Slashdot Mirror
OSI Launches Certification Program With Logo
Lao-Tzu writes "The Open Source Initiative has launched an OSI certification program. The OSI has trademarked a logo looking like a keyhole for their use as a graphical certification mark. Python.org is the first website to carry the new OSI logo." One might ask what took so long.
Don't mean to be a naysayer, but I'm not sure using Logo in a certification program is such a spiffy idea. How hard it is to move that turtle around, really? ;)
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
...Certification program with Logo
Hey, I know logo, it's the language where you draw with a turtle. At last I can be a Certified IT worker!
Kilroy was here!
One might ask what took so long.
One might ask what it took so long for Slashdot to mention it - it's been on the Python home page for quite a while.
One might equally ask why it took you guys a whole month to note the launch of this certification mark...
At least they're fucking better than FreeBSD, Which has NO LOGO . . . fucking lamers. No wonder BSD is dying.
-- La1d, killed by a newt, while helpless.
Can't think of any genius reason why a person would need this when you can just sift through pages and pages of legalese to find out the same thing. I feel bad for these folks because they'll approve (or not, but either way they're eating their lives away studying (and debating) bleeping license legalese!) any license that's thrown at them.
Worse yet, licenses change and components can be closed sourced (right, Source Forge?) so I don't see much but big bad headaches for these folks in return for something that really doesn't add much to the community. So it goes.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
> A logo. Wow. You all kick ass.
As Phil Knight said (president of Nike), "People dont want shoes. They want the swoosh."
To make fun of a logo is wholesomely naive. The prominance of brand economics and logos in our economy is beyond anybody's measure. Heck, logos, official seals predate the 1500s. They give an organization a recognizable and terse symbol with which to endorse certain projects or people.
Sure, OSI isn't Nike (most notably and thankfully because they arnt looking to levereage the brand horizontally), but there's a reason MS, Dell, etc has a little sticker they put on stuff. Hint: it works.
"Old man yells at systemd"
what in the world does this one means?
Is it an "O" for open source with a keyhole or a drunken "C" tripping over itself?
- sigs are for wimps.
Here is a complete list of various sized images for your web pages.
w eb /
http://opensource.org/trademarks/osi-certified/
Or does the OSI logo look like a cleaned up line-art version of goatse.cx?
This may end up being too-little, too-late. The OSI has frequently fallen off the map, rising up now and again to issue some bland press release or statement - perhaps this is the turning of a new leaf? Will the OSI start to update its web page more frequently and take a more active role in the community?
Signs point to no.
do you have TP for my keyhole
are you threatening me
I am Corn Holeo
I wonder, why hasn't the FSF, with their decent cash hoard, done something like this?
What if Microsoft comes out with a shared source license called "The GPL"(tm) or something? Yeah that's improbable but still I'm sure there is "branding" value in having a recognizable mark (and not just a recognizable hippy with a beard)...
It looks to me like a bitten krispy kreme donut..
"One might ask what took so long."
One might ask "Who Cares?"
The best thing about grass-roots organizations is they are always there for a laugh when Jerry Springer isn't on the tube.
Simpleface.org is an organization trying to do a similiar thing for OSS User Interface design. We're developing a set of graphical design patterns in an open and collaborative way (using the website, it's a wiki) and once we have a decent set we're going to roll them into a guide and try to get OSS projects to use them. Those projects that comply with guidelines get to use the Simpleface logo.
I think this type of certification is a good thing for OSS projects. It provides everyone with the knowledge that some sort of consistency has been achieved. For OSI, it's consistency of the Open Source definition. For Simpleface, it's consistency of design and human computer interaction.
-Russ
Me
I like the idea, but there doesn't appear to be any way of regulating it. Perhaps, I didn't find that text on the web site.
It doesn't seem to be any more powerful then saying, "Hey my stuff's Open Source. See look GPL." If your code really isn't GPL then Stallman knocks on your door and gives your titty-twisters until your nipples fall off.
