- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Why Open Source Isn't Succeeding...part II
Please understand that this wasn't the intention. The entry simply addressed issues that I see inhibiting open source, specifically Linux, from fully succeeding (i.e. dominating both the server and desktop market for computers). I should have titled the article, "Why enterprise applications may kill open source". But hindsight is 20/20 right? On request, I will clarify a few points for those that have asked it. |
|
|
Comments (37)
17 earlier comments in the full thread.
Devnet_
I bring up Mambo because an idiot was ALLOWED to even bring accusations and the media enflamed them to high pitch status.
This is the United States, I am allowed to sue you for anything I damn well want to. I can make all the noise in the world aobut it as well. BUT if I can't back up noise with facts I am going to have to pay, and pay alot.
Where is the Mambo guy today? Heck were is SCO today, Discovery ends in a month and SCO has YET to show one Infringing line of code.
You sound a lot like a guy I know from Yahoo SCOX. it's not that you are wrong, it's just that you can't wrap your mind around the facts of how to give people freedom but not to allow abuse as well. You either give up the freedom , or be abused. It's tough to find a balance in a society were money is worth more than people.
Note I updated this sice part of it got erased.
I bring up Mambo because an idiot was ALLOWED to even bring accusations and the media enflamed them to high pitch status.
This is the United States, I am allowed to sue you for anything I damn well want to. I can make all the noise in the world aobut it as well. BUT if I can't back up noise with facts I am going to have to pay, and pay alot.
Where is the Mambo guy today? Heck were is SCO today, Discovery ends in a month and SCO has YET to show one Infringing line of code.
You sound a lot like a guy I know from Yahoo SCOX. it's not that you are wrong, it's just that you can't wrap your mind around the facts of how to give people freedom but not to allow abuse as well. You either give up the freedom , or be abused. It's tough to find a balance in a society were money is worth more than people.
Note I updated this sice part of it got erased.
devnet:
If your intent was to "inform", it would help a bit if you really bothered to inform yourself.
Reading just the opening paragraph is proof enough that you are badly misinformed.
I am going to make this simple and short - I have others things to do of more import.
Before Linux was even projected to even hold anywhere near 1% of the market the talk of "World Domination was afoot as it seems to be your prime criteria for measuring the success of Linux, Open Source (and I assume Free) software. It was a JOKE! [Read some of the old interviews with Linus.] Why do it think it even desirable to have one OS run everything?
Simply stated, Linux (including other free and open software) need NOT dominate to succeed wildly. There are dangers true, but those even close to MS do not think it can control the entire world. Moreover, if they succeed in blocking the options locally they will build the opposition elsewhere. Furthermore, that elsewhere is where the major market expansions are occurring. Indeed, that 's where MS wants to gain market. Danger, sure but not just for the so called backers of the open source option.
If Linux (and other options) take even a quarter of the market the days of hegemony are over for MS. The world is not as simplistic are you perceive nor are your insights as perceptive as you imagine.
If your intent was to "inform", it would help a bit if you really bothered to inform yourself.
Reading just the opening paragraph is proof enough that you are badly misinformed.
I am going to make this simple and short - I have others things to do of more import.
Before Linux was even projected to even hold anywhere near 1% of the market the talk of "World Domination was afoot as it seems to be your prime criteria for measuring the success of Linux, Open Source (and I assume Free) software. It was a JOKE! [Read some of the old interviews with Linus.] Why do it think it even desirable to have one OS run everything?
Simply stated, Linux (including other free and open software) need NOT dominate to succeed wildly. There are dangers true, but those even close to MS do not think it can control the entire world. Moreover, if they succeed in blocking the options locally they will build the opposition elsewhere. Furthermore, that elsewhere is where the major market expansions are occurring. Indeed, that 's where MS wants to gain market. Danger, sure but not just for the so called backers of the open source option.
If Linux (and other options) take even a quarter of the market the days of hegemony are over for MS. The world is not as simplistic are you perceive nor are your insights as perceptive as you imagine.
