a corporatocracy.
In theory, any citizen should have an equal influence on Congress' handling of any issue. Yet, due to the Congressional committee system, it is necessary to be heard by legislators of whom one is not a constituent for this to occur. If legislators "tune out" non-constituents, we're all effectively disenfranchised. Therefore, legislators should not be allowed to ignore non-constituents's comments on areas on which they have special influence.
The essay referred to in this item is eerily similar to Richard Stallman's "GNU Manifesto." Stallman, in the essay, asserts that coders ought to work only for the sheer love of what they do. Never mind the minor problem of earning a living or putting food on the table -- and that programming should be reduced to a low-wage job akin to that of a day laborer. High or even decent wages for programmers, Stallman says, should be effectively "banned" by denying them rights to the intellectual property they create.
The author of the essay simply wants to do the same thing to professional photographers. Fortunately, photographers are much more business-savvy than programmers. They recognize that their businesses have overhead that must be covered, and expenses that must be met. They understand that becoming solely workers for hire, unless they commanded the same rates per hour as lawyers and charged for travel time, consultations, etc., would be the end of their ability to practice their profession. While programmers are already well on the way to undermining their chances of being paid a reasonable amount for their work, photographers will likely resist -- as they should.
The fallacy embraced by Libertarians is that corporations are people, and thus should enjoy minimum interference from government.
The truth, however, is that corporations are governments.
Corporations use people as interchangeable parts, ingesting them and spitting them out at will. They set rules of behavior, reward and penalize individuals, and are larger, richer, and more powerful than any individual can ever be. What's more, if they grow powerful enough (e.g. if the monopolize the market for a good or service), individuals must agree to whatever terms they set.
Do these characteristics sound more like those of an indivdual or those of a government?
It's also worth noting that, back in the days before democracy, we had a different kind of government: empires. An overwhelming force would conquer your region, and you would have no choice but to pay tribute to your new master.
Corporate empires -- such as telecommunications giants -- are very much the same. When Verizon conquered the eastern seaboard via corporate mergers, did customers have a say? Not a chance.
If Libertarians recognized (as they should!) that corporations were in fact governments, they would realize that corporations' powers must be limited. More so, in fact, than those of elected governments, where the people at least have some control of what the behemoth does.
The temperamental Mr. Perens has always stated, publicly, that his goal is to coax, cajole, and/or trick companies such as HP into give up their intellectual property. He normally attempts to do this by enticing them to embrace the GPL -- which would strip them of their rights to it -- or by applying pressure to them in other ways.
I was, frankly, amazed when HP hired Bruce, in that they were employing someone who was actively hostile to their best interests. When I inquired as to why they were doing this, I was told that they felt that, by employing him, they would gain valuable goodwill from users of Linux and thus be able to catch the Linux "buzz." They also thought that, via careful scrutiny, they could prevent Bruce from giving away or otherwise compromising IP they really valued.
The balance shifted when HP merged with Compaq, however. Suddenly, a much larger portion of the company's business hinged on Microsoft's goodwill rather than that of Linux users. So, it should be no surprise that Bruce's tenure at HP is history.
Given not only its new circumstances but the fate of companies that have attempted to embrace the GPL (few are left alive today), HP has likely realized that it must now take a more sensible approach to open source. It should embrace BSD -- which actually freer and more open than GPLed software, is not business-hostile, and for which Microsoft has voiced support. If HP chooses a more moderate open source advocate from the BSD camp, it will be in much better shape. It won't have to worry that its open source "guru" will hurt its interests by trying to give away the farm, advocating unwise business strategies, or antagonizing Microsoft (which, at least for now, could prove fatal). And it won't wind up in a situation where it loses control of its IP, or finds itself unable to maintain an edge, due to the business-hostile provisions of the GPL. In short, this could be a winning move for HP.