It's cool to spread the term Open Source and do some branding though, it doesn't matter.
The OSI logo contest information might clear this up. It was conceived by ESR with some pretty specific rules. There were a wide variety of submissions. There was a diverse interpretation of what OS was to represent. The selected image was provided by "Hilmar". Additionally, here is the index of all the submissions.here
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
That logo is just begging for a little s in the middle of that white circle. That would make the big cut circle look like the 'O' and coupled with the 'S' I mentioned, plus the white intersection which looks like an 'I' - which would spell 'OSI', how novel! :)
It looks more like a peep sight, like on a old military carbine. Hmmm.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Or 'Firestone' on the side of your tire.
Or 'Enron' on your accounting firm's literature.
Or 'Made in a Sweatshop' on the side of your shoe.
Hint: The logo recognition thing only works if your product isn't a piece of shit.
Cunning linguists
An omission from their approved license list is the most liberal "license" of all, which is "released unconditionally to public domain".
It's amazing what you can do with a little turtle graphics. ...
What's wrong with this logo?
Sorry...I know. Trolling. But what else is karma for?
a reference to the famous "copy down" movement...
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
Might as well keep the offtopic posts in one place :-) ... It looks more like the old "magic eye" tuning indicators from vacumn tube days ... Wow, even older than I am.
...
I had an onion hanging from my belt; that was the fashion in those days.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Much cooler selection here.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo... YAY!!
(ed)
I have seen a few other projects with the OSI Certification logo/notice. Heck, I've had it on my projects for at least a week (Modified BSD License and GPL).
I find it funny that out of all the logos that were submitted....with fancy names with many characters....the one that one was named 'hi.gif'.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
I know they have the best intentions but, I've had it with these acronyms! OSI(Open Source Initiative), not to be confused with OSI(Open Systems Interconnect) Model, courtesy of the good old ISO(International Organization for Standardization). Yes, the last one is correct.
I've had it with these groups, which are all in the same industry, coming up with multitudes of acronyms that all have different meanings. In some cases, even the context in which the acronym is used does not reduce the ambiguity of the acronym. Some of these acronyms are so cute I just want to wretch!
Enough already!!
Change it. It *is* an Open Source Initiative, isn't it? Just make sure you abide by the GPL.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
I don't think it looks so much like a keyhole, as it does the outline of the top of a person. Which makes sense. Its an "O" for open, and it puts people in the middle. How 'bout that. :)
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
Er ... copyright?
Open Source built the Internet
Because it did. All major server side software on the internet (major meaning leads its market), an Open Source application (as, of course, defined by the Open Source Definition) leads.
- Web Servers - Apache
- Proxy Servers - Squid
- Email Servers - Sendmail
- DNS - BIND9
- FTP - WuFTPd
- Even OpenSSH is more prominent than the proprietary alternatives (though from an end user point of view that's not really much of an argument).
Most people have absolutely no idea this is the case. They don't realize that every time they connect to the internet they're relying on the root nameservers, all of which use Open Source software on Unix, to do their jobs. And those Open Source systems are rising to the challenge. There are people out there - including many journalist (Adam Turner from The Age is a good example if you live in Australia) who literally think proprietary Microsoft software is fundamenttal to the operation of the internet - even more so than OSS applications.I know I'm risking some karma by sort of stating the obvious, but I like how the design is very simple yet incorporates the following important elements:
1. "O" for Open Source
2. "C" for Certification
3. A "Keyhole" for Security
The "Keyhole" element also looks a little like a stylized person so I suppose it also represents the human element of the development process (community, people power) as well as the personal/functional aspects of software (built for users, usability, productivity).
I'd also interpret the Green colour as reflecting the "natural"/"friendly" aspects of the open source process.
