Slashback: Kororaa GPL, ICANN .XXX, BellSouth NSA

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including an update to the Kororaa GPL accusations, BellSouth demands a retraction to NSA story, South Korea rejects Microsft antitrust appeal, Tim Berners Lee continues net neutrality fight, ICANN possibly pressured to nix .XXX domain, another side to Vista Beta2 reviews, and the worst tech IPO in 2 years -- Read on for details.

Kororaa denies GPL violations. AlanS2002 writes "Chris Smart, of the Kororaa Project, has written an update about the accusation that the Kororaa XGL LiveCD is in violation of the GPL. According to Chris, he has been shown no evidence that the nVidia/ATI drivers are derived from any code in the Linux Kernel or that the drivers link to the Kernel. From the best information he has it appears that the drivers make system calls to public interfaces of the Kernel, in the same way that a web browser makes calls to public interfaces of a web server but are not considered to be linked to the web server (they do not link to private functions of the web server). However the Kororaa project has decided to let end users download and install the drivers themselves if need be, which defeats the purpose of continuing to develop their Live CD. As such their will be no Kororaa XGL LiveCD 0.3, however they will continue to make Kororaa XGL LiveCD 0.2 available."

BellSouth demands retraction to NSA story. An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports that BellSouth has moved from strongly denying participation in providing the NSA with calling records to requesting a retraction of the article from USA Today." From the article: "The telecommunications giant sent a letter to USA Today on Thursday asking it to retract last week's story that BellSouth and two other companies helped the NSA compile a massive database of records on domestic phone calls."

South Korea rejects Microsft antitrust appeal. mikesd81 writes "According to MSNBC, the Korean Fair Trade Commission has turned down Microsoft's appeal to separate it's Window's OS and it's media service. The February ruling also included a 34 million dollar fine. Apparently, The commission began investigating Microsoft after a local Internet portal, Daum Communications Corp., filed a complaint with the commission in 2001."

Tim Berners Lee continues net neutrality fight. Kortec writes "As reported by The BCC, Sir Tim Berners Lee has spoken out against the current US bias towards the destruction of network neutrality at the Edinburgh WWW2006 conference. The man behind it all is quoted as saying the two tier system proposed recently on the floor of Congress is not 'part of the internet model,' and that 'the web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it in to different services.'"

ICANN possibly pressured to nix .XXX domain. mobiux writes "Fox News reporting that the US Government allegedly pressured ICANN into denying the .XXX domain, despite orders not to do so. ICM Registry says the e-mails show how the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was subjected to intense pressure to intervene on behalf of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two socially conservative lobbying organizations."

Another side to Vista Beta2 reviews. lordgreg writes to tell us that while Slashdot already talked about Vista Beta 2 Major Problems, which Gary Krakow addressed in his review. DotProject claims to have the other side of Vista Beta2's Major Problems, the users themselves.

Vonage IPO shaping up to be the worst tech IPO in 2 years. fistfullast33l writes "Vonage went public to great fanfare and poor results today, with it's stock price falling 11% by closing time. Analysts have cited the fact that Vonage has yet to post a profit and increasing competition for the lack of interest. 'It's a wildly unprofitable company still selling at a very high valuation,' said Tom Taulli of Newport Coast, California, an IPO analyst. BusinessWeek also discusses growth barriers listed in Vonage's filings, including 'finding enough customer-support staffers and long delays in getting traditional phone companies to let customers take their existing phone numbers [to Vonage].'"

Comments

Uh huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the alleged actions that Bell South is denying they performed-- and demanding USA Today retract their reporting of-- is... the same stuff Bell South is currently being sued for. Maybe if we all just close our eyes real hard and think about other things the lawsuits will go away?

Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[SuperBanana]

ICM Registry says the e-mails show how the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce, was subjected to intense pressure to intervene on behalf of the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two socially conservative lobbying organizations.

"Intense pressure?" Big guys named Guido and Luigi showed up at the reception desk and asked politely that they pressure ICANN? Concerned mothers sent them very sternly worded letters with comments like "I would send you to bed without dinner"?

The US Government does whatever the hell it wants to, generally. Especially branches nobody's ever heard about, unless someone threatens their budget. We generally term that "extortion", and that's certainly not very family-friendly. Nevermind that it seems absurd that some goofy little branch of the department of Commerce holds -any- sway over ICANN whatsoever; they're also fantastically good at ignoring people and doing whatever the hell they please.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Since the GOP controls Congress and the Executive, it would be quite easy for them to get together and "reform" ICANN out of existence, dump all the graybeards, and create a new Internet committee loaded with the usual party hacks. I think if the ICANN members have half a brain, they take GOP opinions on Internet governance very seriously.

The entire .XXX issue was basically an internal GOP division -- some conservative groups wanted it, others didn't. The fact that ICANN was even considering it was an example of political influence, and if the conservatives were unified behind it, we'd most likely have it by now.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Fox News reporting that the US Government allegedly pressured ICANN into denying the .XXX domain, despite orders not to do so.

Wow, according to the liberals of Slashdot, Fox News was in bed with the government and would never report this. Guess they were wrong.

Actually, every single liberal who has ever said Fox News' hard news reporting was biased has never, ever cited an actual example. And over 80% of journalists report themselves as Democrats...yet it's Fox News that's supposed to be biased. Sigh.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[AoT]

So can we use the RICO statutes against the government yet?

Pretty please?

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[Firehed]

Watch OutFoxed. Biased in its own sense, as you could imagine, but it does cite numerous examples. As you could imagine, public mood indicates that even places as generally biased as Fox News says that they need to side with the people in the way that they present their information, and Bush's approval ratings aren't exactly stellar at the moment. That and Murdoch may have been a .xxx supporter.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[0x0000]

Big guys named Guido and Luigi showed up at the reception desk and asked politely that they pressure ICANN?

Well, given the history and reputation of the fundie militias, it was probably more of a "weasely little guys in camo with burnt cork rubbed on their faces and sniper rifles" kind of thing...

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[WindBourne]

Who sits on ICANN? typically, engineers from companies such as HP, Sun, MS, etc. If the feds want to stop something from ocurring, it is easy enough to put pressure on these companies who then put pressure on the geek.

If nothing else, talk to journalists. Since W's DOJ allowed for news media accumulation, the press has a lot of pressure being put on them to stay in-line.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[rs79]

" Nevermind that it seems absurd that some goofy little branch of the department of Commerce holds -any- sway over ICANN"

Legally it works out like this: icann was formed with oversight by DoC/NTIA. Congress has natural oversight over this.

The US government is a monolith. Bits and pieces of it can't just do what they want. Oh they do, but that's why there's oversight.

None the less I don't expect anything to happen to .xxx during a Bush administration although I'd loved to be proved wrong.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[rs79]

"Who sits on ICANN? typically, engineers from companies such as HP, Sun, MS,"

Company affiliations notwithstanding, they're lawyers, not engineers. The ones that don't have big company affiliation are lobbyists from the industry.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[duffstone]

Are you implying that a media outlet must criticize our leader in order to be considered "Fair and Balanced"? I'm really confused on this one. Be carefull of the standards you use to define "Fair and balanced"... It can cost you credibility.

I fail to see how your opinions of our leader should dictate what is Fair and Balanced in reporting. Fox reports the approval numbers frequently. They run stories that I generally don't agree with (read: liberalistic or just bad reporting IN MY OPINION). They generally do a good job of not spinning information too far to the left or right.

Do they spin? Of course, it's the degree to which they spin that's the key, and they're far better than CNN or any other major media outlett when it comes to propaganda. I go there to read up on the sciences without having to sift through endless stories of the "Sky is falling because of the republican monster". I read up on technology without having to wade through endless political drabble mixed in.

Overall you won't find a non-biased news source. We all have our biases and so do reporters. However, Fox atleast tries to balance that out.

-Duff

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[mr100percent]

I disagree with you. John Gibson links Iran's leaders with Democrats. Brit Hume slants towards conservative capitalist ideas, Bill O'Reilly claims to be independent but supported Bush for about 6 years. It's pretty Republican-slanted. Sure they'll criticize Alan Keyes or John McCain, but they are arguably not mainstream or majority.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[AoT]

Are you implying that a media outlet must criticize our leader in order to be considered "Fair and Balanced"? I'm really confused on this one. Be carefull of the standards you use to define "Fair and balanced"... It can cost you credibility.

No. the reason it makes them not fair and balanced is because they almost exclusively criticize democrats. Look at their coverage during the Clinton years, they constantly reported negative stories about the Pres. Now the whine about how other channels don't report "the good" in Iraq.

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[duffstone]

You have to admit tho, The liberal media has a HUGE advantage in numbers overall. You might not like how Fox spins things to the right from time to time, but it's the ONLY media outlett capable of it.

And what if Fox spun things to the right ALL the time??? What of it. Liberals have CNN, Headline news, ABC, CBS, NBC, and a host of other broadcast and print sources... The right basically has FOX, and AM (now satalite) radio... Woo...

No matter what you think about Fox, it doesn't cater 100% to the right like for instance, how CNN caters 100% to the left. There's alot of opinion that gets stated on FOX that I don't agree with, But alot != All... which is why I can't stand to watch any of the big networks anymore. You can't even watch coverage of a Tornado without hearing spin of how the republican party are responsible for it...

It's re-god-damn-diculas... Atleast fox will report the story on it's merit, and generally leave it at that. Not always, but most of the time.

-Duff

Re:Since when can anyone "pressure" ICANN?

[mr100percent]

CNN isn't "100% Liberal." Lou Dobbs is pretty anti-illegal immigration and supportive of Bush's business practices, which really ticks off a lot of liberals. They brand Wolf Blitzer as either too conservative or incompetant. If CNN was so liberal, why did they trash Dean, or keep running the Swift Boats story?

CNN is careful to balance who they interview. they will try to keep their liberal and conservatice guests 50-50. Remember crossfire? This wasn't a Hannity and Colmes deal, where one is clearly the leader and the other the timid follower.

CNN pisses me off to no end, but because it's incompetant, not because its too liberal or conservative.

How can we believe a single thing

[stox]

said by a company that is involved with national security? They don't even need to tell the truth to the SEC, let alone mear mortal human beings:

The memo Bush signed on May 5, which was published seven days later in the Federal Register, had the unrevealing title "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." In the document, Bush addressed Negroponte, saying: "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended."

A trip to the statute books showed that the amended version of the 1934 act states that "with respect to matters concerning the national security of the United States," the President or the head of an Executive Branch agency may exempt companies from certain critical legal obligations. These obligations include keeping accurate "books, records, and accounts" and maintaining "a system of internal accounting controls sufficient" to ensure the propriety of financial transactions and the preparation of financial statements in compliance with "generally accepted accounting principles."

Re:How can we believe a single thing

[SomeRandomWag]

How can we believe a single thing said by a company that is involved with national security?

You can't. If that doesn't worry you or the majority of American citizens it's a sad day indeed. Besides, who's to say the department issuing the retraction order would even be aware of the alleged co-operation (if true) in the first place?

FYI

[CrazyDuke]

"...Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, two socially conservative lobbying organizations."

FYI, both organizations are founded/run by James Dobson. I would not necessarily refer to them as seperate entities rather than appendages of the same one. James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame.

Re:FYI

[CODiNE]

James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame.

