×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

228 comments

Re:finland and technology (1)

g.liche (99325) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633412)

Linus's comment that the long winters make for higher tech "because there's nothing else to do" makes one wonder when Alaska will take it's rightful place as the world leader in technological innovation. ;-) Seriously though, as a Minnesotan, I can relate to the long winters being prime programming time...

Third world country (1)

starling (26204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633413)

The bit I picked up on was when he called Silicon Valley a third world country when it comes to technology. He's right, and it's really strange considering the availability and low cost of technology in the US.

One of my pet peeves is that people over here *still* use cheques to pay all their bills instead of direct funds transfer. I'd almost forgotten how to write a cheque before I moved here, but hardly anyone does direct debit so I'm forever writing the things out and stuffing them in envelopes (not post-paid of course). Sometimes I think the cheapest commodity in the US is a customer's time :(

The real reason why no one would care.. (1)

Kitsune Sushi (87987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633414)

..which I'm sort of surprised you didn't just come out and say: How many of us would prefer going back, slashing, then completely reworking all of the code for Windows so that it is actually a viable, stable operating system that does something useful besides, well, look pretty? GNU/Linux (and a multitude of other good OSes, like *BSD) are already stable, and with a nice selection of desktop environments and window managers, I think can make a lot of them pretty, too. ;)

Sure, but... (4)

Booker (6173) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633434)

... I think he is right to criticize them for saying one thing, but doing another, in an effort to get some free publicity and/or damage a competitor.

I too am a firm believer that the author of a piece of work has the right to distribute it under any license they choose.

However, announcing to the world that you're going to open up your source - when the world is just finally learning what that means - but actually "opening" it in a very closed and restricted way - is disingenuous, and deserves criticism.

Linux Riot (2)

dattaway (3088) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633436)

Wow. You just type that all in?

This [one.net] is a riot in a more digestible format that may describe the fustration towards big evil software companies.

Re:What the hell? (1)

named (3909) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633437)

He's not criticizing them for choosing their own license, he's criticizing them for choosing a not-so-open license and calling it open source.

slight difference, but important.

It's privately held (2)

aheitner (3273) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633438)

"...his [Torvalds'] company..." is just an expression.

This is all speculation, of course: I'm sure they gave Linus a nice chunk of stock, but he doesn't own all of it or even a controlling interest. It doesn't seem to me he'd want one.

Paul Allen was a founder, right? He's prolly got a nice big chunk.

Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source (5)

Effugas (2378) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633439)

People seem to be getting into this "good enough" attitude regarding whether Sun's Community Source License is open or not.

It Just Isn't, and here's why.

StarOffice, recently licensed under Sun's Community Source terms(so I've heard), possesses an excellent charting component. While the GD Library is good for many tasks, the charting component of StarOffice is clearly superior, and would be inordinately useful for the myriad Linux/Unix based web servers out there.

Unfortunately, Sun's license restricts any productive work from being done that could web-enable StarOffice on the server side. Apache could never be bundled with mod_starchart, and fellow coders can't put out their own, less memory hungry versions of the component.

The only thing Sun lets you do with StarOffice is fix problems for them, and if Sun doesn't want the problems fixed, the most you can do is release a bulky and semi-difficult to apply patch to repair it.

I believe they even end up owning your patch as well.

Now, StarOffice appears to be a very well put together app, and I don't want to slight it for its licensing terms. But the bottom line is: StarOffice is not Open Source. It's nothing like Open Source. Using the words "Community Source" is a cynical and slimy attempt to undermine the core advantages of the open model. While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk(and thus, extortable circumstance) should they do anything at all with the code beyond mailing in fixes.

Sun's License means no web charting component for you. It's that simple.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

Retarded online banking ? (1)

hu (69214) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633440)


Silicon Valley is supposed to be the center of the
universe when it comes to technology," he said. "It's a third-world country." Torvalds cited online banking, saying it's still a slow, and often paper-based, process.


On the other hand, he quipped, Finnish companies are working on advanced technology because "winters are long and dark. There's nothing else to do."


I dont know about online banking in Silicon Valley, but some of my friends were mighty amused when about 2 years ago they read the news that a major bank in Japan was first to launch continuous availability for its cash dispensers (meaning they are open 8-19 monday to friday :)


Here we were all used to the luxury of all major banks having 24/7 availability in that sector for several years already. The same for online banking.


And we are not even Finland but a 5 times smaller country (Estonia) next to it, that had been annected by Soviet Union from 1940-1990. (We do speak a language that is quite similar to Finnish though, and like them have near 100% literacy attributed most likely to not dubbing foreign movies but instead presenting the translations in written form in the lower part of picture ;)


I suspect that the announcemant by the Japanese bank was a little innacurate, but even the ability to make such a statement seemed to indicate some to some degree the state electronic banking.


It would be interesting to hear peoples comments on the state of online banking in both Americas, Europe and Asia.

That's not the problem. (3)

FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633441)

First, not everyone is criticizing Sun because they aren't open. They are criticizing Sun because they IMPLYING they are open ("Community License", indeed) when they really aren't.

Second, why can't I criticize Sun's choice of license? They are a business providing a product. If I don't like the product I am free to explain why. Example: You buy a car from GM and it turns out they covered the interior body with cheap plastic that cracked a few years after the purchase date. Would you say "he who makes the car picks the interior body design"? Or would you complain about poor manufacturing?
---

talk is indeed cheap (1)

barooo (72078) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633453)

Talk is indeed cheap, but since open source or free software don't fit anywhere in traditional business models (not only are they not a piece in the box with the other jigsaw puzzle pieces, they're in another aisle completely. Maybe even a different store), it's a rational response from corporations. Rational -> Right is not necessarily true.

Maybe in a few years, if genuine openness proves (as many here think it will) to be a profitable, genuine business model, then corporations will start to come around. If not, expect them to follow the money. What else can they do?