...is that they gave ISC a "C" on technical merit. ISC, as you may recall, are the authors of BIND! This alone demonstrates that the report was motivated by cronyism rather than a desire objective analysis. Add to this the fact that several board members of ISOC are either "in" with ICANN or closely connected to major registrars. (Some of them have been "winners" of TLDs in a process equally laced with cronyism.) And that ISOC is largely governed by large corporations such as Microsoft. Suddenly the picture becomes clear: It's the same unresponsive, unaccountable, corrupt ICANN we know and dislike.
Much more secure than Linux and therefore better for a public environment. As for desktops: Maybe something simple like FVWM. KDE has too many bells and whistles and therefore will be tough to secure against abuse.
Seriously. Put your software skills to work improving the efficiency of some other business -- such as selling real estate, or fixing cars, or making toasters. But the outlook for the software industry is poor. If any market with revenues of more than one million dollars per year arises, Microsoft will try to take it. And if they don't, watch out for your "colleagues!" A large number of irrationally zealous programmers are now out to destroy the livelihood of anyone who dares to -- Heaven forbid! -- license his or her software for money. Write an innovative software product -- one that changes the whole world for the better -- and before you know it, the FSF will be giving away a GNUish equivalent that destroys your market. (If they don't, then Microsoft will.) There's really not much hope for new software businesses nowadays. It's a shame, because it was long my ambition to start one. But I'm not Quixotic enough to attempt it in this environment.
Mr. Perens appears upset that RealNetworks -- which has already suffered greatly due to predation by Microsoft -- isn't giving away the entire farm.
RealNetworks is having enough trouble staying afloat already. Bruce appears to be aiding Microsoft by suggesting that RealNetworks (which already gives away its client) put itself in even greater jeopardy by giving away its codecs. If it does so, then the company -- having lost its last source of revenue -- will surely fold, leaving us with no practical choice of commercial players. Microsoft will win, and we all will lose.
Bruce appears either to be blinded by zeal for open source or determined to persuade RealNetworks to put itself out of business. Perhaps he should consider the inevitable consequences that would ensue if his unsolicited "advice" was followed.
1. A method for redirecting data frames in a network comprising the steps of:
receiving a data frame at a port of a network device coupled to said network said data frame to be forwarded to a destination node in said network based on a destination address for said destination node associated with said data frame;
comparing contents of said data frame with a user defined filter; and,
processing said data frame depending on said user defined filter, wherein processing said data frame comprises the step of forwarding said data frame in said network device to at least one of a monitor port, a destination port associated with said destination node, or an additional destination port associated with an additional node other than said destination node or dropping said data frame, depending on said user defined filter.
If you read this carefully, it essentially covers anything that routes IP packets according to a set of rules. This, of course, includes any UNIX system that forwards packets between interfaces by consulting entries in a routing table. So, is there prior art? Gee, not much.... Just every UNIX or UNIX-like operating system since DARPA commissioned the development of the BSD IP stack.
Patents should be reserved for true innovations, not something completely un-novel such as this.
For example, SoftUpdates completely eliminates the need to fix the file system after an unexpected reboot. The author clearly should try the BSDs -- probably FreeBSD.
If it were merely a volunteer, unpaid effort, Microsoft would most likely look the other way. But money attracts Microsoft's interest, and with a $200K purse to be grabbed, you can bet that the software behemoth will go after the developers with guns a-blazing.
So, Mr. Gilmore (I'd say that the odds are pretty good that he's the anonymous donor) will not only have wasted his money but will have hurt the cause of Linux. That's fine by me, since I (like many others) believe that propagating the GPL and GPLed software is a bad idea. But it'll disappoint even advocates of Linux when it happens.
Every prepaid cell phone I've ever used has allowed emergency calls, and/or calls to order more minutes, even when expired. Certainly, it would be in the phone company's interest to have an order line for more time, even if it wouldn't take emergency calls. Why didn't the hiker call it earlier? Or did he forget he had his phone?
Slashdot Mirror
Mod this up (+1, Insightful). I agree 100%. Free players are available for every format, and have to be; listeners aren't going to pay for them. (RealNetworks gets almost no revenue from its "premium" players, despite the constant nagging to buy them.) Therefore, the main way to promote the use of a format is to provide a free server.