Spongebob isn't... but Ren & Stimpy was. ;-)

Re:FYI

[jonadab]

Dobson was a child psychologist (and, as near as I can determine, a pretty good one), but the popularity of his books (some of which *are* quite good) apparently went to his head, and he started to see himself as a religious leader (which was dangerous, because he doesn't have the proper training for that; his training is in psychology). Then in order to maintain his popularity and keep selling books and magazines and things, he at some point along the line abandoned all pretenses of discernment and started using his name to publish, basically, whatever sensational thing will get people excited enough to buy subscriptions. His magazines will print virtually anything that purports to be conservative, family-oriented, and Christian, even if it's baldly incoherent nonsense. For instance, around the time LOTR:FOTR came out his magazine ran an article that attempted to claim that LOTR was Christian allegory. Even worse was the malarke they ran about Y2K. I was unaware of the particular stance you mention, but it fits the pattern.

I assume Dobson himself doesn't bother to proofread these articles before they get approved. Not that that excuses him from all responsibility. It doesn't, and he should be ashamed of what he has allowed his name to be used for. I guess what I'm saying is that his organizations do indeed seem to have become entities unto themselves at this point. I don't think everything they do is initiated by one man any more.

Re:FYI

[DavidTC]

People get Dobson confused with many other 'religious leaders', but you're right, you've nailed the fundamental (ha) difference between him and others: The others started as peachers who got a lot of power and support, and he remains basically a very conservative psychologist who wrote a few too many books.

He's approaching the entire thing without any religous training at all. Basically, he's taken several rather controversial psychological positions, and pretended they actually are supported in the Bible.

Re:FYI

[Seraphim_72]

For instance, around the time LOTR:FOTR came out his magazine ran an article that attempted to claim that LOTR was Christian allegory.

Actually that is old news to the Tolkien folk. If you search around you will find that His works have always been well recieved by the greater christian community, Compare that to any Harry Potter book, universally reviled as witchcraft, satanist, and evil. Good or bad the original Tolkien books were loved by the christian orthodoxy. It has been said that the acceptance of them has been due to JRR's conversion to Catholocism. I dont know. The Triolgy has been given many meanings through the years - the Ring as Nuclear power, as Race relations, as a simple life vs the worldly one. For me, it only showed how different the original Artist's product is different than how the original Artist meant it to be. For me, they are the best stories ever told.

Sera

Re:FYI

[Brandybuck]

James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame.

The more people like you make stuff up like this, the less people will believe you when you decide to say something truthful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson

Re:FYI

[Watts Martin]

For instance, around the time LOTR:FOTR came out his magazine ran an article that attempted to claim that LOTR was Christian allegory.

While I agree Dobson's generally an incoherent idiot, Lord of the Rings very definitely isn't allegory--but it's very definitely Christian. As Tolkien himself wrote, "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first but consciously in the revision." There's a great deal of scholarly work out there on the Christian themes in the work. (It's something I wrote a term paper on, many years ago.)

Re:FYI

[the_womble]

Compare that to any Harry Potter book, universally reviled as witchcraft, satanist, and evil

What are you talking about? A few people (mostly nut cases) have claimed Harry Potter books are evil yes. To claim that makes them "universally reviled" is ridiculous. Plenty of CHristians like Harry Potter.

As for Tolkien, interpreting his books as Christian allegory is fairly natural given that he was a Christian and he was a friend and colleague of CS Lewis who is best known as a writer of Christian allegory.

Re:FYI

[MsGeek]

OK, let me break it down to you: it's not just religious allegory, it's WWII in allegory-vision!

Gandalf: Jesus Christ
Saruman: Hitler
Sauron: Satan
The Hobbits: The British
The Elves: The French
The Men: The Americans
The Uruk-Hai: The German "Master Race"

Re-read the books with those ideas in mind. It's basically World War II seen through an apocalyptic prism.

Re:FYI

[CrazyDuke]

You'd think someone could read the f'ing websites I link to.

Why is Dr. Dobson objecting to a video featuring characters such as SpongeBob?

From his own website.

"From the outset, let's be clear that this issue is not about objections to any specific cartoon characters. Instead, Dr. Dobson is concerned that these popular animated personalities are being exploited by an organization that's determined to promote the acceptance of homosexuality among our nation's youth."

It reads that a cartoon charactor is being used part of a conspiracy to turn kids gay by making it acceptable. Notice I did not post the oversimplified "Spongebob is gay" line for a reason. But, of course thinking before speaking would be too hard on you.

Re:FYI

[mav[LAG]]

Instead of exhorting others to re-read the books, why don't you try reading Tolkien's own preface yourself? He denies that LoTR is an allegory, and specifically not about WWII.

Re:FYI

[Solitonic]

http://www.family.org/docstudy/newsletters/a003533 9.cfm

Dr. Dobson's Newsletter: February, 2005
Setting the Record Straight

Dear Friends:

If you had told me a month ago that Id be devoting my February letter to a cartoon character named SpongeBob SquarePants, Id have said you were crazy. Nevertheless, by now you probably know that I have been linked to that famous talking sponge by hundreds of media outlets, from the New York Times to "MSNBC" to "Saturday Night Live." The story of how this situation unfolded is somewhat complicated, but it must be told.

In truth, this tale has very little to do with SpongeBob himself, and everything to do with the medias ability to obscure the facts and to direct lies and scorn toward those of us who care about defending children. It all began on an evening in late January, during Inaugural Week in Washington, D.C. At that time, I spoke briefly to 350 guests attending a banquet hosted by Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and Gary Bauers American Values. I concluded by sharing a word of concern about a video that will be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools across the nation, for use on the proposed "We Are Family Day," March 11.

The video, which millions of children will soon see, features nearly 100 favorite cartoon characters that kids will instantly recognize, including not only SpongeBob, but also Barney the Dinosaur, the Muppets, Dora the Explorer, Bob the Builder, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Jimmy Neutron and Big Bird.1 The video itself is innocent enough and does not mention anything overtly sexual. Rather, it features the childrens cartoon characters singing and dancing along to the popular disco hit "We Are Family."

But while the video is harmless on its own, I believe the agenda behind it is sinister. My brief comments at the FRC gathering were intended to express concern not about SpongeBob or Big Bird or any of their other cartoon friends, but about the way in which those childhood symbols are apparently being hijacked to promote an agenda that involves teaching homosexual propaganda to children. Nevertheless, the media jumped on the story by claiming that I had accused SpongeBob of being "gay."2 Some suggested that I had confused the organization that had created the video with a similarly named gay-rights group.3 In both cases, the press was dead wrong, and I welcome this opportunity to help them get their facts straight.

I want to be clear: the We Are Family Foundation the organization that sponsored the video featuring SpongeBob and the other characters was, until this flap occurred, making available a variety of explicitly pro-homosexual materials on its Web site. It has since endeavored to hide that fact (more on this later), but my concerns are as legitimate today as they were when I first expressed them in January.

So let us consider the evidence. One of the first resources to catch our attention on the foundations Web site was a booklet4 that lists a number of organizational "allies," including five of the largest pro-homosexual organizations in the nation: the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, and Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). Also, the Web site made available school lesson plans that suggested teachers ask these questions of students:
"How are you affected by homophobia?"
"How would you be affected by your sexual orientation were it different than it is now?"
"How will understanding these definitions change your thinking about compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia?
"How will it change any of your behaviors?"5

From a handout entitled, "Talking About Being Out" there was this:
"Do you know of any people in your school whose sexual orientation differs f

Re:FYI

[sgtrock]

Kinda difficult when most of the back story had been written long before WWII. He started writing parts of it when he was in the trenches during WWI. LOTR was meant to be just one more chapter (possibly the final one, although I can't remember for sure) of a long mythology. Don't take my word for it. Take the time to read all of his other works to get a feel for where the LOTR and The Hobbit fit in to that larger view.

Re:FYI

[Seraphim_72]

Actually the dicotomy of the public's attitudes between the two always struck me as odd. The Harry Potter books are great fun and if they get a kid to read, even better. But at least around here they did spreads in the paper about how HP "taught" witchcraft to kids. Pretty scary. But here is a list for you - from the ALA I will give you three guesses as to why Ms Rowling is on that list. And you are right "universally" is t0o strong a word, and tongue-in-cheek never transmits on the web like you want it to.

Sera

Re:FYI

[F_Scentura]

"SpongeBob -- An editorial Saturday about children's literature and cartoons erroneously stated that James Dobson of Focus on the Family declared that SpongeBob SquarePants is a homosexual sponge. Instead, in a speech last month, Dobson criticized as pro-homosexual a tolerance video featuring SpongeBob, Big Bird and others."

Did you even read the Wiki link you're quoting? Because they didn't misquote him on the "pro-homosexual" conspiracy.

Re:FYI

[nuzak]

> The Triolgy has been given many meanings through the years - the Ring as Nuclear power, as Race relations, as a simple life vs the worldly one.

"I cordially despise allegory in all its forms, and have done so since I grew old enough to detect its presence." -- J.R.R. Tolkein, in later preface to _The Fellowship of the Ring_

One has to wonder what kind of dig that was at C.S. Lewis. They were reportedly friends, but that's a pretty strongly worded condemnation...

Re:FYI

[jevvim]

You forgot Dr. Dobson's addendum...

Attention! After the above letter was written, U.S. Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, sent a very strong letter of rebuke to the Public Broadcasting System, denouncing the use of federal funds to produce and distribute materials for children wherein cartoon characters were used to promote homosexual ideas and purposes. She wrote, "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode." Thank you, Mrs. Secretary!

That is precisely the concern that led to my comments in January. At its heart, the issue before us is the "sexual re-orientation" and brainwashing of children by homosexual advocacy groups. It is going on in many schools today, both public and private. Make absolutely sure your child is not being targeted for this purpose. If it happens in his or her classroom, take an army of like-minded parents with you to the next board meeting, and let your voices be heard to the rooftops!

Remember, you heard it here.

What was the purpose in leaving that out, since you had no problem copying the main part of that long letter?

Re:FYI

[LunaticTippy]

My grandpa told me some pretty wacky stories about WWII, but he never mentioned Jesus or Satan taking part in the festivities.

It's actually an allegory of The Big Lebowski

Gandalf: The Dude
Saruman: Karl Hungus
Sauron: Jeffrey Lebowski
Bilbo: Donny
Frodo: Walter Sobchak

Re:FYI

[DavidTC]

I didn't say that he didn't believe it, but it's trivial to believe that the Bible says something when you don't have any actual training.

Re:FYI

[jonadab]

> Actually that is old news to the Tolkien folk. If you search around you will find
> that His works have always been well recieved by the greater christian community,

Well-received, sure. They're perfectly good books, no mistake about that. Christian allegory, however, they are not (at least, not in anything like the same sense that Lewis' books are, for instance).

> [Tolkein's] triolgy has been given many meanings through the years - the Ring as
> Nuclear power, as Race relations, as a simple life vs the worldly one.

The ring is none of these things, although you do find some things about race relations in Tolkein's books. There is also a certain amount of anti-industrial sentiment evident in the books, which I imagine probably reflects to a significant extent the author's views. And, of course, there are deliberate geographical parallels between various places in Middle Earth and in our world, and Tolkein's mythology does borrow bits and pieces from various sources -- Norse mythology and Christianity among them. Fundamentally, though, it was not written as allegory, and although it may contain a bit of allegory here or there, that is secondary and is certainly not the main thrust of the work.

> For me, they are the best stories ever told.

Certainly, I would call them some of the best fiction ever written. The amount of work put into them is a large part of the reason. Tolkein poured most of his life into revising and re-revising his stories, continuously working on editing and improving them. LOTR is excellent. As for the Silmarillion... it would doubtless have been rather better if he'd had more time to keep working on it, but even in the form we have it it's quite a *lot* better than the form it started in (see Book of Lost Tales for insight into this).