What's to dodge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633456)

He actually mentioned in a presentation I attended last year that Transmeta would be manufacturing processors last year. No surprises.

Re:What's to dodge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633461)

s/last year\.//

Right On Linus!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633463)

Right on Brother Linus!!

Re:yeah (0)

penguinboy (35085) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633464)

I hate it when companies release stuff under pseudo-open licenses ( like SCSL). Idiots think the compaines are heroic, but it's a joke.

Re:Third world country (1)

g.liche (99325) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633467)

I wouldn't characterize the use of checks as a fault of Silicon Valley, but rather of the banks and companies involved. You as a consumer have the right to make your opinion heard- if your bank doesn't offer direct debit, complain! Similarly, if a company that you do business with does not handle direct debit, complain! Maybe then they'll wake up and join the 21st century.

Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source (0)

Effugas (2378) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633468)

People seem to be getting into this "good enough" attitude regarding whether Sun's Community Source License is open or not.

It Just Isn't, and here's why.

StarOffice, recently licensed under Sun's Community Source terms(so I've heard), possesses an excellent charting component. While the GD Library is good for many tasks, the charting component of StarOffice is clearly superior, and would be inordinately useful for the myriad Linux/Unix based web servers out there.

Unfortunately, Sun's license restricts any productive work from being done that could web-enable StarOffice on the server side. Apache could never be bundled with mod_starchart, and fellow coders can't put out their own, less memory hungry versions of the component.

The only thing Sun lets you do with StarOffice is fix problems for them, and if Sun doesn't want the problems fixed, the most you can do is release a bulky and semi-difficult to apply patch to repair it.

I believe they even end up owning your patch as well.

Now, StarOffice appears to be a very well put together app, and I don't want to slight it for its licensing terms. But the bottom line is: StarOffice is not Open Source. It's nothing like Open Source. Using the words "Community Source" is inappropriate at best; their license unfortunately undermines the core advantages of the open model. While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk(and thus, extortable circumstance) should they do anything at all with the code beyond mailing in fixes.

Sun's License means no web charting component for you. It's that simple.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

sun's community licence and GPL (2)

sh_mmer (63202) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633469)

guys, the slashdot community is not so huge that they can dictate what it means for something to be 'open source'. some of you may think that it is not enough for a company to merely publish their code. for you, they must give up all of their rights to the intellectual property which they paid for the development of. this is truly disingenuous.

by comparison, the GPL restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it--even if consumers would readily pay for it. please learn that it is not always that what is good for companies is bad for people!

MS probably won't release it (0)

battery841 (34855) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633470)

I don't see MS releasing the Windows source code for two reasons. Although, they go hand in hand.
1) They have those precious secret API's which they use. I don't know if they'd want that out.
2) It wouldn't surprize me if MS ripped code from other companies (Apple, etc.). If they opened up the OS, then they would be saying 'WE COPIED CODE!!!'

Re:talk is indeed cheap (1)

barooo (72078) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633471)

The crucial point you make is that what is really not so clear to businesses is that open source can be a viable product of a business.

I'd say it's obvious that viable business models for free software exist (the support model (ala redhat) being the most obvious and oft-discussed). But, these models are radically different for models used in the software industry, and must look somewhat alien to a microsoft or a sun (witness the "community source license"), when they think of the software itself as being their core asset.

Until it becomes obvious, through prior example, that a company can thrive as a company that produces software, and be compliant with all the principles of Open Source software, few big companies with a vested interest in the proprietary/ownership model are going to do anything other than posture and try to 'jump on the bandwagon.'

I see the trend as moving towards software as a service/commodity rather than as a product. That's probably not exactly a blinding revelation. But with examples like redhat, IBM, mozilla and such, it should become more apparant to the corporate mindset that this idea can work.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Exanter (2171) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633472)

Sure, maybe. But for him to legitmately do that, there has to be a clearly defined and industry accepted meaning of open source. Otherwise, that term will go the way of "hacker", and pretty soon won't mean anything.

And that still doesn't take care of the peons who are criticizing sun not for calling it "open source" (have they done that?), but for the license not being open enough...

Open source is not an end in itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633473)

Not all software needs to be open source, and a lot of it would get zero attention from anyone in the "open source community" even if it were. If a piece of software is a part of the operating system then it must be open source software or there can't be a level playing field for commercial companies. If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement. The main thrust of this movement is driven by the commercial requirement that no one company be able to control the means to the success of any other company. We are all aware of the danger to everyone from one company controlling all of the marbles. Even if the company is as great and benevolent as they would have you believe. Before you get all wet about some company releasing open source software, figure out whether or not the software they are offering is important for the correct operation of other parts of the system. If not, then who cares? If so, then don't be fooled by some bull.... open source license which is just a trick to squeeze themselves into your wallet.

Well.. (1)

Kitsune Sushi (87987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633474)

"That MS guy" doesn't work there. He helped fund the founding of the company IIRC. Not exactly the same thing. Linus Torvalds, however, is indeed an employee.

If you're really interested in finding out all you can about Transmeta, I'd imagine doing a search on Google or Slashdot for "Transmeta" would give you a good amount of information. Personally, I'd choose the latter. You can read all the "relavent" articles and see all the wild-eyed speculation, as well.

Re:The real reason why no one would care.. (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633475)

> How many of us would prefer going back, slashing, then completely reworking all of the code for Windows so that it is actually a viable, stable operating system that does something useful besides, well, look pretty?

Actually I probably WOULD hack on the Windows codebase(s) because then I could finally fix that damn NT 4 memory leak which SP5 STILL doesn't fix!
(And maybe hacking DirectX 6 into NT4 would be nice too for all those stupid games that require Winblows95/98 and DX5 ;-)

It's kind of interesting that we have already have a few Open Source Projects of MS's Operating Systems and APIs:
http://www.reactos.com
http://www.freedos.org
http://www.winehq.com/

Cheers

Why no direct billpay in SV (2)

FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633496)

Disclaimer: I don't live or work in Silicon Valley, but I AM a programmer at a bank.