This is why Microsoft's Windows Media has become popular; the server comes free with Windows NT/2000. Providing a decoder actually reduces the manufacturer's grip on the market, in the same way that providing a wordprocessor that can read Microsoft formats allows people to use alternatives.
It's very important to understand just how restrictive the LGPL really is, and also the history and the motivations behind this.
You see, in the late 1990's, RMS -- flush with the success of Linux and other GPLed software -- wanted to eliminate the LGPL altogether. (He had always seen the LGPL as a temporary compromise to placate developers.) Now that some GPLed programs had gained momentum, he felt that it was time for the LGPL to go away. But there was so much outcry at the notion of doing this that RMS instead did two other things. First, he redubbed it the "Lesser GPL," and wrote several essays saying that the FSF did not recommend its use. Then, he published a new version of the license that was much, much more restrictive. Since the LGPL was generally known as allowing commercial use of the unmodified library, and many people did not read the new verbiage that was inserted into the new version, the majority of people did not notice the switch.
The "new" LGPL says that you are only exempt from providing the compiler, linker, etc. if they are included with the OS you are targeting. If they're not already included with the OS, you must supply them. Oh, and if they happen to be commercial software and you're not allowed to give them away, tough cookies. The same is true if you use a commercial library that you're not allowed to give away to everyone. You can't use the LGPLed code. Again, see Section 6 of the LGPL.
As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, the fact that the CODEC mentioned here is licensed under the LGPL is likely to prevent its use in players for some operating systems, which is a shame. Whether or not we like Microsoft or Windows Media, I think you'll agree that all authors of players, and all end users, should be able to play streams that are encoded in that format.
The only thing the LGPL prevents competitors from doing is modifying the codec source and keeping the modifications to themselves while publishing binaries of the result.
Not true. The LGPL is much more restrictive than that. In fact, it often precludes even the use of the unmodified library in a commercial product. See my comment here for a more detailed explanation.
The LGPL doesn't preclude anybody from releasing a closed-source media player with this new codec, as long as they don't tinker with the codec itself.
That was generally true of the "old," or "library," GPL. But it is not true of the license used by the CODEC -- the "new" LGPL (which the FSF calls the "lesser" GPL).
Read it yourself, at this link. Section 6 says, in part:
The requirement to include all "utility programs" required to produce the product -- including the compiler, linker, etc. -- is not difficult to satisfy if the target happens to be an operating system that includes these tools. But if it's an operating system such as PalmOS, BeOS, MacOS, Windows, etc., which does not come by default with a complete set of developer tools, the requirement is not possible to satisfy. (I can't give away, for example, Metrowerks' compiler or linker with my product.) So, in fact, the new "Lesser GPL" has a hidden booby trap that makes it virtually impossible to produce products for many operating systems. (There are other problems with it as well, but this one alone is a show-stopper.)
What's more, as the text above points out, you're out of luck if you also use commercial code libraries in your product -- because, again, you can't give away someone else's product.
In short, the "new" LGPL is incredibly restrictive. I know for a fact that due to the restrictions mentioned above we could not include the CODEC mentioned in this item in our products.
--Brett Glass
Complying with the "old" LGPL was sometimes difficult, because a commercial software vendor often had to partition code in awkward ways to avoid being forced to give away his or her hard work. But with the new one, LGPLed code is really anything but "free." It comes at great cost -- often an intolerable cost -- to the developer. Our small company (we're trying hard to compete with Microsoft) has stopped using LGPLed code for this reason.
It's time for a move toward truly free licensing -- the Python, X, Artistic, Apache, BSD, and similar licenses. Publishing source code alone won't end Microsoft's dominance. The only thing that will end it is facilitating competition from other companies who, right now, can't afford to compete with Microsoft.
By licensing the CODEC under the LGPL, the authors are preventing Microsoft's competitors from publishing improved versions that might give BillG a run for his money. If Microsoft is to face some real competition, it's best to empower its competitors. Why not use an MIT-ish license, as does Ogg Vorbis?
