00000003.htm

一份很好的linux入门资料

&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;real&nbsp;reason&nbsp;programmers&nbsp;will&nbsp;not&nbsp;starve&nbsp;is&nbsp;that&nbsp;it&nbsp;will&nbsp;still&nbsp;be&nbsp;<BR>
possible&nbsp;for&nbsp;them&nbsp;to&nbsp;get&nbsp;paid&nbsp;for&nbsp;programming;&nbsp;just&nbsp;not&nbsp;paid&nbsp;as&nbsp;much&nbsp;as&nbsp;<BR>
now.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;让程式师不会挨饿的真正原因是他们仍然可以靠设计程式赚钱。只是没有像&nbsp;<BR>
现在那麽多罢了。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Restricting&nbsp;copying&nbsp;is&nbsp;not&nbsp;the&nbsp;only&nbsp;basis&nbsp;for&nbsp;business&nbsp;in&nbsp;software.&nbsp;<BR>
It&nbsp;is&nbsp;the&nbsp;most&nbsp;common&nbsp;basis&nbsp;because&nbsp;it&nbsp;brings&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;most&nbsp;money.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;it&nbsp;<BR>
were&nbsp;prohibited,&nbsp;or&nbsp;rejected&nbsp;by&nbsp;the&nbsp;customer,&nbsp;software&nbsp;business&nbsp;would&nbsp;<BR>
move&nbsp;to&nbsp;other&nbsp;bases&nbsp;of&nbsp;organization&nbsp;which&nbsp;are&nbsp;now&nbsp;used&nbsp;less&nbsp;often.&nbsp;<BR>
There&nbsp;are&nbsp;always&nbsp;numerous&nbsp;ways&nbsp;to&nbsp;organize&nbsp;any&nbsp;kind&nbsp;of&nbsp;business.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;限制软体的拷贝并不是做软体生意的基本条件。这常被视为基本条件的原因是&nbsp;<BR>
因为这样子赚的钱最多。如果这种方法被禁止，或者被客户拒绝的话，软体事业&nbsp;<BR>
就会用其他现在比较少用的方法。世上永远有很多种方法来组织任何一种事业的。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Probably&nbsp;programming&nbsp;will&nbsp;not&nbsp;be&nbsp;as&nbsp;lucrative&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;new&nbsp;basis&nbsp;as&nbsp;it&nbsp;<BR>
is&nbsp;now.&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;that&nbsp;is&nbsp;not&nbsp;an&nbsp;argument&nbsp;against&nbsp;the&nbsp;change.&nbsp;&nbsp;It&nbsp;is&nbsp;not&nbsp;<BR>
considered&nbsp;an&nbsp;injustice&nbsp;that&nbsp;sales&nbsp;clerks&nbsp;make&nbsp;the&nbsp;salaries&nbsp;that&nbsp;they&nbsp;<BR>
now&nbsp;do.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;programmers&nbsp;made&nbsp;the&nbsp;same,&nbsp;that&nbsp;would&nbsp;not&nbsp;be&nbsp;an&nbsp;injustice&nbsp;<BR>
either.&nbsp;&nbsp;(In&nbsp;practice&nbsp;they&nbsp;would&nbsp;still&nbsp;make&nbsp;considerably&nbsp;more&nbsp;than&nbsp;<BR>
that.)&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;在此新的环境中，程式设计可能不再像现在有这麽高的利润。但是这不是用来&nbsp;<BR>
反对这种改变的理由。没有人认为销售员目前的薪水是不公平的，如果程式师赚&nbsp;<BR>
一样多钱，那也不是一件不公平的事。（事实上，程式师仍然可以赚比这样多很多&nbsp;<BR>
的钱。）&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;Don't&nbsp;people&nbsp;have&nbsp;a&nbsp;right&nbsp;to&nbsp;control&nbsp;how&nbsp;their&nbsp;creativity&nbsp;is&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;used?&quot;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;『难道人没有权力控制自己的创造力该如何运用吗?』&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;Control&nbsp;over&nbsp;the&nbsp;use&nbsp;of&nbsp;one's&nbsp;ideas&quot;&nbsp;really&nbsp;constitutes&nbsp;control&nbsp;over&nbsp;<BR>