Here's the reason SV doesn't have the advanced banking tech: because programmers know better.

I HATE direct bill pay systems. There's no way in hell I'm letting Vast Conglomerate A ask Vast Bank B for some of my money. Trying to fix a problem would combine the worst aspects of dealing with a teller and calling tech support. There would be no way of fixing it short of closing the account--and even then I probably would never see that one payment again.

I ALWAYS opt for the "bill me" or "check only" option. If there is no such option, I do without the service. If I can't do without the service (cf. my recent cable modem purchase) I keep bugging the company by asking when I can stop the auto-debiting.
---

Re:Third world country (2)

Jamie Zawinski (775) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633497)

One of my pet peeves is that people over here *still* use cheques to pay all their bills instead of direct funds transfer. I'd almost forgotten how to write a cheque before I moved here, but hardly anyone does direct debit so I'm forever writing the things out and stuffing them in envelopes (not post-paid of course).

Get a different bank! Both Wells Fargo and Bank of America let you pay any bills online, and those are the two most common banks in the Bay Area. I'm sure many others do as well.

The way it works behind the scenes is that they'll do an electronic transfer for those payees who can accept it, and they'll print and mail a check for you for those who can't (the first check I had them write was for $1 to myself, just so I could see what the paper copy looked like...)

Long Live OSS!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633498)

We will all be truely thankful when Open Source has eliminated all other forms of software. This would indeed be a Great Step Forward for choice.

Re:Why no direct billpay in SV (2)

Jamie Zawinski (775) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633499)

Here's the reason SV doesn't have the advanced banking tech: because programmers know better.

Well, but it does, because all these banks are national. There's nothing special about SV.

But anyway, I think it's safe to say that no large company's business decisions are ever influenced by reasons like ``because the programmers know better.'' You must work at a very unusual place if that's how they operate there.

I HATE direct bill pay systems. There's no way in hell I'm letting Vast Conglomerate A ask Vast Bank B for some of my money.

Who says you have to let them ask? Instead of letting the recipient pull, you instruct your bank to periodically push. That way you only have one vast conglomerate capable of screwing you over (and it's one who already had the capability to screw you over anyway, since they already have all of your money.)

A sense of history.... (2)

FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633500)

If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement. The main thrust of this movement is driven by the commercial requirement that no one company be able to control the means to the success of any other company.

How soon we forget! The Open Source movement (note capital letters) is the fringe movement to the Free Software Foundation that was started 15 years ago. The main thrust of which is decidedly not about protecting companies from one another.

Before you get all wet about some company releasing open source software, figure out whether or not the software they are offering is important for the correct operation of other parts of the system. If not, then who cares?

I care. Even if there is some software the the "other parts of the system" aren't affected by, I will be affected by non-correct operation. Therefore I want every piece of software I use to be open source.
---

Re:leave linux alone (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633501)

He probably doesn't know stuff about Transmeta.

Does anybody seriously think Linus is high-ranking in that company? Hell, he's a good hacker, but Transmeta could probably get the best benefit for having him on the payroll from keeping him out in a plexiglass case in the lobby.

Re:torvalds retiring? (1)

CommanderTaco (85921) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633502)

You know what I meant... (too used to typing in linux at that lilo prompt)... the first line of the story claimed linus is retiring, something I haven't heard before.

Re:MS OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633504)

Now don't be picking on Netscape.

They're doing bad enough as it is...

Re:Why no direct billpay in SV (1)

FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633505)

I'm not saying Bank of America looked at SV and said "Man, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of them smart programmer dudes, let's don't even try to scam them with automatic billpay". I'm saying that programmers in SV, being smart and mroe to the point-knowledgeable, have largely opted to not USE the automatic billpay, meaning banks (and vendors, don't forget vendors) don't offer it anymore (if they ever did).

As for push versus pull: True, it cuts down on the NUMBER of companies doing the screwing, but it still increases the chances that a screwing will occur. If every transaction against my account MUST pass through my hands to get posted, I have a lot more control and information.

Let's put it this way: I don't weld the hood down on my software, my car or my bank accounts.
---

This is a welcome change in Linus! (3)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633516)

Remember the Linus of the bad old days when Qt had a non-OSD-compliant license? The Linus who said "whoever writes the code gets to make the license" and seemed to be mostly unconcerned regarding whether or not some Linux component would be Free Software or not?

Well, I like today's Linus a lot more than the old one.

Am I alone in percieving a change? Would anyone like to speculate on what brought it about?

Thanks

Bruce

Re:The real reason why no one would care.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633517)

The people who overuse "hack" as a verb probably would be bewildered to have to work on a project where there is:

1. Management
2. Usability Design
3. A Decade of Apps they can't break.
4. Deadlines

You can hack your way into a jungle. You can hack together a workbench out of odd two-by-fours. You can hack together a driver for a piece of three year old hardware.

You can't hack together a swiss watch. You can't hack together a hard drive. You can't hack together the firmware for a hard drive.

My cat can hack out a hairball, though.

Re:It's privately held (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633518)

Linus' job is probably to talk nice to everybody and get them all to work together well.

That's his main redeeming value to the Linux kernel.