Since the first glaring error that I mentioned seems now to be fixed in the editorial, I'll select another at random:
> "Let's set up a hypothetical situation. Say that Tom is a software developer who writes a stellar program for Linux that starts to garner him some attention. His software is quickly adopted in both KDE and Gnome desktop environments and begins to be included in default installs for Linux distros. However, Tom does not have the resources to port his application over to LSB 2.0 compliance. So, company X comes in and takes the code that Tom developed and re-releases it for their own OS. Will they give that code back to Tom? Will they employ Tom to develop for them? Will they donate to HIS original cause (i.e. developing HIS software)? Or will they just take this and say that "well, we give enough back to the community because we donated X lines of code or Y applications as open source."
Explanation of the fallacy:
His software is adopted by KDE and Gnome, so we can say that the important bits are maintained under GPL or LGPL licensing. Company X is then required to make their mods to said code available to anyone to whom they distribute binaries, without further restriction. Those people are then free to make the code available to anyone, via ftp or whatever. Tom gets their mods back and can include them in the next release of his code.
You have demonstrated, here, a lack of understanding about how the (L)GPL works.
Even if things worked as your "hypothetical situation" describes, I hardly see what this has to do with LSB 2.0, which makes me wonder about your understanding of that.
Note1: If the code is LGPL, then it is possible that company X could write their own proprietary code which links against Tom's code, and they would not have to make the source for their proprietary code available. That would not be possible with GPL. (Any modifications to Tom's code *would* have to be released, in both cases.) Choose your license wisely and you are covered.
Note2: If Tom's own source tree was covered under the BSD license, or some other very permissive license, Tom would be delighted that GNOME and KDE found it useful in their open-source projects, and also delighted that company X found his code useful for their proprietary project.
-Steve Bergman
> "Let's set up a hypothetical situation. Say that Tom is a software developer who writes a stellar program for Linux that starts to garner him some attention. His software is quickly adopted in both KDE and Gnome desktop environments and begins to be included in default installs for Linux distros. However, Tom does not have the resources to port his application over to LSB 2.0 compliance. So, company X comes in and takes the code that Tom developed and re-releases it for their own OS. Will they give that code back to Tom? Will they employ Tom to develop for them? Will they donate to HIS original cause (i.e. developing HIS software)? Or will they just take this and say that "well, we give enough back to the community because we donated X lines of code or Y applications as open source."
Explanation of the fallacy:
His software is adopted by KDE and Gnome, so we can say that the important bits are maintained under GPL or LGPL licensing. Company X is then required to make their mods to said code available to anyone to whom they distribute binaries, without further restriction. Those people are then free to make the code available to anyone, via ftp or whatever. Tom gets their mods back and can include them in the next release of his code.
You have demonstrated, here, a lack of understanding about how the (L)GPL works.
Even if things worked as your "hypothetical situation" describes, I hardly see what this has to do with LSB 2.0, which makes me wonder about your understanding of that.
Note1: If the code is LGPL, then it is possible that company X could write their own proprietary code which links against Tom's code, and they would not have to make the source for their proprietary code available. That would not be possible with GPL. (Any modifications to Tom's code *would* have to be released, in both cases.) Choose your license wisely and you are covered.
Note2: If Tom's own source tree was covered under the BSD license, or some other very permissive license, Tom would be delighted that GNOME and KDE found it useful in their open-source projects, and also delighted that company X found his code useful for their proprietary project.
-Steve Bergman
Why are we even argueing anymore? He clearly shows he doesn't care what we say. Read his response right after I posted twice in a row. Do you think I am guilty of the things he accused me of? He just ignores 99% of your response that you backed up with facts and picks on the 1% where you failed to do that. This is evident where he sat there and picked at me for wasting "half of my response" on the kernel fork, even though I spent very little time talking about it and more about the other issues which he failed to respond to to. OH, forgive me, he responded to my LSB statement by stating he had read a PDF.