If you want allegory, go read C.S. Lewis. His books are not of the same level of literary quality as Tolkein's (although some of them are not bad either), but they are unquestionalby intended allegorically (well, his _fiction_ books are intended allegorically; he also wrote various non-fiction books).

I guess I've drifted pretty far off topic.

Re:FYI

[Brandybuck]

Did you even read the Wiki link you're quoting?

Did you? Of course not! Criticizing a pro-homosexual video as being pro-homosexual is NOT THE SAME THING as calling Sponge-Bob gay.

Re:FYI

[F_Scentura]

He said "James Dobson, you know, the guy of Spongebob Squarepants is a conspiracy to turn kids gay fame."

Not "saying that Spongebob Squarepants is gay fame"

So in other words, you're making this shit up out of thin air.

Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[QuantumG]

Leave the legal arguments to the lawyers already. If someone doesn't like you linking X component with Y component, the very first thing you should ask them is: are you the copyright holder of X component or Y component? If the answer is "no" then kindly ask them to go away. Only the copyright holder can sue you so why should you pay any attention to them. If you are so worried about someone suing you, just call up the only people who can sue you, the copyright holders, and ask them if what you are doing is ok. If they say yes, put that on your web site and tell the distractors to piss off.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[bigpicture]

This is the kind of thing that is a big problem for Open Source and Linux in particular. When I first read about Kororaa I downloaded it and of course the feature that I wanted to see (the 3D) didn't work, no ATI driver included. Then I read about a second version that included the drivers, so I downloaded that and walla the thing worked as expected, with all the bells and whistles.

Now SUSE 10.1 is supposed to have the same feature. I have it installed exclusively on one of the hard drives, and this feature does not work by default, nor will it work until I jump through hoops and try to find and install the driver. So what is the point of spinning this feature when it does not work?

No matter what version of Linux that I have installed and run, the printer has never worked. If Linux and Open Source want to get into the game they are going to have to come up with a solution for this. Today's consumer expectation is that you install software and it "Just Works", like the way Microsoft does, security bugs and all.

ATI nor Nividia, nor the printer companies are going to Open Source their drivers. Because if you know how the software works, it probably goes a long way to reverse engineering both the hardware and the drivers. There goes your trade secrets and competitive advantage. So Linux and the Open Source community is going to have to find a way to get along with this, and add some kind of driver operating layer that allows non infringing inclusion of propriety drivers on the install disk. If they cannot find a way to do this "just works" operation, then Linux will never be my primary desktop, and I imigine the same goes for millions of others.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[QuantumG]

Ya know what? I agree that the Linux community needs to "do something" to get hardware to "just work". But I completely disagree with your suggestion. My suggestion is that what we need to do about it is actively reverse engineer the proprietary drivers they supply and write open source ones. More importantly, I intend to start doing this in the near future. I hope other people will join me.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[bigpicture]

I'm not a programmer so I don't know that much about this stuff, and the finer points of how to tackle the problem. But some sort of coordinated united type effort is needed in the Linux community to solve this issue.

The propriety crowd will probably not cooperate that much with any kind of reverse engineering effort. I have heard of Windows drivers being used in some sort of Linux wrapper. I don't know if that direction is a viable solution. Is a Linux API or port specifically designed to allow raw Windows drivers to be used, a viable option? I have read that the KDE 4 community is putting in some sort of layer to make the driver development and installation thing easier.

Whatever the Linux community effort is to solve this, it should not be all over the board like it seems to be now, but pick some single better or best solution, and all effort be coordinated in this direction.

The other associated issue of course is interoperability of applications and drivers on the different Linux OSes. There needs to be some standards set for this, so the same applications or drivers can be installed on any Linus OS and work. These are just my pet beefs with Linux, because I keep hoping that the next version will be my main "all systems work" Desktop. I thought SUSE 10.1 might have been it.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[QuantumG]

Dude, the problem is not "we don't have drivers", the problem is we don't have *free* drivers. As long as we are reliant on the hardware manufacturers to update their drivers and support the Linux community, we'll never have good hardware support. The Linux community has to support itself, and the only way we can do that is with free drivers.

BTW - if you reply to this post with "but no-one charges money for drivers" I will track you down and kill you ok?

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[TheDugong]

"I'm not a programmer so I don't know that much about this stuff, and the finer points of how to tackle the problem."

It is not a programming issue, but a philosophical issue.

One side says that if you maye it easy to insert non-Open Source drivers into the kernel, then there is no incentive for companies to open the drivers. The other side says essentially what you are saying, to paraphrase, if there are not enough people using their product then why would the company bother?

Personally, I only buy hardware which works with Linux, vendor supported or otherwise. Maybe I have to take a little pain and frustration every now and then, but expecting no inconvenience whilst taking a moral stand is a wee bit silly.

"Is a Linux API or port specifically designed to allow raw Windows drivers to be used, a viable option?"

There is ndiswrapper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ndiswrapper).

However, as Linux is available on many non-intel platforms this only helps for intel PCs. I cannot use this method on my iBook (PowerPC) for instance.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[m874t232]

No, what we need to do is much simpler: we need to stop paying money to companies that sell hardware with only proprietary drivers available. The rest will take care of itself.

Trying to reverse engineer nVidia's drivers is a legal and technical can of worms.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[QuantumG]

Yep, that makes as much sense as becoming vegetarian. You are not significant. Your contribution to a third class graphics card company will not make their products any better. As for a legal can of worms, who cares? If they sue us, how much good will does that show?

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[m874t232]

Your contribution to a third class graphics card company will not make their products any better.

My "contributions" might not, but the purchasing power of millions of Linux users choosing other graphics cards would.

If the Linux license simply did not permit ATI and nVidia's proprietary drivers, this problem would have been solved long ago through market forces.

You are not significant.

Speak for yourself.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[QuantumG]

seriously, millions of Linux users? Riight. I'd just like to point out that the only drivers that nVidia and ATI keep proprietary are the X11 drivers. Which are permissible because X11 is BSD licensed :)

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[Kjella]

If you are so worried about someone suing you, just call up the only people who can sue you, the copyright holders, and ask them if what you are doing is ok.

That'd be everyone who has submitted a patch and has a copyright line somewhere in the whole of the Linux kernel, which is practicly impossible. If you don't have a legal opinion on whether or not what you're doing is legal or not, you might as well get one today. Obviously, if it says you're doing soemthing wrong then fix it. If not, that's what you reply to everyone interested. While I'm not in favor of canned responses this is actually a good use of one. If you try to play the "you're not the copyright holder" game, I'm sure you'll find at least one copyright holder curious enough to send a request themselves.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[mrchaotica]

so I downloaded that and walla the thing worked as expected

It's voilà, damnit! You people look like morons when you spell it wrong!

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[just_forget_it]

Could you please name some graphics card companies that release open source drivers?

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[nuzak]

> I'd just like to point out that the only drivers that nVidia and ATI keep proprietary are the X11 drivers.

Yep, there's nothing like being able to download the sources for Catalyst and Forceware on Windows so I can hack on them to my hearts content.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[bigpicture]

I will be buying Linux supported hardware in future, but my current hardware is not that old. The situation keeps steadily improving, as a couple of years back a lot less of my hardware worked with the then Linux OSes, including the internet hardware, and the monitor card only marginally. The only thing that does not work now with the latest Linux OSes is the printer. The rest seems to be full plug and play.

I understand the propriety / Open Source concept, just because there is no charge does not mean it is free.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[bigpicture]

I am familiar with the propriety / Open Source concept. Just because there is no charge for the software does not necessarily mean that it is "free".

Say for the two big video hardware manufacturers, they are constantly going head to head on the FPS thing. And it is a constant cycle of hardware design, and then squeeze the last bit of performance out of the old hardware until they have new designed hardware in production, by incremental improvements to the drivers. Intel and AMD have a similar model, except without the installable drivers.

With this competitive type business model, I don't ever see ATI or Nividia opening up their drivers.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[bigpicture]

Are you a French teacher now, and telling me what word I intended to use? I was not using French, I was using English. The issue was about someone being responsible for something actually working.

walla [wóll]
(plural wallahs) or walla [wóll] (plural wallas)
noun
  somebody responsible for something: somebody in charge of something or associated with a particular service or occupation (dated informal)
a legal wallah

[Late 18th century. Via Hindi -vl "(somebody) responsible for something or some duty" Sanskrit plaka "keeper"]

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[mrchaotica]

So then what you really meant to say was this?

Then I read about a second version that included the drivers, so I downloaded that and [somebody responsible for something] the thing worked as expected, with all the bells and whistles.

C'mon now, that's gibberish and you know it. You're just upset that I corrected you.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[m874t232]

seriously, millions of Linux users? Riight.

Yes, seriously, millions of Linux users.

I'd just like to point out that the only drivers that nVidia and ATI keep proprietary are the X11 drivers. Which are permissible because X11 is BSD licensed :)

X11 is licensed under the MIT license. And, anyway, nobody is disputing ATI's and nVidia's right to do this under the current licenses, the question is whether it is good for users. I think it isn't. Maybe the X.org license ought to be changed to GPL...

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[bigpicture]

No mister it is not gibberish, you are just one of those "haughty" assholes who tries to correct everyone, and you got it wrong this time. I see your type on the internet all the time.

I write contracts for I living, to the tune of about $500M per year, and if you know anything about contracts, you will know that you have to know what you are saying, and say what you mean. And you are implying that I didn't know what I was saying, because you didn't know what I was saying, and that is because you are not as bright as you think you are.

So here is a Latin contract term for you, "quid pro quo", it essentially means "tit for tat" and with your attitude, did you expect anything different.

"Somebody was responsible for getting it right" that was what the whole gist of what the post was about.

"haughty" -- arrogant, disdainful, overbearing, conceited, condescending, stuck-up (informal), proud, self-important, full of yourself

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[QuantumG]

Of course it isn't good for users. People who argue that it is just don't get free software. Question is, what are we going to do about it? The free software versions of these drivers are totally *ignored* by the development community. Consider the 'nv' driver. It doesn't have any hardware acceleration support, fine, ok, I can understand that, it's a proprietary secret buried in a driver most people are forbidden from reverse engineering. But what about twinview support? There's nothing special about that. A skilled X11 programmer could implement that support in a couple of days. Does anyone do it? No, why would they, 99% of people don't use the nv driver. It's one thing to prohibit proprietary drivers, it's quite another to compete against them.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[mrchaotica]

Well, I can believe you write contracts because you certainly sound like a lawyer -- you keep twisting the argument long after you've lost it!

You know, I actually changed what I planned to say before posting it, because I was trying to be nice. Now, however, I see that I should indeed have said what I really thought in the first place: your excuse wasn't just gibberish, it was bullshit. First of all, you yourself admitted that "walla" is a noun (by posting that dictionary definition), and "...the [noun] the thing..." is grammatically incorrect no matter what word you put there! You were clearly using the word as an interjection. Second, even if it had even slightly been correct usage of the word, it would still have been a non sequitur (I know some Latin too -- whoop-de-do!) because you were talking about what you did, not talking about any "walla."

Besides, I don't go around haughtily correcting everyone; I only corrected you because lots of other people make the same mistake and I was tired of reading it. It was merely my misfortune to run across someone who was both so thin-skinned and genuinely haughty that he felt the need to defend his ignorance to the point of really making himself a fool instead of just learning the damn correct spelling and getting on with his life! Except for pissing me off, you've failed in everything you set out to do. Are you happy now?

By the way, your post has several comma splices. In the interest of not injuring your pride further, I won't bother correcting them for you.