Just my initial reactions, and obviously you can get carried away (it's the "product" not the logo that really counts), but I think OSI's smart to have a consistent brand for certification and that their logo choice is fairly strong and representative of the "product". I like the new logo, the only nitpicks - I'm still not sure about the font choices (OSI certified, TM) and the edges/lines/contrast seem a little too blurred.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
For those of us who prefer not to use the term "Open Source", how about something similar from the FSF? The FSF already maintains a list of licenses that it considers free software licenses, after all, and it'd be nice to be able to show that your software is truly free, as well as supporting the FSF (make the graphic link to the Free Software Definition, perhaps).
--Joakim Ziegler
Would you buy software with a logo with a huge gaping hole in it?
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
Yet another pointy haired boss device.
Now I can tell my PHB it's ok for me to use Python for development at work. It's certified, with a logo even. That's all he needs to know.
Perl was ok a long time ago, it has had that dot-com domain name for a while now. I didn't even have to argue to be able to use it.
Seriously, is this certification anything else than a PHB pacifier?
It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
Internet Protocol
Intellectual Property
Information Protection (the name of the security group where I work)
Implementation Plan (saw this one abbreviated today at work -- it confused the manager)
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I can see why Python was so quick to adopt the new logo. It looks like "C" in a nosedive, about to crash and burn.
Svenska Livsmedelsverket, Gröna Nyckelhålet Anyone see the resemblence? The green keyhole is the swedish symbol for healthy food :)
i like the logo (not even going to talk about OSI/certifcation)
i just climb trees, and look for rhythm everywhere.
After our new logo was featured on Slashdot, we have received a ton of email asking where to obtain a LOGO Interpreter for Linux. This is the LOGO interpreter we used to create our new, um, logo:
ftp://ftp.anarres.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/ucblogo
-OSI Certification Program
Is the following slogan:
Open Source built the Internet
Because it did. All major server side software on the internet (major meaning leads its market), an Open Source application (as, of course, defined by the Open Source Definition) leads.
Well, that statement actually isn't be true, and the folks at the Free Software Foundation would likely (and correctly) take exception to that claim. There really isn't any reason to create more bad blood between the Free Software people and the Open Source people, and I would be very surprised if ESR would ever make such a claim, given that the entire process preceeded his movement by a number of years.
The internet was built using Free Software, by free software developers, back when it was still called Free Software, and the term "open source" had not yet been coined. NOTE that 'Free Software' isn't the same as GNU.
Free Software built the Internet. Not Open Source. Not GNU. Not the Free Software Foundation.
Open Source, on the other hand, provided an important bridge between corporate suits and the concept of using peer review and the scientific process to obtain better quality software. My only nit to pick with the open source folks is their shyness in discussing Software Freedom, but perhaps that is simply incompatible with their role, which is to extend the concepts of free source code availability to corporate Earth, to which the words Free Software and Freedom remain somewhat alien and mistrusted.
It is rather amazing that so many corporate types, who pride themselves on a deeper understanding of capitalism than the average person (though I suspect that pride is misplaced much of the time) are unable to recognize the importance of fundamental freedom which allows free markets to operate, and instead of understanding the deep pragmatism that underlies freedom in general, and software freedom in particular, they associate it with vague notions of "idealism" that they somehow assume are therefor incompatible with business. Freedom, and software freedom in particular, are incompatible with oligarchies and monopolies, not free markets and competetive capitalism. Quite the reverse, but I digress.
Open Source plays an important role in educating the public at large, and bringing them part way toward understanding what software freedom is about, which is why I personally regret the animosity I've seen between the OSI folks and the FSF. From my perspective OSI is the guy at the door saying "come into my shop and have a look" to someone who would have otherwise walked on by, while the FSF is the guy behind the counter explaining the fundamentals of what it is you are buying, and why.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Did anyone else read that as "OSI Launches Certification Program with Logo"
Had me befuddled there - OSI initiates thier certification program by choosing that old Windows learn-to-program langauge with the turtle?
Long day...
