Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oracle v. Google jury returns partial verdict, favoring Oracle
111 views
Skip to first unread message
Ramon F. Herrera
May 7, 2012, 3:32:47 PM5/7/12
to
It seems that Oracle is succeeding... at destroying Java.
http://tinyurl.com/6pkwn2q
If I were paranoid, I'd conclude that Oracle is doing Microsoft's
bidding.
-Ramon
Ramon F. Herrera
May 7, 2012, 4:14:02 PM5/7/12
to
the record that the Java programming language and its application
programmable interfaces (APIs) are free and available for everyone to
use."
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2171138/sun-ceo-java-apis-free
-Ramon
Ramon F. Herrera
May 7, 2012, 4:30:37 PM5/7/12
to
On May 7, 2:32 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
"We, Sun Microsystems, hereby release the Java programming language
and system, INCLUDING THE API [...]"
-Ramon
Ramon F. Herrera
May 7, 2012, 5:15:37 PM5/7/12
to
On May 7, 2:32 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
essential building blocks" of a programming language (or library).
This is my reply:
"Due respect to the article writer, but APIs are NOT like building
blocks. They are more like the “names” given to the building blocks.
This is like a police department copying the codes (“ten-four” is a
robbery in progress, “eight-twelve” is let’s meet at the usual donut
shop, etc) invented by another police department."
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/05/07/mixed-decision-in-oracle-vs-google-copyright-case/tab/comments/
-Ramon
Ramon F Herrera
May 7, 2012, 6:27:44 PM5/7/12
to
On May 7, 2:32 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/7q9827b
My instinctive reaction was to support Google unconditionally,
specially after reading the opinion of Gosling and Schwartz (my
heroes), but I can see now that Oracle have some valid points.
-Ramon
joel garry
May 8, 2012, 11:55:59 AM5/8/12
to
operation, slipstreaming in changes without telling anyone, breaking
random things. Supporting Google unconditionally is supporting spam
unconditionally.
Is destroying java a bad thing? Some in the db world would be happy
to see it gone. Using java is like eating a burger with laparoscopic
tools. Far better to eat the damn burger!
As far as your example of police codes, there are counter-examples,
for example, some jurisdictions have their building codes copyrighted
by private companies (which I think is wrong for public policy, but
there you go).
Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
way how bogus open software can be.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"I think fishing is more fun than golfing, because if they don’t bite
it’s not your fault. " - Bishop Robert Brom
chrisv
May 8, 2012, 2:39:14 PM5/8/12
to
> Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>
>> The best coverage I have seen is in the New York Times:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7q9827b
"The jury Monday found that Google did improperly use an aspect of
>>
>> The best coverage I have seen is in the New York Times:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/7q9827b
Java, nine lines of software code called rangeCheck, when it designed
Android."
Wow. Nine lines. That ought to be worth $billions, and give them the
right to interfere with Google's Android development and business.
That would be fair.
--
'You wont because you're a "visionary" freetard who wants everyone
else to do the work so you can benefit.' - "True Linux advocate"
Hadron Quark
Mladen Gogala
May 8, 2012, 4:26:56 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:39:14 -0500, chrisv wrote:
> "The jury Monday found that Google did improperly use an aspect of Java,
> nine lines of software code called rangeCheck, when it designed
> Android."
>
> Wow. Nine lines. That ought to be worth $billions, and give them the
> right to interfere with Google's Android development and business.
>
> That would be fair.
Google should be sentenced to die by changing its name to "Bing".
> "The jury Monday found that Google did improperly use an aspect of Java,
> nine lines of software code called rangeCheck, when it designed
> Android."
>
> Wow. Nine lines. That ought to be worth $billions, and give them the
> right to interfere with Google's Android development and business.
>
> That would be fair.
--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
Ramon F. Herrera
May 8, 2012, 4:24:25 PM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> way how bogus open software can be.
Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
> I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> way how bogus open software can be.
Needless to say, it is essential to know WHICH OSS to use and which to
avoid. You cannot possibly make all-encompassing statements.
I have very successfully designed, deployed and managed systems based
on Linux on the server side and Windows on the desktop side.
Can you give details about your frustration?
-Ramon
"The proprietary vs. open software war is over. We ALL use a
combination of both"
Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft Legal Dept.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10068367-56.html
Geoff Muldoon
May 8, 2012, 7:04:51 PM5/8/12
to
gogala...@gmail.com says...
> Google should be sentenced to die by changing its name to "Bing".
They'd be able to appeal on the ground of a manifestly harsh sentence.
G
> Google should be sentenced to die by changing its name to "Bing".
G
John Hurley
May 8, 2012, 9:23:50 PM5/8/12
to
Mladen:
# Google should be sentenced to die by changing its name to "Bing".
Got me laughing dude ... crying almost ...
Bing ... why would anyone use that for a search engine name? Even
bong would have been better ( not much but ... just saying ).
If it was called bong then you could ask "did you bong it up?" in a
business meeting!
# Google should be sentenced to die by changing its name to "Bing".
Got me laughing dude ... crying almost ...
Bing ... why would anyone use that for a search engine name? Even
bong would have been better ( not much but ... just saying ).
If it was called bong then you could ask "did you bong it up?" in a
business meeting!
Mladen Gogala
May 8, 2012, 9:43:43 PM5/8/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 18:23:50 -0700, John Hurley wrote:
> Bing ... why would anyone use that for a search engine name? Even bong
> would have been better ( not much but ... just saying ).
>
> If it was called bong then you could ask "did you bong it up?" in a
> business meeting!
There is an excellent movie called "Harold and Kumar escape from
> Bing ... why would anyone use that for a search engine name? Even bong
> would have been better ( not much but ... just saying ).
>
> If it was called bong then you could ask "did you bong it up?" in a
> business meeting!
Guantanamo" in which one of the two main characters, Kumar, yells in the
jam packed airplane: "I have a bong". He was referring to a piece of
equipment that usually helps community spirit, general feeling of
happiness and, after some time, appetite. That was mistaken for yelling
"I have a bomb", which is something quite different these days,
especially in an airplane. Excellent movie, I was laughing to tears!
Funny thing is that my last experience with the bongs was also related to
Oracle. It happened during EOUG 1994 in Maastricht. The whole bunch of us
went to visit Amsterdam after that. I will leave the rest to your
imagination. Suffices to say that I did inhale.
--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
Noons
May 9, 2012, 12:12:48 AM5/9/12
to
On May 8, 8:27 am, Ramon F Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/7q9827b
>
> My instinctive reaction was to support Google unconditionally,
> specially after reading the opinion of Gosling and Schwartz (my
> heroes), but I can see now that Oracle have some valid points.
Funny. DailyTech seems to claim exactly the opposite:
> http://tinyurl.com/7q9827b
>
> My instinctive reaction was to support Google unconditionally,
> specially after reading the opinion of Gosling and Schwartz (my
> heroes), but I can see now that Oracle have some valid points.
http://www.dailytech.com/Deadlocked+Jury+Shifts+Momentum+from+Oracle+to+Google+in+Android+Java+Trial/article24632.htm
Ah well, who cares?
joel garry
May 9, 2012, 12:23:47 PM5/9/12
to
On May 8, 1:24 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > way how bogus open software can be.
>
> Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
Operating system.
> On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > way how bogus open software can be.
>
> Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
>
> Needless to say, it is essential to know WHICH OSS to use and which to
> avoid. You cannot possibly make all-encompassing statements.
complicated thing like a production ERP database, don't you get locked
in to the database vendors OS? Doesn't that effectively nullify the
whole OSS idea? How could you possibly test anything else properly
for production environments? You become entirely dependent on the
kindness of strangers, who are not kind.
>
> I have very successfully designed, deployed and managed systems based
> on Linux on the server side and Windows on the desktop side.
Windows, and some others I won't admit to. So I win.
>
> Can you give details about your frustration?
I should have somehow known to watch for directories named "..."
fairly offensive. The next Redhat version didn't work on my
hardware. So, I hate Windows, I've always hated Windows, but it
proved itself superior in a real and unassailable manner.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/27/no-need-banish-gyp-offensive/
Ramon F. Herrera
May 9, 2012, 1:07:54 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 11:23 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 1:24 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > > I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > > way how bogus open software can be.