Oh, and one more thing: I not only tried to be nice in my previous post but also in the original one, by referring to "you people" instead of you in particular and by saying that you only look like a moron rather than that you actually are one (which, I see now, is actually closer to the truth). If your idea of quid pro quo is to call me an asshole after all that effort, I can't wait to read what you're going to call me this time!

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[m874t232]

Question is, what are we going to do about it?

We should take it as a lesson and make sure that in the future, licenses are chosen more carefully. If XFree86 and X.org were under a license that forbids closed source drivers, we would have a third option. But it's hard to fix this sort of thing retroactively.

No, why would they, 99% of people don't use the nv driver.

I disagree; I think the majority of people don't use the proprietary drivers--they're too hard to install. Many people use nVidia and ATI simply because it happened to come with their machines.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[bigpicture]

Time for a little introspection here mister, and have a little look into your motivations, why do you have the obsessive compulsive need to try and correct what people write, and infer that you are great and they are morons? Is is because you are a know-it-all? Or is it because you have nothing useful to contribute? Or is it driven by self doubt, so you always have to reaffirm to yourself how great you are?

Your use of the word gibberish, and your use of French, that would tell me a snob Limey background with a pseudo education, you know the "arts" kind with no real useful application, and not much scientific or business interest. Maybe that that is why you have the compulsion to correct what "you" think is wrong with others writing. Because you don't have a life outside your academic cloisters. Maybe if you were in business you might have some meaningful purpose, apart from trying to show the world how great you are.

You live in oblivion, and don't know that you are witnessing the decline of the western world, because Asia is turning out the scientists and engineers, and the west is turning out the arts degree know-it-alls like you. And by the way I took four years of French, I don't use it because it is the language of snobs. I have known what walla means from high school, I could have used many words including "presto", another Latin word, but I didn't. I used the word I meant to use.

It was you who had the problem with that, and inferred that I was a moron because I didn't use your preferred artsy French word, and that says more about you than it does about the use of the word walla. You didn't know that it was a real English word, and didn't like it when I "called you" on that.

I think some self examination about why you do what you do, and what useful purpose it serves, besides self gratification, might be in order here.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[mrchaotica]

why do you have the obsessive compulsive need to try and correct what people write, and infer that you are great and they are morons?

I don't. I'm just getting a big kick out of egging you on.

Or is it driven by self doubt, so you always have to reaffirm to yourself how great you are?

That's what I accused you of last time. Can't you come up with your own argument instead of copying mine? Otherwise, you'd be the one reaffirming how great I am!

that would tell me a snob Limey background with a pseudo education, you know the "arts" kind with no real useful application, and not much scientific or business interest.

LOL! For your information, I'm a college student majoring in civil engineering and computer science. That's about as far from a "pseudo education" as you can get.

Because you don't have a life outside your academic cloisters.

On the contrary, I spend too little time studying, if anything (and my grades show it!).

Maybe if you were in business you might have some meaningful purpose

I've got a (full time) summer job as a programmer, working on an AutoCAD plugin for automatic trussing and structural analysis of light-guage steel.

You live in oblivion, and don't know that you are witnessing the decline of the western world

Heh, I wish!

And by the way I took four years of French, I don't use it because it is the language of snobs.

Good for you. I didn't -- I only know what "voilà" means because it's commonly used in English too.

I have known what walla means from high school, I could have used many words including "presto"

"Voilà" and "presto" are similar enough, yes, but "walla" is completely different (again, according to the definition you posted, as well as these (all from answers.com)). Compare:

voilà (vwä-lä') interj. Used to call attention to or express satisfaction with a thing shown or accomplished: Mix the ingredients, chill, and--voilà!--a light, tasty dessert. presto (prs't) adv. Music. In a very fast tempo, usually considered to be faster than allegro but slower than prestissimo. Used chiefly as a direction. So suddenly that magic seems involved; right away. n. Music., pl. -tos. A passage or movement that is performed presto. wallah also walla (wä'lä, wl') n. One employed in a particular occupation or activity: a kitchen wallah; rickshaw wallahs. An important person in a particular field or organization: "the Ritz, a favorite haunt of Republican wallahs" (John Robinson).

Now, which one doesn't fit (assuming we're talking about the second definition of "presto")?

It was you who had the problem with that, and inferred that I was a moron because I didn't use your preferred artsy French word

Preferred? I couldn't care less about it, let alone whether it's "artsy" or not! I just objected to the fact that you spelled it incorrectly (because despite your assertions to the contrary, we both know you meant "voilà")! I suggest you admit it, by the way, because using a word that doesn't fit (i.e., "walla") is worse than a simple spelling mistake.

I think some self examination about why you do what you do, and what useful purpose it serves, besides self gratification, might be in order here.

Somebody got some use out of my original spelling correction, since they modded it "informative." Pity you didn't as well.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[bigpicture]

Ah gee, a know-it-all student!!! Hasn't even got an education yet, but really wants to show the world what he knows. We get a few of those who take their thesis where I work, eventually they learn that they don't know-it-all, and they certainly don't know people's intentions.

But after more than twenty years of negotiating, it is ALWAYS and ONLY about intention, motive and purpose, of the party on the other side of the table. The what makes them tick. All the other issues are only of secondary relevance.

I also asked you some questions about your motive and purpose. About your compulsion to show how clever you are, the sure sign of immaturity. But I have not seen your excuses or evasive answers to any of these questions. Because you still avoid the issue about your presumptions to know other peoples intentions, when you don't. Your arrogant presumption that you know that other people intend to write. Your arrogant presumption that you know what other people think and know.

How can I spell voilà incorrectly when that is not the word that I intended to use? (This is a question it requires a direct answer) And you had your little problem with the word that I did intend to use, because you didn't even know it was a real word. Do the two words even look anything alike, so they could be confused by a spelling mistake? (This is also a question that requires a direct answer) So then, how can it have been a spelling mistake, which you so eagerly tried to correct, if the two words are totally different? (Another question requiring an answer)

Ah, but it was a word that you did not know and obviously still do not know. Because it is an English word originally from Sanskrit (not from answers.com) My Oxford Dictionary that I still have from high school, gives the definition as "a person in charge or responsible" and that is the only definition given, and I see that Encarta gives the exact same definition, and also only that definition. And that is what I have always understood it to mean, "someone who takes responsibility, or someone who takes charge". So maybe you should get yourself a real dictionary.

And if you want to make it as an engineer, I suggest you learn the meaning of this word, because if you ever have to put your stamp to a drawing, you will understand about responsibility, in relation to jail time. Know-it-alls usually don't make it in the business. I am familiar with engineers and what it takes to be one. You know the people who create the IFC documents, that are included in contracts. The know-it-alls tell you they are final IFC documents when they are not even IFB, then there are schedule delays and job cost overruns because of this poor engineering, and then they get fired.

So a couple of tips here, I suggest you learn all the different words for responsible, and also for accountable, because when you actually get out into the real world, if you don't know these, it could get you fired. And if you do not understand the content of a business document, "get clarification before presuming to know what it means", or that will also get you fired. The real world does not take kindly to arrogant smart-asses.

Re:Programmers Should Stick To Programming.

[mrchaotica]

Ah gee, a know-it-all student!!! Hasn't even got an education yet, but really wants to show the world what he knows.

So far, all I've claimed to know is high-school grammar. I should hate to think what this country is coming to, if that's enough to label me as a "know-it-all!" (Okay, so I also claim to konw enough about programming and engineering to be useful in my summer job. I'm certainly no expert, however, or even anything beyond a novice.)

I also asked you some questions about your motive and purpose. About your compulsion to show how clever you are, the sure sign of immaturity. But I have not seen your excuses or evasive answers to any of these questions. Because you still avoid the issue about your presumptions to know other peoples intentions, when you don't.

Damn you're an idiot! What part of "I don't [have an obsessive compulsive need to correct people]. I'm just getting a big kick out of egging you on." do you not understand?!

How can I spell voilà incorrectly when that is not the word that I intended to use? (This is a question it requires a direct answer)

That question does not require a direct answer because it presupposes something which is not true. In other words, are lying because you did intend to use "voilà!" Or, at least, if you genuinely meant to use "walla" you're unbelievably stupid.

Now, here's a question that requires an answer: if "walla" was the word you intended to use, how can you reconcile the fact that it is a noun, and a noun doesn't fit where you tried to put it in the sentence? Remember, you originally said this:

Then I read about a second version that included the drivers, so I downloaded that and [noun] the thing worked as expected, with all the bells and whistles.

This sentence is not grammatically correct! How do you rationalize that?!

Ah, but it was a word that you did not know and obviously still do not know. Because it is an English word originally from Sanskrit (not from answers.com) My Oxford Dictionary that I still have from high school, gives the definition as "a person in charge or responsible" and that is the only definition given, and I see that Encarta gives the exact same definition, and also only that definition. And that is what I have always understood it to mean, "someone who takes responsibility, or someone who takes charge". So maybe you should get yourself a real dictionary.

What's your point? That's irrelevant to this discussion, because the point was the dichotomy between the definition of "walla" (either your dictionary's or Answers.com's) and the definitions of "voilà" and "presto." "Voilà" and "presto" both more-or-less refer to an action (although "voilà" expresses excitement that the action happened, while "presto" expresses the speed at which the action happened), while "walla" refers to a person, not an action. Besides, "somebody responsible for something" (your definition) and "an important person in a particular field or organization" (my definition) are not significantly different to begin with. Do you have a learning disability or something? You seem to be having severe difficulty figuring out that things can be similar even though they aren't word-for-word identical.

And if you want to make it as an engineer, I suggest you learn the meaning of this word, because if you ever have to put your stamp to a drawing, you will understand about responsibility, in relation to jail time.

First of all, by now I know the meaning of "walla" better than you. At least I know it's a noun! Second, I have a difficult time believing that people will write "walla" in contracts when a less pretentious, non-Sanskrit-derived word will do

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Rob_Ogilvie]

"Completely useless" is a bit of an overstatement. It can help by bringing new people to the plate. Realize a vast majority of the world is completely shackled to non-free and downright evil software. If we can give them a taste of what "free" software can do and slowly migrate them from completely closed software, then shouldn't we be happier than we were? It may not be ideal, but it's better than nothing.

Vonage IPO far too late

[mazphil57]

In the good old days, a new company (such as Vonage) would go public long before it was "discovered", allowing early investors to get rich (like Microsoft, for example). In today's world, major banks provide working capital and the objective is to delay the IPO as long as possible, so that only the banks and the founders make any real money. I'm predicting the disappointment seen today with Vonage is going to become the norm for technology IPO's.

Re:Vonage IPO far too late

[InsaneGeek]

Actually that's a bit wrong, unless if you are thinking the good old days were 5-7 years ago. Companies wouldn't go public unless they had a real reason to, many of them spending years prior to going public. Going public has so many difficulties that it's often the last thing a traditional company wants to do (i.e. old stogey companies, rather than dot-com). Often when they have reached a place where to grow the business to the next level and they need an injection of cash they do it, or more often when they grow to over 500 or so employees and have basically the same filing requirements and restrictions as a public company that they go and do it.

Ford went public in 1956 decades after putting out the model A,T, etc
Apple release the Apple II, ~3 years before going public

Check the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_company
The norm is for new companies, which are typically small, to be privately owned. After a number of years, if a company has grown significantly and is profitable, or has promising prospects, there is often an initial public offering and the company becomes public.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[crotherm]

But, tautologically, these are not free, so XGL is completely useless to the free software community.

It lets me make use of better graphics on my linux box. Thus, it is useful to me. Now I may not be the free software community, but I like to consider myself a friendly neighbor. I use what works.