Ryan_,
We are helping to improve the editorial piece. Devnet is making changes to it based upon our responses. e.g. the statement that "there is talk about forking the kernel" and the link to the "Chicken Little" piece about the impending kernel fork has now been removed. After the factual errors have been whittled away, we (and others viewing it) can all get down to a productive discussion of the actual opinions expressed... based upon *facts* and not misinformation. It seems a worthwhile goal. I believe that there is some kernel of truth (sorry ;-) to the idea that working with large corps has some potential dangers.
That said, it is not like these issues have not been discussed incessantly^Wmany times. But the cost of freedom *is* eternal vigilence, right? :-)
Live Long and Prosper. Steve Bergman
We are helping to improve the editorial piece. Devnet is making changes to it based upon our responses. e.g. the statement that "there is talk about forking the kernel" and the link to the "Chicken Little" piece about the impending kernel fork has now been removed. After the factual errors have been whittled away, we (and others viewing it) can all get down to a productive discussion of the actual opinions expressed... based upon *facts* and not misinformation. It seems a worthwhile goal. I believe that there is some kernel of truth (sorry ;-) to the idea that working with large corps has some potential dangers.
That said, it is not like these issues have not been discussed incessantly^Wmany times. But the cost of freedom *is* eternal vigilence, right? :-)
Live Long and Prosper. Steve Bergman
"
I believe that there is some kernel of truth (sorry ;-) to the idea that working with large corps has some potential dangers.
"
Yes, obviously this can be true (think of SCO). But without large corporations, where would OpenOffice, Cloudscape, a lot of the SMP code in the kernel and Mozilla have come from??? You have to take the good with the bad.
If *all* companies pulled support for Open Source at once, the effects would be devastating to some projects. But, it wouldn't kill open source. One company pulling support would be no big deal (hell, Caldera turned on us and it didnt hurt that much). And I very highly doubt all companies would turn on us at once....so for the mean time I don't think we have much to worry about.
And like was pointed out, devnet makes a kernel fork sound devastating. BUT...code from the forked kernel could always be placed back in the mainstream kernel to keep them compatable.
The LSB issue has been discussed to death without much response, so I won't bring that up.
Yes, obviously this can be true (think of SCO). But without large corporations, where would OpenOffice, Cloudscape, a lot of the SMP code in the kernel and Mozilla have come from??? You have to take the good with the bad.
If *all* companies pulled support for Open Source at once, the effects would be devastating to some projects. But, it wouldn't kill open source. One company pulling support would be no big deal (hell, Caldera turned on us and it didnt hurt that much). And I very highly doubt all companies would turn on us at once....so for the mean time I don't think we have much to worry about.
And like was pointed out, devnet makes a kernel fork sound devastating. BUT...code from the forked kernel could always be placed back in the mainstream kernel to keep them compatable.
The LSB issue has been discussed to death without much response, so I won't bring that up.
I think there's a problem with these linux
aggregator newsites in that they collect
any article with Linux or Open Source in the
title without any filtering.
A lot of these articles would otherwise go unread and just sit on some back water web server.
Previously there was the security company that published their review that windows was more secure than Linux, and they didn't include viruses and trojans that were windows specific.
I think a lot of these articles are after PR. - greg s.
A lot of these articles would otherwise go unread and just sit on some back water web server.
Previously there was the security company that published their review that windows was more secure than Linux, and they didn't include viruses and trojans that were windows specific.
I think a lot of these articles are after PR. - greg s.
sbergman27
Just to clarify.
There's been 2 and only 2 changes to the article since it went public. I've taken out reference the second kernel (as you stated above) fork article because it wasn't needed....the first one is still there. The only other item edited was the underlining of the two main points under the 'Forking' section. I was trying to draw people into paying attention to what those paragraphs are about...but it seems that the only thing people can see is the word 'Fork' and 'Linux' and they draw their own conclusions.
It's odd how when someone's opinion isn't mainstream it is shot down quick, fast, and in a hurry. If it doesn't agree with what 'normal' people think...its untrue, ignorant, stupid, FUD, and trolling. That's ok though...everyone has an opinion.
Just to clarify.
