The impression I get here is "Big company finds a venture of theirs dying, and says "Eh, what the hell, we'll "open-source" it.""
Increasingly, it seems like open-source/free software/similar stuff are "where failed commercial projects go to die." (See also: Blender) It is depressing to me as a free software advocate. Yes, it's better to open-source/open-source-alike software/services when they die than to simply let them die... However, if this sort of thing becomes more prevalent, Pointy-Haired-Boss types will eventually become convinced that "open-source" (as a verb) is simply a buzzword meaning "put out to pasture"... and that would be a Bad Thing(TM).
Couple this trend with the impression anti-OSS/FS folks already have of OSS/FS-- that it's "nothing but a bunch of cheap knockoffs of Fine Commercial Products"-- and this sort of "end-of-life open-sourcing" could be really bad news in the long run.
Zeta seems to be a symbol used among zoophiles (read: people who like screwing animals). You'd think that this particular Greek letter would be avoided when creating names?
Except they don't make a sound. In fact, they usually say "Ooh, I love this shiny Hotbar thing. Gee, I wonder why my Internet's so slow. Maybe I need a new computer."
"...and though we would like to support "all" of the various flavors of these new operating systems..." (emphasis mine)
The first release of the Linux kernel was in, what, 1992? OpenBSD has been around for how long? NetBSD has been around for how long? Debian has been around for how long? Red Hat has been around for how long?
Windows XP (released 2002?) is "newer" than any of the "major" Linux-based or BSD-based operating systems. The mental midget who wrote this piece referred to "[OpenBSD] as well as many other flavors of Linux/Unix" as "new operating systems" (his words), implying that Unix itself is a "new" thing. Reminder: Unix has been around since 1969; Win32 systems have been around since... what, 1993?
With such a PHB-style, Windows-centric philosophy, is it any wonder these guys are basically dodging all requests for help or support?
Data: "I would be happy to, sir. I just love scanning for life forms!
Life forms! **** You tiny little life forms! **** You precious little life forms! ***** Where are you? *********"
It's "flawed" because (A) it isn't in their patent portfolio, (B) they didn't invent it, (C) they don't make money off of it, and (D) it doesn't improve their marketshare or "mindshare". In other words, it's "flawed" because it isn't a Microsoft product.
Seriously, people. Stop making up names for things. Windows is called Windows, not "WinOS". Linux-based systems are Linux-based systems (or "Linux systems" if you must, or "GNU/Linux-based systems" to be more politically correct), but they are not "Linux OS". Apple's current operating system is "Mac OS X"; it is not "Apple Max OS", "MaxOS", "Max Unix OS" or "Macintosh OS".
Nobody goes around referring to a Ford Explorer as the "Explore Ford" or the "Explorer Forder" or anything else like that. Why, then, do people (even geeks) consistently mess up the names of operating systems!?
OK, let me spell it out to you. Here's why they're evil. Let's say you're researching something (but not for a school, or for a school which doesn't have a Lexis-Nexis membership (which probably costs $${bigbux}, which of course gets tacked onto the cost of tuition which poor students must bear).
So you realize you have two choices:
1) Skitter about to the courthouse, City Hall, local Federal building, law library, and a dozen other places and pore through huge dead-tree tomes which might be checked out, missing or out of date.
2) Pay Lexis-Nexis five metric fucktons of money which you don't have, and get access to the data the way you should have had (as a citizen of the US) in the first place.
If you were put in such a situation, I guarantee you you'd start seeing Lexis-Nexis as pretty evil.
"The main reason why I'm going on and on about this is because, as a fairly young lawyer, I couldn't possibly imagine the amount of work and time it would take to do the research I have done on Lexis if I had no Lexis and only the printed sources available. I know I could do that, but I wouldn't want to."
Well, no shit. That's my point exactly. I'd think that the government would be better off spending a few billions on digitizing documents (and, in many (most?) cases, simply indexing the copies they already have digitized) and creating a Lexis-Nexis equivalent for free than, say, starting some expensive foreign wars (or insert your favorite "thing I don't like the gummint spending lots of money on" here).
Lexis-Nexis isn't evil because it's huge, fast or efficient. It's evil because it's huge, fast, efficient-- and the only huge, fast and efficient repository of such public data-- and run by a private company.