Vista Reviews

[ThePopeLayton]

Gregors review of Vista, is not so much of a review as it is flaming. I wouldn't say that it presents the alternate viewpoint rather it points out errors in the original view. Just thought that should be clarified.

Re:What more can be said...

[zerocool^]

God, it only gets worse:

It really is odd that you flame Vista for your devices not working properly. As software architect, I would claim hardware developers for not taking care of drivers for upcoming operating systems. As it could be read from your article, you didn't had the time of your life downloading drivers from Lenovo's driver site. Then, reboot occur every 10 minutes, right?

1.) It really is - split infinitive
2.) claim - should be blame (proofreading, kthxbyebye)
3.) you didn't had? What the...? Is it supposed to be "you didn't have"?
4.) Then, good grammar occur when you type.

Journalism surrenders. How are we supposed to take this guy, who is criticizing an MSNBC writer, seriously? Even if his article is an excellent reflection of Vista's true potential, it's unreadable due to the spelling, grammer, and proofreading errors. I even think I saw a formatting error.

~Will

Linux has more copyright owners

[tepples]

If someone doesn't like you linking X component with Y component, the very first thing you should ask them is: are you the copyright holder of X component or Y component?

The Linux® brand kernel uses a distributed copyright ownership model, in stark contrast to the copyright-assignment practices that GNU® brand software follows. If I write a patch to Linux, and a kernel maintainer accepts it, then I am an owner of copyright in Linux. I would wager that even FSF, the owner of copyright in GNU software, owns at least some of the Linux copyright.

Re:Linux has more copyright owners

[QuantumG]

Ya know what? I've asked about 20 different lawyers about the copyright on the Linux kernel. Half of them say that for the copyright on the Linux kernel to be successfully defended you would need only one copyright holder to sue. The other half say that no single copyright holder could sue, you'd need all of them. Who is right? Even the lawyers can't agree.

Re:Linux has more copyright owners

[KarmaMB84]

There's the middle ground where a person who has code in the part of the kernel that is being linked (if any) is having their copyright on that portion violated.

Re:Linux has more copyright owners

[DavidTC]

The last half of lawyers are either lying or criminally incompetant. There is no logical legal way that you'd need everyone to sue.

Re:Linux has more copyright owners

[asuffield]

It depends on where the lawsuit happens. Different places have different rules about this.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Bronster]

We all know that, to use XGL in GNU/Linux, you need to use non-free binary drivers from nVidia or ATI.

I call FUD. I have successfully tested XGL in kororaa with the Intel i810 chipset in my Dell Inspiron 510m laptop. I guess we don't "all know" after all.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[spuzzzzzzz]

XGL runs very well on my Thinkpad with an ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 using the Free, open source drivers that X.org provides. I imagine the situation is similar for any Radeon cards up to and including the 9200. I also understand that the Free, open source drivers for Intel chips support 3D acceleration.

Re:What more can be said...

[zerocool^]

"It really is" actually may not be a split infinitive. Still, though. My high horse is an inch shorter, but my point remains the same.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[murdocj]

Realize a vast majority of the world is completely shackled to non-free and downright evil software.

I'd like to reserve the word "evil" for things that are, you know, evil. Like holding prisoners in secret prisons scattered around the world so you can torture them. Selling software without giving away source may not be the best way to produce and deliver software (or maybe it is, I don't know) but isn't "evil".

Speak for yourself

[brunes69]

You != "the free software community".

I am a rabid supporter of Free Software, and have been for many years. But I have no problem with closed source device drivers. Never have, never will.

Why? Because by their very nature, device drivers are not free to begin with, because you have to have possesion of that device to use them in the first place. Thus, "Freedom 0" as defined by the FSF is impossible. I guess RMS doesn't read his own manifestos?

Not to mention the fact that for both of these vendors, it is legally impossible to open their drivers because they license code from other 3rd party companies.

Don't agree with me? Fine, don't buy the hardware from these vendors, or contribute to the relevant projects to replace them. But don't go pushing your views on everyone else in the community - for a lot of us, drivers are a different class of software that do not neccessarily have to be free to be useful.

Re:Speak for yourself

[bersl2]

If I create a GPL-licensed program to emulate the hardware, I can use both the emulator and the GPLed driver together, for any purpose. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I can't say that I find your logic for the appropriateness of closed drivers useful.

I think that while chip and hardware designers are under no obligation to release open drivers, they ought not withhold the ISA in any way. If a piece of hardware cannot be documented for the purpose of creating drivers without revealing the hardware's RTL or other deep internals, that's pretty awful of them (especially in a technical sense).

Speaking of which, how much money would it cost to get information like that released for free redistribution? Everything has a price, and knowing the what and why of that price would be a move (however small) towards freeing that information.

Re:Speak for yourself

[k8to]

Your argument can be easily extended without any real change to: You need to have a processor to execute compiled software, so therefore Freedom 0 is impossible.

Not everyone has a processor just as not everyone has the device that the driver intends to control. Just because the software works with some hardware does not prevent retransmission, reuse, modification, etc. Your claim that "a lot" of people believe that the need for free software has a special driver exception might be true, but the set of people who believe software freedom matters, but does not apply to drivers is an excruciatingly small fraction of the whole.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Anonymous Coward]

XGL runs on both the GPL intel drivers as well as the GPL ati drivers (though not on all ati cards). So it is not a trap at all.

Also if you don't like the closed source drivers instead of being a luddite and trying to prevent progress, why don't you contribute to the development of the OSS 3d drivers?

Also the drivers aren't 'non-free', they are 'non-Free'. And it's rather disturbing that you're on a first name basis with RMS.

Some economist-geek explain it to me...

[pla]

How exactly does an IPO fail?

First of all, as I understand it, most IPOs have a requirement that buyers not sell for anywhere up to 90 days. How does the stock price do anything worse than remain flat in that time?

Second - Conceptually, let's say I like Vonage and manage to get in on the IPO. I buy 100 shares, which initially dip. Now I've taken a small loss on something I expect to shoot way up within the next few days... Would I sell? Hell no! Now, at around a 10% dip I might get rather worried, but in order for that to happen, a ton of other buyers needed to already panic. What gives?

And finally, what business model does Vonage hope to capitalize on, anyway? They sell something that, in the end-game, doesn't require a third party!!!! It just requires a hardware handset and an IP address. Their business model, if it reached 100% succesfull, would kill itself as a result. We only need them until POTS goes the way of the dodo. Once everyone uses an internet-connected phone, the one valuable service VOIP providers currently offer (VOIP to POTS bridging) becomes irrelevant.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me...

[geekoid]

Lets say a company goes public, and is expect to sell 100 shares at a price of 10 bucks per share.
Then they IPO, and only 50 shares are bought. There value would decrease because there is no interest.

  "Now I've taken a small loss on something I expect to shoot way up within the next few days... Would I sell? Hell no! "
you might if there was no interest.
Now if all 100 shares were sold, you would expect the price to go up do to heavy interest, but if an IPO doesn't sparl a lot of interest, there isn't much the company can do.
My examples where very gross, and in the stock world the difference between a hot stoc and a cold one may only a small percentage of sells.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me...

[paulthomas]

There are generally not restrictions on selling the stock after the IPO. You might be thinking of some SEC rules regarding changes to the ownership immediately prior to the IPO (whether such rules exist, I'm unsure).

Not only would you not see a fall, you wouldn't see any movement in the stock for 90 days if trading were suspended (buyers not being able to sell would result in no transactions). This is clearly not true if you look at any IPO. In fact, the possibility to have a run up in the stock price early on is part of the politics of traditional IPO underwriting. The investment bank that underwrites the issue essentially buys all of the stock that will be sold from the company, ensuring that the company receives some fixed amount. The underwriter then sells portions of the stock to major investing concerns at a price fixed higher than what was paid to the company. This spread is the compensation for "insuring" the issue. The stock is initially sold to a small and select group of buyers at this price who anticipate a run-up in the price from the general demand from unwary individual investors.

Everyone early in the chain gets some cut and it is your average joe who generally gets the shaft on the flotation of new issues. In this sense you are correct that IPOs generally don't fail -- the underwriter sets the prices that ensure capital for the firm going public and a profit for the underwriter.

With regard to the business model, who knows. I think this is part of why the IPO wasn't terribly successful (for the people who bought before the decline).

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me...

[ClamIAm]

Once everyone uses an internet-connected phone, the one valuable service VOIP providers currently offer (VOIP to POTS bridging) becomes irrelevant.

I don't think this is true. Community-run or even decentralized instant messaging is possible right now, but people happily use MSN or whatever because it "just works" and ties into features they use (Hotmail, etc). The same will probably be true for phone.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me...

[241comp]

But in general they don't pay for it.

Re:Some economist-geek explain it to me...

[fish waffle]

I buy 100 shares, which initially dip. Now I've taken a small loss on something I expect to shoot way up within the next few days... Would I sell? Hell no! Now, at around a 10% dip I might get rather worried...

You really need to pay more attention to how this is supposed to work: buy low, sell high. It's really not that complex.

Kororaa GPL

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

However the Kororaa project has decided to let end users download and install the drivers themselves if need be, which defeats the purpose of continuing to develop their Live CD. As such their will be no Kororaa XGL LiveCD 0.3

This sentence was a little confusing the first seven times I read it. So I did what I hardly ever do, go to the source, read the article and gain a fuller understanding of the situation... instead of just posting here about how the summary was confusing.

My misunderstanding stemmed from my thinking that the Kororaa project was just the Live CD. So I was thinking: if they decided to script the downloading and compiling of the nvidia modules why would they then go and decide to cancel the Live CD development? The key here is that they also have a non-live CD version called Kororaa 2005, and soon to be 2006. They are still continuing this distribution, which will prompt the user to download the modules manually as other distros do.

The author's reasoning was kind of strange though, he leads us on a very logical path towards concluding that the Kororaa Live CD does *not* violate the GPL in its current form. He even says For me, with the information at hand, I cannot see how the drivers constitute a GPL violation. Yet he still decides to discontinue the live CD. He also makes a good case about why he doesn't want to have the user download and compile the drivers themselves on boot.

I can't blame him though. He's clearly a supporter of the GPL. He's striving to adhere to the letter and spirit of the license. Oh well, maybe I should check out the standard Kororaa distribution.

Re:Kororaa GPL

[geekoid]

"This sentence was a little confusing the first seven times I read it. So I did what I hardly ever do, go to the source, read the article and gain a fuller understanding of the situation... instead of just posting here about how the summary was confusing."

dear lord, please let this be the start of a trend.

Re:Kororaa GPL

[Thing 1]

dear lord [...]

I didn't read any further, and thought I should complain that even if there was a God, It's not listening if your palms aren't pressed together (as that activates the transmitter).

Re:Kororaa GPL

[QuantumG]

Meh, I say let the kernel developer hire the services of a lawyer to send a proper cease and desist letter. If he's not willing to spend money to make this official then he's clearly not willing to spend money to go to court over the matter. What a load of shit.

Re:Kororaa GPL

[Richard_at_work]

Its simple - the LiveCD with a scripted install would need to have the drivers downloaded and installed each time the CD was booted - negating most of the point of the LiveCD (cant use it without network access). Hes discontinuing it because, even tho he doesnt believe there is a violation, he doesnt want to have to expend time and money on it - its easier to just stop doing it.