There's been 2 and only 2 changes to the article since it went public. I've taken out reference the second kernel (as you stated above) fork article because it wasn't needed....the first one is still there. The only other item edited was the underlining of the two main points under the 'Forking' section. I was trying to draw people into paying attention to what those paragraphs are about...but it seems that the only thing people can see is the word 'Fork' and 'Linux' and they draw their own conclusions.
It's odd how when someone's opinion isn't mainstream it is shot down quick, fast, and in a hurry. If it doesn't agree with what 'normal' people think...its untrue, ignorant, stupid, FUD, and trolling. That's ok though...everyone has an opinion.
Your opinion piece is being criticized because it is fraught with disinformation which people are trying to call to your attention. (A fact which you seem to be trying to ignore or deny.) Of *course* that reduces your credibility. No need to appeal to persecution theories, here.
You have not answered the points about "Tom's code in KDE and Gnome" that ryan_ and I have raised.
It is useless to debate the opinion part until the facts are nailed down. And until then, your opinions will (rightly) continue to be considered of dubious validity.
-Steve Bergman
P.S. Please do read Paul Ferris' reply carefully. There is much good advice in it. He knows what he is talking about.
You have not answered the points about "Tom's code in KDE and Gnome" that ryan_ and I have raised.
It is useless to debate the opinion part until the facts are nailed down. And until then, your opinions will (rightly) continue to be considered of dubious validity.
-Steve Bergman
P.S. Please do read Paul Ferris' reply carefully. There is much good advice in it. He knows what he is talking about.
sbergman,
I didn't originate the idea that the GNU is bad for programmers...I am just echoing this notion. http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html
and this is interesting as well: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/28/business/code.html
edit:
The reason I point the above out is because it isn't my job to defend EVERY single idea posted in my entry...that's what an editorial is about...if each editorial ever written required the author to go back in and become an expert on each and every single idea or point of view inside it...we'd have a TON of people with massive IQ's that also have breadth of wisdom that everyone would be envious of.
About Tom and the GPL: The GPL is not compatible with any license out there...but demands that every other license be compatible with it. Very exclusive. If anyone decides to make changes to software (according to the GPL) they must do it publically right? What if they don't? In business, no one is out to make friends and they don't care if they step on toes. The only thing that is preventing someone from robbing source code (aka Tom's program) is a little label from the FSF that states it is GPL. They could close it down if they wanted to. Is Tom going to sue them? If so will he win? Who knows? But he'll waste a ton of money and his progression in programming will suffer due to it.
On a side note: The FSF can 'suggest' that people not use a license as being incompatible with the GPL (as evident when Apache 2.0 came out and the fit hit the shan). It doesn't stop with the Apache License...it can be applied to any license deemed incompatible with the GPL. This being the case, we already see where a foundation or business can sway public opinion and other companies toward doing what they want. That's really against what the GPL originally tried to accomplish. We're taking steps backwards instead of forwards.
The ultimate goal of the GPL is to provide free software for all right? How does this mix with Linux becoming more and more commercialized? When you add these into the mix, how can a company that has tons of proprietary code sitting next to code ripe for the picking? Who is going to police the GPL violations? We're wagging a bone in front of companies dog mouths and one of these days...they'll bite. Just my 2 cents...crap...now I sound like a BSD user...not something I was going for. Oh well, I agree with them on these last few points I guess.
I didn't originate the idea that the GNU is bad for programmers...I am just echoing this notion. http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html
and this is interesting as well: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/28/business/code.html
edit:
The reason I point the above out is because it isn't my job to defend EVERY single idea posted in my entry...that's what an editorial is about...if each editorial ever written required the author to go back in and become an expert on each and every single idea or point of view inside it...we'd have a TON of people with massive IQ's that also have breadth of wisdom that everyone would be envious of.
About Tom and the GPL: The GPL is not compatible with any license out there...but demands that every other license be compatible with it. Very exclusive. If anyone decides to make changes to software (according to the GPL) they must do it publically right? What if they don't? In business, no one is out to make friends and they don't care if they step on toes. The only thing that is preventing someone from robbing source code (aka Tom's program) is a little label from the FSF that states it is GPL. They could close it down if they wanted to. Is Tom going to sue them? If so will he win? Who knows? But he'll waste a ton of money and his progression in programming will suffer due to it.
