I thought Manny was smart enough for his own good... So I'll ride this one FWIW, so everyone please pardon me for making patol to Manny "Won't Pick On Someone My Own Size" of "phix.net".
On 12/22/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > I'm actually not afraid that it's true because it is true: you can > modify any Hello, World program to pretty much do anything you want. > You're the one displaying FUD here: you're afraid that it's true! :P Uh, it's also true that martians may invade the earth. Bwahaha!!! You're engaging in the ultimate FUDmeister's troll. There's a teeny bit of truth that someone can get a Hello World program and turn it into a full-blown competitor to Oracle, but I wouldn't hold my breath! In just the same way, the earth could open up and swallow me whole when I cross the street. But hey, I'm crossing the street.
The metaphors do not match: the earth opening up and swallowing you whole does not involve any direct intervention from you or someone else, and comparing it to a concerted effort to turn a "GPLed Hello, World" program into a "competitor to Oracle" (which I perceive should be a company but not a piece of software) is just plain stupid. Linux came from something that printed A's and B's on the terminal. A lot of software that is what it is now would have most probably come from a very simple program comparable to a "Hello World" program at the first time of writing -- time, effort, and motivation have turned them into whatever they are today. If the question is "can it be done?" the answer is most certainly YES. The other question of "is it practical to do it?" can be answered by an "it depends". To the close minded zealots that push Free and Open Source Software blindly by advocating just the freedom and ethical/moral grounds is doing a major disservice to the cause: because using and creating software is and should never be about ethics/morals but should be and is first and foremost a means to an end. I may not speak for others, but I write software because I see a problem that needs to get solved -- if I choose to derive it from a Hello, World program is moot and academic if I don't get to solve the problem I set out to solve in the first place. Now the software in itself is not about freedom, ethics, nor morality -- it's a tool which I think is meant to solve problems that I've seen need fixing. Much like how Linux or the GNU toolset is not material for propagating the "Free as in Freedom" mantra rather a means to an end: a set of solutions that work. If you have actually read Linus Torvalds' book entitled "Just for Fun", you'd find out that Linux was not meant to be anything but an OS kernel which Linus wanted to use: other people found it useful and in the goodness of their hearts put their time and effort into turning this toy which Linus wrote into something that is now a compelling rival to the popular Operating Systems Free/Open Source, or otherwise. Dan Bernstein's DNS server was born out of frustration from how Bind's design was in his words intrinsically flawed -- and the same goes for qmail and other software that the good doctor has chosen to open source. These software were proof of concepts which challenged existing status quo solutions and became popular on their own *technical* merit.
Knock off the scare tactics Dean. Byt he time a Hello World program becomes anyhting substantial for the government, it would either have borrowed enough FOSS code from more substantial programs or attracted a lot of financial investment. In other words, before it can even compete for a government contract, it is NO LONGER a Hello World program.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to scare anyone: I was stating a fact. Just the other day, I was able to come up with a daemon which started off as a measly Hello World program (under the GPL) and made use of non-FOSS (Boost Software Licensed) components which allowed me to get something useful up and running in a matter of days. Of course, your mileage may vary and your output is definitely a function of your capabilities and imagination. But the point is, that it's certainly possible to come up with production quality code in a short amount of time whether or not you use FOSS components to do it. Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done. And just because you're scared or feel threatened of affected by the statements I make doesn't make you any more "righteous" to defend the FOSS advocacy front by calling it FUD. No matter how many years you've been into Linux, or been an advocate of FOSS, you views are just views that you yourself propagate: and if you think I'm spreading FUD then have it your way. I am merely stating arguments which are first and foremost based on my experience -- however limited they may be -- and nothing you say can distract me from the fact that you like the FOSS bill to get passed because it suits you and your organizations and interests best. And while I try to be as neutral about the FOSS strategy is and just air my opinion and views of how the FOSS bill in my belief is unfair, I have a clear conscience that I am just fighting for fairness and equal opportunities for all players who should have equal opportunities to deal with government regardless of their ideological stance. I don't believe in affirmative action (I'm sorry guys, but that's me), and I don't believe in proposing something absurd just because it's going to be watered down (I believe in the "do it once, do it well" mantra). So I agree to disagree with everyone just as long as we keep it civil conversation, and just as long as we don't call other people names and attack the personality of the person making the post. Obviously Manny, you have chosen to single me out and attack my person and convictions trying to make it sound like "I'm the enemy" while I have only been airing my opinions and beliefs. If you can't take it, then that's your problem. You don't have to take it out on me on a public mailing list: you could have just sent me a personal email and we could have had our discussion in private, but since you've opened the gates then I feel obliged to indulge.
> You just wish Manny... I think you're just stomped you just didn't > think of that before I did. You're just plucking scenarois out of thin air, hoping that it will scare those who have no idea what kind of effort it takes to create production software. You're just trying to pull wool over our eyes, as usual.