Vonage Reliabitility and IPO

[mlmitton]

It's odd to me that Vonage decided to go public right now. I received the notice that I was invited to the IPO, and there was a moment of excitement. But then I remembered that my service has been pretty poor over the last 6 weeks. Dropped calls, garbled calls, and the most mysterious problem: it won't stop calling me. That is, a friend calls, we talk, we hangup, and then I get ghost ringing from the friend for the next eight hours. Anyway, my point wasn't really to grouse about Vonage problems. My point is that a lot of customers have been having service problems over the last few weeks. That seems to make this a very bad time to go public.

Re:Vonage Reliabitility and IPO

[geekoid]

The onkly thing I can tell is that something very bad is happening at vonage, and they need money to fix it now.

Thats pure speculation, but it's the only reason I can think of..well that and coincidence.

Could Vonage be DDOS'd? If so, would that meen all there users systems could become useless during the DDOSing?

Re:Vonage Reliabitility and IPO

[sumdumass]

It might have something to do with raising money ot sue traditional telcom and ISPs with competing offers. There has been stories released about Telcos degrading vonage service and certain ISPs doing the same.

Now, This isn't just unfair business practices once the company goes public. There are a host of other sec rules and laws to protect them. Also When stock holder finds that thier interests are being railroaded by competitors, It would be easy for one of them to launch a class action suite against say Time Warner Road runner or SBC for puposly degrading vonages service to give preferences to thier own. It might also force the government to automaticaly step in (FCC SEC and possibly other agencies) with some regulations helping them with service routing and maybe number portability.

I think this is more of a stratigic move then a "look at how good we're doing" move. It should open a new avenue for dealing with old issues.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[geekoid]

'evil' has been used to describe bad software for 30+ years.

.XXX TLD

[Adrian Lopez]

Unlike many Slashdotters (as evidenced by previous reactions to the subject), I am very happy indeed that ICANN decided to reject the XXX domain, for the reasons given here:

In June 2005, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved the creation of an xxx top-level domain (TLD) for pornographic websites. This reverses their previous decision back in November 2000, when they decided against the creation of the xxx TLD. The Bush administration, responding to the recent decision by ICANN, is objecting to the creation of the new TLD. Meanwhile, many of the folks at Slashdot are objecting to Bush's objection to the xxx TLD.

While the Bush administration's decision is based more on opposition to pornography than on opposition to the xxx TLD, the arguments raised by Slashdot readers are rather problematic. The prevailing argument appears to be that the Bush administration should not interfere with the ICANN's decisions, and that an xxx TLD is a good idea because it could make it easier for parents and system-administrators to filter out pornographic content. The second part of this argument raises important free-speech concerns.

While the xxx domain is currently voluntary, could it eventually become mandatory? The government could require that pornographic content be hosted exclusively on xxx domains, the ICANN could change the rules for com, net and org domains to allow only non-pornographic content, and hosting providers could refuse to host pornographic websites not associated with an xxx domain. In short, there are many ways in which an xxx domain could be abused, all in the name of keeping smut away from impressionable eyes.

The xxx TLD could become a mechanism for the regulation of pornographic websites hosted on xxx domains. According to ZDNet, a "nonprofit organization called the International Foundation For Online Responsibility will be in charge of setting the rules for .xxx. It's intended to have a seven-person board of directors, including a child advocacy advocate, a free-expression aficionado and someone from the adult entertainment industry." What are the rules being set, and why do we need a "child advocacy advocate" to make decisions about adult-oriented domains? Would they require use of AVS (age-verification systems) by websites that use the xxx TLD?

According to an earlier statement by Stuart Lawley, whose company -- ICM Registry -- will administer the xxx TLD, "apart from child pornography, which is completely illegal, we're really not in the content-monitoring business". While this may seem reassuring, how will they decide what constitutes "child pornography"? Which country's definition of "child pornography" will they adopt? Shutting down child pornographers is the government's job, not the registrar's.

There's no good reason why pornographic content should be stuffed into the xxx TLD and isolated from the rest of the Internet's namespace. What is so terrible about pornography that it must be kept in its very own TLD? Who the hell knows. It's a silly decision grounded upon primitive moral codes.

Re:.XXX TLD

[ceoyoyo]

A couple of points that are interesting:

The right to free speech is just that... a right to speak, not to be heard. Every other medium for distribution of pornography is subject to laws (in most countries) that help keep it out of the hands of minors unless their parents approve.

Why shouldn't pornography be censorable, say, by schools or libraries? Students and library patrons shouldn't really be looking up porn. Nor playing Flash games. Nor watching movies. A government saying porn (or almost anything else) is bad, you can't have it is bad but making it easier for parents to control what, how and when their children are exposed to things isn't. If you're arguing that porn needs to be diffused through the general Internet to prevent government censorship then you have a problem with your government, not a .xxx tld.

Pornographic material is segregated from other material in every other medium except the Internet. Why shouldn't it be? I'd suggest that the Internet's name spaces should all be more clearly enforced. .orgs should actually BE organizations with absolutely no profit motive. .coms should be global companies. We should have some sort of .personal for personal sites. Canada used to do this with their namespace. In order to register a .ca domain you had to show that your website represented a national organization. If you were local you got put in a .province.ca domain or a .city.province.ca domain.

Re:.XXX TLD

[Eccles]

The internet is international. Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue would be .xxx in Iran. Whose .xxx do you use?

Even if voluntary, .xxx is a bad idea. Wife demands ISP-level xxx filter. Husband complies, secretly goes to .com porn sites. Who would register as xxx voluntarily, it would be bad for business.

Re:.XXX TLD

[ceoyoyo]

Which is why I think most true tlds are silly and we should be moving away from them. .xxx.us is a good idea. .xxx for the whole world isn't. There's also a LOT of stuff in .com that should be in .com.us. But that would emphasize the point that the Internet is international, and USians don't like that.

Agreed, nobody is going to move out of .com unless they have to -- at best they'll register .something-else in addition to .com. Which is why I think we need rules. Kick the porn out of .com along with companies who don't have reasonable international shipping.

Re:.XXX TLD

[gregmac]

The internet is international. Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue would be .xxx in Iran. Whose .xxx do you use?

Even if voluntary, .xxx is a bad idea. Wife demands ISP-level xxx filter. Husband complies, secretly goes to .com porn sites. Who would register as xxx voluntarily, it would be bad for business.

Both of these are good points. My argument against it has been that:

  * There will likely be a land-rush to register .xxx domains. Are you going to register yourcompany.xxx? Will you like it if someone else does?

  * If someone beats pornSite.com to pornSite.xxx, chances are pornSite.com will continue to use their .com domain, especially if they've put lots of effort into branding it.

  * (like you said) the internet is international. How do you enforce legislation globally? Even if you can do it in a few countries, there will always be sites that are not .xxx. Now the sites in the US that are forced to use .xxx, but are being filtered, have no way of competing with the .com's hosted offshore that are unfiltered. How long will it be before they just move their own sites offshore? If they do that, for example, legislation that prevents them from showing underage models is going to be much harder to enforce..

  * Who decides where the line is of what is porn and what is art? I didn't even consider the additional argument you brought up of how this will be different in different cultures..

Bottom line: dumb idea, too many issues.

Re:.XXX TLD

[Dharma's Dad]

My first upload would be that CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal video: "Slashback Mountain".

The scene with the cyber-sheep is really, ummmm, unique!

Favorite quotes:

"I have an outlet you can plug into."

"Dude, you made my floppy a hard drive!"

"I wish I knew how to :q! you, man...."

Re:.XXX TLD

[igb]

library patrons shouldn't really be looking up porn. Nor playing Flash games. Nor watching movies.

A lending library will lend you a copy of The Da Vinci Code. It will lend up a CD audiobook of The Da Vinci Code. Why shouldn't it offer you the movie as well?

ian

Re:.XXX TLD

[rot26]

Students and library patrons shouldn't really be looking up porn. Nor playing Flash games. Nor watching movies.

Whoah. The Library Dictator has spoken. There are probably a LOT of things that students and library patrons shouldn't be doing, but are. And this concerns you how?

Re:.XXX TLD

[ceoyoyo]

Many libraries will lend you movies. To take home and watch. Not to sit there tying up an Internet terminal watching. Try it -- go into a library and just start watching clips from YouTube or something. The library will probably come by as soon as she notices what you're up to and ask you to get off the computer.

Re:.XXX TLD

[ceoyoyo]

Well, there's an end to polite discussion. Congratulations!

Re:.XXX TLD

[rot26]

Well, there's an end to polite discussion.

I'm much too important to waste time on manners.

Congratulations!

Thanks!

Re:.XXX TLD

[pthisis]

Which is why I think most true tlds are silly and we should be moving away from them. .xxx.us is a good idea. .xxx for the whole world isn't. There's also a LOT of stuff in .com that should be in .com.us. But that would emphasize the point that the Internet is international, and USians don't like that.

This is backwards. .com and .edu are meant to be used by all commercial and educational entities. .us should only be used for geographically/politically linked organizations--there's no reason that, say, Microsoft couldn't move from Seattle to New York or New Delhi.

Now, .gov and .mil seem like they should be under .us, but OTOH they're original TLDs and the US Government was responsible for the creation of the internet. :-/

From RFC1480 (written in 1993):
Even though the original intention was that any educational institution anywhere in the world could be registered under the EDU domain, in practice, it has turned out with few exceptions, only those in the United States have registered under EDU, similarly with COM (for commercial)

Obviously "with few exceptions" is no longer true, but the point is that .com and .edu were originally intended to house all qualifying registrants. .us is more strictly geographically oriented with a few exceptions:

The US Domain hierarchy is based on political geography. The basic name space under US is the state name space, then the "locality" name space, (like a city, or county) then organization or computer name and so on...
In addition to strictly geographically names, some special names are used, such as FED, STATE, AGENCY, DISTRICT, K12, LIB, CC, CITY, and COUNTY.

Re:.XXX TLD

[ceoyoyo]

As I said, any business or organization with a global presence should be under .com or .org. Microsoft, clearly, is one of these. Joe's Diner, down the street, should NOT be joesdiner.com, however. Sorry, it's not joesdiner.com, it's http://www.joesdinerandpizza.com/.

Will Joe's Diner and Pizza in Santa Fe provide a product or service to me, in Canada? No? Get out of .com and into .us. Actually, they should probably be in santafe.az.us. .com especially is like a bad user's desktop -- every file they've ever created is dumped there because it's handy. Hierarchical filing systems are MEANT to be hierarchical!

Note that some international companies are catching on. If you go to apple.com you get their American site (really, it should be apple.us, but Americans don't like that). If you got to apple.ca, you get their Canadian site. apple.com.au -- guess what that site is for?

Ditto for EBay, Google, Microsoft, IBM, Canon... okay, I'm tired of typing company names in.

Just because the US has marginalized their country code doesn't mean it's right.

Big Brother

[graveyhead]

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered why we haven't seen wider circulation of this story and why immigration laws are suddenly the thing to discuss. As one slashdotter pointed out a couple weeks ago, the NSA makes Nixon look like an amateur.

There was a protest today outside the SBC building on Folsom Street here in San Francisco, but it drew hardly any attention and there was no media around.

The building itself is pretty scary looking. It's a huge brown rectangle with tinted windows that also somehow look brown. Compared with the nice architecture of the nearby buildings, it sure is an eyesore.

Anyhow, someone want to offer me any conspiracy theories on why nobody cares?

Re:Big Brother

[ScrewMaster]

Anyhow, someone want to offer me any conspiracy theories on why nobody cares?

Well, gee, that's obvious. It's the Soma they put in the water supply.

What were we talking about again?

Re:Big Brother

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has wondered why we haven't seen wider circulation of this story and why immigration laws are suddenly the thing to discuss.