>
> > Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
>
> Operating system.
>
>
>
> > Needless to say, it is essential to know WHICH OSS to use and which to
> > avoid. You cannot possibly make all-encompassing statements.
>
> OK, how do you tell? Do forks not make such an issue worse? For a
> complicated thing like a production ERP database, don't you get locked
> in to the database vendors OS? Doesn't that effectively nullify the
> whole OSS idea? How could you possibly test anything else properly
> for production environments? You become entirely dependent on the
> kindness of strangers, who are not kind.
>
>
>
> > I have very successfully designed, deployed and managed systems based
> > on Linux on the server side and Windows on the desktop side.
>
> I've done that on RSTS, VMS, SunOS, Solaris, Duplix, hp-ux, linux,
> Windows, and some others I won't admit to. So I win.
>
>
>
> > Can you give details about your frustration?
>
> Someone in Romania rootkitted me.
That is a security problem.
> On May 8, 1:24 pm, "Ramon F. Herrera" <gopos...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 10:55 am, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > > I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > > way how bogus open software can be.
>
> > Are you referring to client or server software? OS or application??
>
> Operating system.
>
>
>
> > Needless to say, it is essential to know WHICH OSS to use and which to
> > avoid. You cannot possibly make all-encompassing statements.
>
> OK, how do you tell? Do forks not make such an issue worse? For a
> complicated thing like a production ERP database, don't you get locked
> in to the database vendors OS? Doesn't that effectively nullify the
> whole OSS idea? How could you possibly test anything else properly
> for production environments? You become entirely dependent on the
> kindness of strangers, who are not kind.
>
>
>
> > I have very successfully designed, deployed and managed systems based
> > on Linux on the server side and Windows on the desktop side.
>
> I've done that on RSTS, VMS, SunOS, Solaris, Duplix, hp-ux, linux,
> Windows, and some others I won't admit to. So I win.
>
>
>
> > Can you give details about your frustration?
>
> Someone in Romania rootkitted me.
> I found the attitude of admins that
> I should have somehow known to watch for directories named "..."
> fairly offensive.
> The next Redhat version didn't work on my hardware.
hardware?
In any event, seems like Windows was the solution for ONE case.
-Ramon
Ramon F. Herrera
May 9, 2012, 1:08:28 PM5/9/12
to
joel garry
May 9, 2012, 2:27:49 PM5/9/12
to
quite so linux' fault, leaving a security hole for worms to find.
>
> > The next Redhat version didn't work on my hardware.
>
> Were you using the Enterprise Edition? How exotic/mainstream was your
> hardware?
>
> In any event, seems like Windows was the solution for ONE case.
mind the hard way. And why do you think it doesn't generalize?
Nice troll, I guess.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/may/08/ucsd-creates-visual-encyclopedia-app/
Pól
May 9, 2012, 2:55:47 PM5/9/12
to
On 08/05/12 16:55, joel garry wrote:
> Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
> phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
> and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> way how bogus open software can be.
Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
about it, at least in theory.
Paul...
> jg
Sandman
May 9, 2012, 3:14:34 PM5/9/12
to
In article <4faa...@news.x-privat.org>,
like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
house owners. Give or take :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
=?windows-1252?Q?P=F3l?= <Pól...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
> > Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
> > phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
> > and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > way how bogus open software can be.
>
>
> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>
> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
> about it, at least in theory.
Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> > Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
> > phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
> > and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
> > way how bogus open software can be.
>
>
> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>
> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
> about it, at least in theory.
like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
house owners. Give or take :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
Pól
May 9, 2012, 8:40:06 PM5/9/12
to
On 09/05/12 20:14, Sandman wrote:
>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>> about it, at least in theory.
> Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
> house owners. Give or take :-D
major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was
very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
- you don't have vendor lock-in.
As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
into Windows in over a year.
But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on
the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus"
- never...
As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
Paul...
BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is not
likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
Snit
May 9, 2012, 9:00:24 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 5:40 PM, in article 4fab0e68$1...@news.x-privat.org, "Pól"
but when they use the GPL and demand you follow its restrictions, and thus
reduce what you can "freely" do with the code, it is disingenuous to call it
"Free" (other than in price). They pretend it is about freedom when it
really is a form of IP protection, albeit a rather open set of protections.
Still, one is obligated to follow the restrictions set by the IP license
being used (in terms of those who use the term "Free", this generally some
flavor of the GPL).
If they really wanted it to be "Free", they would place the work in the
public domain and ensure that there are no restrictions on the code they
produce. This is not what they want - they want to limit "freedom". To be
clear, however, I have *no* problem with this... people who create IP should
be able to define under what uses and restrictions people can use their
product. For example, I cannot get a best selling novel and change the
names of the characters and alter a few other details and then sell it as my
own - this would be plagiarism and it would be going against the license
that the best seller is sold under. This would be plagiarism.
> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
> Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
> into Windows in over a year.
While the options for desktop Linux have grown, there are still many areas
where the competition is ahead. You mention one: Office applications.
While LibreOffice is excellent, it simply is behind the competition in many
ways - not only in features but in how they are done. This is a video I
made showing a fairly common example: <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>. The
response by some in COLA was that the task shown, rotating an image in a
word processor, is something they essentially never see happen and would
never even consider. This is likely true - they use LibreOffice (or
OpenOffice). In those packages, while the feature is available, it is done
so poorly it is all but ignored. In better packages this feature is easy to
use and thus *is* used: in newsletters, fliers, etc.
Another example is screencasting, which is becoming more and more common.
Here is a recent example of how Peter reacted to seeing another environment
handle it better than does desktop Linux:
Snit:
-----
Excellent screencasting software, similar to ScreenFlow. And
example of something I find key to its use:
<http://youtu.be/To4v70huwAU>. What OSS tool on desktop Linux
has anything even close?
-----
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
There are several more. Look up "Istanbul" for example or
"Byzanz", or "Cankiri" The list can grow quite a bit, but
these are the most used ones
-----
None of the three programs Peter pointed to do the task shown in the
video... and Peter was never able to find *any* way to do such a task on
desktop Linux. He never admitted to this, of course. And this is common
with the false "advocates" of COLA - they are not familiar with the
competition and when they are shown what it can do, and find desktop Linux
is lacking, they refuse to admit to it. In the case of Peter, he becomes
angry and starts making absurd accusations and spewing silly insults -
including ones directed at my personal and professional life.
> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on
> the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
>
> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
> people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus"
> - never...
>
> As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
I would not call desktop Linux "bogus". It is excellent... it is just not a
good competitor to OS X and Windows, at least for most users.
>
> Paul...
>
>
> BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is not
> likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
>
>
--
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
"I am not claiming Excel and Pages are incorrect." - cc
<P?l...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/05/12 20:14, Sandman wrote:
>
>
>>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>
>>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>>> about it, at least in theory.
>
>> Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>> like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>> house owners. Give or take :-D
>
> Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making
> major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was
> very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
>
> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
This is not entirely true. The concept of "open source" is true and honest,
>
>
> On 09/05/12 20:14, Sandman wrote:
>
>
>>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>
>>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>>> about it, at least in theory.
>
>> Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>> like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>> house owners. Give or take :-D
>
> Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making
> major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was
> very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
>
> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
but when they use the GPL and demand you follow its restrictions, and thus
reduce what you can "freely" do with the code, it is disingenuous to call it
"Free" (other than in price). They pretend it is about freedom when it
really is a form of IP protection, albeit a rather open set of protections.
Still, one is obligated to follow the restrictions set by the IP license
being used (in terms of those who use the term "Free", this generally some
flavor of the GPL).
If they really wanted it to be "Free", they would place the work in the
public domain and ensure that there are no restrictions on the code they
produce. This is not what they want - they want to limit "freedom". To be
clear, however, I have *no* problem with this... people who create IP should
be able to define under what uses and restrictions people can use their
product. For example, I cannot get a best selling novel and change the
names of the characters and alter a few other details and then sell it as my
own - this would be plagiarism and it would be going against the license
that the best seller is sold under. This would be plagiarism.
> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
> Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
> into Windows in over a year.
where the competition is ahead. You mention one: Office applications.
While LibreOffice is excellent, it simply is behind the competition in many
ways - not only in features but in how they are done. This is a video I
made showing a fairly common example: <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>. The
response by some in COLA was that the task shown, rotating an image in a
word processor, is something they essentially never see happen and would
never even consider. This is likely true - they use LibreOffice (or
OpenOffice). In those packages, while the feature is available, it is done
so poorly it is all but ignored. In better packages this feature is easy to
use and thus *is* used: in newsletters, fliers, etc.
Another example is screencasting, which is becoming more and more common.
Here is a recent example of how Peter reacted to seeing another environment
handle it better than does desktop Linux:
Snit:
-----
Excellent screencasting software, similar to ScreenFlow. And
example of something I find key to its use:
<http://youtu.be/To4v70huwAU>. What OSS tool on desktop Linux
has anything even close?
-----
Peter Köhlmann:
-----
There are several more. Look up "Istanbul" for example or
"Byzanz", or "Cankiri" The list can grow quite a bit, but
these are the most used ones
-----
None of the three programs Peter pointed to do the task shown in the
video... and Peter was never able to find *any* way to do such a task on
desktop Linux. He never admitted to this, of course. And this is common
with the false "advocates" of COLA - they are not familiar with the
competition and when they are shown what it can do, and find desktop Linux
is lacking, they refuse to admit to it. In the case of Peter, he becomes
angry and starts making absurd accusations and spewing silly insults -
including ones directed at my personal and professional life.
> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on
> the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
>
> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
> people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus"
> - never...
>
> As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
good competitor to OS X and Windows, at least for most users.
>
> Paul...
>
>
> BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is not
> likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
>
>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
"I am not claiming Excel and Pages are incorrect." - cc
Pól
May 10, 2012, 12:38:42 AM5/10/12
to
On 10/05/12 02:00, Snit wrote:
>> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
>> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
>> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
>> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
> This is not entirely true. The concept of "open source" is true and honest,
> but when they use the GPL and demand you follow its restrictions, and thus
> reduce what you can "freely" do with the code, it is disingenuous to call it
> "Free" (other than in price). They pretend it is about freedom when it
> really is a form of IP protection, albeit a rather open set of protections.
> Still, one is obligated to follow the restrictions set by the IP license
> being used (in terms of those who use the term "Free", this generally some
> flavor of the GPL).
and purposes, Public Domain. But it still doesn't answer my question to
the OP about FLOSS being "bogus". Those who choose to release their
software under the GPL know exactly what they're getting into, as do
those who use it. It's not "bogus" to impose (very minor) conditions on
those to whom you grant the right to use your software for any purpose
whatsoever along with the added bonus of your fabulous code.
I don't wish to rehash the arguments that I used to read on COLA a
decade ago - I'm from cdos myself - I would just say that, AFAIC, if
FLOSS (and in particular the GPL) is "bogus" then you could easily say
that all software is - Public Domain and *BSD possibly excepted.
> If they really wanted it to be "Free", they would place the work in the
> public domain and ensure that there are no restrictions on the code they
> produce. This is not what they want - they want to limit "freedom".
rehash...
> To be clear, however, I have *no* problem with this... people who create IP should
> be able to define under what uses and restrictions people can use their
> product. For example, I cannot get a best selling novel and change the
> names of the characters and alter a few other details and then sell it as my
> own - this would be plagiarism and it would be going against the license
> that the best seller is sold under. This would be plagiarism.
themselves - theft? BTW, just to be clear, I have no problem with IP - I
just feel that ultimately IT and the planet in general is better served
by FLOSS which is why I encourage it. Just like in the fields of science
(my own being genetics) and literature, I encourage the Creative Commons.
>> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
>> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
>> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
>> Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
>> into Windows in over a year.
> While the options for desktop Linux have grown, there are still many areas
> where the competition is ahead. You mention one: Office applications.
> While LibreOffice is excellent, it simply is behind the competition in many
> ways - not only in features but in how they are done.
software to be exploited (positive) in novel and productive ways.
I would however say that the GIMP is inferior to Photoshop - my question
would then be a) why fork out loads of dosh for funcitonality that
99.999% of people never use - and I certainly won't.
> This is a video I
> made showing a fairly common example:<http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>. The
> response by some in COLA was that the task shown, rotating an image in a
> word processor, is something they essentially never see happen and would
> never even consider. This is likely true - they use LibreOffice (or
> OpenOffice). In those packages, while the feature is available, it is done
> so poorly it is all but ignored. In better packages this feature is easy to
> use and thus *is* used: in newsletters, fliers, etc.
functionality - so what? I would argue that FLOSS is ahead of closed
source in important areas such as stability and price.
> Another example is screencasting, which is becoming more and more common.
> Here is a recent example of how Peter reacted to seeing another environment
> handle it better than does desktop Linux:
>> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on
>> the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
>> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
>> people differing over the merits of the different packages,
>> but "bogus" - never...
It's the bogus tag that I object to.
> I would not call desktop Linux "bogus". It is excellent... it is just not a
> good competitor to OS X and Windows, at least for most users.
dismissal of (all varieties AFAICS) of FLOSS that I find unacceptable.,
Paul...
Snit
May 10, 2012, 2:12:54 AM5/10/12
to
On 5/9/12 9:38 PM, in article 4fab...@news.x-privat.org, "Pól"
Yes, the BSD licenses are far more "free", but the FSF folks are the ones
who mostly use the term "Free" and are the ones who bastardize the term.
But I have no problem with the BSD licenses, either. As noted, I am very
pro-choice and feel people should be able to use any of a large number of
licenses / license-types.
> But it still doesn't answer my question to the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
> Those who choose to release their software under the GPL know exactly what
> they're getting into, as do those who use it. It's not "bogus" to impose (very
> minor) conditions on those to whom you grant the right to use your software
> for any purpose whatsoever along with the added bonus of your fabulous code.
On that I agree. As noted, I have no problem with people opting to use the
GPL - and am very happy it exists and thankful to Stallman for his work on
it. I also do not have any reason to think that code protected by the GPL
is "bad" or "wrong" or whatever - in fact, much of it is excellent (the
Linux kernel itself, for example... not that I know diddly about kernels,
but it seems to be excellent based on what runs on it). Webkit is another
example of software protected by the GPL which, from what I can tell, is
excellent.
> I don't wish to rehash the arguments that I used to read on COLA a
> decade ago - I'm from cdos myself - I would just say that, AFAIC, if
> FLOSS (and in particular the GPL) is "bogus" then you could easily say
> that all software is - Public Domain and *BSD possibly excepted.
I would have to see the reason why someone would say the GPL is bogus.
I will say those who run around screaming that IP does not exist and then
claim to back the GPL are being hypocritical... and if those who claim IP
licenses in general are bogus often ignore the fact that the GPL is an IP
license (see the debate Homer has been having with Carroll... and my
comments to it which Homer has no response for).
>> If they really wanted it to be "Free", they would place the work in the
>> public domain and ensure that there are no restrictions on the code they
>> produce. This is not what they want - they want to limit "freedom".
>
> The argument that even free societies have to impose restrictions...
> rehash...
Oh, I have no problem with free societies having restrictions. But one can
have public domain code in a free society.
>> To be clear, however, I have *no* problem with this... people who create IP
>> should be able to define under what uses and restrictions people can use
>> their product. For example, I cannot get a best selling novel and change the
>> names of the characters and alter a few other details and then sell it as my
>> own - this would be plagiarism and it would be going against the license that
>> the best seller is sold under. This would be plagiarism.
>
> I give money to charity - someone is given that money and spends it on
> themselves - theft?
What was the purpose of the charity? If you gave money to help a student go
to college and they use it in that way - spending it "on themselves" - then
that is not theft. If you give money to a charity which spends the money in
a way other than how they said they would then it may very well be theft (or
at least a misuse of funds... I do not want to get into a semantic debate
over if the misuse if "theft" or not).