Why Open Source? (2)

m3000 (46427) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633519)

I'm just asking for flames by posting this, but I'm curious, why would a company want to go open source? I mean, a company is ONLY in existence to make money, and if it happens to be a software company (let's say Microsoft for some interesting "discussion" hehehe) that's means their cheif product is software. How do you intended to make more money, by giving out something for free? Yes, you can make money with support, but why not make money with support AND software? Or say I make "Really nify program 2000". I could
A: Give it out for free and have other people improve it
or
B: Sell it for X dollars and go buy some new computer hardware.
I personally would take the computer hardware anyday. Sure, my software could get better, but I'll remain poor. I know that some of you will say that I should code because I like to code, but I like to eat too. Am I selfish, probally, but I think most of the world is too. Another example, Red Hat. Yes, they are succesfull, but think about if they weren't open source, and made you buy their "Red Hatix". Then they could get even more money then they did by just selling "Red Hatix" to people who were new to "Red Hatix". I guess I just don't understand why someone would OS their software, when they could sell it. I think it's this thinking that keeps most companies from going Open Source, they don't see (like me) what's in it for them, financially.

PS. Please don't call me a c*ck sucking *sswhore because I don't see the point of Open Source, it only pushes me (and other who are still undecided) farther and farther away from it. Fight my "stupidy" with facts, not FUD.

Re:Why no direct billpay in SV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633520)

You're fooling yourself. Using paper checks doesn't get you away from EFT and, worse, it increases your reliance on the USPS. Banks use the same check clearing house to transfer funds that electronic bill paying services use. Did you really think that your payee's bank hand-carried and verified delivery of your check to your bank? Using EFT minimizes the intervention of human stupidity in your funds transfer.

Ok, so "everyone" is a little broad sweeping.. (1)

Kitsune Sushi (87987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633521)

..but I seriously doubt "open sourcing" Windows would go a very long way toward making it a more viable OS than the alternatives. Too messy. I'm sure there would be some interest, however, due to a variety of reasons. :)

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus! (3)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633522)

But the old Qt license was "free but not free enough" too, so I am seeing a different reaction to a similar situation. I agree that Sun is attempting to blur the boundary between Open Source and non-Open-Source.

Honest proprietary software that doesn't represent itself as something it isn't and doesn't use strategies that block the creation of an Open Source equivalent is nicer than non-Open-Source software representing itself as Open Source.

Actually, I'm trying to get to have an argument with Bill Joy. There's someone who knows him and is trying to arrange that. Scott McNeally can come after Bill Joy.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source (2)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633523)

While Sun is allowed to derive benefit from the community, the community is placed in a state of perpetual legal risk

Did it occur to you that perhaps the "community" referred to in the Community Source Licence is not the same community that comprises the Linux/GNU user base? Just because they mention "community" and "source", there is no reason to make the egotistical leap that they are talking about the "Open Source Community".

There is a very large, and very valid community that can benefit from Sun's SCSL. Namely people who depend on Sun products and don't give a shit about redistribution or forking or winning the hearts and minds of Linux users. If that's not you, why should you care? Source for Solaris can mean bugfixes today and not when Sun gets around to it, allows more code optimization, makes it easier to write device drivers, and so on.

(Note - Same argument goes for those who flame Apple's source licence.)

Furthermore, you appear to be demanding that Sun should start giving away commercial software simply because it would be useful to you and others. Why pick on Sun's SCSL chart module? Why not demand the dozens of other commercial closed source chart programs (like MS Excel)? Are you trying to flame Sun until they GPL all of their software just because the SCSL makes them seem amenable?

Re:Open source is not an end in itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633524)

The main thrust of this movement is driven by the commercial requirement that no one company be able to control the means to the success of any other company.

What utopian little flower-land did you grow up in?

I mean, really. That isn't a commercial requirement. It never has been a commercial requirement.

It may be the "main thrust" of whatever movement you're ranting about. Whatever.

Re:talk is indeed cheap (1)

Rombuu (22914) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633525)

Take, for example, a company that sells plumbing supplies wholesale, and provides Free software to its customers to manage specialized plumbing equipment inventory. If you were a plumbing supplies retailer, the availability of this software and its acceptance by said company adds to the value of the proposition of purchasing and managing your supplies from this corporation.

If you are adding value for someone else, and not charging for it, then you are an idiot. Yes, I know free means you can charge for it, yada yada yada, this leads to the correlary: If there is free software out there and you pay for it, you are also an idiot.

Re:Why Open Source? (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633526)

On the surface of it, you're basically correct. There isn't a whole lot of motivation to go Open Source as long as your product continues to sell very well. But when the competition starts heating up and you're losing market share to the Open Source competition, that's when it begins to make sense. Or equivalently, as Open Source becomes the dominant paradigm (I've been waiting to say that all day) in various sectors of the software industry, companies will be forced to go Open Source in order to get any users. For example, why did Sun just decide to SCSL Solaris? Not out of charity, or because they would rather not sell their software. They are simply having their hand forced (albeit slowly) by the consumers' increasing expectations of having source code for their OS. Or for example, why did (I forget the name of the software company) release CUPS (Common Unix Printing System) under the GPL instead of just trying to sell the thing? Well, because they are trying to compete with a bunch of existing Free software products. In order to get any interest from their target market, they had to follow that course. Some markets are still clear of viable Open Source / GPL competition, such as the office software suite market, where Corel, Microsoft, and StarOffice are the only real products out there. When more viable Open Source alternatives are out there, there will be increased pressure on some of these players to Open Source their software (in a more meaningful way than SCSL).

Re:torvalds retiring? (1)

qwerjkl (97170) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633527)

Uh... retiring does not mean he is giving up the work. Retiring in THIS context is an ADJECTIVE to mean he shies away from the spotlight.

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus! (1)

nas (29935) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633528)

Well, they can use whatever license they like. However, the choice of license determines how useful the code will be. In the case of Sun's license, I don't see to many people spending effort to improve Solaris. Their effort is much better spend contributing to Linux or *BSD.

Getting the benefits of open source (free) software does not come by just letting people look at your source code. It is about giving up some control over your code. Big companies like Sun and Microsoft will have a hard time with this idea.

