Sounds like Brazil to me....I expect most of you recall the scene. "Think of what this is doing to your credit rating."
Take citizen/individual/person and replace with consumer. Take society/population/socio-economic group and replace with market. And be sure the guy who fixes your heater isn't named Tuttle.
It is said that the most efficient form of govnerment is a benevolent dictator. It is good for ANY project, be it corporate, special interest, non-profit, development, whatever to have an individual who, when appropriate, can and will make a decision. If Linus's cavalier attitude about corporate interests is 'killing the linux kernel', consider for a moment what a commitee of lobbyists would do when faced with an either or decision with an impact to the direction of the kernel. It is VERY important that this 'dictator' has the proper motivations, and a strong desire to do what is best for the project, so far I congratulate Linus on the job he has done. The instant his decisions become based on courting money from company X or catering to the 'monied' special interest Y, putting personal gain above doing the 'right thing'(TM) we might as well sign the kernel over to George W. and all move to another OS. Besides, if these groups really, truly want something in the kernel, nothing, not even Linus is stoping them from building it, and putting it into their own projects (a feature, I believe helps to keep Linus honest(not that it seems necessary to do so at the moment)), and that is the beauty of the current system.
I do agree that some sort of succession planning should be addressed, in the event that Linus cannot continue his present duties (or just decides he doesn't want to do it anymore.) And perhaps a non-profit industry sponsored group is the answer....BUT the structure should allow for a strong personality, to development in the 'right' (TM) direction, without consideration for IBM's, COMPAQ's, RedHat's, etc particular whim-of-the-day is. (With a schizo as market conditions have been, and are likely to be, do you think a consortium of these guys could result in a coherent kerenel design?)
The article raises good questions....but in my estimation, the title, and the conclusion that linux would be better served by a 'management team' of 'industry leaders' bickering with each other and jockeying for fame, glory, or their own particular interests is just so much FUD.
fair, but, the article mentions that the laser lens stowes until the aircraft has reached airspace that is suitably free of particles and clouds...so presumably the aircraft will be very, very high...
To me that means the target would be beneath the aircraft.
Besides, to your point about maneuvering the 747....mounting the lens on the undercarrage allows huge targeting changes without impacting the aircrafts heading in any significant way.
I am confused...why the nose. It would seem like the worst possible place to put this thing. The targeting system requires a predictable and stable platform from which to fire, I imagine the nose is not the best place....
Besides, don't you get 360 degrees of viewable space from the bottom? You could'nt do much better than say 270ish from the nose, at best, less you run the risk of burning your wings off. =P Sure, you lose the ability to shoot up, but I don't imagine these things will be flying below (very close to the ground), or at the level of (maneuvering?) likely targets, will it? I imagine well above the action is the best place for such a weapon....or am I on crack?
Ok....here comes a flame. Moderate it down if you wish...I don't care.
Deregulation does NOT guarantee that every Tom, Dick, and Jackass with 2 coins to rub together gets to be their own phone company. Deregulation does not guarantee that you get to be successful as a CLEC just because you have a couple million (or even a couple hundred million) dollars. (period, that is all) If your business plan sucks, or your execution on said business plan sucks, you do not get to be successfull. (Let me point out at this time that ANY business plan that contends to make a profit on providing residential voice service SUCKS!!! Residential voice as a stand alone service is a LOSING proposition. You should thank your local RBOC/Bell/Monopoly for losing money on it for you.)
That said some business models are successful. Some people can make money competing in what was formerly Bell space, and yes, some of those companies even include residential voice, but they do not expect to generate enough revenue based on that service to support the company....sucessful companies us profitable services to support the company.
Now as for ISP's, there are presently several dozen proven methods of providing internet access (even shitty internet access, look at AOL). Pick one and give it a try, other people have been successful, you can to, if you are smart about it. Some of these methods don't even require you to interact with the Bells, cable, satellite, etc. If none of these suit your particular tastes, come up with something new, shit even if it is stupid and obvious you can still patent it, and make money off of licensing.