> BTW, just to be clear, I have no problem with IP - I just feel that ultimately
> IT and the planet in general is better served by FLOSS which is why I
> encourage it. Just like in the fields of science (my own being genetics) and
> literature, I encourage the Creative Commons.
You encourage a system you respect. I have no problem with that. Now if
you were to try to force people to use the GPL or to use the Creative
Commons licenses I would have a problem with that - but I see no reason to
think that is your goal.
>>> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
>>> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
>>> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
>>> Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
>>> into Windows in over a year.
>
>> While the options for desktop Linux have grown, there are still many areas
>> where the competition is ahead. You mention one: Office applications.
>> While LibreOffice is excellent, it simply is behind the competition in many
>> ways - not only in features but in how they are done.
>
> With respect to LibreOffice, I disagree - the open format allows the
> software to be exploited (positive) in novel and productive ways.
Can you give a couple of examples of how LibreOffice makes getting some task
done better than the commercial competition? I show a video, below, where
it is clearly well behind the competition. I have older videos of other
areas where OpenOffice was really messed up, but in the newest LibreOffice
they have resolved those issues (or at least mostly). This is very good in
my view and I am happy to see it.
> I would however say that the GIMP is inferior to Photoshop - my question
> would then be a) why fork out loads of dosh for funcitonality that
> 99.999% of people never use - and I certainly won't.
If you like GIMP use it... I have no problem with that. But keep in mind
that it is not just about what a program can do, it is *how* it does it.
Not that the UI of Photoshop is perfect, but it surely gets a lot less
complaints than does the one of GIMP (though the newest GIMP which just came
out does improve things... and the splash screens on the last couple
versions of Photoshop are some of the most absurd and poorly designed splash
screens I have seen on *any* software, no matter the license). I will say
with Photoshop I personally use a lot of the features it offers that GIMP
does not (layer groups - though GIMP finally has those, smart objects,
non-destructive filtering, multiple masks, etc.). Then again, GIMP handles
favicons much better than does Photoshop - which is absurd given how
Photoshop is sold as a part of a web design bundle. How hard would it be
for Adobe to add similar features? Yes, there is a plug-in, but even with
it Photoshop is simply behind here. Absurd.
>> This is a video I made showing a fairly common
>> example:<http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>. The response by some in COLA was that
>> the task shown, rotating an image in a word processor, is something they
>> essentially never see happen and would never even consider. This is likely
>> true - they use LibreOffice (or OpenOffice). In those packages, while the
>> feature is available, it is done so poorly it is all but ignored. In better
>> packages this feature is easy to use and thus *is* used: in newsletters,
>> fliers, etc.
>
> So, in some areas FLOSS is behind a couple of years for marginal
> functionality - so what? I would argue that FLOSS is ahead of closed
> source in important areas such as stability and price.
Well, acquisition price is a no brainer. As far as stability, I would love
to see the evidence for it. Modern OSs (desktop Linux, OS X, and Windows)
are all quite stable these days. As far as the applications, I rarely see
crashes in the software I use... but do see them from time to time on all
three OSs.
>> Another example is screencasting, which is becoming more and more common.
>> Here is a recent example of how Peter reacted to seeing another environment
>> handle it better than does desktop Linux:
>
> I've said that there are areas where closed source is superior.
Fair enough. I would love to find examples where open source is as clearly
superior... other than the example I gave, above, about favicons.
...
desktop Linux is not a good competitor to the competition, there are places
where I think it is - some examples include desktops used largely as web
kiosks (and that is becoming a more and more common usage pattern) and in
some businesses where the software / tasks needed are limited to a few
pieces of software, often including a home-grown database or other internal
application. In those cases desktop Linux might not only be less expensive
to acquire but also easier to maintain and be just as easy to use (or close
enough as to not really matter). I am certainly not against the use of
desktop Linux and even have some clients using it based on my suggestion.
Recently, though, most of them, of their own choice, dropped desktop Linux
and moved to a competitor... not sure why this happened in multiple
unrelated cases, but the sample size is small enough as to not be indicative
of anything major. Then again, it happened around the time the web stats
showed a pretty significant drop in desktop Linux usage. Really not sure
what is going on with that... have some ideas but that is far off topic for
this conversation.
>
>
>
> Paul...
>
--
Proof of cc's lies and bad faith:
<http://goo.gl/a45Rm>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
<P?l...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/05/12 02:00, Snit wrote:
>
>
>>> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
>>> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
>>> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
>>> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
>
>> This is not entirely true. The concept of "open source" is true and honest,
>> but when they use the GPL and demand you follow its restrictions, and thus
>> reduce what you can "freely" do with the code, it is disingenuous to call it
>> "Free" (other than in price). They pretend it is about freedom when it
>> really is a form of IP protection, albeit a rather open set of protections.
>> Still, one is obligated to follow the restrictions set by the IP license
>> being used (in terms of those who use the term "Free", this generally some
>> flavor of the GPL).
>
> You are forgetting about the *BSD licences, which are, to all intents
> and purposes, Public Domain.
I did not forget them, I just did not talk about them. :)
>
>
> On 10/05/12 02:00, Snit wrote:
>
>
>>> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
>>> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
>>> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
>>> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
>
>> This is not entirely true. The concept of "open source" is true and honest,
>> but when they use the GPL and demand you follow its restrictions, and thus
>> reduce what you can "freely" do with the code, it is disingenuous to call it
>> "Free" (other than in price). They pretend it is about freedom when it
>> really is a form of IP protection, albeit a rather open set of protections.
>> Still, one is obligated to follow the restrictions set by the IP license
>> being used (in terms of those who use the term "Free", this generally some
>> flavor of the GPL).
>
> You are forgetting about the *BSD licences, which are, to all intents
> and purposes, Public Domain.
Yes, the BSD licenses are far more "free", but the FSF folks are the ones
who mostly use the term "Free" and are the ones who bastardize the term.
But I have no problem with the BSD licenses, either. As noted, I am very
pro-choice and feel people should be able to use any of a large number of
licenses / license-types.
> But it still doesn't answer my question to the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
> Those who choose to release their software under the GPL know exactly what
> they're getting into, as do those who use it. It's not "bogus" to impose (very
> minor) conditions on those to whom you grant the right to use your software
> for any purpose whatsoever along with the added bonus of your fabulous code.
GPL - and am very happy it exists and thankful to Stallman for his work on
it. I also do not have any reason to think that code protected by the GPL
is "bad" or "wrong" or whatever - in fact, much of it is excellent (the
Linux kernel itself, for example... not that I know diddly about kernels,
but it seems to be excellent based on what runs on it). Webkit is another
example of software protected by the GPL which, from what I can tell, is
excellent.
> I don't wish to rehash the arguments that I used to read on COLA a
> decade ago - I'm from cdos myself - I would just say that, AFAIC, if
> FLOSS (and in particular the GPL) is "bogus" then you could easily say
> that all software is - Public Domain and *BSD possibly excepted.
I will say those who run around screaming that IP does not exist and then
claim to back the GPL are being hypocritical... and if those who claim IP
licenses in general are bogus often ignore the fact that the GPL is an IP
license (see the debate Homer has been having with Carroll... and my
comments to it which Homer has no response for).
>> If they really wanted it to be "Free", they would place the work in the
>> public domain and ensure that there are no restrictions on the code they
>> produce. This is not what they want - they want to limit "freedom".
>
> The argument that even free societies have to impose restrictions...
> rehash...
have public domain code in a free society.
>> To be clear, however, I have *no* problem with this... people who create IP
>> should be able to define under what uses and restrictions people can use
>> their product. For example, I cannot get a best selling novel and change the
>> names of the characters and alter a few other details and then sell it as my
>> own - this would be plagiarism and it would be going against the license that
>> the best seller is sold under. This would be plagiarism.
>
> I give money to charity - someone is given that money and spends it on
> themselves - theft?
to college and they use it in that way - spending it "on themselves" - then
that is not theft. If you give money to a charity which spends the money in
a way other than how they said they would then it may very well be theft (or
at least a misuse of funds... I do not want to get into a semantic debate
over if the misuse if "theft" or not).