Public data should be most efficiently available from the original source/collector-- the government.
I noted that the book link is a link to amazon.com. Weren't these the same guys who we were all so against because of their obtaining (and subsequently defending) the ridiculous "one-click shopping" (read: "extensive use of cookies") patent?
I can understand amazon.com links on non-geek sites, but shouldn't a geek site know its audience better?
They're flippin' evil. I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who's revolted by the fact that private corporations are the only effective sources of legal (read: public domain) data and other such public information. Shouldn't the government offer a LexisNexis-type service for free?
"LexisNexis is a popular searchable archive of content from newspapers, magazines, legal documents and other printed sources. Primary customers are lawyers and journalists.
Besides all current statutes, Lexis contains nearly all published case opinions in the United States back to the 1770s, and all unpublished (but publicly available) case opinions from 1980 onward. It also has full libraries of statutes and case opinions for many other common law jurisdictions like Australia and the United Kingdom.
News stories from the majority of English-language periodicals worldwide are available back to 1986, and there are a few articles available as far back as 1980.
Lexis has a library of public records, which includes current mailing addresses for nearly every living person in the United States. It has real property deeds and mortgages for most states.
A fee is charged for using the service. The fee was formerly hourly (at $300/hour or higher) but LexisNexis now prefers to negotiate monthly flat fees based on the user's ability to pay."
("Based on the user's ability to pay"? I wonder how they'd respond if I said "I barely can afford to pay my bills, much less offer you money for access to public domain data...")
Slashdot Mirror
...but who the hell is Joss Whedon, and what the hell is Serenity?
FURRIES!!! ;)
The impression I get here is "Big company finds a venture of theirs dying, and says "Eh, what the hell, we'll "open-source" it.""
Increasingly, it seems like open-source/free software/similar stuff are "where failed commercial projects go to die." (See also: Blender) It is depressing to me as a free software advocate. Yes, it's better to open-source/open-source-alike software/services when they die than to simply let them die... However, if this sort of thing becomes more prevalent, Pointy-Haired-Boss types will eventually become convinced that "open-source" (as a verb) is simply a buzzword meaning "put out to pasture"... and that would be a Bad Thing(TM).
Couple this trend with the impression anti-OSS/FS folks already have of OSS/FS-- that it's "nothing but a bunch of cheap knockoffs of Fine Commercial Products"-- and this sort of "end-of-life open-sourcing" could be really bad news in the long run.
What is the quote "My voice is my password. Verify me." (or "Authenticate me" or whatever...) a reference to?
Yup.
I'm in a subculture that has some membership overlap with zoophiles.
Zeta seems to be a symbol used among zoophiles (read: people who like screwing animals). You'd think that this particular Greek letter would be avoided when creating names?
Pimp offers new "disease-free guarantee".
Guys, the editorial quality here is going downhill. Please... hire editors who can actually, y'know, edit?
Except they don't make a sound. In fact, they usually say "Ooh, I love this shiny Hotbar thing. Gee, I wonder why my Internet's so slow. Maybe I need a new computer."
...so UP YOURS!
From this piece (linked to from the post):
"...and though we would like to support "all" of the various flavors of these new operating systems..." (emphasis mine)
The first release of the Linux kernel was in, what, 1992? OpenBSD has been around for how long? NetBSD has been around for how long? Debian has been around for how long? Red Hat has been around for how long?
Windows XP (released 2002?) is "newer" than any of the "major" Linux-based or BSD-based operating systems. The mental midget who wrote this piece referred to "[OpenBSD] as well as many other flavors of Linux/Unix" as "new operating systems" (his words), implying that Unix itself is a "new" thing. Reminder: Unix has been around since 1969; Win32 systems have been around since... what, 1993?
With such a PHB-style, Windows-centric philosophy, is it any wonder these guys are basically dodging all requests for help or support?
Data: "I would be happy to, sir. I just love scanning for life forms!
Life forms! **** You tiny little life forms! **** You precious little life forms! ***** Where are you? *********"
Call me when it get is compromised?
It's "flawed" because (A) it isn't in their patent portfolio, (B) they didn't invent it, (C) they don't make money off of it, and (D) it doesn't improve their marketshare or "mindshare". In other words, it's "flawed" because it isn't a Microsoft product.
