00000003.htm

一份很好的linux入门资料

spend&nbsp;money&nbsp;and&nbsp;get&nbsp;a&nbsp;product&nbsp;with&nbsp;service,&nbsp;they&nbsp;will&nbsp;also&nbsp;be&nbsp;willing&nbsp;<BR>
to&nbsp;buy&nbsp;the&nbsp;service&nbsp;having&nbsp;got&nbsp;the&nbsp;product&nbsp;free.&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;service&nbsp;companies&nbsp;<BR>
will&nbsp;compete&nbsp;in&nbsp;quality&nbsp;and&nbsp;price;&nbsp;users&nbsp;will&nbsp;not&nbsp;be&nbsp;tied&nbsp;to&nbsp;any&nbsp;<BR>
particular&nbsp;one.&nbsp;&nbsp;Meanwhile,&nbsp;those&nbsp;of&nbsp;us&nbsp;who&nbsp;don't&nbsp;need&nbsp;the&nbsp;service&nbsp;<BR>
should&nbsp;be&nbsp;able&nbsp;to&nbsp;use&nbsp;the&nbsp;program&nbsp;without&nbsp;paying&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;service.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;这样子的服务可以由专门维修的公司提供。如果使用者真的宁愿花钱买一个有&nbsp;<BR>
售後服务的软体，他们也将愿意为免费得到的软体买些服务。这些服务公司会在&nbsp;<BR>
品质和价钱上竞争；使用者将不会受限於特定的一加公司。同时，我们这些不须要&nbsp;<BR>
服务的人也能够自由的使用程式而不须要花钱在服务上。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;You&nbsp;cannot&nbsp;reach&nbsp;many&nbsp;people&nbsp;without&nbsp;advertising,&nbsp;and&nbsp;you&nbsp;must&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;charge&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;program&nbsp;to&nbsp;support&nbsp;that.&quot;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;It's&nbsp;no&nbsp;use&nbsp;advertising&nbsp;a&nbsp;program&nbsp;people&nbsp;can&nbsp;get&nbsp;free.&quot;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;『没有广告的话你就没办法让很多人知道你的东西，而你必须对程式收钱以&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;支持广告经费。』&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;『广告一个别人可以免费得到的程式是没有用的。』&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;There&nbsp;are&nbsp;various&nbsp;forms&nbsp;of&nbsp;free&nbsp;or&nbsp;very&nbsp;cheap&nbsp;publicity&nbsp;that&nbsp;can&nbsp;be&nbsp;<BR>
used&nbsp;to&nbsp;inform&nbsp;numbers&nbsp;of&nbsp;computer&nbsp;users&nbsp;about&nbsp;something&nbsp;like&nbsp;GNU.&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;<BR>
it&nbsp;may&nbsp;be&nbsp;true&nbsp;that&nbsp;one&nbsp;can&nbsp;reach&nbsp;more&nbsp;microcomputer&nbsp;users&nbsp;with&nbsp;<BR>
advertising.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;this&nbsp;is&nbsp;really&nbsp;so,&nbsp;a&nbsp;business&nbsp;which&nbsp;advertises&nbsp;the&nbsp;<BR>
service&nbsp;of&nbsp;copying&nbsp;and&nbsp;mailing&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;for&nbsp;a&nbsp;fee&nbsp;ought&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;successful&nbsp;<BR>
enough&nbsp;to&nbsp;pay&nbsp;for&nbsp;its&nbsp;advertising&nbsp;and&nbsp;more.&nbsp;&nbsp;This&nbsp;way,&nbsp;only&nbsp;the&nbsp;users&nbsp;<BR>
who&nbsp;benefit&nbsp;from&nbsp;the&nbsp;advertising&nbsp;pay&nbsp;for&nbsp;it.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;有多种形式免费的或很便宜的传播媒介可以用来让不少的电脑使用者知道&nbsp;<BR>
像&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;之类的事。可是刊登广告可以触及更多微电脑的使用者可能是真的。如果是&nbsp;<BR>