I'm not plucking scenarios out of thin air. I've been a part of many a projects that started as measly hello world programs which turned into considerably complex, functional, production systems. http://mysmart.com.ph is one, and there's http://sourceforge.net/projects/gsimpletron and http://sourceforge.net/projects/dispatcher . In Orange and Bronze Software Labs, I've been involved in a Messaging Solution project which will be released as an open source project soon. And no, I'm not trying to pull wool over your eyes: I'm stating things that in my experience aren't really rocket science. Taking a Hello, World program under the GPL and turning it into something useful is not new, and it's been done before and most probably is being done every day. It also isn't hard, so if you please stop spreading FUD that programming is hard then somehow we can get into a decent conversation.
> But at any rate, the wording of the bill in its current form allows > it: the requirements are that the software be licensed under a FOSS > license. Unless there isn't any suitable FOSS already out there, only > then can we consider proprietary software. But wait, it can be shown > and proven that ANY GPLed Hello World program can be turned into > practically whatever you like: which is a big loophole whether you > like it or not. Uh, no. The law,as you pointed out, clearly states that the FOSS software must be suitable, not potentially suitable after some MAJOR overhaul. A Hello World program won't qualify, as the law makes very clear. It's NOT suitable. There's no loophole anywhere, but there's a hole in your logic.
What law? It's a Bill Manny... A Bill is NOT a Law. And defining "Major Overhaul" is not within the realms of quantitative measures as far as software goes. Changing one line of code can be considered Major overhaul in some projects, while a trivial change in another. If you did not understand the logic that any half-baked FOSS project which can be argued "suitable FOSS with some modifications" will be favored over a proprietary solution which already solves the problem because of this Bill turning into Law, then you better think about calling my logic "holed".
> Any competent lawyer worth his salt can make this argument work. Bwahaha, yeah right. > Wait, when the FOSS bill gets in, a piece of software being FOSS > already meets the requirements! READ THE BILL!!! Uh, no. The bill DOES NOT say that. More FUD from you.
Sorry, you better read the bill again. Section 6 Manny, Section 6. And no, it's not FUD. I'm not Afraid (derived from Fear), Uncertain (derived from Uncertainty), nor Doubtful (derived from Doubt) but I am clear-headed, open-minded, and bold in my assessment. If you can't handle that, then keep thinking it's FUD.
> Dream on. Any competent lawyer worth his salt can make the "GPLed > Hello World Program for every requirement" stick. FUD again. Let's see one try. I'm gonna enjoy this one!
I don't know why you like to call this FUD, because I'm not trying to sell proprietary software here using the arguments based on FUD... I'm simply stating something that in my belief is clearly very easy to do. Unfortunately any argument that's not for FOSS or painting a rosy FOSS picture for you is FUD... Have you been taking your anti-paranoia and anti-hallucinogens lately? Because you sure sound like you've OD'ed on RMS KoolAid.
> Okay, spare us the FUD. You're the one displaying FUD here: you're > afraid that Proprietary Software really does some things better. Uhm, putting words in my mouth. I challenge you to point out to me where is stated that proprietary software can never do anything better than FOSS. Can't find one eh? Think first before shooting your mouth off, FUDsy.
Hmmm... I wasn't the one which asserted that FOSS is superior to Proprietary Software. And I certainly wasn't the one which said Government would be better off using FOSS only anyway... And I wasn't the one who was pushing for a FOSS bill that clearly favored FOSS in government. But you are, right Manny? You even call me FUDsy when all my arguments were clearly based on the Bill and how it's currently worded and how it can be deliberately misinterpreted as I have as you keep asserting been showing to tip the balance in favor of FOSS. I am not afraid that the government will be unfair towards FOSS because it will be in case this FOSS bill gets in as is. I however am outraged that people like you will favor that while blindly letting government favor one ideology over another by law. Just as there isn't a national policy favoring any religion -- nor should there be -- there shouldn't be a national policy favoring any ideology as far as software licenses are concerned. *This* is what I stand for, and since this FOSS bill goes against this ideological framework which I operate under, I oppose it under these grounds. If you haven't seen it yet, then there I've spelled it out for you. It's not FUD, it's DDD -- see previous posts if you even care to read. What are you afraid of Manny, that Oracle's DBMS is better than PostGreSQL in clustered environments? Or how Adobe Flash Media servers perform better than Apache+<SomeStreamingProtocolPluginHere>? Or that the nuclear reactor computer software is not FOSS? The only person I'm seeing spreading FUD here is you: you're afraid that I'm making sense and there isn't anything you can say to make me change my mind even if you're older, bigger, and more experienced than I am. So go ahead, it's just making you look juvenile calling me FUDsy and I will indulge in engaging you anytime about how you are afraid that the next generation is actually more pragmatic and open minded than you are. -- Dean Michael C. Berris http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/ mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com +63 928 7291459 _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
