Comment Re:Security through obscurity? (Score 1) 1015
But probably not very well -- especially if your opponent is better than you are.
But probably not very well -- especially if your opponent is better than you are.
How do you know that Fedora still gives a lackluster performance if you never looked back, and are no longer a user?
Actually, Fedora claims 24 million *active* users between Fedora 7 and Fedora 12 -- a timeframe well after you would have run into "dependency hell" issues.
We actually document our methodology, too. Right here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics
So your usage of the past tense is incorrect.
This looks like a job for selective quoting!
"While you were still technically supposed to file taxes, etc., no one really cared..."
"As of now, you are officially a tax cheating criminal if you choose to wander off alone."
"This is not the country I grew up to love and swore to protect."
You mean the country that was too lazy to chase you down if you cheated the law yesterday, and probably doesn't actually care one iota more today? The country that likely wouldn't criminalize this activity anyway, since by your description you wouldn't have an actual income and would be exempt?
Hilarious. Go get your gun, move into your shack in the Appalachians, kill some possums, and get "off the grid". Since this freedom is so precious to you, maybe you should exercise it and see how it goes.
*Now* we know why no one's using your open source project -- because it's Yet Another CMS!
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has a clear incumbent, you're in for a tough climb.
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has several clear incumbents, you're in for a *really* tough climb.
If you're trying to drive a new project in a space that already has several clear incumbents and hundreds of failures, you're in for...
I'm sure your CMS is different. It's sensitive and nurturing and really cares about me in a way that those other CMSes don't, and would never throw me out of the car for getting drunk at Andy's party that night. I get it. But when you're competing against the Star Quarterback of CMS projects, you *must* define what is unique about your project, and you must *market* that uniqueness. And you'd better be right, too -- because otherwise, you can forget about getting a date to the CMS prom.
What a load of defeatist bullshit.
Have you ever once even *tried* to talk to the people in your congressional office?
If you believe in this, then go fight for it. Take fifteen minutes out of your day and write an email or pick up the phone. And if you lose, *then* you can come back and whine about how the system doesn't work. But too many people bitch and moan and don't do anything. Do something!
"Why on earth should I have to be cool with the idea of someone re-packaging or re-interpreting something I've done artistically? If I choose to allow that to happen, that's one thing. But, to assume that I should be forced to do so is a little one sided, in my opinion."
Guess what? It's not up to you, Individual Artist, and never was, and never will be. Whether you are "cool" or "not cool" with it is entirely beside the point. Good artists borrow; great artists steal. It's cliched because it's the absolute truth.
You can, of course, sue to get your Tasty Monies. That's the essence of copyright, and all well and good. But if the derivative work sucks, then there are likely no Tasty Monies to be had -- and if the derivative work doesn't suck, then you may be forced to face the notion that a transformative derivative work is actually art in its own right! Hope your ego can hold up to that notion.
Trent Reznor wasn't cool with Johnny Cash performing Hurt. Doesn't matter now, does it?
Spoken like a professional translator.
"Red Hat has commited not to sue. So what? Does that mean that they'll remain true to whatever they said?"
Yes, actually, because of the legal principle of estoppel by representation of fact, also known in American law as "equitable estoppel". To wit:
"In general, estoppel protects an aggrieved party, if the counter-party induced an expectation from the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party reasonably relied on the expectation and would suffer detriment if the expectation is not met."
Red Hat, with its patent promise, induces an expectation: that Red Hat will not sue an open source developer for patent violations. If Red Hat then violates that expectation, a judge would basically throw out any such lawsuit immediately on grounds of estoppel.
Were the people who modded this "informative" lazy, or just pushing the joke?
Me too. Worth every penny.
Right. Which is why Cisco is doing so poorly, even though they routinely lay off their bottom 5%.
Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.