这样的话，一个刊登广告提供拷贝及邮购&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;的事业应该可以赚的远超过它所投资&nbsp;<BR>
的广告费。在这种机制下，只有从广告中获益的使用者才须要为之付费。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On&nbsp;the&nbsp;other&nbsp;hand,&nbsp;if&nbsp;many&nbsp;people&nbsp;get&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;from&nbsp;their&nbsp;friends,&nbsp;and&nbsp;<BR>
such&nbsp;companies&nbsp;don't&nbsp;succeed,&nbsp;this&nbsp;will&nbsp;show&nbsp;that&nbsp;advertising&nbsp;was&nbsp;not&nbsp;<BR>
really&nbsp;necessary&nbsp;to&nbsp;spread&nbsp;GNU.&nbsp;&nbsp;Why&nbsp;is&nbsp;it&nbsp;that&nbsp;free&nbsp;market&nbsp;advocates&nbsp;<BR>
don't&nbsp;want&nbsp;to&nbsp;let&nbsp;the&nbsp;free&nbsp;market&nbsp;decide&nbsp;this?(4)&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;另一方面，如果很多人透过朋友拿到&nbsp;GNU，而上述的事业没有成功，这就显示&nbsp;<BR>
了&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;并不须要借助广告来传播。为什麽自由市场的拥护者不想要让自由市场决定&nbsp;<BR>
这件事？(4)&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;My&nbsp;company&nbsp;needs&nbsp;a&nbsp;proprietary&nbsp;operating&nbsp;system&nbsp;to&nbsp;get&nbsp;a&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;competitive&nbsp;edge.&quot;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;『我的公司需要一个专属的作业系统才能够较有竞争力。』&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;will&nbsp;remove&nbsp;operating&nbsp;system&nbsp;software&nbsp;from&nbsp;the&nbsp;realm&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
competition.&nbsp;&nbsp;You&nbsp;will&nbsp;not&nbsp;be&nbsp;able&nbsp;to&nbsp;get&nbsp;an&nbsp;edge&nbsp;in&nbsp;this&nbsp;area,&nbsp;but&nbsp;<BR>
neither&nbsp;will&nbsp;your&nbsp;competitors&nbsp;be&nbsp;able&nbsp;to&nbsp;get&nbsp;an&nbsp;edge&nbsp;over&nbsp;you.&nbsp;&nbsp;You&nbsp;and&nbsp;<BR>
they&nbsp;will&nbsp;compete&nbsp;in&nbsp;other&nbsp;areas,&nbsp;while&nbsp;benefiting&nbsp;mutually&nbsp;in&nbsp;this&nbsp;<BR>
one.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;your&nbsp;business&nbsp;is&nbsp;selling&nbsp;an&nbsp;operating&nbsp;system,&nbsp;you&nbsp;will&nbsp;not&nbsp;<BR>
like&nbsp;GNU,&nbsp;but&nbsp;that's&nbsp;tough&nbsp;on&nbsp;you.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;your&nbsp;business&nbsp;is&nbsp;something&nbsp;else,&nbsp;<BR>
GNU&nbsp;can&nbsp;save&nbsp;you&nbsp;from&nbsp;being&nbsp;pushed&nbsp;into&nbsp;the&nbsp;expensive&nbsp;business&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
selling&nbsp;operating&nbsp;systems.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;将会把系统软体移出竞争的领域。你将无法在这方面占有优势，但同样的&nbsp;<BR>
你的对手也无法在这方面胜过你。你和他们会在其他方面竞争，而在这方面互相&nbsp;<BR>
获益。如果你的事业就是卖作业系统，你大概不会喜欢&nbsp;GNU，不过这会很为难你。&nbsp;<BR>
如果你的事业是其他方面的话，GNU&nbsp;可以让你省下研发作业系统所需要的昂贵经费。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I&nbsp;would&nbsp;like&nbsp;to&nbsp;see&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;development&nbsp;supported&nbsp;by&nbsp;gifts&nbsp;from&nbsp;many&nbsp;<BR>
manufacturers&nbsp;and&nbsp;users,&nbsp;reducing&nbsp;the&nbsp;cost&nbsp;to&nbsp;each.(5)&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;我希望能见到&nbsp;GNU&nbsp;的发展受到许多制造商及使用者的支持，以减低双方的&nbsp;<BR>