other&nbsp;people's&nbsp;lives;&nbsp;and&nbsp;it&nbsp;is&nbsp;usually&nbsp;used&nbsp;to&nbsp;make&nbsp;their&nbsp;lives&nbsp;more&nbsp;<BR>
difficult.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;控制自己思想的运用&quot;&nbsp;实际上包含了控制他人的生活;&nbsp;而且通常会使的他人的&nbsp;<BR>
日子更难过。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;People&nbsp;who&nbsp;have&nbsp;studied&nbsp;the&nbsp;issue&nbsp;of&nbsp;intellectual&nbsp;property&nbsp;rights&nbsp;<BR>
carefully&nbsp;(such&nbsp;as&nbsp;lawyers)&nbsp;say&nbsp;that&nbsp;there&nbsp;is&nbsp;no&nbsp;intrinsic&nbsp;right&nbsp;to&nbsp;<BR>
intellectual&nbsp;property.&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;kinds&nbsp;of&nbsp;supposed&nbsp;intellectual&nbsp;property&nbsp;<BR>
rights&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;government&nbsp;recognizes&nbsp;were&nbsp;created&nbsp;by&nbsp;specific&nbsp;acts&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
legislation&nbsp;for&nbsp;specific&nbsp;purposes.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;像律师等，仔细研究过智慧财产权问题的人认为，实际上智慧财产权并非固有的&nbsp;<BR>
（天生的）权力。政府所认同的那种智慧财产权是为了特定的目的而透过特别的&nbsp;<BR>
立法程序创造出来的。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For&nbsp;example,&nbsp;the&nbsp;patent&nbsp;system&nbsp;was&nbsp;established&nbsp;to&nbsp;encourage&nbsp;<BR>
inventors&nbsp;to&nbsp;disclose&nbsp;the&nbsp;details&nbsp;of&nbsp;their&nbsp;inventions.&nbsp;&nbsp;Its&nbsp;purpose&nbsp;was&nbsp;<BR>
to&nbsp;help&nbsp;society&nbsp;rather&nbsp;than&nbsp;to&nbsp;help&nbsp;inventors.&nbsp;&nbsp;At&nbsp;the&nbsp;time,&nbsp;the&nbsp;life&nbsp;<BR>
span&nbsp;of&nbsp;17&nbsp;years&nbsp;for&nbsp;a&nbsp;patent&nbsp;was&nbsp;short&nbsp;compared&nbsp;with&nbsp;the&nbsp;rate&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
advance&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;state&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;art.&nbsp;&nbsp;Since&nbsp;patents&nbsp;are&nbsp;an&nbsp;issue&nbsp;only&nbsp;among&nbsp;<BR>
manufacturers,&nbsp;for&nbsp;whom&nbsp;the&nbsp;cost&nbsp;and&nbsp;effort&nbsp;of&nbsp;a&nbsp;license&nbsp;agreement&nbsp;are&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;small&nbsp;compared&nbsp;with&nbsp;setting&nbsp;up&nbsp;production,&nbsp;the&nbsp;patents&nbsp;often&nbsp;do&nbsp;not&nbsp;do&nbsp;<BR>
much&nbsp;harm.&nbsp;&nbsp;They&nbsp;do&nbsp;not&nbsp;obstruct&nbsp;most&nbsp;individuals&nbsp;who&nbsp;use&nbsp;patented&nbsp;<BR>
products.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;举例而言,&nbsp;专利制度是为了鼓励发明者公开他们的发明的详细内容而设的。他的&nbsp;<BR>
目的是为了帮助整个社会，而不是发明者。在那时候&nbsp;17&nbsp;年的专利有效期相对於科技&nbsp;<BR>
的进步是相当短的。因为专利权只是制造商之间的问题，而且对他们而言，签一个&nbsp;<BR>
专利合约的负担，和量产比较起来可以说很小，所以专利权对他们而言通常不会有&nbsp;<BR>
什麽伤害。他们没有妨碍到使用专利产品的个人。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;idea&nbsp;of&nbsp;copyright&nbsp;did&nbsp;not&nbsp;exist&nbsp;in&nbsp;ancient&nbsp;times,&nbsp;when&nbsp;authors&nbsp;<BR>