Mmmmmmmmmmm, candy bar. jsmith/fido
What is this "WinOS" thing?
Seriously, people. Stop making up names for things. Windows is called Windows, not "WinOS". Linux-based systems are Linux-based systems (or "Linux systems" if you must, or "GNU/Linux-based systems" to be more politically correct), but they are not "Linux OS". Apple's current operating system is "Mac OS X"; it is not "Apple Max OS", "MaxOS", "Max Unix OS" or "Macintosh OS".
Nobody goes around referring to a Ford Explorer as the "Explore Ford" or the "Explorer Forder" or anything else like that. Why, then, do people (even geeks) consistently mess up the names of operating systems!?
Reminded me of it. But the esper (being Hollywood) only required one photo...
OK, let me spell it out to you. Here's why they're evil. Let's say you're researching something (but not for a school, or for a school which doesn't have a Lexis-Nexis membership (which probably costs $${bigbux}, which of course gets tacked onto the cost of tuition which poor students must bear).
So you realize you have two choices:
1) Skitter about to the courthouse, City Hall, local Federal building, law library, and a dozen other places and pore through huge dead-tree tomes which might be checked out, missing or out of date.
2) Pay Lexis-Nexis five metric fucktons of money which you don't have , and get access to the data the way you should have had (as a citizen of the US) in the first place.
If you were put in such a situation, I guarantee you you'd start seeing Lexis-Nexis as pretty evil.
"The main reason why I'm going on and on about this is because, as a fairly young lawyer, I couldn't possibly imagine the amount of work and time it would take to do the research I have done on Lexis if I had no Lexis and only the printed sources available. I know I could do that, but I wouldn't want to."
Well, no shit. That's my point exactly. I'd think that the government would be better off spending a few billions on digitizing documents (and, in many (most?) cases, simply indexing the copies they already have digitized) and creating a Lexis-Nexis equivalent for free than, say, starting some expensive foreign wars (or insert your favorite "thing I don't like the gummint spending lots of money on" here).
Lexis-Nexis isn't evil because it's huge, fast or efficient. It's evil because it's huge, fast, efficient-- and the only huge, fast and efficient repository of such public data-- and run by a private company.
Public data should be most efficiently available from the original source/collector-- the government.
Yes, you like Lexis-Nexis. That's flippin' great. But explain to me how, out of Federal expenditures of $2.156 TRILLION dollars, they couldn't work in money for a Lexis-Nexis workalike?
You mean to tell me that these monstrosities weigh under 150 Sol masses???
I noted that the book link is a link to amazon.com. Weren't these the same guys who we were all so against because of their obtaining (and subsequently defending) the ridiculous "one-click shopping" (read: "extensive use of cookies") patent?
I can understand amazon.com links on non-geek sites, but shouldn't a geek site know its audience better?
They're flippin' evil. I'm sure I'm not the only one out there who's revolted by the fact that private corporations are the only effective sources of legal (read: public domain) data and other such public information. Shouldn't the government offer a LexisNexis-type service for free?
From the Wikipedia entry on Lexis-Nexis; all emphasis mine:
"LexisNexis is a popular searchable archive of content from newspapers, magazines, legal documents and other printed sources. Primary customers are lawyers and journalists.
Besides all current statutes, Lexis contains nearly all published case opinions in the United States back to the 1770s, and all unpublished (but publicly available) case opinions from 1980 onward. It also has full libraries of statutes and case opinions for many other common law jurisdictions like Australia and the United Kingdom.
News stories from the majority of English-language periodicals worldwide are available back to 1986, and there are a few articles available as far back as 1980.
Lexis has a library of public records, which includes current mailing addresses for nearly every living person in the United States. It has real property deeds and mortgages for most states.
A fee is charged for using the service. The fee was formerly hourly (at $300/hour or higher) but LexisNexis now prefers to negotiate monthly flat fees based on the user's ability to pay."
("Based on the user's ability to pay"? I wonder how they'd respond if I said "I barely can afford to pay my bills, much less offer you money for access to public domain data...")
...around five cents US, right? ;)
(Sarcasm note: I'm only kidding! Props to fellow geeks in Kiwiland.)
When will a company have the balls to respond to such a patent claim by FedExing a piece of paper containing two words: "Fuck off"?
It's about time someone did something like that in response to this sort of BS.