Now, how many workers at our favorite monopoly are off to the patent office to pattent thier newest 'idea' ....
The key
It'll happen.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
More to the point, why do I need this? If this is the last line of defense, if the text in my license isn't descriptive enough, and if I need another group/consortium to put their stamp of approval on my work, then how is my software supposed to qualify as soft. I mean isn't that what software is supposed to be? Soft?
Man, this is getting out of hand. Why don't we all wear color coded uniforms based on whether we're trying to get something out of software development or contribute something back to it.
The last thing I think software developers need, especially those of the open source ilk, are certifications. Standards, sure. We have a hard enough time selling folks on the quality of our stuff. Why hamstring development more with yet another hurdle? I doubt developers will curry this certification's favor.
What happened to the TacoBell logo for the OSI model? Or did they get sued?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I'm all for the OSI, but I can't say I care for the keyhole symbol. The keyhole has long been a symbol of invaded privacy... y'know, people peeping through the keyhole. This association is all the more strengthened because of the term "open source", meaning "look inside the program". I don't think the general punlic is going to get a particularly positive message from this logo.
Miko O'Sullivan
Some say that the Tinkertoy certification is just a paper certification while you really have to know your blocks to pass the lego exam. So I think I will going to Toy's-R-us and get me a study kit and passing the seven-11 to get me a 6 pack.
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
Funny. I was under the impression that BSD software built the internet
Only in part
So, no. It wasn't built on Free Software, either. It was built on BSD.
BSD is free software. Indeed, many of the BSD folks will argue that their software is "free-er" than GPLed software (it depends on your definition of freedom as to whether you agree with that stance or not, but either way it is irrelevant to this discussion).
I doubt you will find any BSD developer or proponent, anywhere on the face of the Earth, that would argue that their software isn't free software, and while FreeBSD predates Open Source by many, many years, FreeBSD does not predate the FSF, or the widespread, colloqual use of the term free software used to describe it, and many other projects all of which, taken together, formed the core of what we now call the Internet.
It is another very common myth that Free Software == GPLed software, and that is a myth that the Free Software Foundation, as well as the BSD folks, are at pains to dispell.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"After spending 20 months trying to use the Internet to bring together
corporate IT workers and open-source software developers to collaborate on
technology projects, CollabNet Inc. has shut down its SourceXchange online
marketplace due to a lack of adequate revenue."
says
CollabNet did not lack a flashy name (co-founder Brian Behlendorf of Apache
fame) or money ($35 million in funding last June) or big-name partners (HP,
Intel, Oracle and Sun). So not much else to blame it on!
This one is dedicated to those open source zealots who are in the habit of
browbeating non-open source projects/companies (including Mac OS X/Apple)
with threats of imminent extinction.
What Open Source Zealots Don't Get
.doc file. I'm continually annoyed myself by people who send HTML mail, never mind the lunatics who use Microsoft Word as their text editor in Microsoft Outlook. Email is much more efficient as plain text. If Stallman had positioned his screed as "use the right tool for the right audience in the right medium" I would have been totally on board with him.
.doc format. It's a lofty and valuable goal. But until the day when Stallman or someone else can figure out a way to get open source developers to scratch someone else's itch with the same fervor and quality with which they scratch their own, it's just not a realistic goal.
The News Forge editorial, We can put an end to Word attachments [link via Camworld], by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, illustrates perfectly why the free software/open source movement is never going to penetrate the mainstream consumer consciousness.
Caveat: I like open source software. I like the concept and I support it. What I dislike is the zealotry of hardcore open source/free software advocates, like Stallman, and their total disregard for how consumers view and use software. These zealots are stuck in a dogma that is constructed from the viewpoint of someone who develops software, not from the viewpoint of consumers who use software for reasons other than developing more software (which constitute the vast majority). The zealots of open source/free software present the movesment as serving manking, but in fact they have an overwhelming tendency to ignore the needs of any user not like themselves. This essay isn't an anti-open source rant, nor is it flag-waving support of Microsoft's monopolistic practices. It is intended to be a pragmatic look at why open source hasn't lived up to the hype.
