Lack of foreground process priority would hardly cause the UI suckyness linux seems to have. It's a nice thing, like the icing on the cake, but it's not a life necessity IMO.
Posted on 2004-05-03 17:03:31 by f0dder


I recently replied to a parent post on Slashdot and engaged in a back-and-forth that I would like to here your opinions on the subject. It seems that everytime anything software related on Slashdot is mentioned somehow 80% of the posts end up touting (with no evidence to support thier claims) that open-source is the "superior" model and yada yada. The original link to the parent is below and all subsequent posts are thereafter.

It is interesting to me how the whole concept of "open source" has morphed into "free software" over the years. Back in the 90's, open source did *not* mean "free to use as you please". It simply meant that the source code was available to end users who were interested in seeing how the program operated. Open Source was largely provided as a "trust" to the users so that they would stand a chance of maintaining the software if the original company that produced (and, yes, sold) the software went out of business. RMS and Co. have really pulled a marketing coup by making the terms "GPL'd software" and "Open Source Software" synonymous.

Always remember, the only free software is public domain software. Also remember that the concept of "Open Source" is independent of the software's licensing, copyright, and patent attributes. You *can*, for example, have public domain software that is not open source. You can have expensive, commercial, software that *is* open source. GPL is simply an attempt to require open source for free software, but fails miserably as it attaches too many restrictions to the software's use to really qualify as "free".
Randy Hyde
Posted on 2004-05-12 10:23:52 by rhyde
but fails miserably as it attaches too many restrictions to the software's use to really qualify as "free".

Correction, it would only fail if people understand these restrictions and their repercussions. I am not sure if they do, especially after all the propaganda that RMS, ESR and others spread, making GPL and OpenSource synonymous, as you say, among other things. It seems that some people actually long for the 'freedom' as GPL defines it. Scary.
Posted on 2004-05-12 10:56:25 by Scali

Is RadAsm GPL though? The article focuses on GPL, not opensource in general. And does the author of RadAsm support his family with RadAsm? The article doesn't deny that you can write software and release it under GPL. It points out that it is hard to make money if you do so.

I didn't even realize that RadAsm was open source, much less GPL.
AFAIK, it's "freeware", but not open source. Maybe I missed finding the source code somewhere?
Randy Hyde
Posted on 2004-05-12 15:48:39 by rhyde
When you install it, some where in the addins, dont remember exactly, but if I remember ok, is the text editor (dll), and a example on how to use it, like look like radASM :) (or in some of the folders of masm projects, search in them :D)

Have a nice day or night
Posted on 2004-05-12 15:57:43 by rea

...It seems that some people actually long for the 'freedom' as GPL defines it. Scary.

Actually, unless I missed something, I think BSD is the best license for "Free". There seems to be few restrictions... except that you give credit to the original authors of the code. You don't even have to redistribute if you don't want to. That, to me, is free. I'm personally not a fan of the GPL for various reasons. Too many "conditions" before it is free, and the fact that if I incorporate it into my project, my whole project has to be "free"/"open" in the same way when I may indeed have other plans for it. LGPL I think it better, but I tend to avoid it altogether.

Originally posted by hgb

When you install it, some where in the addins, dont remember exactly, but if I remember ok, is the text editor (dll), and a example on how to use it, like look like radASM (or in some of the folders of masm projects, search in them :D)

RadASM is not open. It is free from the perspective that you may download it and use it. But he does not provide the source representation of the binary that you are downloading. The source for the AddIns are provided, and a version of the text editor he uses are also provided as "sample" projects. He also has provided two versions of a visual resource editor that were much much previous versions of his source code for his own editor. But if you wanted to piece together his editor, you have enough of the infrasturial widget, as it were, but you cannot actually create his IDE with some time, tweaking, and creativity.

If his source was totally available, there would probably be many versions of the IDE floating around though I can't be sure, as Randy Hyde's source is available and yet there is only one version of HLA that I'm aware of.

Pertaining to the original post, however, I don't think OSS (GPL, as it were) is a real benifit to society in the same vein that they profess it is. Not the least of which, their "733t3st" attitude is enough to intimidate anywone in the corporate world that doesn't care about overthrowing MS (because MS related products is probanly a direct or indirect source of the corporations income). They just want money and the general perception is that OSS people want it all free and businesses are prabably intimidated by that, for good reason.