> BTW, just to be clear, I have no problem with IP - I just feel that ultimately
> IT and the planet in general is better served by FLOSS which is why I
> encourage it. Just like in the fields of science (my own being genetics) and
> literature, I encourage the Creative Commons.
you were to try to force people to use the GPL or to use the Creative
Commons licenses I would have a problem with that - but I see no reason to
think that is your goal.
>>> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
>>> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
>>> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now matching
>>> Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted
>>> into Windows in over a year.
>
>> While the options for desktop Linux have grown, there are still many areas
>> where the competition is ahead. You mention one: Office applications.
>> While LibreOffice is excellent, it simply is behind the competition in many
>> ways - not only in features but in how they are done.
>
> With respect to LibreOffice, I disagree - the open format allows the
> software to be exploited (positive) in novel and productive ways.
done better than the commercial competition? I show a video, below, where
it is clearly well behind the competition. I have older videos of other
areas where OpenOffice was really messed up, but in the newest LibreOffice
they have resolved those issues (or at least mostly). This is very good in
my view and I am happy to see it.
> I would however say that the GIMP is inferior to Photoshop - my question
> would then be a) why fork out loads of dosh for funcitonality that
> 99.999% of people never use - and I certainly won't.
that it is not just about what a program can do, it is *how* it does it.
Not that the UI of Photoshop is perfect, but it surely gets a lot less
complaints than does the one of GIMP (though the newest GIMP which just came
out does improve things... and the splash screens on the last couple
versions of Photoshop are some of the most absurd and poorly designed splash
screens I have seen on *any* software, no matter the license). I will say
with Photoshop I personally use a lot of the features it offers that GIMP
does not (layer groups - though GIMP finally has those, smart objects,
non-destructive filtering, multiple masks, etc.). Then again, GIMP handles
favicons much better than does Photoshop - which is absurd given how
Photoshop is sold as a part of a web design bundle. How hard would it be
for Adobe to add similar features? Yes, there is a plug-in, but even with
it Photoshop is simply behind here. Absurd.
>> This is a video I made showing a fairly common
>> example:<http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>. The response by some in COLA was that
>> the task shown, rotating an image in a word processor, is something they
>> essentially never see happen and would never even consider. This is likely
>> true - they use LibreOffice (or OpenOffice). In those packages, while the
>> feature is available, it is done so poorly it is all but ignored. In better
>> packages this feature is easy to use and thus *is* used: in newsletters,
>> fliers, etc.
>
> So, in some areas FLOSS is behind a couple of years for marginal
> functionality - so what? I would argue that FLOSS is ahead of closed
> source in important areas such as stability and price.
to see the evidence for it. Modern OSs (desktop Linux, OS X, and Windows)
are all quite stable these days. As far as the applications, I rarely see
crashes in the software I use... but do see them from time to time on all
three OSs.
>> Another example is screencasting, which is becoming more and more common.
>> Here is a recent example of how Peter reacted to seeing another environment
>> handle it better than does desktop Linux:
>
> I've said that there are areas where closed source is superior.
superior... other than the example I gave, above, about favicons.
...
>> I would not call desktop Linux "bogus". It is excellent... it is just not a
>> good competitor to OS X and Windows, at least for most users.
>
> You and I are agreeing to differ - I respect that. It's the blanket
> dismissal of (all varieties AFAICS) of FLOSS that I find unacceptable.,
Fair enough. And to clarify my above comment: while I think *in general*
>> good competitor to OS X and Windows, at least for most users.
>
> You and I are agreeing to differ - I respect that. It's the blanket
> dismissal of (all varieties AFAICS) of FLOSS that I find unacceptable.,
desktop Linux is not a good competitor to the competition, there are places
where I think it is - some examples include desktops used largely as web
kiosks (and that is becoming a more and more common usage pattern) and in
some businesses where the software / tasks needed are limited to a few
pieces of software, often including a home-grown database or other internal
application. In those cases desktop Linux might not only be less expensive
to acquire but also easier to maintain and be just as easy to use (or close
enough as to not really matter). I am certainly not against the use of
desktop Linux and even have some clients using it based on my suggestion.
Recently, though, most of them, of their own choice, dropped desktop Linux
and moved to a competitor... not sure why this happened in multiple
unrelated cases, but the sample size is small enough as to not be indicative
of anything major. Then again, it happened around the time the web stats
showed a pretty significant drop in desktop Linux usage. Really not sure
what is going on with that... have some ideas but that is far off topic for
this conversation.
>
>
>
> Paul...
>
--
Proof of cc's lies and bad faith:
<http://goo.gl/a45Rm>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Matthias Hoys
May 10, 2012, 2:20:07 AM5/10/12
to
Matthias Hoys
Sandman
May 10, 2012, 2:58:14 AM5/10/12
to
In article <4fab0e68$1...@news.x-privat.org>,
> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
Just as house manufacturing isn't bogus :)
> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
True, but that doesn't give 99.99% of users one iota more control.
In fact, most shareware projects offer far more control to the end
user, since they are developed by one person, or a small group of
people, that more often than not are keen to hear about customer
demand, bugs and fixes.
Open source projects are badly managed, forked constantly (if active)
or desperately outdated (if interest has faded) and rarely - if ever -
has one point of feedback from the users, or if they do (i.e. bugzilla
and such) have so many involved that prioritization is thinly spread
amongst lots of people.
For the end user, open source projects are usually a very tricky thing
to get involved in. But they *are* open and there is (usually) no
vendor lockin.
> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
> technical choice for servers.
No doubt. I currently run OSX on my production servers, but will
migrate to Linux in a month, so I'm well aware of the strengths of
both BSD and Linux in that space.
> the reason Windows is so popular is because of the multiplicity of
> apps available, but FLOSS is now matching Windows for end-user
> apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted into Windows in
> over a year.
Microsoft Office is, however, a poor horse to contend with. It's a
suit of apps with a thousand features where the end user uses ten.
Most contenders match those ten features and thus compete well with MS
Office.
I have no idea about Libre, but I know Gimp is a very *poor* contender
to Photoshop, where the userbase probably uses more than half of all
the features on a daily basis
> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on
> the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
I can't tell you what Joel meant by that, but anyone touting open
source as a feature for end users is selling snake oil. Whether a
project is open source or based on open source makes exactly no impact
to the end user. They can not utilize the fact that it is open source,
and as described earlier, it being open source may just severely
restrict the amount of control they can exercise on the project.
> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
> people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus"
> - never...
>
> As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
>
--
Sandman[.net]
=?UTF-8?B?UMOzbA==?= <Pól...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
> >> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>
> >> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
> >> about it, at least in theory.
>
> > Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> > like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
> > house owners. Give or take :-D
>
> Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making
> major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was
> very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
I once translated an IRC client to swedish! :-D
> >> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>
> >> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
> >> about it, at least in theory.
>
> > Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> > like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
> > house owners. Give or take :-D
>
> Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making
> major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was
> very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs up-front
> - you don't have vendor lock-in.
In fact, most shareware projects offer far more control to the end
user, since they are developed by one person, or a small group of
people, that more often than not are keen to hear about customer
demand, bugs and fixes.
Open source projects are badly managed, forked constantly (if active)
or desperately outdated (if interest has faded) and rarely - if ever -
has one point of feedback from the users, or if they do (i.e. bugzilla
and such) have so many involved that prioritization is thinly spread
amongst lots of people.
For the end user, open source projects are usually a very tricky thing
to get involved in. But they *are* open and there is (usually) no
vendor lockin.
> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
No doubt. I currently run OSX on my production servers, but will
migrate to Linux in a month, so I'm well aware of the strengths of
both BSD and Linux in that space.
> the reason Windows is so popular is because of the multiplicity of
> apps available, but FLOSS is now matching Windows for end-user
> apps. LibreOffice is an example - I haven't booted into Windows in
> over a year.
suit of apps with a thousand features where the end user uses ten.