Stallman's point in his editorial is that people shouldn't send Word attachments via email. Much of Stallman's rhetoric is justifiable. In fact, I think it's not only counter-productive, but rude, to send Word attachments to people who use open source software incapable of reading a
However, much of Stallman's rhetoric is the usual open source/free software wheel-spinning that shows little consideration for or understanding of the vast majority of computer users. This part of the second paragraph sticks out:
Most computer users use Microsoft Word. That is unfortunate for them, because Word is proprietary software, denying its users the freedom to study, change, copy, and redistribute it.
There are all kinds of problems with Stallman's rhetoric, but this is the most glaring and is the ultimate of example of What "Open Source Zealots Don't Get." Here's the underlying concept that the open source movement has continually failed to understand. Ready? Here it is:
Most computer users don't give a crap about studying or changing software.
Get it? 99.985% of Microsoft Word users have absolutely no desire to view -- never mind modify -- the source code of Word. Why would they? They don't know how to code! Nor do they want to learn! It's like asking them to re-design the shovel to make it more appropriate to their needs. Hey, sure maybe 0.015% of shovel-users customize their shovels, but most people use the tool off-the-shelf, as is.
Stallman is right that people would like to freely copy and distribute software, but this is where we run up against the dirty secret of open source: open source developers like to scratch their own itch. And, unfortunately, that attitude doesn't jive with creating consumer applications, so those consumer needs get left up to businesses that need to make money off their product to exist.
Open source developers tend to work on projects that solve their own problems (which usually revolve around building software and working with others who build software). That's why we have great open source operating systems, web servers, compilers, etc., but are severely lacking in open source office suites, graphics and design tools, games, etc. Independent open source developers don't come together to develop those kind of applications like they do to develop web servers, compilers, and databases because developers typically don't have a desperate need for those kinds of apps. No itch, so why scratch?
Yes, I know there are some alternatives out there (primarily because the zealots have this mistaken idea that Linux will compete with Windows and Macintosh for the consumer desktop). I know about KOffice, AbiWord, GNOME Office, OpenOffice, and Sun Microsystems StarOffice.The only competitive contender on that list is StarOffice, which, of course, started as a proprietary application. Sun Microsystem's CEO, Steve McNeally, acquired StarOffice and open sourced it purely to attempt to spite Microsoft; Bill Gates just laughed. The Gimp is a fine graphics program, but it doesn't measure up (especially running under Windows) to Adobe Photoshop, or even Jasc Paint Shop Pro. And where are the competitive open source competitors for Adobe's Illustrator, ImageReady, PageMaker, InDesign, Premier, AfterEffects, etc.? What open source app would professionals choose over Macromedia Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Freehand, Flash, Shockwave, Director, Authorware, etc? Answer: they don't exist.
Open source developers don't care enough about those applications to develop them, and they sure don't care enough to develop them for the non-open source platforms (e.g. Windows, Mac) that most of the world uses. The bottom line is...well, the bottom line. If consumers want these kinds of tools that are of interest to consumers, but not of use to the geeks who know programming languages, then the consumers are either going to have to learn to code themselves (ain't gonna happen; we all have other careers) or the consumer will need to pay to have someone else develop them.
The demands for these consumer apps gets filled by corporations who exercise proprietary control over their intellectual property in order to recoup the development costs, because the companies have to hire developers to scratch someone else's itch. And that proprietary control means patents and copyrights1, because to make money off a product you must, repeat MUST, control reproduction and redistribution. And businesses are about making money.
If anyone had been able to demonstrate a competitive, scalable business model for a company that develops open source software, then I might get on board. But even RedHat, the open source developer with probably the most solid foundation and best shot, is still hemorrhaging money. Developing open source software works as a hobby; so far no one has been able to make developing open source software work as a business.