Domestic wiretap abuse is ancient news. Been going on since there were wires to tap. Look at the COINTELPRO stuff from half a century back to see some real dirty tricks.

The immigration thing, on the other hand, got 'WAY big when congress decided a fair "compromise" solution would be to add maybe 60 million Mexicans to the 300 million population of the US over the next 20 years - giving them full citizenship (including the vote).

Adding one new voter for every five now present - when the two major parties are so evenly matched that the presidency gets decided by a few hundred votes - sounded to a lot of citizens like an invasion.

Then consider that the people in question grew up in a country where the government is totally corrupt and the laws deserving of contempt, most of them came here, stay here, and work in violation of OUR laws (while our own politicians refuse to enforce them and reward the immigrants for breaking them), and are being educated by a system that keeps them isolated from the general culture. So they started to worry about what will happen to respect for law over the next few decades.

They pushed the congress critters and got ignored. Then they got mad.

The immigration issue is a reboot of US politics on the banana repulic model. If you thought you've seen government corruption in the last couple decades you ain't seen NOTHING yet.

And if it continues in the same vein for even a couple more years it could, in the opinion of many, literally start an avalanche that will lead to the second civil war.

So, yes, it's significantly more "the in thing to discuss" than a little traffic analysis on phone calls by the NSA.

As one slashdotter pointed out a couple weeks ago, the NSA makes Nixon look like an amateur.

Compared to the NSA Nixon's plumbers WERE amateurs. Heck - compared to the NSA the KGB were a garage shop (and NOT the hi-tek startup kind, either.)

Re:Big Brother

[tehdaemon]

"...solution would be to add maybe 60 million Mexicans to ... the US over the next 20 years..."

That is more than half the entire Mexican population. (reference) If you are not simply exaggerating, (ie. FUDing) could you please back up your numbers?

Re:Big Brother

[Ungrounded Lightning]

That's the current estimate. It's based on two things:
  - The number allowed by the proposed legislation
  - The number of illegals estimated to be here now (about 12 million), assuming they bring in the same proportion of relatives that those legalized in the first amnesty did.

The US is estimated to have about 10% of the working-age population of Mexico and the same percentage of non-working dependents (which is what 12 million comes out to by that same set of Mexican population figures) already over here as illegals in the current round of illegal immigration. If they all bring in their brothers, wives, children (many of working age but NOT here), parents, grandparents, etc. you could easily end up with half of Mexico migrating to the US.

And why wouldn't they come, if their relative's lawbreaking and the US congress got them moved to the head of the line? Mexico is a corrupt hell-hole with a permanent depression and a standard of living so low that low-level white collar workers in the US can retire there and live like minor nobility. Why SHOULDN'T the serfs want to move here, where even taking the bottom tier jobs - or living on the social safety hammock - is a massive step up in quality of life?

Re:What more can be said...

[Petrushka]

Why are you flaming someone for poor English when English is obviously not his native language? I respectfully suggest that until you write a decent tech article in Slovenian and submit it to this guy for him to tear to shreds (and, incidentally, learn what a split infinitive is), you should shut the hell up.

Re:What more can be said...

[complete loony]

But seriously, a laptop will often have custom hardware, which requires custom drivers. Vista is a beta, stick with an OS that is supported by the manufacturor.

You're mis-applying RMS's point

[Morgaine]

I've just read RMS's very well written essay about Java. It's not about Xgl, and you're mis-applying it to Xgl.

The authors of Sun Java have no (current) intention of making it free, so it's non-free by design and thus quite rightly gets RMS's ire. As RMS suggests, every enhancement that Sun makes to Java just makes matters worse.

In contrast, Xgl is currently tied to nVidia or ATI hardware only because the authors haven't yet made it work with anything else, but it could do so, so it's just a question of manpower and not a matter of non-free intent. It would probably work with Mesa anyway, but excruciatingly slowly.

Xgl is dependent on OpenGL, and you'd better not be complaining about that because it's the standard 3D API for free and open-source software. It just so happens that nVidia and ATI have the most efficient and widely used implementations of OpenGL for consumer PCs, that's all. The fact that the FOSS community hasn't yet fully implemented any competing 3D-accelerated version of OpenGL isn't Xgl's fault, nor is it OpenGL's fault --- there is no non-free OpenGL license blocking such implementations as there is with Java. (You might not be able to call it "OpenGL" unless it's validated, but that's peripheral.)

So, you're confusing the non-freeness of Java with nothing more evil than the early state of Xgl and the lack of 3D-accelerated non-proprietary implementations of OpenGL. Well, it may have escaped your attention, but a collosal proportion of all free programs are incomplete or still being worked on, and that doesn't make them non-free.

You need to use some commonsense here. By all means complain about ATI and nVidia, but not about OpenGL or Xgl. Xgl is free software, and OpenGL is an open standard. Xgl just needs some more work, as does our free OpenGL clone. Work in progress.

Re:You're mis-applying RMS's point

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

Wrong.

Java is just as open of a standard as OpenGL. Anyone can implement a version of it, if they have the resources. The issue, in BOTH cases, is that the free implementations are inadequate.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Stemp]

Absolutely, XGL work fine on a 9200 with the radeon driver

Whew

[Reality Master 101]

I'm a Vonage customer, and got the notification that they were "rewarding" their customers by allowing them to get in on the IPO, up to 5,000 shares. I had a few hours of excited thoughts, thinking that maybe I should get in on it.

Then, fortunately, my brain kicked in. Why, if the Vonage IPO was going to be a blockbuster, would they give away so many shares to the unwashed masses?

Unless they needed the unwashed masses to drum up demand.

These finance guys aren't typically stupid. Yeah, sure, it was theoretically possible that they were giving out so many shares out of the goodness of their heart, but my experience in life is that there ain't no free lunch.

I'm glad my suspicians were borne out. I'd have been REALLY pissed if it shot up 10x or something. :D

Re:Whew

[tweek]

I disagree that it was a tactic on face value. I was a part of the RedHat IPO because of some bug contributions but I didn't consider it a ploy.

Re:Whew

[PornMaster]

I actually had myself down for some shares but remembered to go cancel before the 19th. Sanity got the better of me. The cable companies are growing so much faster than Vonage, offer the simplicity of bundling, and if they decide not to pursue network neutrality, Vonage is done for.

I've been happy with the service, but the future doesn't look so bright.

Re:Whew

[Aardpig]

Unless they needed the unwashed masses to drum up demand.

Well, it seems to have worked, despite the price drop. I signed up for 100 shares, but was allocated none; so it's not as if they had to dump loads of stock on the customers.

Re:Whew

[Reality Master 101]

I disagree that it was a tactic on face value. I was a part of the RedHat IPO because of some bug contributions but I didn't consider it a ploy.

The Red Hat precedent did occur to me, but that was a bit of a different deal. First, the pool of people who were contributors is much smaller than the (almost) entire Vonage customer base. Second, I think it was limited to much smaller than 5,000 shares (like 100 shares or something?). Third, contributors to Red Hat seems a bit more honest than any customer that happens to have used the product.

Imagine if Red Hat offered 5,000 shares to anyone who had ever purchased Red Hat (not exactly the same; Red Hat's customer base is even much smaller than Vonage).

Re:Whew

[ceoyoyo]

Plus they don't have NEARLY as annoying commercials. I'll never be a Vonage customer because they

a) have REALLY annoying commercials and
b) telemarketed me.

Do Not Compute

[Doc Ruby]

Geeks should shut out the lawyers from our world at least as much as they extend the favor to us. Maybe require all their briefs, filings and opinions ot compile against the Constitution, for starters.

Edit the wikipedia!

[Spy der Mann]

Someone should edit the wikipedia and add the ICANN controversy to his
wikipedia entry.

Taking their ball and going home?

[swbrown]

So rather than include support in Kororaa for Free Software 3D drivers like for the Intel GMA chipsets instead of the non-free drivers at issue.. they're going to take their ball and go home? Nice..

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[ceoyoyo]

It has?

I've always seen "evil" used to describe bad companies, who coincidentally produce bad software. The software is bad, the company is evil. Other companies, who do not produce software, can be evil and do evil things too. Like gassing thousands of Indians with their chemical plant.

Re:What more can be said...

[ceoyoyo]

You forgot the use of "that" in place of "who."

Of the suggestions for "improoving," I definitely like "imbruting." :)

Re:Drivers = Software

[KarmaMB84]

You're not exactly going to be using a driver for an ATI Radon X1600 Uber-Dooper Edition on your nVidia GeForce 7900 Ultimate-WTF Edition, so what is the point?

Mod parent up

[AoT]

Really, who believes in unicorns anymore?

Device drivers and the GPL

[Adrian Lopez]

For user programs, the Linux kernel's license states:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Should a similar exemption not apply to device drivers compiled as kernel modules?

Re:Device drivers and the GPL

[QuantumG]

More to the point, if it doesn't then it is clearly the case that distributing *any* proprietary Linux driver is a violation of the copyright of "me and others who actually wrote it", even if you're not distributing the Linux kernel along with the driver, because according to these terms a proprietary Linux driver is a "derived work".

I don't understand. I really don't.

WTF is going on here.

Re:Device drivers and the GPL

[djmurdoch]

I think the argument goes as follows. L is Linux which is GPL'd, D is the proprietary driver which is not. L+D is the derived work. You can distribute D if you like, but you can't bundle it with Linux unless you license the whole new thing under the GPL.

Re:Device drivers and the GPL

[QuantumG]

Here's the thing, we're not talking about proprietary Linux kernel modules. We're talking about proprietary X11 modules. X11 is BSD licensed. These people are completely out to lunch.

Re:Device drivers and the GPL

[djmurdoch]

It's all a question about whether L+D is a derived work or not. If it is, then you're not allowed to distribute it without following the GPL. If the copyright holder says it's fine, you're definitely allowed to distribute D on its own, or with X11 if X11 is BSD licensed, but you're not allowed to distribute L with it.

The FSF has an agenda to promote free software, so their opinion would certainly be that L+D is a derived work. Whoever wrote to Kororaa is also of that opinion, and I think someone mentioned that they were kernel contributors. So by bundling the driver with the kernel in a distribution, they think you're violating their copyright.

Could they be wrong? Sure. Do you want to fight over it? Kororaa doesn't.

Re:Device drivers and the GPL

[A Life in Hell]

Do not both nvidia and ATI's X driver have a proprietry kernel module to go with them?

Re:Device drivers and the GPL

[QuantumG]

No, the kernel modules are GPL.

Which is why I can't understand WTF this is all about.

.XXX domains

[SniperClops]

Why don't they just create the .XXX domain already. It would be easier to block .XXX domains from children.

Re:.XXX domains

[Astin]

- Makes it easier to find porn
- Gives very vocal approval to porn

Okay, fine, I don't have a problem with either of those... other people do though.

- Could facilitate the movement of all pornographic sites to the .xxx domain. By requirement. "You have porn? You're .xxx. Not .com, not .org, etc.." So what stops them from then moving all the stuff suitable for children to .kids? What's the definition for porn then? What's the definition for kids-only? Opens up a grey area. Also, .xxx could become a "premium service" for ISPs. It becomes the equivalent of ordering the Playboy channel or getting subscription to something that comes in a brown paper bag.

I think it's not a bad idea for .xxx, but there are potential pitfalls.

Devil's advocate, signing off.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[AoT]

You know what they say:

"evil is as evil does."

Oh, wait...

That was just a bad movie.

The problem as always is - Who decides?

[SuperKendall]

Why shouldn't pornography be censorable, say, by schools or libraries?