花费。(5)&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;Don't&nbsp;programmers&nbsp;deserve&nbsp;a&nbsp;reward&nbsp;for&nbsp;their&nbsp;creativity?&quot;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;『难道程式师不应该从他的创造力获得回报吗？』&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;anything&nbsp;deserves&nbsp;a&nbsp;reward,&nbsp;it&nbsp;is&nbsp;social&nbsp;contribution.&nbsp;<BR>
Creativity&nbsp;can&nbsp;be&nbsp;a&nbsp;social&nbsp;contribution,&nbsp;but&nbsp;only&nbsp;in&nbsp;so&nbsp;far&nbsp;as&nbsp;society&nbsp;<BR>
is&nbsp;free&nbsp;to&nbsp;use&nbsp;the&nbsp;results.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;programmers&nbsp;deserve&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;rewarded&nbsp;for&nbsp;<BR>
creating&nbsp;innovative&nbsp;programs,&nbsp;by&nbsp;the&nbsp;same&nbsp;token&nbsp;they&nbsp;deserve&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;<BR>
punished&nbsp;if&nbsp;they&nbsp;restrict&nbsp;the&nbsp;use&nbsp;of&nbsp;these&nbsp;programs.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;如果有甚麽事值得回报的话，那非贡献社会莫数了。创造力可以是一种对社会&nbsp;<BR>
的贡献，但是必须以社会能够自由使用其结果为限。如果程式师因写出创新的程式&nbsp;<BR>
就应得到报酬的话，同理如果他们对这些程式的使用设限的话，他们也该受罚。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;Shouldn't&nbsp;a&nbsp;programmer&nbsp;be&nbsp;able&nbsp;to&nbsp;ask&nbsp;for&nbsp;a&nbsp;reward&nbsp;for&nbsp;his&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;creativity?&quot;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;『难道程式师不能为他的创造力要求回馈吗？』&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;There&nbsp;is&nbsp;nothing&nbsp;wrong&nbsp;with&nbsp;wanting&nbsp;pay&nbsp;for&nbsp;work,&nbsp;or&nbsp;seeking&nbsp;to&nbsp;<BR>
maximize&nbsp;one's&nbsp;income,&nbsp;as&nbsp;long&nbsp;as&nbsp;one&nbsp;does&nbsp;not&nbsp;use&nbsp;means&nbsp;that&nbsp;are&nbsp;<BR>
destructive.&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;the&nbsp;means&nbsp;customary&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;field&nbsp;of&nbsp;software&nbsp;today&nbsp;<BR>
are&nbsp;based&nbsp;on&nbsp;destruction.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;希望工作有所报酬，或是使自己有最大的收入并没有什麽不对的，只要不要用&nbsp;<BR>
破坏性的手段就可以了。但是在现今软体领域内常用的手段却都是以破坏为依归的。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Extracting&nbsp;money&nbsp;from&nbsp;users&nbsp;of&nbsp;a&nbsp;program&nbsp;by&nbsp;restricting&nbsp;their&nbsp;use&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
it&nbsp;is&nbsp;destructive&nbsp;because&nbsp;the&nbsp;restrictions&nbsp;reduce&nbsp;the&nbsp;amount&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;<BR>
ways&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;program&nbsp;can&nbsp;be&nbsp;used.&nbsp;&nbsp;This&nbsp;reduces&nbsp;the&nbsp;amount&nbsp;of&nbsp;wealth&nbsp;<BR>
that&nbsp;humanity&nbsp;derives&nbsp;from&nbsp;the&nbsp;program.&nbsp;&nbsp;When&nbsp;there&nbsp;is&nbsp;a&nbsp;deliberate&nbsp;<BR>
choice&nbsp;to&nbsp;restrict,&nbsp;the&nbsp;harmful&nbsp;consequences&nbsp;are&nbsp;deliberate&nbsp;destruction.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;限制一个程式的使用□围，以从使用者身上获取金钱是具有破坏性的，因为&nbsp;<BR>