As to the person who penned this awful article, I will refrain from personal comments about him, because it is possible that he is a nice, thoughtful person. BUT (you knew that was coming, didn't you), competition is all about sticking it out and out-thinking/maneuvering/servicing your competitor, NO LAW ENSURES YOU CAN DO THIS. People need to get over the 'I deserve' mentality, no one deserves to be wildly successful at being a phone company, or anything else unless they:
1. work hard at it
2. do it smartly
3. do it EFFECTIVELY
Just for the record, the author's poster child for 'Bell Abuse' (Northpoint) was at best an ineffective, difficult to work with, disorganized, fuster-cluck of ineptitude. They will fail unless they get their shit together, and they deserve to if they don't get their shit together.
Thank You...You may now return to regularly scheduled lives, already in progress.
A couple of years back, when Netscape (ahem) released the code to their browser....they also did something else that didn't exactly make the headlines---they supplied programmers to help develop it. This was in their best interest because at the time Netscape intended to use such enhancements in their next browser.
Mozilla is not the 'development' version of netscape, not hardly. Netscape has given a lot of time, effort, code, and money to Mozilla, and that they want to get some back by putting links to their websit all over their browser is fine with me....I use Mozilla.
I think it is in our best interests to have strong backers to Open Source and Free Software projects. Netscape gives that strong backing to Mozilla, and for that I am grateful. Rather than flogging Netscape for their actions, perhaps let them know your feelings, tell them that you intend on using the Mozilla browser until they do as you wish, (dont hold your breath) and ask politely for others to do the same.
Lets not forget another undeniable fact of life: Corporations sometimes (often) do stupid things, primarily because they don't think they are stupid.
When I saw the story I fired up the version of GAIM I got with Helix and created an acct. Seems I can chat with my friends...who shall remain friends in spite of the fact they use windows. =P
Seems like it is only half broken for alternative clients.
Much, I am sure, to the displeasure of our long-winded orator, I will question his assertions on the very basis he used to come to them.
The gentleman says:
Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which is free is free only because someone else has paid for it.
And this puts me in 100% agreement with him on that point at least. His 'right' to maintain control of 'his intellectual property' has come at the expense of my freedom. To further the goals of society, we (society) have determined that limited copyright PRIVELEGES (as they were intended, not rights) are to be bestowed on the originator of a work, or those to whom they are assigned by the originator, FOR A TIME. That is the price we are willing to pay.
Those limited (and enumerated) priveleges are all this person or others may have. (period, no more.) When you take advantage of my rights and call them yours, then you steal from me. Please expect no more tolerance from me on the matter, than you have shown you are capable of.
If this were some one elses GPL software would anyone consider this situation a problem?
My thinking is that if you work on GPL software, make changes, and distribute it at all, your changes MUST be included into the distro (along with all of the other source)
If you found yourself using your own package, I have to assume that you have also made use of other GPL code. Do you change it? Do you distribute it?
Probably the reason the question comes up at all is because your company typically does not distribute software, not suprising. Your solution is to 'help' your company develop a policy on the matter. If approached as suggested in the other posts, your management will consider you a 'go-getter' and because of your 'suggestion' and involvement you will also probably get what you want.
It has been my observation that issues outside of managements immediate problem domain are of little or no consequence to them, they will simply default to the first easiest answer given to them.
A good software solution is Ice-Cast. (GPL'd package along the lines of Nullsoft's Shoutcast) It has the facilities you are looking for. The primary matter of concern is the size of your intended audience. Assuming you will opt for a low-bitrate (assuming voice is your primary transmission, and your goal is to reach as many people as possible, and you are not made of money for bandwidth) you are still putting a substantial load on the encoding machine should you choose to then "broadcast" from it.