I am happy to see Linus pointing out how free these new licenses really are. The general public could be mislead into believing that if Sun releases the code to Solaris then there is no difference between Linux and Solaris, freedom wise.

Re:sun's community licence and GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633529)

uhh no , if that were true you wouldn't see products like RedHat, Suse or any other distribution. You are free to charge for GPL'd software, you merely have to abide by the terms of the GPL. Try reading the license. [gnu.org] If Sun or some other company wants to publish their source , more power to them. If they want to gain the advantages of open source and join the community of open source as defined by GNU/Linux advocates thats even better. -Cheers

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus! (1)

Etyenne (4915) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633530)

...mean that Solaris is libre. (ouvre?)

You mean ouvert, open.

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source (2)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633531)

If this is the case then sun should stop deceiving people into thinking that this is open source. Whenever Sun talks to the press ...

You are going to have to provide a reference to prove that - I couldn't find one.

Sun's standard PR bit on SCSL says:

The CSL model is the result of Sun's continued commitment to the open development of key technologies, and is based on Sun's community source principles, which include immediate open access, increased innovation, faster commercialization, and access for students.

ZDNet (referenced by /. a few days ago) makes the comparision with Linux, but they're ZDNet, not Sun. They quote someone from Sun:

At the end of the day, the issue is how you allow innovation, but also have a reasonable process by which the community sticks together on the core as it evolves," said Anil Gadre, general manager of Sun's Solaris division.

Neither statement looks like an appeal for the support from Open Source (TM) advocates or developers. AFAIK, they didn't enlist Eric Raymond or make any appeals to Linux developers.

And, they will probably get some free labor, although it will be from commercial developers and hardware manufacturers, not the OSS crowd. Which makes sense, because by-in-large Sun doesn't make any money from the OSS crowd, so why should they care?

Re:What the hell? (1)

Zagato-sama (79044) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633532)

Because Open Source is good! Or...something! Yeah! It's the hot new hip word around the software world. No, don't take into account that 99% of the users don't even bother looking at the code, much less understand it. It's simply a matter of using that spiffy two words "Open" and "Source" ..."look ma! my source is open!" "That's nice dear" I'm wishing all these companies would grow some balls and say "screw you" to Linux and move on to working on porting stuff to operating systems where the userbase doesn't whine and complain all the time. Hint hint BeOS. We don't care if your code is open or closed, free or commercial. We just want it to work for us ;)

Linus cares about linux (1)

vipw (228) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633533)

Linus is more of a politically minded person, and cares more about linux than he does opensource, when trolltech release qt under the half free licence linus didn't see that as something that harmed linux, but rather helped it, he, probably correctly, assumed that pushing the point would simply piss of the developers which would have worse effects than having a sorta free qt. today's situation is much different, sun's licence really does nothing to help linux(other than the ocasional bugfix to SO), and linus obviously sees that. Until sun is an ally instead of just the enemy of our enemy, we have no reason to support sun, and who knows, maybe bitching about it will make them change their licence.

ps. i personally dislike thinking of MS as our enemy, but i think that is how the majority of the community sees it.

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633534)

Actually, I'm trying to get to have an argument with Bill Joy.

They're usually called "debates", to avoid the negative connotations with the word "argument".

Re:sun's community licence and GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633545)

You miss the point. If opening the code is for nothing more than trying to con people into creating free bug fixes, then it isn't open at all. Sun can choose whatever license they want, just don't pretend it is something it isn't. Further, your claim that the GPL "restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it" demonstrates that you really don't get the GPL. The GPL prevents companies from taking GPL'ed code, making modifications and then selling it back =without the source=. If what you claim was true, then Red Hat wouldn't be selling $80 boxes of Linux.

Re:MS OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633546)

Now don't be picking on Netscape.



They're doing bad enough as it is...

Re:It's privately held (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633547)

Linus' job is probably to talk nice to everybody and get them all to work together well.



That's his main redeeming value to the Linux kernel.

Am I some sort of magnet.. (1)

Kitsune Sushi (87987) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633548)

..for clueless replies? I never addressed the issue of who owned the fscking company. Paul Allen is not an employee , and guess what? That's all I said!! Get a clue. Respond to a post where what you said is even vaguely relavent.

This post that I'm replying to is one of the shining examples of why I flame people. If more humans put that "vaunted intellect" of theirs to good use before shooting their mouths off, I wouldn't feel so inclined to refer to them as total idiots.

Open Source Wannabies? (2)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633549)

Uhm, Hello?

Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me, modify me, and turn me into whatever you want"

Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct results from the code, in commercial and non commercial aspects.

GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't be used in a commercial package.

Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or the FSF is gonna get your money.

Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what it was about.

i didn't think stealing was the issue.. why else would you want to use something you had absolutely no part of in the development cycle.

Linux is a community project, its built from the ground up for whatever reason people see fit to spend there own time on. Solaris was built from the ground up to be a Commercial OS, and for SUN to maintain its support, its quality of service, and its confidence of the customers and vice versa, they feel they *NEED* complete control of THERE OS.

Sun is 100% a commercial company, selling a hardware and software based solution from workstations to enterprise class database servers. I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of an OS glitch.

This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well call this slashcensord.org

All wrong. (4)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633550)

the slashdot community is not so huge that they can dictate what it means for something to be 'open source'

The Open Source community has broadly accepted the Open Source definition, and we really don't like people trying to re-define Open Source for their own selfish purposes. As a community, we are big enough to give Sun a real problem in the market as their customers jump ship to Linux en masse. The SCSL is a band-aid that might reduce the hemmorage of users, but won't cure it. Sun needs to get over its Microsoft paranoia - the only reason for the SCSL is to keep Microsoft from stealing the show.

by comparison, the GPL restricts companies from developing software based on GPL stuff and selling it

No, it doesn't.