Posted on 2004-05-21 14:31:42 by _Shawn
I think OSS in its core is great

I don't like the freeloader mentality that comes with it however. I, as a programmer, like to peruse other people's code and adapting/changing little things and the freedom to do so is great.

Now, while I do appreciate the fact that I can get things like linux and freebsd gratis I don't like the way certain groups (yes, that's you RMS) propagate and try to dictate this to all 'free' software.

surviving through selling support is a joke and a disgrace. Programmers should be paid for making a good program and they should be paid because they made a good one. Supporting those that can't be bothered to read the manual shouldn't be their job nor their only means of income.

things like GPL are extremely anti-developer and a true detriment to real open 'sharing' of source and its use.
Posted on 2004-05-21 15:35:08 by Hiroshimator
I agree 100% Hiro, as I said in my original post GPL will kill the OSS movement.

As for the support thing, well, the software market is somewhere around US$186 Billion world wide and why should the author of the next best thing to sliced bread have to slog it out on a support hotline to make $10 an hour. That's just stupid and insulting to programmers, they hire people who can't even work a mouse to do that in sweatshop like call centers. And the programmer definitely has better things to do than manage them or answer stupid questions, I mean have you ever seen the transcripts from those support lines ???
Posted on 2004-05-21 15:47:54 by donkey
I actually work one right now, due to our job market being so screwed up here :(

It's legalised slave labour
Posted on 2004-05-21 16:05:33 by Hiroshimator
I can question here what are the points that will do a good OSS?, not what is actually the best license, but what are the points that need be covered, and what not, also at the end, exactly what points of the ones that you propose are breacked by gpl and others similars?

Have a nice day or night.
Posted on 2004-05-21 16:10:37 by rea
Afternoon, hgb.

I think one of the points would be "Available for educational, free, and commercial use."

Posted on 2004-05-21 19:17:08 by Scronty
Might the OSS developers be closer to their customers then say the commercial developers? I don't really know, but it is a curious question as more marketing is speaking to the customers than developers in the commercial area. I think we know what the long-term consequences of such a pattern of actions leads to. Namely, very massive software packages with billions of features and totally scriptable and programatically interfacible.
Posted on 2004-05-21 21:08:58 by bitRAKE
some of the OSS developers are close to their 'customers' - mostly for the really geeky kind of applications. But consider downloading a word processor, spending a lot of time compiling it from source, then getting a cryptic core fault... is that "close to the customer" for John Doe?
Posted on 2004-05-21 21:33:52 by f0dder
Good point, but pretend OSS gets more of a foot hold and cleans that kind of thing up. It seems they would as a natural progression of good customer relationship. Currently, they are still mostly their own customers in the OSS movement, but that is shifting slowly.

But then again one would think the same could be done for commerical software (maybe with greater associated cost though).
Posted on 2004-05-21 21:38:37 by bitRAKE

I do like and favour GPL software and movement, enough said?

I do consider that capitalismus and competition are the must pathetic form of humman organization and i find it extreemly funny that while respecting those stupid rules, somebody like GPL can make what they do :grin:

After all nobody cries when the read an EULA that say like : "by oppening this package you agree withe the contract inside" -- Microsoft Style (i actually have had some of those EULA's)

And everybody starts to cry when somebody makes something free , opensource and is adding just one single rule to this ... like you do not have the right to just rip this off and use in your comemcial capitalistic project...

Let us face it: in a hypocrite world runned by people like Scali and by extreem greed that mimics generosity... what would ever stop somebody from looking at the GPL code and use it and its ideas inside? ... actually nothing...

Please do not start about conscience and ilegal stuff...
Where does it write that it is ilegal to look at GPL code and make your own?

Well with Microsoft's source code just a look at it and you could face seriouse criminal charges under the maximum extent permited by applicable law...:P

With GPL you must rip it as it is and still it is not sure that some GPL activist will come after you...

The ONLY real problem with GPL code is that you CAN NOT ripe it as it is... and this is a problem only whan it comes to TIME and PROFIT of execution....

Funny capitalistic notions: time and profit

I find GPL as one of the first things that tries to do the right in this wrong world...

Yeah i know that it might never succeed and i also know that IF it succedes it might cut my income as a programmer...

But THAT does NOT make it WRONG!