frequently&nbsp;copied&nbsp;other&nbsp;authors&nbsp;at&nbsp;length&nbsp;in&nbsp;works&nbsp;of&nbsp;non-fiction.&nbsp;&nbsp;This&nbsp;<BR>
practice&nbsp;was&nbsp;useful,&nbsp;and&nbsp;is&nbsp;the&nbsp;only&nbsp;way&nbsp;many&nbsp;authors'&nbsp;works&nbsp;have&nbsp;<BR>
survived&nbsp;even&nbsp;in&nbsp;part.&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;copyright&nbsp;system&nbsp;was&nbsp;created&nbsp;expressly&nbsp;for&nbsp;<BR>
the&nbsp;purpose&nbsp;of&nbsp;encouraging&nbsp;authorship.&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;the&nbsp;domain&nbsp;for&nbsp;which&nbsp;it&nbsp;was&nbsp;<BR>
invented--books,&nbsp;which&nbsp;could&nbsp;be&nbsp;copied&nbsp;economically&nbsp;only&nbsp;on&nbsp;a&nbsp;printing&nbsp;<BR>
press--it&nbsp;did&nbsp;little&nbsp;harm,&nbsp;and&nbsp;did&nbsp;not&nbsp;obstruct&nbsp;most&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;individuals&nbsp;<BR>
who&nbsp;read&nbsp;the&nbsp;books.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;古时候并没有智慧财产权的概念，有一段很长的时间在非小说的领域里面，作者&nbsp;<BR>
常常引用他人的作品。这种行为是非常有用的，而且这也是很多作者的作品能够&nbsp;<BR>
部份被保留下来的唯一途径。智慧财产权系统原是设立来鼓励创作的。在智慧&nbsp;<BR>
财产权原先发明的领域（书籍）内，只有印刷公司才能很经济的大量复制的情况下，&nbsp;<BR>
它并没有什麽害处，并且没有妨碍到大部份的读者。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;All&nbsp;intellectual&nbsp;property&nbsp;rights&nbsp;are&nbsp;just&nbsp;licenses&nbsp;granted&nbsp;by&nbsp;society&nbsp;<BR>
because&nbsp;it&nbsp;was&nbsp;thought,&nbsp;rightly&nbsp;or&nbsp;wrongly,&nbsp;that&nbsp;society&nbsp;as&nbsp;a&nbsp;whole&nbsp;<BR>
would&nbsp;benefit&nbsp;by&nbsp;granting&nbsp;them.&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;in&nbsp;any&nbsp;particular&nbsp;situation,&nbsp;we&nbsp;<BR>
have&nbsp;to&nbsp;ask:&nbsp;are&nbsp;we&nbsp;really&nbsp;better&nbsp;off&nbsp;granting&nbsp;such&nbsp;license?&nbsp;&nbsp;What&nbsp;kind&nbsp;<BR>
of&nbsp;act&nbsp;are&nbsp;we&nbsp;licensing&nbsp;a&nbsp;person&nbsp;to&nbsp;do?&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;所有的智慧财产权只不过是社会所给予的权限，因为不管这样子的想法是否正确，&nbsp;<BR>
一般认为给予这个权利可以对这整个社会有所帮助。但是在每一种个别状况下，&nbsp;<BR>
我们必须思考：我们给予这些权利後真的变的更好了吗？我们到底允取了什麽□围&nbsp;<BR>
的授权？&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;case&nbsp;of&nbsp;programs&nbsp;today&nbsp;is&nbsp;very&nbsp;different&nbsp;from&nbsp;that&nbsp;of&nbsp;books&nbsp;a&nbsp;<BR>
hundred&nbsp;years&nbsp;ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;fact&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;easiest&nbsp;way&nbsp;to&nbsp;copy&nbsp;a&nbsp;program&nbsp;is&nbsp;<BR>
from&nbsp;one&nbsp;neighbor&nbsp;to&nbsp;another,&nbsp;the&nbsp;fact&nbsp;that&nbsp;a&nbsp;program&nbsp;has&nbsp;both&nbsp;source&nbsp;<BR>
code&nbsp;and&nbsp;object&nbsp;code&nbsp;which&nbsp;are&nbsp;distinct,&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;fact&nbsp;that&nbsp;a&nbsp;program&nbsp;is&nbsp;<BR>
used&nbsp;rather&nbsp;than&nbsp;read&nbsp;and&nbsp;enjoyed,&nbsp;combine&nbsp;to&nbsp;create&nbsp;a&nbsp;situation&nbsp;in&nbsp;<BR>
