Binary blobs are sometimes poorly programmed or incomplete, and they support few devices or configurations, and may have bugs. The operating system's programmers can't fix because they don't have access to the source code. Blobs cannot be fixed by anyone other than the device manufacturer, and if they have security holes, the operating system developers can't patch it and distribute repairs easily.

Binary blobs also present licensing threats, because proprietary agreements that govern them put heavy restrictions on redistribution (i.e. one cannot just take the driver source code, copy it, and give it to a friend with patches applied, without first having complicated permission from the binary blob company).

The way that the binary blob was compiled is not known. Patches to the binary blobs or corrections to technical implementation is near impossible since the blobs are already out in distribution without source. Although reverse engineering is sometimes possible (but can be illegal, and is extremely inconvenient for OS developers).

They make it hard for anyone to repair the blob, since it is proprietary binary, unlike open source with files one can pull out and patch.

However, binary blobs are considered intellectual property.... by some..

OReilly Books are sometimes poorly written or incomplete, and they support few examples or configurations, and may have spelling errors or bugs in the code snippets. The books' readers can't fix the errors because they don't have access to the book distribution system. Books cannot be fixed by anyone other than the original author, and if the source code snippets have security holes or errors, the readers of the book can't patch it since the book is copyright.

Books also present licensing threats, because proprietary copyrights or publishing companies like O'Reilly that govern them put heavy restrictions on redistribution (i.e. one cannot just take the book to a photocopy machine, modify the source code errors in the book, and give to a friend with patches applied, without first having complicated permission from the publishing company).

The way that the book was printed is not known. Patches to the snippets in the book or corrections to technical details is near impossible since the books are already out in distribution as-is. Although ripping the pages out and de-gluing or de-stapling the book for photocopying is possible (but can be illegal and pages can rip, and it is extremely inconvenient for readers).

They make it hard for anyone to repair the book, since it is proprietary glued together, unlike an open binder with rings where one can pull out pages.

However, books are considered intellectual property.... by some..

http://www.oreilly.com/

Tim is a big promoter and advocate of open source code.

But if books were truly free, they'd be in PDF files and on Wiki's without restriction, and accessible using a search engine. We would not have to pay a hefty fee for the book to be shipped to us in a closed binary paper format where it is illegal to make and sell copies of the paper.

Books Go Against Our Freedoms

• cannot be searched
• cannot be copied and given to a friend without severe legal penalties
• cannot be corrected/updated by a reader, especially when bad source code snippets exist in the book which offer security holes, demonstrate bad coding practices, or contain errors.
• are like binary compilations.. since a book after all is compiled and closed for the future
• go against our freedoms

He Destroys Our Freedom

People should be protesting against compiled books.. like this person protests against ATI for closed compiled video drivers:

A paperback or hard cover book is like a binary blob. Once I have a book I can use it.. but it is not open, and I cannot give copies of the books to people without paying the copyright owner a hefty fee. Books are closed, not open. Books that Oreilly sells resemble Microsoft Windows. Oreilly is a Bill Gates of books.

And not one person knows this. Just I do (I am not a person, I am an alien.. if you haven't noticed). Everyone is too busy praising Oreilly (licking his n*ts) for all his open source advocacy. Some people don't detect any irony or paradox in the whole situation.

But that doesn't matter, because Tim makes a paycheck from these restrictions. He's not worried about freedom, he's worried about his bottom line, his company, his paycheck, and his closed restricted sale of books.

Do It Or I Squirt Lemons In Your Eye

All the books should come with instructions stating how the books were printed, with what equipment, with what ink, with what glue was used to hold the book together, with what paper was used, and full information on how the graphics on the front cover were designed.. along with graphics files that were used to generate the books.

Without any of the above, the book is closed off and proprietary.

Give us our freedom - and stop taking a big fat paycheck from proprietary closed source books Tim. You are a scam. And I'm smarter than you. I know what you are doing.. you're making money from restriction and loving it. You're censoring books by using your company and copyright. Your books are like Microsoft software.. only people who pay for them (or rent them) get to use them.

Books should be more open so that people can correct mistakes in the books. When a book is glued together it is impossible to do this easily. Books also become outdated and obsolete when they are closed. This is just like a binary blob or binary piece of software which cannot be used in the future since there is no easy way of modifying it.

If anything, a book that costs money to be delivered should be in a binder format where one can remove pages from the binder and share with his friends. People can make copies of the pages in the binder and sell them if they wish.

Open source code is so great! That means we can close the books and make millions. Don't offer any of those PDF files online.. and don't let anyone download them on BitTorrent.. because that hurts our bottom line here at Closed Book Oreilly company! And don't sell binders.. make sure we glue them shut so no one can easily make copies of the pages inside the book. Especially the pages inside the book that contain source snippets and comments around them.. make sure that code is completely closed off and glued into the book. Just like Microsoft DLL's.

Time is Time

The book should be easier to give away free, since the book doesn't even offer execution on a system (unless source snippets are included in the book). The source code should be worth more than the book itself since the source can be executed but the book cannot (as I say, unless the book has source code snippets.. which in Oreilly's books they do.. making most of Oreilly's books full of closed source code, even though O'Reilly supposedly advocates open source?!?).

But somehow we come to the conclusion that.. oh.. yes.. books are different than source code. It's perfectly okay to severely restrict books, but oh no, not source code.

Predicted Denial

  but it is about free speech, not cost

This is not free book. This is closed book.

And in case you come up with some nonsensical argument such as

  but books are intellectual property, software is different

"I spent 12 years writing this GNU software! You can't just allow anyone to take it from me and start making copies and selling it! That's intellectual property! The code is copyright!"

Or can you?

It's only about Tim's paycheck. Doesn't matter about freedom of speech or freedom of book, or freedom of glue, or anything else. Of course Tim won't open his books. What do you think I am, a lunatic?

Neither will millionaire musicians offer all the MIDI files and instrument musical notes that makes up their records they sell.. because music takes time and creativity. Guess what: software takes time and creativity too. Music and books are not magically different than software, no matter how much you've read on GNU websites that music is something different than software.

Open books, Open music, and Open source.

The only naive people are the programmers. Because programmers like sharing code even more than musicians like sharing notes. Because programmers like sharing code even more than authors like sharing words.

This article is an attack on open source and GNU. I hate open source. I hate GNU more. I think it is stupid. But I also participate in Open Source, because it is like a cocaine drug to me. If I actually spent my time coding proprietary software for corporations, I would be in much better mental condition than I am now. Code to me can be better than sex. As I said, I do not represent 99 percent of the world. I do not practice what I preach. Where is my needle.