What the GPL does is enforce a quid-pro-quo. Take the example of my Electric Fence malloc() debugger. I give the product and source code away to anyone who asks, and I allow people to sell it. If you want to develop something based on it without paying me, you must give the source code away to anyone who asks, and you must allow people to sell it. If you want to do it under a commercial license without giving it away or giving people source code, you give me some money and I give you another license than the GPL.

What you are looking for is something more one-sided, where I give the software away, but someone else can take it, not give me any money, add their own changes, and then sell the result without giving me back the changes or giving anyone the source code. As the original author, what possible reason would I have for making myself someone's dupe - a sort of unpaid employee who gets no benefits - that way?

In general, free software authors write free software so that there will be more free software. They aren't interested in facilitating non-free software unless there is some obvious benefit to free software or themselves, and I can't think of why they should be interested in that.

Thanks

Bruce

Huh? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633552)

Sun's License means no web charting component for you. It's that simple.

What you really mean is that there is no free lunch. Nobody's stopping you from writing your own web charting component, or (gasp!) paying someone else to write one for them. It's called capitalism, and it works. Whining that someone else won't give you their property for free, is well, whining.

Re:sun's community licence and GPL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633554)

Companies don't have to give up their IP rights, but some companies (ie. Sun) are claming IP rights to other people's code. They can use any license that they want, but they shouldn't be surprised when nobody is contributing code. If I write code for an open source program, I don't want someone else saying thay they own it and taking away *my* rights. The point of open source software is to allow everyone to contribute, without any one person/company being in control.

People are also free to sell GPL software, as long as they also provide a free version. Customers can pay for it if they want (Haven't you ever seen a boxed set of Linux in a store?).

Re:The real reason why no one would care.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633556)

Actually I probably WOULD hack on the Windows codebase(s) because then I could finally fix that damn NT 4 memory leak which SP5 STILL doesn't fix! (And maybe hacking DirectX 6 into NT4 would be nice too for all those stupid games that require Winblows95/98 and DX5 ;-)

If you actually had the Windows source code (under an unrestrictive license), you could port the Windows API to Linux (or any open source OS) - this would definitely help with the WINE project. It would also mean that *no* game would require Windows to run.

Re:Sun's License Is Just Not Open Source (1)

Malcontent (40834) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633558)

If this is the case then sun should stop deceiving people into thinking that this is open source. Whenever Sun talks to the press they talk as if their licence is open source. Nobody is saying give me software for free what we are saying is. 1) stop lying to the press and the public. 2) Don't expect much from us.
I still think some people will end up working for sun for free but I don't think it will be many people at all

leave linux alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633565)

everyone knows that he cant say stuff about transmeta

Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633566)

The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that?

MS OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633567)

Maybe MS is trying to get the world to fix its broken code for free and leech from the community and thus steal our souls as well as our dignity ClusterSnarf (My login didnt work)

Oh well (1)

warmi (13527) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633570)

He may criticize them but to tell the truth, they have a right to do whatever they want.
They own the software - "own" the magic word that makes whole world going.
There is no proven better business model than that ...

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633572)

The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technologically-underveloped countries. A violent Luddite movement organizes, conducting a rash of terrorist attacks against technological targets and facilities. This is more Katz nonsense. Economics doesn't work that way. For starters, no one is going to be "deprived of technology." Computer prices are dropping so fast that pretty soon literally anyone will be able to afford one every couple of years. And even if parents are computer-illiterate, this does not preclude their kids from becoming skilled. Furthermore, the vision of being "increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs" is exactly wrong. The trend of the last hundred years has been liberating people from that kind of job. At the turn of the century, nearly everyone was either a farmer or a factory worker. This has changed, as machines have taken over those menial jobs and freed workers for more challenging tasks. The idea that machines will replace us all is similarly nonsense. Human labor is the most universally valuable commodity in existence. The reason that workers are replaced by machines is that those workers are too expensive. This means that mechanization is the result of an increased standard of living. It works the other way too. The ultimate determiner of wages is productivity. As more capital is accumulated, people are more productive and so employers are forced to pay them more to keep them. You'll notice that people in those menial jobs are typically either recent immigrants or in their teens or twenties. That's because anyone with any ambition can acquire enough skills that, even if they can't live well, they can get a job that allows them to live comfortably. The march of technology *has* improved our lives, and that's true of pretty much every sector of society. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want trade places with someone in a similar social situation 100 years ago. If they did, those people will almost certainly end up working 12-hour shifts in factories or dawn-to-usk jobs on farms. Who wants that? The bloody Technology Wars break out. Small-scale but violent conflicts erupt in many cities as technology-deprived Americans, increasingly condemned to poorly-paying menial jobs or displaced completely by computing technologies, stage riots. This unrest spreads to Third World and technological

Re:Seriously now.. (0)

Frank Sullivan (2391) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633573)

No, the purpose of Linux is to pool our resources so we can build one giant penis that everyone can use at once, and customize to our own needs!

That, and to make Microsoft's penis smaller. But, with a name like Microsoft... :}

Maybe i should just go back to promiscuous packet-sniffing...

---
Maybe that's just the price you pay for the chains that you refuse.

Re:talk is indeed cheap (5)

sterwill (972) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633575)

This isn't true. Open Source software (in a GPL-sense, even) fits perfectly well with many, many existing business models. Open Source software as a product of business does not fit with existing proprietary software business.

Free software (Open Source products) may or may not generate revenue directly (consulting is just one established business model in which Free software can pay the bills), but that doesn't mean that it can't make existing services or products more attractive. Take, for example, a company that sells plumbing supplies wholesale, and provides Free software to its customers to manage specialized plumbing equipment inventory. If you were a plumbing supplies retailer, the availability of this software and its acceptance by said company adds to the value of the proposition of purchasing and managing your supplies from this corporation. The fact that this software is Free allows this company's customers to tailor and customize it for point-of-sale workstations, integration with payroll or other inventory systems, etc.