Under the provision, those who supported the GPL could still use the code in their own work. However, the code would not be "poisoned" such that businesses and individual programmers would lose their own work, and the rewards from it, if they used it.
The argument that the provision was necessarily evil because Microsoft might have supported it is likewise a "straw man" argument. Many people, including Tim O'Reilly of O'Reilly and Associates, strongly support the use of truly free licenses such as the BSD license on the products of government research.
Yet, we saw a tremendous amount of energy expended to defend -- what? Not open source; the licenses recommended by the proposed provision were open source. The FSF? The FSF, which is flush with money and owns more code than Microsoft, hardly needs defending. Alas, the only purpose that this uproar may have accomplished is to make it possible for code to be locked away from the people who paid for its development. Not good.
--Brett Glass
(*) The GPL violates the Open Source Definition because it discriminates against a field of endeavor -- the creation of commercial software -- and against a class of individuals -- the people who write that software.
The goal of the legislation would be to make sure that the GPL was not placed on code which was generated by Federal R&D monies. Instead, an MIT or BSD-style license -- in short, a truly free license -- would be used. This is quite different and in fact is a good thing. Businesses pay taxes and are therefore funding the research; to prevent them from creating commercial products based on that research (which is what the anti-commercialization provisions would do) not be reasonable or fair.
Note that the code could still be used in projects that are licensed under the GPL, so the GPL camp could rest assured that they could take advantage of the code. But the use of the code would not be limited to what could be done under that very complex and restrictive license. And that is a good thing. After all, the government is not allowed to make laws respecting an establishment of religion -- including the Church of the Great GNU (Grinning, ducking, and running).... ;-)
The Supreme Court got it wrong. Corporations aren't people; they're governments. What's worse, they are unelected governments. They must therefore be subjected to checks and balances imposed by elected government. Otherwise, there can be no democracy -- only a corporatocracy.
Microsoft owns a big chunk of Corel. As part of the deal, Corel dropped support for all operating systems other than Windows.
In theory, any citizen should have an equal influence on Congress' handling of any issue. Yet, due to the Congressional committee system, it is necessary to be heard by legislators of whom one is not a constituent for this to occur. If legislators "tune out" non-constituents, we're all effectively disenfranchised. Therefore, legislators should not be allowed to ignore non-constituents's comments on areas on which they have special influence.
The author of the essay simply wants to do the same thing to professional photographers. Fortunately, photographers are much more business-savvy than programmers. They recognize that their businesses have overhead that must be covered, and expenses that must be met. They understand that becoming solely workers for hire, unless they commanded the same rates per hour as lawyers and charged for travel time, consultations, etc., would be the end of their ability to practice their profession. While programmers are already well on the way to undermining their chances of being paid a reasonable amount for their work, photographers will likely resist -- as they should.
The truth, however, is that corporations are governments.
Corporations use people as interchangeable parts, ingesting them and spitting them out at will. They set rules of behavior, reward and penalize individuals, and are larger, richer, and more powerful than any individual can ever be. What's more, if they grow powerful enough (e.g. if the monopolize the market for a good or service), individuals must agree to whatever terms they set.
Do these characteristics sound more like those of an indivdual or those of a government?
It's also worth noting that, back in the days before democracy, we had a different kind of government: empires. An overwhelming force would conquer your region, and you would have no choice but to pay tribute to your new master.
Corporate empires -- such as telecommunications giants -- are very much the same. When Verizon conquered the eastern seaboard via corporate mergers, did customers have a say? Not a chance.
If Libertarians recognized (as they should!) that corporations were in fact governments, they would realize that corporations' powers must be limited. More so, in fact, than those of elected governments, where the people at least have some control of what the behemoth does.
--Brett Glass
I was, frankly, amazed when HP hired Bruce, in that they were employing someone who was actively hostile to their best interests. When I inquired as to why they were doing this, I was told that they felt that, by employing him, they would gain valuable goodwill from users of Linux and thus be able to catch the Linux "buzz." They also thought that, via careful scrutiny, they could prevent Bruce from giving away or otherwise compromising IP they really valued.