那些限制减少了程式的应用□围。这减少了人类能由此程式所得到的财富。如果&nbsp;<BR>
可以任意的设限，其恶果就是任意的破坏。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;reason&nbsp;a&nbsp;good&nbsp;citizen&nbsp;does&nbsp;not&nbsp;use&nbsp;such&nbsp;destructive&nbsp;means&nbsp;to&nbsp;<BR>
become&nbsp;wealthier&nbsp;is&nbsp;that,&nbsp;if&nbsp;everyone&nbsp;did&nbsp;so,&nbsp;we&nbsp;would&nbsp;all&nbsp;become&nbsp;<BR>
poorer&nbsp;from&nbsp;the&nbsp;mutual&nbsp;destructiveness.&nbsp;&nbsp;This&nbsp;is&nbsp;Kantian&nbsp;ethics;&nbsp;or,&nbsp;<BR>
the&nbsp;Golden&nbsp;Rule.&nbsp;&nbsp;Since&nbsp;I&nbsp;do&nbsp;not&nbsp;like&nbsp;the&nbsp;consequences&nbsp;that&nbsp;result&nbsp;if&nbsp;<BR>
everyone&nbsp;hoards&nbsp;information,&nbsp;I&nbsp;am&nbsp;required&nbsp;to&nbsp;consider&nbsp;it&nbsp;wrong&nbsp;for&nbsp;one&nbsp;<BR>
to&nbsp;do&nbsp;so.&nbsp;&nbsp;Specifically,&nbsp;the&nbsp;desire&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;rewarded&nbsp;for&nbsp;one's&nbsp;creativity&nbsp;<BR>
does&nbsp;not&nbsp;justify&nbsp;depriving&nbsp;the&nbsp;world&nbsp;in&nbsp;general&nbsp;of&nbsp;all&nbsp;or&nbsp;part&nbsp;of&nbsp;that&nbsp;<BR>
creativity.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;一个好公民不会用这麽有破坏性的手段来致富的原因是，如果大家都这样做的&nbsp;<BR>
话，我们会因为彼此的互相攻击而变的更穷。这是不变的真理，或者说是金科玉律。&nbsp;<BR>
因为我不愿见到每个人都藏私的後果，所以我认为这样做是不对的。特别是，想要&nbsp;<BR>
由创造力获得回馈的欲望，大致而言并不能作为剥夺全世界的整个或部份创造力的&nbsp;<BR>
正当理由。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;Won't&nbsp;programmers&nbsp;starve?&quot;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;『难道程式设计师不会因此而挨饿吗?』&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I&nbsp;could&nbsp;answer&nbsp;that&nbsp;nobody&nbsp;is&nbsp;forced&nbsp;to&nbsp;be&nbsp;a&nbsp;programmer.&nbsp;&nbsp;Most&nbsp;of&nbsp;us&nbsp;<BR>
cannot&nbsp;manage&nbsp;to&nbsp;get&nbsp;any&nbsp;money&nbsp;for&nbsp;standing&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;street&nbsp;and&nbsp;making&nbsp;<BR>
faces.&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;we&nbsp;are&nbsp;not,&nbsp;as&nbsp;a&nbsp;result,&nbsp;condemned&nbsp;to&nbsp;spend&nbsp;our&nbsp;lives&nbsp;<BR>
standing&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;street&nbsp;making&nbsp;faces,&nbsp;and&nbsp;starving.&nbsp;&nbsp;We&nbsp;do&nbsp;something&nbsp;<BR>
else.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;我可以回答说，没有人被强迫当程式师啊！我们一般人没办法站在街上扮鬼脸&nbsp;<BR>
就可以赚钱的。但是我们也并非注定要选择一辈子站在街上扮鬼脸，然後挨饿。&nbsp;<BR>
我们能做其他的事。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;that&nbsp;is&nbsp;the&nbsp;wrong&nbsp;answer&nbsp;because&nbsp;it&nbsp;accepts&nbsp;the&nbsp;questioner's&nbsp;<BR>
implicit&nbsp;assumption:&nbsp;that&nbsp;without&nbsp;ownership&nbsp;of&nbsp;software,&nbsp;programmers&nbsp;<BR>
cannot&nbsp;possibly&nbsp;be&nbsp;paid&nbsp;a&nbsp;cent.&nbsp;&nbsp;Supposedly&nbsp;it&nbsp;is&nbsp;all&nbsp;or&nbsp;nothing.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;可是这种回答是错误的，因为它认同问题本身隐含的假设：如果程式师没有&nbsp;<BR>
软体的所有权的话，没有人会付程式师一毛钱。在大家的认知里，这好像是用二分法&nbsp;<BR>
分开的。&nbsp;<BR>