Buy support. Pay for your Linux licenses. Just because it's open source doesn't mean that you should pay $0.

By buying from a legitimate open source company, you help reinforce the open source eco-system.

And it's all legitimate: it's not a donation, so your boss shouldn't object. You are still saving a lot of money compared to buying a proprietary solution, but you are helping people who code full-time sustain themselves. Let's face it, developers are the critical resource for most open source projects.

PS: some cool startups are looking for extra developers/founders: help people go solar, build a better bug collector tool, or help build a music community that supports its bands.

This case gives us a great window into what a world without copyright protection would look like: everyone ripping off everyone else's code. There got to be a compromise that works for both the GPL and the RIAA, so end users (us) win.

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

--
you don't need to be in silicon valley to start a startup anymore

Yes. But geeks also build new cool applications never before thought possible, that become next year's must-haves.

In a sense, the iPhone app ecosystem is proof to that, despite its less-than-open review process. Palm and the PC as well, if you want to go back in history.

How hard can it be for the base-station to monitor bandwidth and avoid taking the whole network down?

--
Meet co-founders for your startup

I don't condemn all software patents. Just because it's software doesn't mean that it can't be brilliant and stunningly innovative.

But sudo with a GUI? A quick fix I'd suggest to get rid of those bogus patents is to have a rule that says that if a patent is proven obvious later on, then the company (Microsoft in that case) would lose all their patents for the year. That would make them think twice before filing junk...

---
the Co-FoundersMeetup in Mountain View is next week

Check these guys out: They are specialized in pretty much exactly what you need.

You definitely want to use sound technologies, streaming, etc. Don't underestimate your audience, your average user tends to be really clueless, which means your terminals have to be rock-solid.

Congrats on landing what sounds like a cool project!

We on slashdot are pretty much the only ones who care about net neutrality. My dad(*) doesn't have a clue why it's important.

The App Store is the most flagrant example of non-neutral app built on top of the Internet. But if you were to push the argument further, I have restrictions on how many pictures I can upload on Flickr. Is that neutral?

(*) I'm using my dad as a stereotype instead of my mother because I recently learned that using mothers as examples of clueless users is sexist. So I'm applying some affirmative action

--
help build the web community where fans get involved with the bands they love

This is straight from the author's blog:

So I'd say there is a pretty good chance that the contract contains an exclusivity clause. This wasn't pure /. speculation.

I have dealt quite a bit with copyright law when creating FairSoftware's virtual company license. I'm afraid the author is incorrect when he says that he retains copyright, therefore he can authorize people to download his book for free. He most likely granted the publisher an exclusive license. The whole point of the word exclusive is to say that although you are the author, you can't give the text to anyone else anymore, once you signed the book deal.

That being said, this is a great blog post for everyone who ever wondered how tech book deals work. He is making about $2 per sale of a $40 book! So there's a great debate about whether to go with an editor which will take a much lower cut, but will also not be so good at promoting the book. At least someone is making money from publishing content related to open source technology :-)

There got be an iPhone app for that! Wait, actually I had started to spec one. Any developers interested in improving on it?

Quick survey: how much would you be willing to pay for an app to that makes you look smarter in front of "attractive women"?

There got to be a healthy market in there somewhere. I'm sure I could find plenty of beta testers (just like in the study)...