Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Nov 2010 19:53 UTC
Novell and Ximian We were well aware that Novell had put itself on the market, coyly winking at passers-by, displaying its... Assets. VMware was a contender, but things have played out entirely different: Novell has been bought by Attachmate Corp., with a Microsoft-led consortium buying unspecified intellectual property from Novell.
Permalink for comment 451299
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[16]: rms was right- as usual
by silix on Sat 27th Nov 2010 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[15]: rms was right- as usual"
Member since:

You didn't create the algorithm. You just decided to use it. Math is a natural phenomenon.
first: natural phenomena are events that result from the physical complexity of nature itself, and more importantly, would occur anyway even if man didnt exist on earth to observe them - rain is a natural phenomenon, math is not.
math is a science, and a result of the brain's ability to handle abstract concepts - thus, math basically exists only in the human brain
second: an algorithm is a sequence of operations that may, or may not, involve mathematical / algebraic calculations - then, an algorithm may usemath, but this hardly qualifies as being math itself...
third: an algorithm is the result of the human ability to do speculative reasoning and plan the steps required to achieve a desired result, after analyzing and splitting the problem at hand - then, it is an individual creation not less than the design of a building or that of a car engine (also made by solving problems, maybe even more at the numerical level)
even more so if one takes into account that a sw application doesn't usually limit tiself to a single algorithm or a disorganized collection of algorithms - the code base is usually *architected* into an organized series of classes and /or modules each with a specific function, place, and role, and this involves a creative (as in, human creativity) process
fourth:if we assume that math is actually a natural phenomenon, then, the same would apply to mechanics (which is even more closely connected to concrete reality) - thus, the steam engine and the later petrol and gasoline ones were not "inventions", but "discoveries", too...
tell it to Daimler and Benz...
You can't patent physics, why should you be able to patent mathematics?
you don't patent the science itself, you're patenting an application (that may make some use of it) that results from a creative effort on your part
are you so close minded that you cannot distinguish between the two things?
You can't invent math. You can only discover it.
to discover something, it must have always been there, though no one else has seen nor documented it before - like "oh look this weird plant ... there's totally NO mention of it in any existing book or encyclopedia ... wow, i made a discovery" - but when you devise an algorithm it doesnt go this way, you conceive a sequence of operations that exist in your mind only but has never existed anywhere else
instead, you'd imply that all the infinite (because they are infinite) algorithms man can ever conceive in the history of mankind, were actually already there, together with all the matter and energy that contitute this Universe - or maybe in the Eye of the Supreme entity (whatever this entity is called) that created it - what about if one is an atheist?
The fact that you didn't realise that we use applied maths every day is disgraceful
understanding fail (or explanation fail on my part)
of course applied math is part of every day life - but mostly in the form of objects, designed by those with the required knowledge for others to simply use without caring much about the inner working of the object (and even less about the theory behind it)
So most people are lazy. Why does this mean you should get to prevent them from doing things with math?
it's not that people are lazy, it's that when you drive (example) you don't "do things with math"
you simply... drive, using your muscles to actuate the car control, your senses to get feedback, and reflexes trained in by your brain, to react to the environment, car and road condition, with no numerical calculation involved - a human is not a computer, it's a "fuzzy" operational model so to speak
on the other hand, people designing the vehicle MUST do accurate calculations taking LOTS of factors into the equation (system of), since eg depending on the suspension scheme, slight changes (millimeters) in a joint position or in an angle may greatly design road handling or comfort
see the difference?
and you shouldn't touch technology.
who ARE you to tell me what i should or shouldnt do?
If this continues, eventually everything that can be done with software will be patented and no one will be able to write their own software, or will be forced to write it for only themselves.
as i said elsewhere, there's a whole world of things, from the soy seed to the aircraft passing by railway control systems, medicals, aso asf, where patents are already in effect, and have been for a very long time
software is just the last fields patents have been applied, and in practice just the tip of the iceberg
They do not make sense, and harm society.
objectively, whom do patents affect? ie, who has to care about them?
those who buy and or use products of any kind wouldnt even be *aware* they involve patents (werent it for people like you obnoxiously trying to push their agenda by spreading FUD about how patented products are somehow "evil", when in reality it makes no difference for them)
only those involved in *designing* those things (be they operating systems or food), have to deal with patents - moreover, many of those actually benefit from them, and would demand them if they didnt exist, so those whom patents may worry the most (as i said before, individual and hobbyst programmers) are relly a subgroup, hardly representative of the whole industrial world (but isnt democracy based on the few accepting the will of the many?) - a bit sad, maybe, but i thought we discussed IT and technologies, not cheerful political correctness...
so, society at large doesnt even perceive patents, much less is harmed by them...
you'd be surprised to know how many patents are in effect in the medical field, to name one - yet, it is all about making devices that help actually contribute to save lives, not exactly harming society in my book...
Read a little history about how and why copyright and patents came into being.
nothing currently written at contradicts what i previously said
"exclusive rights" translates to "rights to exclude others [from taking advantage of an invention]" (notice that when one has the right, it is up to him to decide what to do - it doesnt a priori mean that one will surely enforce his privilege, instead of making some money backed deal) with the stated goal of letting an inventor profit from his invention and the (not written , but desumable) side effect of competitors having to work around to come up with non infringing alternatives (which also accounts as innovation in my book)
which is exactly what i was talking about earlier- but you'll surely say i'm making things up...
You've truly missed the point, and obviously voted in some of the republicans this term, or would have if perhaps you just think like the worst of America, but aren't a citizen.
FYI, i'm italian. and how is my political orientation relevant in what should be a pragmatic discussion about technology? and how DARE you make conjectures about what i may have voted?
trying to diminish someone by acting all smart ass with personal offences and arguments completely unrelated to the topic, wont earn you much respect - the opposite i'm afraid
History fail, computing fail, moral fail.
leave morals outside the discussion *** ******* **** *****
IT is a market, and a technology field, as such it's utterly unagnostic from morals or politics - even more so if it's all about applied maths as you so conceitedly argumented...

Edited 2010-11-27 15:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2