My reccomendation would be to build 2 or (possibly) more medium size systems, assign one the task of encoding the audio, and pushing it to the public serving machine(s). This can be done inexpensively (relatively, but everything is relative) and has the added benefit of permitting you to push your content to repeater sites (donated, bartered,purhcased) permitting you to reach a larger audience. It also permits you to go a bit lighter on the bandwidth costs to your location and consider higher bandwidth/lower cost solutions for the public facing "broadcasting" servers should your audience be large enough.
But how did they get it from Intel, the same way I am certain that Corel gets beta's to their testers.....by distributing it.
While I am quite certain anyone involved in Linux on Merced development has more coding skill than I could hope to have in this life, I can also be certain that NO developer on that project works alone. Per this way of thinking Sending code/binaries/etc to another person is distribution.
I am not a lawyer, but Corel's most sensible argument is that they have an agent relationship with their testers....by acting on behalf of the entity Corel, Corel the entity did not distribute any thing to anyone...It's all one entity.
Without assigning any validity to this argument it, to me the question is:
Is it worth alienating a potential ally by scaring them away with a lawsuit? Particularily if we have confidence and assurance from them that they will do the right thing.
Corel should:
1. Publicly apologize for not consulting the primary authors of GPL code in their product.
2. Publicly apologize for not making the terms of their beta agreement public and quite clear in advance of the beta.
3. Publish the indended license for the release of the CorelLINUX distro for public review.
4. Respond to the multiple requests from Debian project leaders in a way that can publicly report those peoples satisfaction with Corel's corrective actions.
These are fair requests that can bring an amiable resolution to this problem. It will also permit Corel to save some face and not continue down the path of public cluelessness.
Without being privy to the NDA's for Intel's Merced project I will cautiously take your word on the terms. However, the GPL is quite clear on changes and derivatives of GPL'd code. If you derive your product from the GPL source you will distribute your product under GPL as well.
Intel's approach may be different but they would be breaking the same laws as Corel here. Corel has taken action to correct their oversite, I would like to think they have everyones interests in mind. They want to make money and avoid lawsuits, people wont sue them and take that money if they simply address their error.
OK, the GPL is the GPL. You cannot simply assert control over a body of work that was built by any other person or group of people. Granted. Any attempt to steal licensed code, GPL or otherwise, is a violation of law.
However, let us compare Corel's actions to that of another large company the Linux/OSS group has been watching for some time now: Intel. Does this bring to mind the Merced processor that so many are lookng forward to? I have not seen Linux Kernel source on any FTP servers for this code, I would think that it would make use of large amounts of kernel source.....in fact much of the Linux on Merced work is being done under NDA in direct conflict with the provisions of the GPL.
In the long run, if monitored and handled properly, this trespass will actually benefit OSS. I would like to think that Corel has no intention of appropriating GPL'd code. I would like to think that Corel is not prepared to release an incomplete package to the user base they have indicated they are marketing, entry level users who don't know computing much less *nix are not capable of handling early beta systems.
I think that I read the same thing. Just think of all the new virii we could see when you have free reign to load lots of data into memory at boot time.
I am sure though that there will be a check box that says "Trust all content downloaded from the internet? \YES\ \NO\"
Perhaps the very restrictions are an indication of the duality of source code.
One must believe that restrictions placed on 'encryption source code' are in place to prevent the communication of ideas behind the encryption (to the outside world) as much as they are in place to prevent the dissemination of encryption tools to the world at large.
By restricting communication of encryption ideas the US gains (supposedly) protection from the implementation of those very ideas.
The intent of the government (to prevent the spread of encryption theory by preventing export of source code) could be used to show the validity of the argument that Source Code communicates ideas.
The official mirrors (ie ftp.suse.com, etc) have an ISO CD Image. This includes nearly all of the installation on a single disk image. It looks as though the ISO is similar to RedHat's GPL distro.
This probably isn't excatly what you are looking for but it might help. =]
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like Brazil to me....I expect most of you recall the scene. "Think of what this is doing to your credit rating."