On a side note: The FSF can 'suggest' that people not use a license as being incompatible with the GPL (as evident when Apache 2.0 came out and the fit hit the shan). It doesn't stop with the Apache License...it can be applied to any license deemed incompatible with the GPL. This being the case, we already see where a foundation or business can sway public opinion and other companies toward doing what they want. That's really against what the GPL originally tried to accomplish. We're taking steps backwards instead of forwards.
The ultimate goal of the GPL is to provide free software for all right? How does this mix with Linux becoming more and more commercialized? When you add these into the mix, how can a company that has tons of proprietary code sitting next to code ripe for the picking? Who is going to police the GPL violations? We're wagging a bone in front of companies dog mouths and one of these days...they'll bite. Just my 2 cents...crap...now I sound like a BSD user...not something I was going for. Oh well, I agree with them on these last few points I guess.
devnet:
This is where your being a stupid idiot. I am sory but that is the ONLY description for what your saying.
I have this nice freshly painted bridge for sale. It even comes with it's own island for only $200k . I find your opinions & statements to be as convincing as the previous sentence.
I want you to go grab a copy of MSFT Windows Source code, modify Internet Explorer, and try publishing just the binaries. You CAN'T. It's NOT yours. You can't do want you want with it. If you spend enough you might be able to get a license from MSFT for it just as you can get a different license from the GPL contributors. It's a lot harder to do with GPL software, but it isn't impossible. MySQL is a good example. It's under mulitple licenses.
The only real concerns for software companies is that programmers like to take shortcuts, and having a library of source code for an entire OS just floating around the Internet is to tempting a target, for people without morals. Closed source companies must make sure that their programmers don't use Open Source code in their stuff, and when they do that the divisions are very clear.
I only really learned all of this since SCO. I READ and COMPREHENDED the GPL only after I tried to sort out SCO's claims. Of course being able to comprehend what is read is very important. Something that a large segment of the population fails to do. Not just you i can site examples with in my own company, and Goverment annoucements that they don't understand. Try reading your local editorial section on a regular basis. Listen to what the people are complaining about, and then try to see if they actually have a valid point or they don't understand what is going on and are just yelling.
As I said in the beging this may seem mean, but I never could understand how people can misconstrue facts. How can they not go look at the other side and see if the claims are true. Why do you believe everything someone tells you with out first asking the other people involved?
This is where your being a stupid idiot. I am sory but that is the ONLY description for what your saying.
I have this nice freshly painted bridge for sale. It even comes with it's own island for only $200k . I find your opinions & statements to be as convincing as the previous sentence.
I want you to go grab a copy of MSFT Windows Source code, modify Internet Explorer, and try publishing just the binaries. You CAN'T. It's NOT yours. You can't do want you want with it. If you spend enough you might be able to get a license from MSFT for it just as you can get a different license from the GPL contributors. It's a lot harder to do with GPL software, but it isn't impossible. MySQL is a good example. It's under mulitple licenses.
The only real concerns for software companies is that programmers like to take shortcuts, and having a library of source code for an entire OS just floating around the Internet is to tempting a target, for people without morals. Closed source companies must make sure that their programmers don't use Open Source code in their stuff, and when they do that the divisions are very clear.
I only really learned all of this since SCO. I READ and COMPREHENDED the GPL only after I tried to sort out SCO's claims. Of course being able to comprehend what is read is very important. Something that a large segment of the population fails to do. Not just you i can site examples with in my own company, and Goverment annoucements that they don't understand. Try reading your local editorial section on a regular basis. Listen to what the people are complaining about, and then try to see if they actually have a valid point or they don't understand what is going on and are just yelling.
As I said in the beging this may seem mean, but I never could understand how people can misconstrue facts. How can they not go look at the other side and see if the claims are true. Why do you believe everything someone tells you with out first asking the other people involved?
wow!
I see the light. You've convinced me! Companies are ALWAYS true to their word and will NEVER NEVER steal code from anyone who protects it with any kind of license...especially the GPL because IT is secure :)
thanks man! I've reached zen! Well, the Zen for stupid people anyways.