Wrong is to live by capitalistic rules and to dream to get money while others work for slavery, Wrong is to have a licence to kill during war,
Wrongs is to keep the bills for your WMD sales :P
Wrong is to consider that somebody deserves better than somebody else...
no matter what they do/did nobody asked to be borned so...

Many things are wrong on this planet...but NOT GPL

Again GPL is one of the few funny RIGHT things to do that i have ever seen ...
funny that it comes from a west oriented guy also ;)
Posted on 2004-05-21 23:30:00 by BogdanOntanu

:) well I agree ..
but also, you have to agree that "capitalism" exists everywhere..
all else are idealism's... the trick is to benefit "as a people" from idealistic ideas while still letting capitalism
run its free course.. for no laws can ever stop it.. laws will just place it underground where fewer can see it..

Posted on 2004-05-21 23:55:58 by Brad Byrne
Originally posted by BogdanOntanu

Well with Microsoft's source code just a look at it and you could face seriouse criminal charges under the maximum extent permited by applicable law...:P

Except, of course, there are no applicable laws :-)
Shrink wrap licenses are a joke. They've never been held up on court AFAIK, and, in fact, many States in the US explicitly forbid them (you can say whatever you want on the package, it is meaningless). Indeed, the term "license" indicates an agreement between two parties. Shrink-wrap "licenses" are simply an attempt to force one party's desires on another without an agreement.

The problem with the GPL is not whether it is a great tool for fighting the capitalist world, rather, the problem with the GPL is that it is the height of hypocrasy. On the one hand it talks about freedom, while explicitly restricting the freedoms you have with that software.

The only truly free software is public domain software. Those who take an ethical high road on free software should release their material to the public domain.

Randy Hyde
Posted on 2004-05-22 00:04:44 by rhyde
Yes i agree that wrap licences are a joke, and that they will not hold up in court, eventually IF you have the will and money required to go to court :D, but trust me at tat time ere in Romania i took it quite seriousely... besides is unfair and unethical to say at least...

I do not find any kind of hypocrasy in GPL ...

It is free to use / to distribute and to change.

The only thing they add is a rule to make sure that it will be free forever and it will not be used by capitalistic software corporations to make even bigger profits. That is all, the rule is against capialismus.

And to be honest i find a lot of hypocrasy in beeing able to even live in a capiatlismus / money and greed driven world...

I wish we could avoid discussions about money/profit /capitalismus here but unfortunately the Licence rule in GPL that "is the problem" here has its roots in capitalismus.

Remove capitalismus from the world and that rule/licence will dissapear from GPL also. ;)

Unfortunately the FreeBSD kind of licence exists only as an extension of big software companys...

FOR example:
1)Software Company S1 makes a big and sustained donation to University U1, it suggests a line of research that suits its interests... it doesnt even have to suggest after all the teachers are hummans themselves.
2)After some time and with countles students / teachers help .. all this research results into some freware code ;) (think BSD sockets)
3)Software Comapny S1 is now able to get the results of the research and include them freely into their products... efectively closing the circle and returning the investment mony back to its source...

Yes i know that OTHER company's and individuals could also benefit from this... but still this FreeBSD kind of stuff is mainly a method of return for company investments without having to re-purchease code from University...

However this circle is not so fair to be closed on GPL code, and this is why the GPL licence exists.

The ONLY reason is that Software companys should NOT be able to use the free work made by passionate individuals in order to round up their profits... this and nothing else... eliminate the profit making companys and this GPL licence will fall :D

I know from my own working experience tha capitalistic company's have a high tendency to get and use up code (yes even GPL) just to make some profit... so the GPL Licence has no lies inside it...

GPL shows its intentions right from the start and it is ok even under capitalistic rules to do this
(this makes it so much funny)

I a word: i find GPL to be:
decent, clearly stated, fair and honest and even a little funny in actual world context
And i understand this fully aware of its consequences.

And as a side not i do not care about GPL fighting capitalismus or not.

I do not think they really want to do that, it is merely a side product.
instead i find its relation with capitalismus to be just inside the funny and ironical part of my understanding of GPL.

A word for Brad:
Yes it exists everywhere arround us, unfortunately...
It is the expression of the lowest form of evolution (aka evolution zero) since nature also uses this method (animals fight eachother in an endless competition)
Everybody should be ashame that we live in such an world organization.

I do not preach idealismus here, i know the exact pactical rules that should be used or implemented so we make steep 1 of evolution... (and i have expressed them before in win32asm forum i guess) Anyway we will eventually reach there in about 10.000 years or so IF we do not exhaust our planet until then and/or make other planetary mistakes (most likely with this greed).