Take citizen/individual/person and replace with consumer. Take society/population/socio-economic group and replace with market. And be sure the guy who fixes your heater isn't named Tuttle.
It is said that the most efficient form of govnerment is a benevolent dictator. It is good for ANY project, be it corporate, special interest, non-profit, development, whatever to have an individual who, when appropriate, can and will make a decision. If Linus's cavalier attitude about corporate interests is 'killing the linux kernel', consider for a moment what a commitee of lobbyists would do when faced with an either or decision with an impact to the direction of the kernel. It is VERY important that this 'dictator' has the proper motivations, and a strong desire to do what is best for the project, so far I congratulate Linus on the job he has done. The instant his decisions become based on courting money from company X or catering to the 'monied' special interest Y, putting personal gain above doing the 'right thing'(TM) we might as well sign the kernel over to George W. and all move to another OS. Besides, if these groups really, truly want something in the kernel, nothing, not even Linus is stoping them from building it, and putting it into their own projects (a feature, I believe helps to keep Linus honest(not that it seems necessary to do so at the moment)), and that is the beauty of the current system.
I do agree that some sort of succession planning should be addressed, in the event that Linus cannot continue his present duties (or just decides he doesn't want to do it anymore.) And perhaps a non-profit industry sponsored group is the answer....BUT the structure should allow for a strong personality, to development in the 'right' (TM) direction, without consideration for IBM's, COMPAQ's, RedHat's, etc particular whim-of-the-day is. (With a schizo as market conditions have been, and are likely to be, do you think a consortium of these guys could result in a coherent kerenel design?)
The article raises good questions....but in my estimation, the title, and the conclusion that linux would be better served by a 'management team' of 'industry leaders' bickering with each other and jockeying for fame, glory, or their own particular interests is just so much FUD.
Flame away.
fair, but, the article mentions that the laser lens stowes until the aircraft has reached airspace that is suitably free of particles and clouds...so presumably the aircraft will be very, very high...
To me that means the target would be beneath the aircraft.
Besides, to your point about maneuvering the 747....mounting the lens on the undercarrage allows huge targeting changes without impacting the aircrafts heading in any significant way.
I am confused...why the nose. It would seem like the worst possible place to put this thing. The targeting system requires a predictable and stable platform from which to fire, I imagine the nose is not the best place....
Besides, don't you get 360 degrees of viewable space from the bottom? You could'nt do much better than say 270ish from the nose, at best, less you run the risk of burning your wings off. =P Sure, you lose the ability to shoot up, but I don't imagine these things will be flying below (very close to the ground), or at the level of (maneuvering?) likely targets, will it? I imagine well above the action is the best place for such a weapon....or am I on crack?
Ok....here comes a flame. Moderate it down if you wish...I don't care.
Deregulation does NOT guarantee that every Tom, Dick, and Jackass with 2 coins to rub together gets to be their own phone company. Deregulation does not guarantee that you get to be successful as a CLEC just because you have a couple million (or even a couple hundred million) dollars. (period, that is all) If your business plan sucks, or your execution on said business plan sucks, you do not get to be successfull. (Let me point out at this time that ANY business plan that contends to make a profit on providing residential voice service SUCKS!!! Residential voice as a stand alone service is a LOSING proposition. You should thank your local RBOC/Bell/Monopoly for losing money on it for you.)
That said some business models are successful. Some people can make money competing in what was formerly Bell space, and yes, some of those companies even include residential voice, but they do not expect to generate enough revenue based on that service to support the company....sucessful companies us profitable services to support the company.
Now as for ISP's, there are presently several dozen proven methods of providing internet access (even shitty internet access, look at AOL). Pick one and give it a try, other people have been successful, you can to, if you are smart about it. Some of these methods don't even require you to interact with the Bells, cable, satellite, etc. If none of these suit your particular tastes, come up with something new, shit even if it is stupid and obvious you can still patent it, and make money off of licensing.