;)
I see the light. You've convinced me! Companies are ALWAYS true to their word and will NEVER NEVER steal code from anyone who protects it with any kind of license...especially the GPL because IT is secure :)
thanks man! I've reached zen! Well, the Zen for stupid people anyways.
;)
My thought: You can 'what if' almost anything to death.
We don't live in Utopia, but without trust, nobody can be trusted (there's a sic). AND... I mean... NOBODY.
(I know that sounded stupid... but I think you know what I'm getting at)
Paranoia isn't a great business plan. (that's probably a better statement)
We don't live in Utopia, but without trust, nobody can be trusted (there's a sic). AND... I mean... NOBODY.
(I know that sounded stupid... but I think you know what I'm getting at)
Paranoia isn't a great business plan. (that's probably a better statement)
Devnet
Okay that was funny :-)
The License is the legal shield. Whether it's MSFT EULA, the GPL, IBM's CPL, etc. It doesn't stop anybody, it just provides a framework, so when you go to court you can determine if the shield was broken, and how much it will cost to repair it.
Okay that was funny :-)
The License is the legal shield. Whether it's MSFT EULA, the GPL, IBM's CPL, etc. It doesn't stop anybody, it just provides a framework, so when you go to court you can determine if the shield was broken, and how much it will cost to repair it.
Devnet,
sorry this has to go answered, since I've seen it missed many, many times:
> bout Tom and the GPL: The GPL is not compatible with any license out > there...but demands that every other license be compatible with it. Very > exclusive. If anyone decides to make changes to software (according to the > GPL) they must do it publically right?
No, they don't. This is really clear, look here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
You're not alone in this misconception, by the way. Might do you some good to take a look at a lot of the questions and answers on that page. It will likely clear up a lot of the noise you've been subjected to (and hopefully you aren't adding to that noise -- we need signal here -- ok :)
Best of luck there, --Paul
> bout Tom and the GPL: The GPL is not compatible with any license out > there...but demands that every other license be compatible with it. Very > exclusive. If anyone decides to make changes to software (according to the > GPL) they must do it publically right?
No, they don't. This is really clear, look here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
You're not alone in this misconception, by the way. Might do you some good to take a look at a lot of the questions and answers on that page. It will likely clear up a lot of the noise you've been subjected to (and hopefully you aren't adding to that noise -- we need signal here -- ok :)
Best of luck there, --Paul
Paul Ferris wrote:
-- we need signal here -- ok :)
-----------
I would just like to join in this sentiment. I believe that this can be a productive thread *IF* people will let it be. Name calling, personal attacks, and other irrelevant unpleasantness turn it into a useless shouting match.
That said, I disagree that a piece's status as an editorial absolves the author of the responsibility to adhere to facts. I do not see it as a license to spread misinformation. It should be made clear what material is being presented as *fact*, and what material is being presented as opinion, as even an opinion piece cannot exist in a vacuum. There must be facts to support the opinion, or the opinion falls of its own weight.
-Steve Bergman
-- we need signal here -- ok :)
-----------
I would just like to join in this sentiment. I believe that this can be a productive thread *IF* people will let it be. Name calling, personal attacks, and other irrelevant unpleasantness turn it into a useless shouting match.
That said, I disagree that a piece's status as an editorial absolves the author of the responsibility to adhere to facts. I do not see it as a license to spread misinformation. It should be made clear what material is being presented as *fact*, and what material is being presented as opinion, as even an opinion piece cannot exist in a vacuum. There must be facts to support the opinion, or the opinion falls of its own weight.
-Steve Bergman
gstrock, LXer does not aggregate news without filtering. Dave, our votes, and Dave's bayesian filtering utilities are all involved in deciding what gets posted.
My personal opinion is that we (as people knowledgeable of FOSS's history and "current events") are the very people who need to know about about any sites which are offering that which we might consider misinformation. I don't think that keeping disinformative material hidden in darkness is necessarily helpful.
