Posted on 06/28/2004 9:48:52 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
Open source has expanded into the political world, with open software powering the online operations of the Democratic National Committee and Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
The DNC has embraced open source to run its online operation, including outreach and fund raising, and has been working on this front since 2001 with New York-based consultant Plus Three LP.
This week, the DNC will launch, at www.democrats.org, the third version of its Web site, which is designed to mobilize voters on a national and grass-roots level, grow the party's online database, and raise funds, said David Brunton, Plus Three's vice president and co-founder.
Plus Three's Arcos technology, a business application suite based on the open-source LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL and Perl) platform, lies at the core of the Democrats' online technology infrastructure, dubbed Demzilla by the DNC.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Yeah, those are funny. Like most extreme leftists, Stallman doesn't get along well with anyone who doesn't share his pure vision. But, as with communism, it may look good on paper for dreamer-types, but it's impractical to achieve. People who try to bring some practical sense into the free software world usually end up with Stallman screaming at them.
But the spat over BitKeeper was the funniest so far. "No, you can't use a proprietary software repository application to manage the most famous, shining example of free software!" I don't know, maybe he thought it would taint the free purity of Linux or something. Linus was like me: I'll use what's best for the task, so you know where you can shove your idealistic concerns (this goes for GE too).
Trace your conversation with Dinsdale. You were saying that no BSD has been on the Top 500. That is false, it was recently at #3 and will reappear (that cluster is currently being rebuilt) in the next list with at least two, at least one in the Top 10, kicking the Chinese cluster out.
In other words, BSD is a free OS that is available for making supercomputing clusters. Linux is not unique in this regard, yet it is your only target. Would you be screaming against Microsoft if it had been a Windows Cluster?
still chosing to support his goals doesn't add up
I never said I support his goals, only that I find one of his creations to be useful to me and the development of some software. Don't forget, you agree with Stallman on a policy, too.
Of course, especially if it was being given to them for free. Why are you always so confused about right and wrong?
Yes, that one. The government still has some answering to do for some of its actions against those it doesn't like, especially when those people are arming themselves IAW the 2nd Amendment.
You see, "free" is your problem. You think it's worse if it's free. That means that according to you, money going to corporations lessens any perceived damage done by the Chinese having a supercomputer. That means that according to you, national defense concerns take a back-seat to corporate profits. Do you have lots of software company stock holdings?
So you like Raymond, think Timothy McVeigh may have been justified? I really can't follow the reasoning or words of open soure proponents...
Still trying to plant those words in my mouth, completely to no avail. I've said repeatedly, and will again I don't believe hardly any tech should be going to China. If it is, due to existing government laws, we should AT LEAST be paid for it.
How can you not see a difference in selling it to them, as allowed by current US law, and giving it to them for free? That's right, there is a difference. Are you going to sell your house one day, or is it just as good to give it away? The question you never answer, despite continually trying to equate the two.
McVeigh may have been justified in his anger towards the fascist tactics the government has been enjoying lately, and wanting to do something about it. But there's a big difference between beliefs and anger, and blowing up a building full of people.
Never got past this, you can waste the rest on someone else.
Well, except for the fact that we're not giving it to them. But no, there's no difference. I don't really care if Microsoft makes money when China decides to build something, except for the thought of a billion extra Windows boxes bringing the Internet to a halt through all the viruses and worms.
Current US laws normally require people are paid US dollars for transfer of valuable property, especially that which isn't being controlled by the government. Are now saying you would just as willingly give your house away for free, rather than sell it? If not, there is in fact a difference. And yes, it is in the interest of the United States that we continue to get paid for our products, rather than give them away for free. Or do you dispute even that?
I've finally had a chance to review your McVeigh post, didn't read it at first, as it did start out with quote "McVeigh may have been justified" if you did notice. But back on Raymond, he is an admitted "arnarchist". Isn't that a pretty 'bizzare/flake' category of theory? How would you rate raymond's "anarchism" vs. stallman's "marxist" ("open source" leaders) in comparison. Say verses "constitutional republic" based on "capitalsm"? Rate all three, mine being
1. CR/C
9. Marxist
10. Anarchy
Or where would you disagree with this basic model. Think you could ping any of your friends, and get them to answer, too? Please try to use quotes as I did to carefully explain exact answers wherever possible please, it will help better explain your position. Thanks.
Really? When did the government institute price controls? Why wasn't Microsoft busted for all the charitable donations it's done? Charity and volunteerism are obviously wrong in your book.
Are now saying you would just as willingly give your house away for free, rather than sell it? If not, there is in fact a difference.
Real property vs. intellectual property. There's a big difference between the two. Besides, you make it sound like IBM wrote Linux and gave it away, which is wrong. We as a country have benefitted from Linux (including the contributions from hundreds of foreigners) quite a bit, just like anyone else does.
And yes, it is in the interest of the United States that we continue to get paid for our products
Since when is Linux an American product?
LOL, what? Is this Nick Danger in disguise, taking things he had the AI on his computer tell him he needed to post again?
I really have no idea what you are trying to say, or even what it is in response to. All I want to know from you is, what is it people like you want to be referred to as? "Open sourcers" or what. Actually from your post, looks like maybe "Chinese"? What again was it you were trying to say? Something on the behalf of the Chinese, as usual, correct?
No I think it's great. But it's value is recorded, and calculated into the US financial system, monetary value assigned, and can be contested by the government. With open source, there is no record of transfer, at least not in most cases. It's actually equivalent to pirateware in that manner, that the IP is being transferred without compensation taking place.
Real property vs. intellectual property. There's a big difference between the two.
You can go that route. But you run the risk of looking like a socialist trying to chip away at the US profit system. If something like that matters to you.
Besides, you make it sound like IBM wrote Linux and gave it away, which is wrong.
Here's an article from just today from an open source journalist, quote "if it weren't for IBM's market support, Linux would still be more popular in hobbyists' basements than in corporate server rooms "
Since when is Linux an American product?
See the quote above, plus anyone knows Linux has no doubt gone from nothingware to bigtime thanks to IBM, Red Hat and even the US government SELinux project. That stuff shouldn't be going to China at all, much less for free. Except according to you.
As Bush is trying to transform the ME, China seems to be an opportunity to be transformed into a capable capitalistic society. For the moment limiting ALL exports of technology to China would be in order. That would include even the export of M$ products for the profit of the Overlords in Redmond.
You can go that route. But you run the risk of looking like a socialist trying to chip away at the US profit system. If something like that matters to you. "
YOU still haven't committed to disclosing your position on whether IP is different from real property as is outlined in the US Constitution. You have expressed opinions on both sides of the issue. Is IP identically the same as real property of not?
YOU need to decide and proclaim you position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.