I suspect that talking about "open source" won't
mean a lot to your constituency. However, you can
say that you have ideas about how to streamline
governmental IT budgets without cutting services.
A more subtle point is that open source improves
openness. Using open file formats and protocols
protects the government and the public from vendor
lock-in. It also improves the chance that government archives will still be accessible in
the middling and distant future. I don't know
how you can make these points sound-bite-friendly,
but it's worth thinking about.
Is that true? I suspect that when small children
read picture books, they don't just pick up the
basics of reading -- they learn how stories are
structured, along with a raft of other cultural
cruft.
What Glass doesn't get is that that would be a
*good* thing. In your example, let's say Oracle
loses half their market share to a free product.
That means that companies around the world have
billions and billions of dollars that they used
to spend on database software that they can now
spend on other things. It would be like a tax
cut!
A lot of people here seem to be laboring under the
mistaken impression that Cocoa or Carbon can be
compared directly to X11. They're not comparable.
X11 is only concerned with user I/O: displays and
mouse and keyboard events. Carbon and Cocoa are
much, much richer. They're more like Gnome or KDE
than they are like X11.
Actually, I do have something to add. Saying that
porting Carbon or Cocoa to unix would be easy except
that they're not open source is like saying that it
would be easy to take a trip to the moon except that
it's far away. When I said that porting from Cocoa
or Carbon to unix APIs would not be trivial, I meant
exactly what I said. A Carbon port of Office can't
be a basis for a Linux port because *Carbon doesn't
run on Linux*.
Open source software generally *is* funded by
donations -- of time. Most open source
software isn't run by a company, it's run by a
community. Donating money is just a different
way of participating in those communities.
The DMCA should no longer be properly referred to
as the DMCA; it passed, and its provisions are now
parts of the copyright sections of the law, and
can be referred to by title, section and paragraph.
Not that I don't do it too. But you shouldn't
mention the DMCA and the SSSCA in one breath
without making it clear that one has passed into
law and the other is still in play.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean about the lawsuit?
Linus himself has said that if BSD hadn't been
under a cloud of legal uncertainty in 1990, he
might not have embarked on the Linux project.
You can get more information about the lawsuit
here, just search for the string "the lawsuit".
You need to spend some time studying history before
shooting your mouth off.
The main reason for BSD's "marginalization"
relative to Linux is the AT&T/Novell lawsuit.
It's also worth noting that the different BSDs are
no less mutually compatible than the different Linux
distributions.
I suspect that talking about "open source" won't
mean a lot to your constituency. However, you can
say that you have ideas about how to streamline
governmental IT budgets without cutting services.
A more subtle point is that open source improves
openness. Using open file formats and protocols
protects the government and the public from vendor
lock-in. It also improves the chance that government archives will still be accessible in
the middling and distant future. I don't know
how you can make these points sound-bite-friendly,
but it's worth thinking about.
It is part of a business model -- FreeBSD Mall's
business model is to sell FreeBSD-related stuff,
including CDs, books, toys and clothes.
The difference is that it's a sensible, proven,
small-scale business model, not an underpants-
stealing model from the late 90s.
Is that true? I suspect that when small children
read picture books, they don't just pick up the
basics of reading -- they learn how stories are
structured, along with a raft of other cultural
cruft.
Yes, you are spelling it right.
The source to IE is still closed, so Microsoft
isn't giving it away in the sense that Tim O'Reilly
is proposing.
So although your question is interesting (I'd say
the answer is "both"), it's not terribly relevant
to the topic at hand.
Good for *non-Oracle businesses*, bad for Oracle.
It's a different story.
Oracle can lobby for its interests, of course, but
that's relevant to the legislature, not the courts.
What Glass doesn't get is that that would be a
*good* thing. In your example, let's say Oracle
loses half their market share to a free product.
That means that companies around the world have
billions and billions of dollars that they used
to spend on database software that they can now
spend on other things. It would be like a tax
cut!
Glass sounds like a blacksmith complaining that
he'll be out of work if everyone drives horseless
carriages.
Or like the RIAA complaining that their members
will be out of business if everyone distributes
their music over the internet.
You had to read Tom Clancy for that? I thought of
that while I was looking at the letter on The Register.
I kind of thought about emailing Brian Valentine
about it, but then I thought, why help him?
If I were doing it, I'd change word choice and/or order,
subtly, throughout the letter.
You have no more evidence that the mail is fake
than I have that it's real (none).
A lot of people here seem to be laboring under the
mistaken impression that Cocoa or Carbon can be
compared directly to X11. They're not comparable.
X11 is only concerned with user I/O: displays and
mouse and keyboard events. Carbon and Cocoa are
much, much richer. They're more like Gnome or KDE
than they are like X11.
Actually, I do have something to add. Saying that
porting Carbon or Cocoa to unix would be easy except
that they're not open source is like saying that it
would be easy to take a trip to the moon except that
it's far away. When I said that porting from Cocoa
or Carbon to unix APIs would not be trivial, I meant
exactly what I said. A Carbon port of Office can't
be a basis for a Linux port because *Carbon doesn't
run on Linux*.
NeXTStep used Postscript. Mac OS X uses PDF, to
avoid paying royalties to Adobe, I believe.
The anonymous coward has the real story.
I have nothing to add.
Neither Carbon nor Cocoa are unix APIs. Porting
from either of them to unix is a significant task.
Open source software generally *is* funded by
donations -- of time. Most open source
software isn't run by a company, it's run by a
community. Donating money is just a different
way of participating in those communities.
Suit yourself.
I sent money to ORDB because they save me money
by keeping spam out of my inbox and off my server.
One good turn deserves another.
They're cool and all, but they never sent me my
... months later, no sign of it.
t-shirt.
I even got a nice response to my complaint, saying
it was on the way
Oh well, I wasn't in it for the t-shirt (but it does
rankle).
Don't forget semiconductors!
That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't they just
destroy the vouchers?
Not that the government doesn't do plenty of
nonsensical things, but I wouldn't repeat your
story as fact before seeing some documentation
of it.
The DMCA should no longer be properly referred to
as the DMCA; it passed, and its provisions are now
parts of the copyright sections of the law, and
can be referred to by title, section and paragraph.
Not that I don't do it too. But you shouldn't
mention the DMCA and the SSSCA in one breath
without making it clear that one has passed into
law and the other is still in play.
Illegal to use in binary form?
Sheesh. I guess you'll have to build a C
interpreter. (Is it even possible to run
C as an interpreted language? I have to
think about this.)
If you read enough different accounts, and use
your common sense, you can get a pretty good
idea of what the real story is.
I understand that reading books is frowned on around
here if it keeps one from spending enough quality
time with one's Playstation.