As to the person who penned this awful article, I will refrain from personal comments about him, because it is possible that he is a nice, thoughtful person. BUT (you knew that was coming, didn't you), competition is all about sticking it out and out-thinking/maneuvering/servicing your competitor, NO LAW ENSURES YOU CAN DO THIS. People need to get over the 'I deserve' mentality, no one deserves to be wildly successful at being a phone company, or anything else unless they:
1. work hard at it
2. do it smartly
3. do it EFFECTIVELY
Just for the record, the author's poster child for 'Bell Abuse' (Northpoint) was at best an ineffective, difficult to work with, disorganized, fuster-cluck of ineptitude. They will fail unless they get their shit together, and they deserve to if they don't get their shit together.
Thank You...You may now return to regularly scheduled lives, already in progress.
A couple of years back, when Netscape (ahem) released the code to their browser....they also did something else that didn't exactly make the headlines---they supplied programmers to help develop it. This was in their best interest because at the time Netscape intended to use such enhancements in their next browser.
Mozilla is not the 'development' version of netscape, not hardly. Netscape has given a lot of time, effort, code, and money to Mozilla, and that they want to get some back by putting links to their websit all over their browser is fine with me....I use Mozilla.
I think it is in our best interests to have strong backers to Open Source and Free Software projects. Netscape gives that strong backing to Mozilla, and for that I am grateful. Rather than flogging Netscape for their actions, perhaps let them know your feelings, tell them that you intend on using the Mozilla browser until they do as you wish, (dont hold your breath) and ask politely for others to do the same.
Lets not forget another undeniable fact of life: Corporations sometimes (often) do stupid things, primarily because they don't think they are stupid.
http://www.ehlokitty.org
Joy!
When I saw the story I fired up the version of GAIM I got with Helix and created an acct. Seems I can chat with my friends...who shall remain friends in spite of the fact they use windows. =P
Seems like it is only half broken for alternative clients.
Much, I am sure, to the displeasure of our long-winded orator, I will question his assertions on the very basis he used to come to them.
The gentleman says:
Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which is free is free only because someone else has paid for it.
And this puts me in 100% agreement with him on that point at least. His 'right' to maintain control of 'his intellectual property' has come at the expense of my freedom. To further the goals of society, we (society) have determined that limited copyright PRIVELEGES (as they were intended, not rights) are to be bestowed on the originator of a work, or those to whom they are assigned by the originator, FOR A TIME. That is the price we are willing to pay.
Those limited (and enumerated) priveleges are all this person or others may have. (period, no more.) When you take advantage of my rights and call them yours, then you steal from me. Please expect no more tolerance from me on the matter, than you have shown you are capable of.
If this were some one elses GPL software would anyone consider this situation a problem?
My thinking is that if you work on GPL software, make changes, and distribute it at all, your changes MUST be included into the distro (along with all of the other source)
If you found yourself using your own package, I have to assume that you have also made use of other GPL code. Do you change it? Do you distribute it?
Probably the reason the question comes up at all is because your company typically does not distribute software, not suprising. Your solution is to 'help' your company develop a policy on the matter. If approached as suggested in the other posts, your management will consider you a 'go-getter' and because of your 'suggestion' and involvement you will also probably get what you want.
It has been my observation that issues outside of managements immediate problem domain are of little or no consequence to them, they will simply default to the first easiest answer given to them.
A good software solution is Ice-Cast. (GPL'd package along the lines of Nullsoft's Shoutcast) It has the facilities you are looking for. The primary matter of concern is the size of your intended audience. Assuming you will opt for a low-bitrate (assuming voice is your primary transmission, and your goal is to reach as many people as possible, and you are not made of money for bandwidth) you are still putting a substantial load on the encoding machine should you choose to then "broadcast" from it.