A bunch of developers might come together to develop a super open source web server like Apache to solve their own problems, but they don't get the same personal satisfaction from developing, for example, an open source consumer desktop publishing application or a GUI desktop -- witness the struggle to get KDE and GNOME to some usable point, and remember that Eazel tanked. Problems like those that have plagued the attempt to put an open source GUI on the Linux operating system illustrate another problem with open source: too many cooks in the kitchen screw up the menus. (Oooh. Pun!)
Choice is sometimes counterproductive to usefulness, and usefulness is paramount for a consumer application. This is where "network externalities" -- the economy of increasing returns -- comes into play. If ACME Industries makes ACME WonderSoap, the soap doesn't become more useful to the consumer (e.g. it doesn't clean your armpits better) if more people use it. That might be better for ACME, but my armpit gets just as fresh whether ten thousand or ten million people use ACME WonderSoap. Not so with software. If ACME industries makes a word processor, ACME WonderWord, then ACME WonderWord is much more valuable to me if ten million people use it as opposed to ten thousand, because we're all using the same tool. The best illustration of the concept of an economy of increasing returns is the Microsoft monopoly. People won't switch to Linux and StarOffice, because everyone else in their workplace or community is using Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. In a networked environment where you have to share your output and input, life is more difficult if you're not using the same tool. This is where the open source approach shoots itself in the knew -- every Microsoft Windows XP desktop works the same, but if I want to get my officemate to help me with something, and I'm running GNOME and StarOffice and he's using KDE and KOffice, then we might as well be working on Windows and Macintosh. There's no increasing returns, when there's no consistency.
The open source response to that is "it's not the tool, it's the standard." If every tool adhered to an open standard, then they'd all work together. Which is basically Stallman's point -- use text or HTML instead of the proprietary Word
1I think copyright is an idea that has run it's course, but we're not at the point yet where it can be tossed out the window. And the little known fact is that Stallman has to support copyright, even if he won't announce it very loudly, because the GNU General Public License is founded on copyright. Putting software in the public domain doesn't satisfy Stallman's zealotry because someone can still use public domain software as the foundation or part of proprietary software. Instead, Stallman advocates copyleft, whereby instead of relinquishing copyright, the software developer retains copyright and licenses the software and source code under the condition that any changes or modifications also be licensed under the same restrictions. It's admirably clever, but I think Stallman ought to be as concerned as the RIAA about copyright. If copyright unravels, so does the GPL. [back]
The internet was built using Free Software, by free software developers, back when it was still called Free Software, and the term "open source" had not yet been coined. NOTE that 'Free Software' isn't the same as GNU.
I don't think which term was coined first matters. AFAIK most of these tools were not labelled as Free Software by their authors in terms of the FSF's definition (the FSF list of freedoms). They were applications created by people who wanted to share their code with the internet, but not under a specific definition of Free Software (the FSFs) or Open Source. However all these applications are both Open Source and Free Software (in the FSF sense) because they comply with the Open Source Definition and the FSF's list of freedoms.
A Friend of mine recently authored OpenVPN which appeared in Slashdot. We were talking about ways to generate money from Open Source.
So I suggested that the GPL be gently modified to require non-profit and government organization who use the software to submit a receipt for donated services to the author of the Open Source program as a tax rightoff. Most programmers pay 30% to 50% in taxes, so the rightoff is worth 30% to 50% face value - provided the Programmer is gainfully employed).
This would really be a way to get the government to pay Open Source programmers for their contribution.
Can anyone give a reason why the GPL - or "Certified Open Source" software shouldn't or couldn't include the idea of manditory donantion receipts for qualifying organizations?
And why this wouldn't be a fair and practical approach to funding part-time Open Source Efforts?
AIK
There, one did it.
This isn't first, friend.
The OSI has trademarked a logo looking like a keyhole for their use as a graphical certification mark
While it is correct that a trademark registration for the typed phrase "OSI Certified" has been applied for by OSI, that application has been initially refused. I could find no application at the USPTO website for the logotype, apart from the typed mark.