-Steve Bergman
My personal opinion is that we (as people knowledgeable of FOSS's history and "current events") are the very people who need to know about about any sites which are offering that which we might consider misinformation. I don't think that keeping disinformative material hidden in darkness is necessarily helpful.
-Steve Bergman
And I agree wholeheartedly with sbergman27 -- this is truly what _all_ of this is about -- meaningful discussion.
We're a community -- communities revolve around agreement and when that can't be had, space to have differing points of view. The alternative is something else.
As to the effectiveness of what Dave (Whitinger, site creator and more) has going here, don't kid yourself and think it's just a web site.
Dave (along with Dwight Johnson, later myself and an entire community) created and maintained something just like LXer.com a long time ago. It hasn't died in concept, it's just been waiting to come back.
The old site is a memory. This one has all of the markings of it in it's prime. A bit of democracy (in the postings) and a bit of sheer gut dictatorship (in the editorial descisions, such as what to post and what not to post). I could pontifcate on what destroyed the old site, but that'd be a waste of good posting space. The ingredients needed are here at LXer.
It's what's needed to make something like this work. Everyone with an open mind is welcome to join in. What we're not about, and never will be about, is censorship and exclusionism. Dave (and others like myself) understand that intuitively. Any digital system setup to catch the bad guys is going to fail (do I need to mention other places where this can be seen as an example?).
I have a recommendation here: make LXer.com a community site -- the magic is us, folks. This is a ton of work for somebody like Dave and making it an attempted flaming ground would be such a waste of what it can (and, mark my words, or I wouldn't be contributing to it) what it will be.
All the best!
--Paul (FeriCyde) Ferris
We're a community -- communities revolve around agreement and when that can't be had, space to have differing points of view. The alternative is something else.
As to the effectiveness of what Dave (Whitinger, site creator and more) has going here, don't kid yourself and think it's just a web site.
Dave (along with Dwight Johnson, later myself and an entire community) created and maintained something just like LXer.com a long time ago. It hasn't died in concept, it's just been waiting to come back.
The old site is a memory. This one has all of the markings of it in it's prime. A bit of democracy (in the postings) and a bit of sheer gut dictatorship (in the editorial descisions, such as what to post and what not to post). I could pontifcate on what destroyed the old site, but that'd be a waste of good posting space. The ingredients needed are here at LXer.
It's what's needed to make something like this work. Everyone with an open mind is welcome to join in. What we're not about, and never will be about, is censorship and exclusionism. Dave (and others like myself) understand that intuitively. Any digital system setup to catch the bad guys is going to fail (do I need to mention other places where this can be seen as an example?).
I have a recommendation here: make LXer.com a community site -- the magic is us, folks. This is a ton of work for somebody like Dave and making it an attempted flaming ground would be such a waste of what it can (and, mark my words, or I wouldn't be contributing to it) what it will be.
All the best!
--Paul (FeriCyde) Ferris
PaulFerris, it's not just Linux. People are starting to discover that PostgreSQL's every bit as useful as Oracle, MS-SQL Server etc for 95% of applications and better for some. PostFix and accomplices (AMaViS, ClamAV, greymail etc) are starting to get noticed. Linux is being adopted by people who want Samba and need something to run it on. FireFox, OpenOffice, The GIMP (the name doesn't have so much of the obvious negative connotation in Oz that the Yanks seem to place on it) and so on are starting to see real uptake on the other end of the pipe.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
And that is the big picture you are not getting. Free software does not exist to make comanies lifes cheaper. Its primary cause of existence is to promote freedom and make people free. Even if all the so-called big companies would pull out of free s/w, the s/w itself would still be there and people could still use it. If a big company forks the Linux kernel there is still competition, and we could always start backmerging the fork or parts of it, exactly because it is free software.
In conclusion, all the dangers you point out in your article are not that dangerous as you would like us to see them. On the contrary, these so-called threats are made up and spread by people like Laura Didio who want you to feel f(ear), u(ncertainty) and (d)oubt. And yes, you got suckers, otherwise you would not have written that article.
I recommend reading groklaw and especially RMS interviews and speech transscripts, maybe you'll get the big picture.