The balance shifted when HP merged with Compaq, however. Suddenly, a much larger portion of the company's business hinged on Microsoft's goodwill rather than that of Linux users. So, it should be no surprise that Bruce's tenure at HP is history.
Given not only its new circumstances but the fate of companies that have attempted to embrace the GPL (few are left alive today), HP has likely realized that it must now take a more sensible approach to open source. It should embrace BSD -- which actually freer and more open than GPLed software, is not business-hostile, and for which Microsoft has voiced support. If HP chooses a more moderate open source advocate from the BSD camp, it will be in much better shape. It won't have to worry that its open source "guru" will hurt its interests by trying to give away the farm, advocating unwise business strategies, or antagonizing Microsoft (which, at least for now, could prove fatal). And it won't wind up in a situation where it loses control of its IP, or finds itself unable to maintain an edge, due to the business-hostile provisions of the GPL. In short, this could be a winning move for HP.
Look at the SourceForge page: It's GPLed. This means it's not a BSD.
...is that they gave ISC a "C" on technical merit. ISC, as you may recall, are the authors of BIND! This alone demonstrates that the report was motivated by cronyism rather than a desire objective analysis. Add to this the fact that several board members of ISOC are either "in" with ICANN or closely connected to major registrars. (Some of them have been "winners" of TLDs in a process equally laced with cronyism.) And that ISOC is largely governed by large corporations such as Microsoft. Suddenly the picture becomes clear: It's the same unresponsive, unaccountable, corrupt ICANN we know and dislike.
Much more secure than Linux and therefore better for a public environment. As for desktops: Maybe something simple like FVWM. KDE has too many bells and whistles and therefore will be tough to secure against abuse.
Seriously. Put your software skills to work improving the efficiency of some other business -- such as selling real estate, or fixing cars, or making toasters. But the outlook for the software industry is poor. If any market with revenues of more than one million dollars per year arises, Microsoft will try to take it. And if they don't, watch out for your "colleagues!" A large number of irrationally zealous programmers are now out to destroy the livelihood of anyone who dares to -- Heaven forbid! -- license his or her software for money. Write an innovative software product -- one that changes the whole world for the better -- and before you know it, the FSF will be giving away a GNUish equivalent that destroys your market. (If they don't, then Microsoft will.) There's really not much hope for new software businesses nowadays. It's a shame, because it was long my ambition to start one. But I'm not Quixotic enough to attempt it in this environment.
She wouldn't have to move a significant amount to generate a signal.
RealNetworks is having enough trouble staying afloat already. Bruce appears to be aiding Microsoft by suggesting that RealNetworks (which already gives away its client) put itself in even greater jeopardy by giving away its codecs. If it does so, then the company -- having lost its last source of revenue -- will surely fold, leaving us with no practical choice of commercial players. Microsoft will win, and we all will lose.
Bruce appears either to be blinded by zeal for open source or determined to persuade RealNetworks to put itself out of business. Perhaps he should consider the inevitable consequences that would ensue if his unsolicited "advice" was followed.
Patents should be reserved for true innovations, not something completely un-novel such as this.
For example, SoftUpdates completely eliminates the need to fix the file system after an unexpected reboot. The author clearly should try the BSDs -- probably FreeBSD.
So, Mr. Gilmore (I'd say that the odds are pretty good that he's the anonymous donor) will not only have wasted his money but will have hurt the cause of Linux. That's fine by me, since I (like many others) believe that propagating the GPL and GPLed software is a bad idea. But it'll disappoint even advocates of Linux when it happens.
Every prepaid cell phone I've ever used has allowed emergency calls, and/or calls to order more minutes, even when expired. Certainly, it would be in the phone company's interest to have an order line for more time, even if it wouldn't take emergency calls. Why didn't the hiker call it earlier? Or did he forget he had his phone?