Most contenders match those ten features and thus compete well with MS
Office.
I have no idea about Libre, but I know Gimp is a very *poor* contender
to Photoshop, where the userbase probably uses more than half of all
the features on a daily basis
> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact on
> the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
source as a feature for end users is selling snake oil. Whether a
project is open source or based on open source makes exactly no impact
to the end user. They can not utilize the fact that it is open source,
and as described earlier, it being open source may just severely
restrict the amount of control they can exercise on the project.
> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
> people differing over the merits of the different packages, but "bogus"
> - never...
>
> As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
>
> BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is not
> likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
I hear you.
> likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
--
Sandman[.net]
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 8:44:45 AM5/10/12
to
Sandman wrote:
>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>> about it, at least in theory.
>
>Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>house owners. Give or take :-D
Stupid statement from a Mac fanboi, because in the context of millions
>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>> about it, at least in theory.
>
>Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>house owners. Give or take :-D
of people, "you can do something" means "someone will do something",
assuming that it's worth the effort.
*Certainly* a much different situation than having a pair of companies
dictate how things are...
Sandman
May 10, 2012, 9:07:18 AM5/10/12
to
In article <mqdnq7dmucoaahff5...@4ax.com>,
and that you have a means to communicate that with that specific
someone, which I know you know that just isn't true with open source
software.
> *Certainly* a much different situation than having a pair of companies
> dictate how things are...
I feel I have much larger area to impact the direction and bug
handling with - say, iTunes - than I do with Apache.
--
Sandman[.net]
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Sandman wrote:
>
> >> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
> >> about it, at least in theory.
> >
> >Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> >like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
> >house owners. Give or take :-D
>
> Stupid statement from a Mac fanboi, because in the context of millions
> of people, "you can do something" means "someone will do something",
> assuming that it's worth the effort.
Which is only relevant if that "someone" consider it as worth as you,
> Sandman wrote:
>
> >> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
> >> about it, at least in theory.
> >
> >Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
> >like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
> >house owners. Give or take :-D
>
> Stupid statement from a Mac fanboi, because in the context of millions
> of people, "you can do something" means "someone will do something",
> assuming that it's worth the effort.
and that you have a means to communicate that with that specific
someone, which I know you know that just isn't true with open source
software.
> *Certainly* a much different situation than having a pair of companies
> dictate how things are...
handling with - say, iTunes - than I do with Apache.
--
Sandman[.net]
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 9:46:25 AM5/10/12
to
Sandman wrote:
>> >Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>> >like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>> >house owners. Give or take :-D
>>
>> Stupid statement from a Mac fanboi, because in the context of millions
>> of people, "you can do something" means "someone will do something",
>> assuming that it's worth the effort.
>
>Which is only relevant if that "someone" consider it as worth as you,
>and that you have a means to communicate that with that specific
>someone, which I know you know that just isn't true with open source
>software.
What nonsense.
>> >Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>> >like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>> >house owners. Give or take :-D
>>
>> Stupid statement from a Mac fanboi, because in the context of millions
>> of people, "you can do something" means "someone will do something",
>> assuming that it's worth the effort.
>
>Which is only relevant if that "someone" consider it as worth as you,
>and that you have a means to communicate that with that specific
>someone, which I know you know that just isn't true with open source
>software.
Sandman
May 10, 2012, 9:50:27 AM5/10/12
to
joel garry
May 10, 2012, 1:27:58 PM5/10/12
to
Of course that "bogus" comment is way overreaching, and does refer to
two quite different things: the inappropriateness of expecting anyone
to be able to do anything about it, and the effect on commercial
software.
I think the first is obvious by now, but I still see specific examples
in the real world. One is my kid - I gave him Open Office (first on
XP, now on whatever the latest hype is - of the dozen computers in my
house, his laptop is the only one that can run Portal 2), school
requires MS format. Hey, OO can write that, right? Well, no. There
are various little fuckups. Of course, you say, who would really give
a good goddamn about some minor formatting issues? It turns out, his
honors English teacher (who is totally hot - how come I only got
wrinkly old nutcases when I was in school?) does. Now you say, OK,
some minor point loss, what's the BFD? It turns out, this can mean
the difference between Valedictorian or not. You expect him to fix it
(he's scary-smart, but does have other obligations)? You expect me to
fix it (he does!)? Even if I could, or knew someone who could, it's
not getting done in the middle of the night with the paper due the
next day. Another more obvious issue is hardware support, which is
still the major issue it was 10 years ago, I'm sure you guys could
give all sorts of examples.
So yes, there may be minor differences, and they add up, and have
major, often unpredictable, consequences.
The second is more interesting, and is really what made me turn away
from COLA. As someone mentioned, quality should be the real deciding
factor, and I do think OSS had a major positive impact in numerous
cases. Most software is indeed crap anyways (and getting worse, is my
judgement from the social media examples out there, $100B facebook,
shit).
So what I'm thinking of is the Apache and EM stuff from Oracle. I'm
not dinging Apache, actually I think it is a good example of how OSS
can work for a commercial environment, making it easier to figure out
operational issues, at least if you get far enough up on the learning
curve, and given the milieu of the software world, there are plenty of
people who do. But as I see it, the adoption by Oracle of linux
created a large population of so-so cheap programmers creating some
garbage. So you wind up with low quality perl and bash stuff, which
is then ported to other unix without even trying to see if it works,
and this crap being distributed to paying customers. Yes, that is
entirely Oracle's fault, but it required a linux infrastructure with
low barrier to entry to create the problem. I see this as the same
problem with Windows: Dave Cutler's team did an excellent job that
still stands up technically, it's all the cruft beyond the kernel
that's the problem.
Which brings us to what some Sun guy used to say, "the network is the
computer." http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9964131-7.html How data
moves around, how people communicate, what groups of people do with
their computers is really more important than any one installation.
Or as someone else may have put it, "it's the app, stupid." That
doesn't mean OS's are trivial - it means they need to get out of the
way, not cause problems themselves. The democratization that OSS
provides is a two-edged sword: yes, many people can come up with good
stuff, but many more people have no clue of design, engineering or
quality. The Linus-centric model for linux itself works around this
problem, but beyond that there is no control. Sturgeon's Revelation
is over-optimistic.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/china/oracle-ceo-oracle-cant-easily-duplicated/368
Flint
May 10, 2012, 6:57:02 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/9/2012 8:40 PM, Pól wrote:
>
>
> On 09/05/12 20:14, Sandman wrote:
>
>
>>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>
>>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do
>>> something
>>> about it, at least in theory.
>
>> Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>> like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>> house owners. Give or take :-D
>
>
> Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making
> major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was
> very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
>
> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs
> up-front - you don't have vendor lock-in.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now
> matching Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I
> haven't booted into Windows in over a year.
Hate to say it, but I've found LibreOffice (and its forerunner,
>
>
> On 09/05/12 20:14, Sandman wrote:
>
>
>>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>
>>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do
>>> something
>>> about it, at least in theory.
>
>> Which is as relevant to 99.999% of computer users as "if you don't
>> like it, you can rebuild your house from scratch" is for 99.999% of
>> house owners. Give or take :-D
>
>
> Which is true - the majority of people (us) aren't capable of making
> major (or even minor) changes to Open Source projects (although I was
> very proud of myself when I made a minor change to a minor project).
>
> All of which of course does *_not_* mean that Open Source is "bogus".
> FLOSS is what it says it is - it does what it says on the tin - it's
> open about what it is, there's no lying - you can see the bugs
> up-front - you don't have vendor lock-in.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, both Linux and the *BSD's are a superior
> technical choice for servers - the reason Windows is so popular is
> because of the multiplicity of apps available, but FLOSS is now
> matching Windows for end-user apps. LibreOffice is an example - I
> haven't booted into Windows in over a year.
OpenOffice) to be rather piggishly slow compared to MS Office, and
rather buggy on working with Office files, particularly Excel
spreadsheets and Word documents. I've seen file format corruptions
often when working with MS Office files in LibreOffice.
IOW, it ain't anywhere near ready for primetime for most Enterprise
desktop use unless one is ready to live with LibreOffice's weakness
and stay with ODF file formats for everything.