which&nbsp;a&nbsp;person&nbsp;who&nbsp;enforces&nbsp;a&nbsp;copyright&nbsp;is&nbsp;harming&nbsp;society&nbsp;as&nbsp;a&nbsp;whole&nbsp;<BR>
both&nbsp;materially&nbsp;and&nbsp;spiritually;&nbsp;in&nbsp;which&nbsp;a&nbsp;person&nbsp;should&nbsp;not&nbsp;do&nbsp;so&nbsp;<BR>
regardless&nbsp;of&nbsp;whether&nbsp;the&nbsp;law&nbsp;enables&nbsp;him&nbsp;to.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;以今日程式软体的情况而言，是与一百年前的书籍的情况迥然不同的。拷贝一个&nbsp;<BR>
程式最简单的方法就是向邻近的人索取；一个程式有本质互异的原始码与目的码；&nbsp;<BR>
以及一个程式是拿来用的，而不是用来阅读与娱乐。这些事实结合在一起形成了&nbsp;<BR>
一个特殊的情况：那就是一个人如果强行施用智慧财产权的话，就会对整个社会&nbsp;<BR>
造成伤害，不论是在物质上或者是精神上。所以一个人不应该这样做，不管法律&nbsp;<BR>
允不允许他这麽做。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&quot;Competition&nbsp;makes&nbsp;things&nbsp;get&nbsp;done&nbsp;better.&quot;&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;『竞争可以促进进步』&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;paradigm&nbsp;of&nbsp;competition&nbsp;is&nbsp;a&nbsp;race:&nbsp;by&nbsp;rewarding&nbsp;the&nbsp;winner,&nbsp;we&nbsp;<BR>
encourage&nbsp;everyone&nbsp;to&nbsp;run&nbsp;faster.&nbsp;&nbsp;When&nbsp;capitalism&nbsp;really&nbsp;works&nbsp;this&nbsp;<BR>
way,&nbsp;it&nbsp;does&nbsp;a&nbsp;good&nbsp;job;&nbsp;but&nbsp;its&nbsp;defenders&nbsp;are&nbsp;wrong&nbsp;in&nbsp;assuming&nbsp;it&nbsp;<BR>
always&nbsp;works&nbsp;this&nbsp;way.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;the&nbsp;runners&nbsp;forget&nbsp;why&nbsp;the&nbsp;reward&nbsp;is&nbsp;offered&nbsp;<BR>
and&nbsp;become&nbsp;intent&nbsp;on&nbsp;winning,&nbsp;no&nbsp;matter&nbsp;how,&nbsp;they&nbsp;may&nbsp;find&nbsp;other&nbsp;<BR>
strategies--such&nbsp;as,&nbsp;attacking&nbsp;other&nbsp;runners.&nbsp;&nbsp;If&nbsp;the&nbsp;runners&nbsp;get&nbsp;into&nbsp;<BR>
a&nbsp;fist&nbsp;fight,&nbsp;they&nbsp;will&nbsp;all&nbsp;finish&nbsp;late.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;竞争的典型例子就是赛跑了：透过给予胜利者奖品，我们鼓励大家跑快一点。&nbsp;<BR>
资本主义就是这样运作的，而且这种机制做的不错；但是他的支持者却犯了&nbsp;<BR>
一个错误，就是假设这种机制永远是可行的。假设竞跑者忘了给奖品的功用，&nbsp;<BR>
而只求胜利的话，无论如何，他们可能会使用其他的手段&nbsp;—&nbsp;如，攻击其他的&nbsp;<BR>
跑者。如果赛跑变成了一场拳架的话，那大家都会花更多的时间才会到达终点。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Proprietary&nbsp;and&nbsp;secret&nbsp;software&nbsp;is&nbsp;the&nbsp;moral&nbsp;equivalent&nbsp;of&nbsp;runners&nbsp;<BR>
in&nbsp;a&nbsp;fist&nbsp;fight.&nbsp;&nbsp;Sad&nbsp;to&nbsp;say,&nbsp;the&nbsp;only&nbsp;referee&nbsp;we've&nbsp;got&nbsp;does&nbsp;not&nbsp;seem&nbsp;<BR>
to&nbsp;object&nbsp;to&nbsp;fights;&nbsp;he&nbsp;just&nbsp;regulates&nbsp;them&nbsp;(&quot;For&nbsp;every&nbsp;ten&nbsp;yards&nbsp;you&nbsp;<BR>
run,&nbsp;you&nbsp;can&nbsp;fire&nbsp;one&nbsp;shot&quot;).&nbsp;&nbsp;He&nbsp;really&nbsp;ought&nbsp;to&nbsp;break&nbsp;them&nbsp;up,&nbsp;and&nbsp;<BR>
penalize&nbsp;runners&nbsp;for&nbsp;even&nbsp;trying&nbsp;to&nbsp;fight.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;在道德上，专属软体与秘密软体就相当於拳架中的跑者。我很难过的说，目前&nbsp;<BR>
发现的唯一调停者好像并不反对打架；他仅仅节制他们而已（&quot;你每跑十码，&nbsp;<BR>
可以踢一