Am I the only one who is reminded of a certain Trojan's logo? You decide.
It looks like a Pacman just died up-side-down.
I haven't seen one of those since the fifties. That logo is a PERFECT representation of a "Magic Eye" tube.
These tubes that had a cone-shaped phosphor-covered anode that lit up green, and a single grid wire that prevented electrons from striking a portion of the anode. The grid wire cast a wedge-shaped shadow on the anode. The width of the shadow varied with the grid voltage, causing the wedge to get wider or narrower.
They were widely used a cheap substitutes for meters. They also had the advantage of being inertialess. They were most familiar as tuning indicators in radios, recording level indicators on tape recorders, and null indicators on certain kinds of lab equipment (capacitance bridges, etc.)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Funny you mention that. Today I did "apt-get install gopher". Seems that many of the sites for the blind were/are gopher sites.
/usr/doc
For what we actually use the web for, gopher seems remarkably useful. Not sure of the ins/outs of it, but certainly it would work better when I'm browsing
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Are the tests really hard? :)
This
Don't forget the BSD TCP/IP stack!!
:)
/. you already know
BTW: great slogan, I agree they should use it.
Best wishes
\\Uriel
P.S.: I think there are a few more OSS projects that built the
internet, but the the BSD TCP/IP stack *was*(*is*?) the internet!
P.P.S.: And for those idiots that think that Internet is only the
Web, the NCSA browser was open source, and just check the "About"
menu in IE, and tell me what you find there? more open source,
even in the core of M$ products
P.P.P.S.:Of course that if you are reading
all this, right?
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
I'm pretty sure that you're joking, but just in case you aren't: LOGO was not made for Windows. There are Windows LOGO interperaters, but LOGO was initially designed back in the old days, way pre-Windows.
My first experience with programming was using LOGO on a Tandy TRS-80 computer. I was six and I thought it was absolutely great.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Distribution and packaging of certified software is now more restrictive. Imagine all those duplicate logos in the thousands of packages distributed with your favourite OS.
I don't know if it is just coincidence or not, but isn't that the same font that SGI use for their company logo & graphics?
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
This logo looks similar to the logo of the State Bank of India (http://www.sbi.co.in)
I turn my head a little... that's it. It's a copyright symbol which fell down. The "C" is facing the baseline.
--binkley
Open Source, on the other hand, provided an important bridge between corporate suits and the concept of using peer review and the scientific process to obtain better quality software.
The scientific process is making a hypothesis, seeing if it fits the facts of nature, and a lot of "lather, rinse, repeat"ing. Can you not misuse the term please, because it can cause as much confusion as the "Linux"/"Gnu/Linux" and "Free"/"Open Source" nomenclature.
Am I the only one who notices the irony of slapping a big horsey TM on an Open Source logo?
That aside, adding a (tm) to anything is usually a knee-jerk reaction of inexperienced designers and naive clients who dictate that the trademark be added because 1) they think it entitles them to sue people, 2) it makes the logo "look official," 3) "everyone else does it," 4) "it will scare people away from using it, or 5) "our lawyers said we need it." Even a cursory search into trademark law reveals that you don't need to (tm) something for it to be trademarked or copyrighted. The mere act of publishing work (e.g., posting for public view) establishes trademark rights and allows you to file a lawsuit if your rights are infringed. You don't need to file anything with the government, either. Just do your homework and you'll be fine.
The only time a (tm) helps is in court, to protect against the defense of "I didn't know it was trademarked."
But just imagine if the OSI started suing Web sites for infringing on their copyrights. They'd become a laughingstock overnight.
Personally, I don't see how this is offtopic... I mean, the friggin article description mentioned it looking like a keyhole, and i was merely adding to that discussion. Oh well, i've been contemplating the change from karmawhore to troll anyway...