Red Hat is an example of a company that exists in that orthogonal world, as you mentioned. But to say Free software does not fit anywhere in "traditional business models" is ignoring centuries' traditions of marketing, customer relations, and a services-driven economy.

--

What if MS opened Windows source?? (1)

RNG (35225) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633578)

While I sincerely doubt that this will happen anytime soon, even if Microsoft would open their source code, I personally would not care much. Knowning MS, I guess we can assume that they won't really go open source; it will be some sort of community licence, along the lines of what Sun is doing. All this really boils down to, is that it's still their source code. As such, response would at best be lukewarm and probably ignored alltogether by the open source community.

Even if MS released their sources under the GPL (big chance of that happening before hell freezes over), so what? I work in what's basically a Windows-only environment and have grown to pretty much hate Windows and it's features. If I could, I would turn my back on Windows and never look back. I could care less about MS's source code as I'd rather avoid Windows alltogether, in both source and binary form ...

No, but... (0)

FascDot Killed My Pr (24021) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633579)

No, using Linux won't make your penis larger. BUT, by not knuckling under to Microsoft it is easier to present yourself as an Alpha Geek to Geek Hotties. So using Linux can make your penis more in demand, which is really the outcome we want anyway, right?
---

SCSL != GPL -- no one said it did. (1)

MidKnight (19766) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633585)

I'm sure this won't be popular, but I've got to take issue with Torvolds on bashing Sun's CSL. It isn't meant to be an Open Source initiative. Loosely put, it is there so that people building stuff around Sun technology don't have to pay licensing fees during the development process. Period. To quote:

"SCSL provides a more flexible process for gaining access to technology that allows tool vendors, chip designers, commercial OEMs, universities and research organizations access to the picoJavaTM and SPARCTM microprocessor source files without fees during the initial evaluation and development phases. "

To criticize SCSL's language for being too restrictive (in relation to OSS) is just plain silly. It's like a Guiness drinker decrying O'Douls because it's a non-alcolholic brew... sheesh.

--Mid

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus! (2)

chromatic (9471) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633586)


I'm not so sure it's a change.

I tend to think of this Linus as the one who says "Whoever writes the code gets to make the license" followed by "but shouldn't lie about the license terms in order to capitalize on the hard work lots of people have already done to make the World A Better Place." The second part just wasn't necessary before.

At least, that's my understanding of what he said. I don't speak for Linus Torvalds or my employers or many other people.

As a side note, maybe you ought to call up Scott MacNealy and remind him that being able to look at some source code doesn't necessarily mean that Solaris is libre. (ouvre?)

--
QDMerge [rmci.net] 0.4 just released!

From the fringe (2)

jflynn (61543) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633587)

"If you think open source software is something that has some thread of ethical or moral content, then consider yourself a "fringe" element of the open source movement."

I guess I'm way out there on the fringe then, because I believe *most* actions have a moral or ethical component, albeit small, including the choice of license for a project.

I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say only open source licenses are ethical or moral, but they *do* help convince me the company is interested in the good of their customers as well as their pocketbooks. That kind of thing used to be called business ethics, back when it was in vogue. Companies were said to have a good reputation when they acted ethically, and they spent considerable time maintaining that reputation.

Open source licenses promote freedom and choice, encourage open standards, make software available to more people, increase quality, and help prevent monopolies. I consider these social goods, and therefore give open source licenses a moral and ethical plus. I am *not* saying that closed source software is evil, more like neutral, except in the case of licenses that egregiously exploit end users or interfere with consumer choice.

??Re:This is a welcome change in Linus! (2)

Monty Worm (7264) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633588)

Ummm. Bruce. Not quite.

Linus doesn't seem to have changed his mind at all. What he seems to be saying (to me, anyway) is: "Either be a wolf, or a sheep. But don't play dress-up. Don't pretend to be open-source if your licence is really non-free".

It's a valuable point. If you write your own license, you shouldn't pretend it's free if it isn't. It brings everything down.

As for Microsoft's push to make parts of Windows free: I think they've missed the point. We need the whole to be free, or nothing. If only inbuilt, interdependent components are free then we still can't do anything.

Re:Third world country (1)

Sand_Man (81150) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633589)

Hold the phone here folks. Banks aren't the ones promoting and encouraging the use of checks. We much prefer wire transfers and ACH transactions. Checks are a pain. They require huge capital investments in check readers and processing equipment, and many man-hours to handle all that stuff. It really sucks. Not that we haven't figured out how to do all that and make a profit, but we could make the same money at a lower cost to consumers if payments were electronic. Checks are still so common because consumers want them.

Re:This is a welcome change in Linus! (1)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633590)

I'm glad somebody else noted this too. My speculation would be that Linux has gained so much popular recognition, that Linus has come to the realization this recognition is not just there due to the technical merits of the Linux kernel, but due to the general merits of Open Source (Free) software. Moreover, I think the attempts of some companies to pass off as Open Source entirely non-OSD software are a fairly new phenomenon, which comes directly from the popularity and PR value of Free/Open Source software and Linux. Linus still may not feel to different than he did before, but may simply take offense at people claiming to be something they are not, and jumping on the bandwagon in such a way as to make the bandwagon tip over. On the other hand, who knows, maybe working at Transmeta has done something to the man's brain. :)

Re:Why Open Source? (3)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633591)

There has certainly been a lot written about the "why". Try Eric Raymond's stuff at opensource.org [opensource.org]. Once you finish that, try my essay on the Open Source Definition [perens.com].

The short answer is that it is a better (faster, less buggy, more trustable) way to develop software. People can make money off of services, hardware, etc., rather than directly from sales of proprietary software, so they do that.

