News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chomsky on Intellectual Property by defen on Thursday March 17, 2011 @04:24PM (#2337901)
The point is that the phrase "exception that proves the rule" should only be used when talking about man-made rules and laws, not inductive hypotheses. You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis!

Put another way, when used correctly, "the exception that proves the rule" is a valid rhetorical phrase regardless of how many exceptions there are. Whereas if there were 500 successful startups using non-open-source tools, you wouldn't say that they were the exceptions that proved the rule.

Re:Chomsky on Intellectual Property by hasenj on Friday March 18, 2011 @08:56AM (#2340206)
> You don't get to use evidence against your hypothesis as evidence for your hypothesis!

But you do. That's the point. It's not an absolute law. I'm sure you can find a great application written in Visual Basic. This doesn't make Visual Basic a great choice over Python.

If you could list 50+ successful startups running on Windows, then you could say there's a strong evidence.

And even then, this only proves that Windows is as good as Linux. It doesn't counter the original point about Linux being great despite not having a business model centered around IP.

Re:Chomsky on Intellectual Property by defen on Friday March 18, 2011 @03:00PM (#2341508)
I completely agree with your overall point - that open source Unix-type tools are better for startups, and that Windows-based tools aren't a good fit. I was simply saying that you used a rhetorical phrase incorrectly.