>
> But, again, all of this aside, none of this has an iota of an impact
> on the opinion of the OP about FLOSS being "bogus".
>
> I'm genuinely interested - I've never heard FLOSS called that before -
> people differing over the merits of the different packages, but
> "bogus" - never...
>
> As Frasier Crane would say, "I'm listening"...
>
>
> Paul...
>
>
> BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is
> not likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
and has its etymological roots in "fanatic". :)
--
Flint
Chance Furlong
May 10, 2012, 8:02:22 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/12 5:57 PM, Flint wrote:
> In other words, it is not anywhere near ready for prime time for most Enterprise
> In other words, it is not anywhere near ready for prime time for most Enterprise
> desktop use unless one is ready to live with LibreOffice's weakness and
> stay with ODF file formats for everything.
>
> stay with ODF file formats for everything.
>
> Just a side note: The word "fan" (in this context) is derived from and
> has its etymological roots in "fanatic."
I corrected your grammar, Flint Boi.
> has its etymological roots in "fanatic."
Flint
May 10, 2012, 10:02:21 PM5/10/12
to
times as the word is now included in most dictionaries/lexicons, and
is only rejected by high-brow grammatically retarded sticks in the mud
such as yourself.
Of course, never mind that the word has an antecedent usage based on
the old English contracted colloquialisms "I'nt", "en't", and "An't",
and around 1749, the "A" of "An't" began to be used in writing and was
pronounced with a long "A" as in "ain't".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ain%27t
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain%27t
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain%27t
"The use of "Ain't I?" addresses one logical problem of English
grammar; it serves as a contracted inverted form of the question "Am I
not?" Some prescriptivists would not allow any contraction of that
question. Others prefer "Aren't I?", even though "aren't" is a
contraction of "are not", which is not a standard first person
singular construction."
and...
"Although ain't is seldom found in formal writing, it is frequently
used in more informal written settings, such as popular song lyrics.
Ain't is obligatory in some fixed phrases, such as "You ain't seen
nothing yet"."
...or *"if it ain't broke, don't fix it"* [emphasis mine]
Time to update yer lexicon, prescriptive fangurl. :P
--
Flint
Chance Furlong
May 10, 2012, 10:29:35 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/12 9:02 PM, Flint wrote:
>
> Time to update yer lexicon, prescriptive fangirl.
It is, fanboy.
>
> Time to update yer lexicon, prescriptive fangirl.
It is, fanboy.
Redjak
May 10, 2012, 11:19:00 PM5/10/12
to
"Flint" wrote in message news:johrv8$afe$1...@dont-email.me...
You must be desperate.
Pól
May 11, 2012, 12:01:09 AM5/11/12
to
On 10/05/12 07:12, Snit wrote:
> Oh, I have no problem with free societies having restrictions. But one can
> have public domain code in a free society.
Listen, it's been a pleasure debating with you, but I just don't have
the time to follow this thread - if you want the last word, please
reply, but this is my last post to this thread. ;)
Paul...
Chance Furlong
May 11, 2012, 12:25:34 AM5/11/12
to
On 5/10/12 10:19 PM, Redjak wrote:
>
> You must be desperate.
Yes, Flint is desperate, like you and Snit. So you three troll each
other for a while.
Wait, do not troll Snit, he will give you more attention than you can
deal with.
>
> You must be desperate.
Yes, Flint is desperate, like you and Snit. So you three troll each
other for a while.
Wait, do not troll Snit, he will give you more attention than you can
deal with.
Snit
May 11, 2012, 12:38:25 AM5/11/12
to
On 5/10/12 9:01 PM, in article 4fac8f06$1...@news.x-privat.org, "Pól"
"freeloaders". I have no problem with that. I also have material on my
website where I note it is offered with *no* restrictions. I do *request*
that if my material is used that the person using it be kind enough to let
me know and, if it fits into their project, to give me credit (but if not
that is OK... and that is a *request*, not a condition of use). So, sure, I
have "freeloading parasites" use my material - with my blessings.
I have no problem with people doing so *with permission*.
> Listen, it's been a pleasure debating with you, but I just don't have
> the time to follow this thread - if you want the last word, please
> reply, but this is my last post to this thread. ;)
No problem. And while we do not fully agree, you "debate" and discuss in a
reasoned way and I have respect for you.
--
🙈🙉🙊
<P?l...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
>
>
> On 10/05/12 07:12, Snit wrote:
>
>
>> Oh, I have no problem with free societies having restrictions. But one can
>> have public domain code in a free society.
>
> But should a free society permit freeloading parasites?
I offer videos on YouTube where anyone can view them - including
>
>
> On 10/05/12 07:12, Snit wrote:
>
>
>> Oh, I have no problem with free societies having restrictions. But one can
>> have public domain code in a free society.
>
> But should a free society permit freeloading parasites?
"freeloaders". I have no problem with that. I also have material on my
website where I note it is offered with *no* restrictions. I do *request*
that if my material is used that the person using it be kind enough to let
me know and, if it fits into their project, to give me credit (but if not
that is OK... and that is a *request*, not a condition of use). So, sure, I
have "freeloading parasites" use my material - with my blessings.
I have no problem with people doing so *with permission*.
> Listen, it's been a pleasure debating with you, but I just don't have
> the time to follow this thread - if you want the last word, please
> reply, but this is my last post to this thread. ;)
reasoned way and I have respect for you.
--
🙈🙉🙊
Sandman
May 11, 2012, 2:55:32 AM5/11/12
to
In article <johh3p$hp8$1...@dont-email.me>, Flint <age...@section21.org>
wrote:
> > BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is
> > not likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
>
> Just a side note: The word "fan" (in this context) is derived from
> and has its etymological roots in "fanatic". :)
Weren't you supposed to leave this group?
--
Sandman[.net]
wrote:
> > BTW, I'm a fan, not a fanatic. I make a living using Oracle which is
> > not likely to open-source it's flagship database prodcut anytime soon.
>
> Just a side note: The word "fan" (in this context) is derived from
> and has its etymological roots in "fanatic". :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Mladen Gogala
May 11, 2012, 8:52:13 AM5/11/12
to
Mladen Gogala
May 11, 2012, 11:27:49 AM5/11/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 21:12:48 -0700, Noons wrote:
> Ah well, who cares?
Larry cares, both Page and Ellison.
--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
> Ah well, who cares?
Larry cares, both Page and Ellison.
--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com
Flint
May 11, 2012, 1:26:02 PM5/11/12
to
--
Flint
Redjak
May 11, 2012, 3:08:14 PM5/11/12
to
"Flint" wrote in message news:joji34$8gs$1...@dont-email.me...
Furlong quite a bit of air time. He's un-teachable.
Flint
May 11, 2012, 8:54:17 PM5/11/12
to
intentionally verbose retort to his normal Granny Grammar snideness.
--
Flint
Snit
May 14, 2012, 9:00:05 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/10/12 10:27 AM, in article
fb5059ff-d26e-4dfa...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com, "joel
have decided it it worth the cost to move to MS Office. It serves them
better, even without the compatibility issues.
> Of course, you say, who would really give a good goddamn about some minor
> formatting issues? It turns out, his honors English teacher (who is totally
> hot - how come I only got wrinkly old nutcases when I was in school?) does.
And in many classes it is very important to use APA or MLA or a similar
format.
> Now you say, OK, some minor point loss, what's the BFD? It turns out, this
> can mean the difference between Valedictorian or not. You expect him to fix
> it (he's scary-smart, but does have other obligations)? You expect me to fix
> it (he does!)? Even if I could, or knew someone who could, it's not getting
> done in the middle of the night with the paper due the next day. Another more
> obvious issue is hardware support, which is still the major issue it was 10
> years ago, I'm sure you guys could give all sorts of examples.
While the examples are somewhat older, I gave some very specific examples:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp/>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp2/>
Even though I provided the files I used so anyone could replicate my work,
the response of the "advocates" in COLA was to say I somehow forged the
results (Peter Köhlman repeats that accusation on a regular basis). Of
course, nobody was able to show OpenOffice doing anything better than I
showed (Ray tried and I posted his info).