Bruce

The context is different (1)

Etyenne (4915) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633593)

Back then, Linux badly need more user-friendliness, end-user application and GUI. KDE was a step in that direction even if meant contaminating Linux distro with a closed-source licence. Now, there is more choice, both OSS and proprietary, so we can afford to be picky.

Basically, the balance of power is changing.

Re:Third world country (1)

starling (26204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633596)

>Get a different bank!

The bank isn't the problem; my bank does handle electronic transfer, but like you say it only works "for those payees who can accept it". In my experience they are few and far between.

Electric - no
Rent - nope
Insurance (all varieties) - nuh
Telcos - no
ISP - HAHAHAHA... of course not :-|

Maybe I'm just unlucky, and it's not really a big deal - I just find the contrast between hi-tech and low-down bureaucracy in the USA a bit odd, considering that so much else about the place is so advanced.

The free local calls make up for it all though :)

To Hack or not to Hack (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633597)

> The people who overuse "hack" as a verb probably would be bewildered to have to work on a project

I hope I'm not overusing "hack", but the reason I did is because I have my doubts that Winblows95/98 is an example of good software engineering, its more like a HACK job, or would that be better said as ONE_BIG_KLUDGE? ;-)

I'm a software engineer, and admist the Design Specs, and Software Engineering that I do, I also happen to HACK code. Hack in this case means Good. The Hack above has a bad conotation. Sorry for not being more clear.

Cheers

Er..Uh...His company? (1)

gothic (64149) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633605)

::Torvalds dodged questions about his company, a so-far top-secret Silicon Valley venture called Transmeta::

Who *does* actually own Transmeta? Or is the owner like the bad guy from the Inspector Gadget cartoon. And who else special works there? I know Linus and the MS guy, but what other well-known computer geeks are employeed by them?

Re:Linux (1)

CrosseyedPainless (27978) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633606)

Uhhh... next time you can't say "no" to the crack pipe, why not spout your screed to your own website, where it'll be (at least marginally) on-topic?

Re:yeah (1)

warmi (13527) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633607)

Heroic ?? What so damn heroic about releasing source code ?
It is only a business. Those who win count and so far it is MS that wins consistently ...

Any access to the source is better than none (4)

Foaf (1882) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633608)

There are a hell of a lot of Windows apps that proabably wouldn't have come about or been as useful without looking at the Windows source.

Citrix WinFrame comes to mind. IIRC Citrix did a deal with MS to get access to the source for Windows. This basically meant they could fix bugs more easily.

I've read various discussion groups where Sun developers are happy about Sun's decicision to open up Solaris because it will help them with their application developement. The same would go for Windows developers if MS, by some miracle, decided to let people see the source for Windows.

IMHO, the bulk of software developers, especially those who write for Windows, aren't really interested in helping maintain their OS of choice. They just want to make their software run better, with less bugs. Any access to OS source, no matter the license, will help them make this happen.
------------------------------------------------ -------

finland and technology (0)

thelonius (22561) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633610)

their cultural and economic hegemony has allowed finland to advance technologically at a rate which silicon valley, working under the constraints of the US's social problems, simply cannot sustain. (not that i'm unhappy living where i do, i feel that accepting the challenges of american life can enrich, and waiting 3 months for the latest gizmo is a small price to pay for diversity and tolerance.)
further reading:
Finland and the Future of Europe [eduskunta.fi]
The Rise and Fall of the "Swedish Model" [undp.org]

I forgot to add... (1)

sterwill (972) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633611)

...real-world examples.

Sun is a hardware company. They make money by selling reliable, scalable hardware to people who need it. As I see it, Sun could release Solaris under the GPL (contracts with other source code owners aside) and it would only serve to INCREASE sales of their hardware, and therefore their profits.

Sun has hundreds, maybe thousands, of reasons not to do this right now (mostly, I think, because they're greedy, uneasy with all software projects, and inexperienced in the Free software world), but not a single one of them is "the bits for the source code for Solaris weigh more than the bits for a proprietary binary release, and it would affect our bottom line (through increased shipping costs) to move towards open software."

--

Re:torvalds retiring? (1)

tweek (18111) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633612)

I don't think Linux will retire but LinuS might one day.
Not making fun just pointing out.

Re:Oh well (1)

Rambo (2730) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633634)

That may have a right to do whatever they want, but I object to the "open-ness" they're trying to take advantage of. Their "open" software is open like a supermarket is open. You can go in and handle or look at the goods, but don't try to go anywhere with them without paying! Truly open software gives you the right to modify and pass it around without restriction, something Sun's license fails miserably.

Re:Er..Uh...His company? (1)

Mark J Tilford (186) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633635)

I've heard that ddt of Linux Doom/Quake and founder of crack.com went there after crack.com went under.
-----------

Re:I forgot to add... (1)

warmi (13527) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633636)

If they are greedy then, according to your logic they should release as much code as possible since this will generate them more revenue. And by they way, being greedy is what makes business work.

Re:Seriously now.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1633637)

Would that be a Beopenis?

Is it licensed under the General Penis License?

(I'm so ashamed)

What the hell? (2)

Exanter (2171) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633638)

Why is it that everyone feels that is their right and duty to criticize businesses who decide to take a risk and open up their code (Apple, Sun, etc) because the licenses aren't what YOU feel they should be? Is everyone forgetting the saying "he who writes the code picks the license"? It would seem even Linus is forgetting that one now.

Cripes, we should be happy that they are even giving us a chance to look at source code. If you don't like the terms of the license, then for god's sake don't bother making changes... It's not like 95% of the people bitching could even make a change, much less understand half of what they would be looking at anyways.

Re:Seriously now.. (0)

caldroun (52920) | more than 14 years ago | (#1633639)

I dont believe that it will make your penis larger, but it wont reboot in the middle of a process.

:)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...