Under curent world circumstances personal evolution is still possible (always was).
(like Jesus/Budha etc) BUT it is the exception and not the rule. Of course personal evolution is much more easy in rich countrys like US/Europe/Canada etc but the price payed by the rest of the world is huge and unfair.
Posted on 2004-05-22 01:30:10 by BogdanOntanu
BogdanOntanu, do you have any ideas to help the world evolve beyond just personal evolution? Do you think any process can lead to such freedom globally? Do you see the GNU philosophy and such might be a lever for this purpose?

Evolution zero is just the struggle for resources, imho. It is still living at the survival level - the propagation of fears. The wealthy leverage the resources to create fears. When the resources become free and abundant does that eliminate fears? I think it might, but it is a slow process - repressed people have their doubts about the motivations of people claiming to liberate.
Posted on 2004-05-22 18:13:15 by bitRAKE
Yes i have a set of ideas and methods that will take humman race to steep 1 of evolution

No i do not think GNU philosophy is or might be a lever for this

What i think is that while unclearly understanding some things about humman evolution ... GNU hit some preaty important humman issues that generate controversial oppinions and might make people think in the right direction.

However their vision is still a little offset since they consider only digital information/programs and still support the other set of rules for physical objects and capitalistic accumulation/greed/profit

Returnin to the set of rules , ideas and methods that could make humanity evolve beyons level zero:

I wonder if we should discuss those here (on this thread/forum)?

I have the intention to sum them up and publish them as a thesis on the Internet...
This way i could die with my soul clear ... because i have at least tried

Well since you have expressed your intrest/inquiery i will not let it unanswered...

So here are my basic ideas once again: (for more debate i suggest using email or if forum rules permit it maybe make yet another thread):

1) Nobody can have more or less than every other humman beeing on this planet.
We must kill the accumulation / greed / profit as the generate the most kills/crimes/wars/competition and contadictions

Besides they are unfair and by themselfes (accumulation/money/profit) nulify The Chart of humman RIghts... efectively transforming it in merely a joke: "The chart of Humman Posibilities" as i like to call it .... with a rate of posibility of 1/1 000 000 000

Yes at the time of definition the "posibility" was something good, now it is a joke. In a world where your neighborow can have more than you liberty is a LIE. reality is that accumulation makes and keeps righ people inthe position of SLAVES MASTERS.

2)It is imperative to terminate any competition.
Competition wastes resources and energy . It also has the effect of destroying creativity. It is efectively slowing human race dow by a factor of 1:10000

Education gets a critical role here, we must finnaly understand that real education is not puting peoples to compete eachother withing a fixed set of sciences. Instead Education means finding the genouse sparkle that exists in every humman beeing and bringing it to light for the use of whole mankind . and still understan that it is the freedom of each individual if he/she ever wants to use this in helping mankind... If they choose not to...well maybe we did something wrong.

3)We must destroy the family
Family is the base of accumulation after all. Childrens must be educated by mankind as awhole having the freedom to move from one house to another from one location to another.
Curently childrens are the slaves of the parents and as a result the end up just as copyes of parents (positively or negatively but still a copy)

We should replace the family with a greater Human brotherhood of man

Let us make a toomb for the family and write on its stone that it has suites us well until now but curently it is holding us back so badly that we had to put it to etenal rest ;)

4)We must reduce the population
We must reduce to a level that can be sustained by our Planet and technology (in a healty maner)

Sinece nobody really decides to get born... and it is a parental decision, it is NOT the fault of the childrens that they exists. In fact because of this everybody is not guilty no matter what he/she does... To avoid problems we must improve the quality of life and not the number of peoples (as opposed for slavery)

Every child born must be alowed to exist only IF we already have (before the time of its born) ALL the resouces (house, food, computers :p , etc) needed for it's entirely life even IF he/she decides not to move a singer finger for work for the rest of life


There are others rules/methods/ideas but with respect to your time and comprehension i will stop here...

I is my firm belief that implemeting such a simple set of rules will generate evolution in mankins .. so fast that after the transitional part (a few generations must pass until we really terminat old thinkers :D) we will conquest the Universe and reach higher understandins of it in under a few hundreds of years
Posted on 2004-05-22 23:41:59 by BogdanOntanu