It should be, but the problem is a .XXX domain makes too easy a dumping ground for anything that offends anyone. One can in an extreme case imagine requiring the recent Mohammed cartoons being only publishable in a website located in the .XXX domain.

Other possible things that may not be viewable outside of a .XXX domain:

Michelangelo's David
Artistic Nudes
Sites with graphic how-tos on breast exams.

It's all a roll of the dice as to what the panel might keep in or out.

I don't mind the idea of a .xxx domain so long as it is totally volutary for companies to use that domain or not. Then most likley the domain space will naturally fill with things that a great majority of the populace would agree are pornography.

Re:The problem as always is - Who decides?

[ceoyoyo]

As I mentioned in another post, a single .xxx tld is pretty silly. Each country code should have it's own. Internet pornography should be governed by the same laws (remember, we're in each individual country now) that govern any other kind of pornography. If you fall under those laws then you must go in xxx.mycountry, just like if you were publishing a magazine you'd have to go on the top shelf behind the counter.

Re:What more can be said...

[Mr. Slippery]

1.) It really is - split infinitive

Er, no, it's not. The infinitive form is the "to X" form; "to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before."

And there's really nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English, that's a rule from Latin mistakenly carried over.

it's unreadable due to the spelling, grammer,

I love irony.

Consider this please in the intended spirit.

[Allnighterking]

The purpose of the GPL, as I have grown to understand it, is to ensure innovation is possible, and in fact encouraged. While preserving the rights of the creators of said technology in a manor they saw fit. Now the GPL is being used to stifle innovation. Shame too, Kororaa was a very enjoyable way to experiment with coming technology, without destroying my working environment.

Nearly every "pay for play" copy of Linux comes with nvidia and or ati commercial drivers included. It would seem that the biggest crime committed by kororaa was the crime of popularity. I guess it's easier to squash the little guys than to go up against the big boys. Call this flame bait if you must, but the GPL used to be a tool to enlighten not a bat to beat people up with.

Re:Consider this please in the intended spirit.

[lintux]

I think the problem is mainly that you have to be consistent. If nobody minds about what Kororaa does, half a year later some other company can violate the GPL in a similar (but less desired) way. AFAIK nobody can then do anything against that company anymore, because nothing was done against Kororaa either.

Re:Consider this please in the intended spirit.

[Marlow the Irelander]

No. That's how it works for trademarks, I think, and possibly patents too, but not copyright. The difference is that trademarks are given to protect a brand name from being misused, and if the company allows its misuse, that's taken as indication that the company doesn't care enough about the trademark to warrant its continued granting.

Copyrights, however, are based on the idea that a content producer has an inherent right to control the copying of said content. He doesn't have a duty to control the content, like with trademarks, merely the right. Therefore, you can let copyrights go unenforced for a while, and then enforce them, at your leisure.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[ltmon]

Actually with the Intel drivers there is barely a howto needed. It's one driver that just works fully accelerated out of the box because it's GPL and can be provided with any distribution.

Once drivers are working any howto on XGL will be all you need.

If you are buying a computer, particularly a laptop, and don't care about gaming then the Intel chips are the way to go with Linux in my experience.

L.

Re:Drivers = Software

[innocent_white_lamb]

Studying it, learning how it's done, learning new techniques and technologies, designing new devices, improving the existing code so it runs better in some way, solving unique problems or situations that you may encounter.
 
Just some minor stuff like that, is all.

Even that not granular enough

[SuperKendall]

But even by country is not good enough - people in North Dakota generally have a very different idea of what pornography might be compared to people in California or New York.

Either no-one forces sites into these domains, or it should not be at all.

Re:Even that not granular enough

[ceoyoyo]

True, but I think the laws are reasonably uniform. A magazine isn't usually classified as pornography in one state and not in another, although people in different states might be more accepting of it.

If you did have such extreme variations then go to state domains for that country.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Arker]

You can add a number of Matrox cards to that list too. Up to the 550, which is a pretty capable card, and still available at a reasonable price.

XGL definitely does NOT require blobware to work. It does, sadly, require blobware to work on Nvidia hardware. But that's not the same thing.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Arker]

So you can see that imprisonment and torture is evil, but not that enslavement when done with soft gloves and a gilded cage is? Perhaps you should think about what the essence of evil is a bit...

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[Bronster]

Er, right.

Download kororaa 0.2 cd. I used bittorrent, you're welcome to use another technique if it makes you happy. I hear RFC 1149 networking is all the rage these days.

Insert into CD drive. Turn on power.

Press the magic key (I think it was F12) that presents a boot-device menu. Select the CD.

Press ENTER at the prompt.

Wait a bit.

Enjoy the shiny spinny cubeness of it all.

QED. FOAD.

Re:Drivers = Software

[Vanders]

You may not find it useful to have the source, but it's pretty useful when you want to port the drivers so a new platform can support that hardware for our users.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[murdocj]

Just to be clear: my issue is not with whether closed source software is a good or bad thing, it's with using words like "evil" in such a way that they lose their meaning. If you are going to use the word "evil" for "I bought a computer today and it came with an O/S that I don't have source for" what word will you use to describe torture in secret prisons?

Re:.and more importantly...

[Zaphod2016]

and more importantly, it will free up randomcumdumpstersluts.com for the children

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[tehcyder]

'evil' has been used to describe bad software for 30+ years.

Even if this is true (any sources/citations?) it just means that people have been incorrectly describing software for 30+ years.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[couchslug]

The functional value to all the world of Free and Open Source Software is arguably more than the lives of a few humans who espouse a violently anti-freedom religion even more toxic than Christianity.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[mrchaotica]

The software itself can be evil too, if it includes things like malware or DRM.

Kororaa Live CD demo for a class

[JonNoH]

I took some time this last semester to demo the Kororaa Live CD to an IT class I had at my university. Not only were alot of people impressed with the software, but several asked for copies or where to get it. If the Kororaa team is stopping their Live CD at this stage, it hasn't been a total loss. Several Windows students and a mac student have already been bitten by the bug.

USA Today vs. Mark Klein

[jdbartlett]

From the CNN article:

USA Today reported that the NSA doesn't record or listen to conversations. Rather, the article said, the agency uses the data -- including phone numbers, times and locations -- to look for patterns that might suggest terrorist activity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is in conflict with Mark Klein's recent evidence in the separate Hepting vs. AT&T case:

From The documents released by Wired on Monday:

In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.

To me, this sounded far-fetched. Everything is a lot of stuff.

More background on Hepting vs. AT&T

Economist-geek here...

[Astin]

Point 1 - Umm.. no. It's possible that INSIDERS (ie.- company employees) might have a restriction on them, but 90 days seems extreme. If nobody could sell an stock for 90 days after the IPO, then the stock would do nothing. It would sit there and not trade at all. As soon as it's public, the stock is tradeable by anybody who isn't restricted by their insider (or possibly other) position.

Point 2 - Depends on your strategy. Bear in mind that most stock trades are institutional, not mom and dad buying for their personal account. Pension plans, businesses, hedge funds, etc, will hedge their trades, ie.- They'll buy the stock, but also buy a put (or sell a call) option to cover their position. That's just one example of many though. There could also be stop-loss prices put on them (buy @ $10, but if it hits $9, sell it because I don't want to lose any more than 10%). Other speculators could short sell the stock in anticipation of it dropping. In the case of Vonage, that's quite possible.

As an aside, it's not uncommon in the financial industry that brokerage firm employees have minimum hold times on ALL stock ownership (ie.- you buy a stock, you have to keep it for a minimum of 30 days). The exception to this rule is usually a major price drop (5-10%), in which case the restriction is lifted.

Point 3 - Vonage is hoping on acting like a regular phone company. They sell the service for $40 a month, and tie it to POTS. They also offer your standard package of services - voice mail, caller ID, call forwarding, etc.. They're counting on the fact that people don't change quickly. They trust their phone system as it is. Phone's on the wall in the kitchen, cordless in the den, and it pretty much always works. Saying to them "Hey! Forget that thing on your wall. Just hook up a microphone and headset to your computer!" isn't going to fly. But saying, "We have a new technology that offers you cheaper phone service, cheap long distance, and you won't know the difference from your current phone." is far more appealing. You and I know that we can use Skype for free for VOIP, but the act of talking to a computer is still strange to some people.

Once POTS dies out (which is still likely a long time coming), non-geeks will still need someone to sell them the service, hook them up, etc.. The problem for Vonage is that all the telcos and cable companies will be doing the same thing, and already have a built-in base of users.

One interesting thing I saw a few months ago was that Skype, with almost no advertising, was still being searched for far more than Vonage. Skype announcing that calls to landlines are free in Canada and the US just before the Vonage IPO was a very nice kick in the gut to Vonage.

Regardless, I still use my landline and cell phone.

Re:XGL and the Java Trap

[ceoyoyo]

Good point. I don't think it applies to things like MS Office and Windows though. That software isn't evil, it's just bad.

dotproject

[Thad Boyd]

So let me get this straight.

dotproject's hackish, typo-laden ranting (with, for God's sake, the word "sux" in the headline) is what passes for a rebuttal these days?

Look, I'm all for mocking clueless end-users who reveal their ignorance in the mainstream press. But if I linked that dotproject article in the same sentence as that MSNBC article, I'd be embarrassed.

Patterns that might suggest terrorist activity?!?

[VorlonFog]

the agency uses the data -- including phone numbers, times and locations -- to look for patterns that might suggest terrorist activity.

Has anyone yet determined how the numbers, times and locations of calls can be processed by any known technique of pattern recognition to suggest terrorist activity? What are they looking for, unregistered phone numbers? Calls to known terrorist phone numbers? Odd calls at all hours of the day? What?!?

Re:What more can be said...

[Krach42]

Er, no, it's not. The infinitive form is the "to X" form; "to boldly split infinitives that no man has split before."

Actually, this is only the English interpretation of the infinitive. When you actaully look at it, the infinitive is the same as the "to X" form you gave, but that it would not include the "to". Thus the infinitive of "am/are/is" is simply "be", not "to be".

The best example of this can be seen during the use of modal verbs. "I can be all I want to be." Notice that "can" governs an infinitive verb, but we see simply "be", not "to be", but in the same sentence we see "want to be". This is because "want" is not a modal verb, and is an auxillary verb which governs a verb phrase, and not an infinitive verb itself.

This distinction is quite clear to one who studies other Germanic language, for instance German, where the infinitive is a single word uninflected for tense, aspect, mood, or person, although there are number of verbs that govern verb phrases which use the preposition "zu", which in fact, even gets inserted inbetween a seperable prefix and its attached verb.

Examples: "Ich kann laufen." (I can run.)
"Ich muss laufen." (I must run.)
"Ich werde laufen." (I will run.)
"Ich will laufen." (I want run.)
"Ich höre auf, zu laufen." (I stop to run.)
"Ich beginn zu laufen." (I begin to run.)
"Ich versuche zu laufen." (I try to run.)

Once you look at it this way, you realize, that there is no way to split an infinitive in English at all, as you can't insert a word between the "b" and the "e" in "be". Of course, you *can* actually place an interjection between two syllables of an infinitive verb. "I'm off to ex-fricking-plore the world!" Although, the same would have been true for Latin as it is true for all natual languages.

Re:Drivers = Software

[brunes69]

As I said - since half their driver code is licensed from other companies everything you just said is impossible to do, which is also why these companies can't legally open their drivers.

Of course they do a bit

[SuperKendall]

All telcos have to work with law enforcement to some degree. The original poster however was insinuating that AT&T was basically an arm of the NSA, and was therefore lying about not really automatically feeding CDR records to the NSA.