> So yes, there may be minor differences, and they add up, and have
> major, often unpredictable, consequences.
>
> The second is more interesting, and is really what made me turn away
> from COLA. As someone mentioned, quality should be the real deciding
> factor, and I do think OSS had a major positive impact in numerous
> cases. Most software is indeed crap anyways (and getting worse, is my
> judgement from the social media examples out there, $100B facebook,
> shit).
Here is an example of doing what should be a simple task - rotating an image
- in both LibreOffice and Pages: <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>
The response was that this is a task that is not common... which, on
OpenOffice and LibreOffice, it is not. Of course it is not - the UI for
doing so is *horrible*. Usability matters.
> So what I'm thinking of is the Apache and EM stuff from Oracle. I'm
> not dinging Apache, actually I think it is a good example of how OSS
> can work for a commercial environment, making it easier to figure out
> operational issues, at least if you get far enough up on the learning
> curve, and given the milieu of the software world, there are plenty of
> people who do. But as I see it, the adoption by Oracle of linux
> created a large population of so-so cheap programmers creating some
> garbage. So you wind up with low quality perl and bash stuff, which
> is then ported to other unix without even trying to see if it works,
> and this crap being distributed to paying customers. Yes, that is
> entirely Oracle's fault, but it required a linux infrastructure with
> low barrier to entry to create the problem. I see this as the same
> problem with Windows: Dave Cutler's team did an excellent job that
> still stands up technically, it's all the cruft beyond the kernel
> that's the problem.
>
> Which brings us to what some Sun guy used to say, "the network is the
> computer." http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9964131-7.html How data
> moves around, how people communicate, what groups of people do with
> their computers is really more important than any one installation.
> Or as someone else may have put it, "it's the app, stupid." That
> doesn't mean OS's are trivial - it means they need to get out of the
> way, not cause problems themselves.
And a well done environment can add a *lot* to the functionality / usability
of a system. The example I use is OS X with is proxy icons, versioning
system, easy finding of where a file is saved from within the window itself,
media browser, application services, PDF services, etc. These things
matter. A lot.
> The democratization that OSS provides is a two-edged sword: yes, many people
> can come up with good stuff, but many more people have no clue of design,
> engineering or quality. The Linus-centric model for linux itself works around
> this problem, but beyond that there is no control. Sturgeon's Revelation is
> over-optimistic.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/china/oracle-ceo-oracle-cant-easily-duplicated/368
--
🙈🙉🙊
fb5059ff-d26e-4dfa...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com, "joel
garry" <joel-...@home.com> wrote:
> On May 9, 11:55 am, PÓl <Pól...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
>> On 08/05/12 16:55, joel garry wrote:
>>
>>> Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
>>> phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
>>> and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
>>> way how bogus open software can be.
>>
>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>>
>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>> about it, at least in theory.
>>
>
> Sandman and Snit pretty much got what I was driving at.
>
> Of course that "bogus" comment is way overreaching, and does refer to
> two quite different things: the inappropriateness of expecting anyone
> to be able to do anything about it, and the effect on commercial
> software.
>
> I think the first is obvious by now, but I still see specific examples
> in the real world. One is my kid - I gave him Open Office (first on
> XP, now on whatever the latest hype is - of the dozen computers in my
> house, his laptop is the only one that can run Portal 2), school
> requires MS format. Hey, OO can write that, right? Well, no. There
> are various little fuckups.
Quite a few. And of the two businesses I suggested LibreOffice for, both
> On May 9, 11:55 am, PÓl <Pól...@not.a.chance.ie> wrote:
>> On 08/05/12 16:55, joel garry wrote:
>>
>>> Disclaimers: Yes, I use google all the time, and yes I have an Android
>>> phone, and yes, I've been abused in commercial situations by Oracle,
>>> and yes, I gave up on linux advocacy years ago when I learned the hard
>>> way how bogus open software can be.
>>
>> How can Open Source be "bogus"?
>>
>> Unlike with closed software - if you don't like it, you can do something
>> about it, at least in theory.
>>
>
> Sandman and Snit pretty much got what I was driving at.
>
> Of course that "bogus" comment is way overreaching, and does refer to
> two quite different things: the inappropriateness of expecting anyone
> to be able to do anything about it, and the effect on commercial
> software.
>
> I think the first is obvious by now, but I still see specific examples
> in the real world. One is my kid - I gave him Open Office (first on
> XP, now on whatever the latest hype is - of the dozen computers in my
> house, his laptop is the only one that can run Portal 2), school
> requires MS format. Hey, OO can write that, right? Well, no. There
> are various little fuckups.
have decided it it worth the cost to move to MS Office. It serves them
better, even without the compatibility issues.
> Of course, you say, who would really give a good goddamn about some minor
> formatting issues? It turns out, his honors English teacher (who is totally
> hot - how come I only got wrinkly old nutcases when I was in school?) does.
format.
> Now you say, OK, some minor point loss, what's the BFD? It turns out, this
> can mean the difference between Valedictorian or not. You expect him to fix
> it (he's scary-smart, but does have other obligations)? You expect me to fix
> it (he does!)? Even if I could, or knew someone who could, it's not getting
> done in the middle of the night with the paper due the next day. Another more
> obvious issue is hardware support, which is still the major issue it was 10
> years ago, I'm sure you guys could give all sorts of examples.
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp/>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp2/>
Even though I provided the files I used so anyone could replicate my work,
the response of the "advocates" in COLA was to say I somehow forged the
results (Peter Köhlman repeats that accusation on a regular basis). Of
course, nobody was able to show OpenOffice doing anything better than I
showed (Ray tried and I posted his info).
> So yes, there may be minor differences, and they add up, and have
> major, often unpredictable, consequences.
>
> The second is more interesting, and is really what made me turn away
> from COLA. As someone mentioned, quality should be the real deciding
> factor, and I do think OSS had a major positive impact in numerous
> cases. Most software is indeed crap anyways (and getting worse, is my
> judgement from the social media examples out there, $100B facebook,
> shit).
- in both LibreOffice and Pages: <http://youtu.be/ootjP-cFVO8>
The response was that this is a task that is not common... which, on
OpenOffice and LibreOffice, it is not. Of course it is not - the UI for
doing so is *horrible*. Usability matters.
> So what I'm thinking of is the Apache and EM stuff from Oracle. I'm
> not dinging Apache, actually I think it is a good example of how OSS
> can work for a commercial environment, making it easier to figure out
> operational issues, at least if you get far enough up on the learning
> curve, and given the milieu of the software world, there are plenty of
> people who do. But as I see it, the adoption by Oracle of linux
> created a large population of so-so cheap programmers creating some
> garbage. So you wind up with low quality perl and bash stuff, which
> is then ported to other unix without even trying to see if it works,
> and this crap being distributed to paying customers. Yes, that is
> entirely Oracle's fault, but it required a linux infrastructure with
> low barrier to entry to create the problem. I see this as the same
> problem with Windows: Dave Cutler's team did an excellent job that
> still stands up technically, it's all the cruft beyond the kernel
> that's the problem.
>
> Which brings us to what some Sun guy used to say, "the network is the
> computer." http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9964131-7.html How data
> moves around, how people communicate, what groups of people do with
> their computers is really more important than any one installation.
> Or as someone else may have put it, "it's the app, stupid." That
> doesn't mean OS's are trivial - it means they need to get out of the
> way, not cause problems themselves.
of a system. The example I use is OS X with is proxy icons, versioning
system, easy finding of where a file is saved from within the window itself,
media browser, application services, PDF services, etc. These things
matter. A lot.
> The democratization that OSS provides is a two-edged sword: yes, many people
> can come up with good stuff, but many more people have no clue of design,
> engineering or quality. The Linus-centric model for linux itself works around
> this problem, but beyond that there is no control. Sturgeon's Revelation is
> over-optimistic.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/china/oracle-ceo-oracle-cant-easily-duplicated/368
🙈🙉🙊
0 new messages