My reccomendation would be to build 2 or (possibly) more medium size systems, assign one the task of encoding the audio, and pushing it to the public serving machine(s). This can be done inexpensively (relatively, but everything is relative) and has the added benefit of permitting you to push your content to repeater sites (donated, bartered,purhcased) permitting you to reach a larger audience. It also permits you to go a bit lighter on the bandwidth costs to your location and consider higher bandwidth/lower cost solutions for the public facing "broadcasting" servers should your audience be large enough.
But how did they get it from Intel, the same way I am certain that Corel gets beta's to their testers.....by distributing it.
While I am quite certain anyone involved in Linux on Merced development has more coding skill than I could hope to have in this life, I can also be certain that NO developer on that project works alone. Per this way of thinking Sending code/binaries/etc to another person is distribution.
I am not a lawyer, but Corel's most sensible argument is that they have an agent relationship with their testers....by acting on behalf of the entity Corel, Corel the entity did not distribute any thing to anyone...It's all one entity.
Without assigning any validity to this argument it, to me the question is:
Is it worth alienating a potential ally by scaring them away with a lawsuit? Particularily if we have confidence and assurance from them that they will do the right thing.
Corel should:
1. Publicly apologize for not consulting the primary authors of GPL code in their product.
2. Publicly apologize for not making the terms of their beta agreement public and quite clear in advance of the beta.
3. Publish the indended license for the release of the CorelLINUX distro for public review.
4. Respond to the multiple requests from Debian project leaders in a way that can publicly report those peoples satisfaction with Corel's corrective actions.
These are fair requests that can bring an amiable resolution to this problem. It will also permit Corel to save some face and not continue down the path of public cluelessness.
Without being privy to the NDA's for Intel's Merced project I will cautiously take your word on the terms. However, the GPL is quite clear on changes and derivatives of GPL'd code. If you derive your product from the GPL source you will distribute your product under GPL as well.
Intel's approach may be different but they would be breaking the same laws as Corel here. Corel has taken action to correct their oversite, I would like to think they have everyones interests in mind. They want to make money and avoid lawsuits, people wont sue them and take that money if they simply address their error.
OK, the GPL is the GPL. You cannot simply assert control over a body of work that was built by any other person or group of people. Granted. Any attempt to steal licensed code, GPL or otherwise, is a violation of law.
However, let us compare Corel's actions to that of another large company the Linux/OSS group has been watching for some time now: Intel. Does this bring to mind the Merced processor that so many are lookng forward to? I have not seen Linux Kernel source on any FTP servers for this code, I would think that it would make use of large amounts of kernel source.....in fact much of the Linux on Merced work is being done under NDA in direct conflict with the provisions of the GPL.
In the long run, if monitored and handled properly, this trespass will actually benefit OSS. I would like to think that Corel has no intention of appropriating GPL'd code. I would like to think that Corel is not prepared to release an incomplete package to the user base they have indicated they are marketing, entry level users who don't know computing much less *nix are not capable of handling early beta systems.
I think that I read the same thing. Just think of all the new virii we could see when you have free reign to load lots of data into memory at boot time.
I am sure though that there will be a check box that says "Trust all content downloaded from the internet? \YES\ \NO\"
Perhaps the very restrictions are an indication of the duality of source code.
One must believe that restrictions placed on 'encryption source code' are in place to prevent the communication of ideas behind the encryption (to the outside world) as much as they are in place to prevent the dissemination of encryption tools to the world at large.
By restricting communication of encryption ideas the US gains (supposedly) protection from the implementation of those very ideas.
The intent of the government (to prevent the spread of encryption theory by preventing export of source code) could be used to show the validity of the argument that Source Code communicates ideas.
The official mirrors (ie ftp.suse.com, etc) have an ISO CD Image. This includes nearly all of the installation on a single disk image. It looks as though the ISO is similar to RedHat's GPL distro.
This probably isn't excatly what you are looking for but it might help. =]