Open Source, Open World

free software and leftist politics? by fustakrakich · 2013-09-14 09:05 · Score: 0

Great! When can we start tearing down the borders?

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Free software and leftist politics? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 10:53 · Score: 0

On the other hand, right wing politicians push for hook on big company software deals at the expense of the local software industry.

libertarian leanings by Black+Parrot · 2013-09-14 09:10 · Score: 1

How is this measured?

A poll might be a start...

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:libertarian leanings by ohnocitizen · 2013-09-14 09:15 · Score: 1

Exactly, I want to see a source. It would be especially neat to see the political leanings of the free software vs open source communities (and overlap of course): http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
Re:libertarian leanings by Antique+Geekmeister · 2013-09-14 09:35 · Score: 1

The article made little distinction between the free software and open source movements. That's more distinction than one might expect in such a short article, and a growing annual gathering of more than 7000 people for free software in Brazil rivals the largest Linux and UNIX conferences I've attended.
Re:libertarian leanings by BronsCon · 2013-09-14 09:50 · Score: 2

An article about open software with no source? Oh, the irony!

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Re:libertarian leanings by Hentes · 2013-09-14 09:54 · Score: 1

Most people do open source for pragmatic reasons, not because of politics. You could just as well say that because of its each giving according to their abilities and receiving according to their needs approach open source is communist.
Re:libertarian leanings by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 10:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

If anything runs counter to libertarian philosophy it's free software. It's a culture of giving and sharing, a cooperative community, where a libertarian would want competitive market forces, "rational self-interest" and "rugged individualism" to govern.
This much is true: the term "open source" was and is an ideological hijack attempt in order to make the "free software" concept more palatable for business. Quoting Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

Perens poses Open Source as a means of marketing the free software philosophy of Richard Stallman to business people who are more concerned with profit than freedom, and states that open source and free software are only two ways of talking about the same phenomenon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_perens
Quoting Bruce Perens directly:

About a year ago, I sent out a message announcing "Open Source". Eric Raymond and I founded the Open Source Initiative as a way of introducing the non-hacker world to Free Software. Well, thanks to Eric, the world noticed. And now it's time for the second stage: Now that the world is watching, it's time for us to start teaching them about Free Software. Notice, I said Free Software, _not_ Open Source.
Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing. Unfortunately, though, Open Source has de-emphasized the importance of the freedoms involved in Free Software. It's time for us to fix that. We must make it clear to the world that those freedoms are still important, and that software such as Linux would not be around without them.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/99/02/18/0927202/bruce-perens-resigns-from-osi
So no, I don't appreciate the subtle political hijack of the free software community by some weird market cult cleverly crafted as an ideological buffer between the rich and the poor, who are led to believe their liberation will come through the same rotten capitalist system that robbed them of their dignity and liberty in the first place.
Re:libertarian leanings by BasilBrush · 2013-09-14 12:17 · Score: 1

I haven't seen a survey. But look at the figureheads:
Free Software - Richard M Stallman - hippy.
Open Source - Eric S Raymond - Far right libertarian.
Re:libertarian leanings by sumdumass · 2013-09-14 13:46 · Score: 1

As soon as you attach open source to politics, you will always lose. It would be like the unions in the US wondering why people are fighting to keep them out of their workplace and not contribute money to them when they are there.
People use it for their own reasons, politics may or may not be one of them. But the open source is closer to the commune in communist then communist itself because it operates on a user mode instead of a government or command structure. What I mean is, open source is a way to get around and away from government type rules and shouldn't be considered in a political light at all. It's more of a neighbor or friend coming over to help paint the garage or work on a car or something then a system of governing.
I'm far from leftist and I support and use open source. Most of my reasons include financial, quality, and practicality rather then political.
Re:libertarian leanings by Blaskowicz · 2013-09-14 13:47 · Score: 1

So no, I don't appreciate the subtle political hijack of the free software community by some weird market cult cleverly crafted as an ideological buffer between the rich and the poor, who are led to believe their liberation will come through the same rotten capitalist system that robbed them of their dignity and liberty in the first place.
I agree that libertarians are fake anarchists, but I'm more bothered by the GPLv3 debacle, which is in the process of making GCC irrelevant for one thing. Can't the FSF gurus just cancel it and let software stick with GPLv2 instead? Hell, Gnome 2, Gnome 3. GTK2, GTK3. GPLv2, GPLv3. There's a pattern. Also LGPL is what you use for libraries, not GPL.
I fear that by going one notch too far each time to preserve my "freedom" they will end up ruining everything. I guess RMS wants me to run in VESA graphics, with no sound and with no mp3, h264, xvid codecs, hard disk in IDE mode etc. I hope there's a Free driver to play sound over the PC speaker or for homemade "sound card" on parallel port. I still have old 3COM network cards which might work (if they're Free enough, at least those without EPROM will do). I'm ready for GNewSensE/HURD!
Re:libertarian leanings by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 13:47 · Score: 0

What? Just because one is libertarian one can't share? As long as you don't force anyone to share I don't see anything unlibertarian about it. Of course if you do force anyone to share you're a commie, no way to escape it: Marx says so, as do any other doctrinal source.
Re:libertarian leanings by WaywardGeek · 2013-09-14 14:05 · Score: 1

First, let's congratulate Brazil for doing more than it's fair share in the open source community. We have a ton of open source people here in the US (RMS for example), and obviously Linus makes Finland an open source Mecca all by himself. I've dealt with several excellent open source devs from Brazil, many countries in Europe, and a ton in South America, yet I have yet to meet a decent open source developer from the entire content of Asia. What's up with Asia?
Libertarian leanings? This comes from the basic principle that if I'm doing something that hurts no one then the government shouldn't interfere. I'm personally straight, but if my buddy and I were gay, the government shouldn't judge what we do in our own homes. The place where I disagree with a bunch of open source devs I know is heroin. I've seen that drug turn people into monsters, willing to pimp themselves as sex toys in scary neighborhoods for the next high. The Libertarian in me says let them do what they want, but the human in me says don't let them destroy their lives. I draw the line at free will. If two people do something that would get them stoned to death in the Middle East, but they both enjoy it and hurt no one, then fine. If they take heroin, crack, meth, or any new fangled drug that overrides free will, then we need to take away their freedom and help them recover.
Libertarian leaning? Yes, we're all in favor of freedom.

--
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Re:libertarian leanings by UnknownSoldier · 2013-09-14 15:42 · Score: 1

The GPL3 exists because a few want to abuse the spirit of the law with a license literalism run-around.
That's the problem with ideology -- it doesn't compromise to pragmaticism. :-(
Each user needs to decide what an "acceptable" compromise is. Still to their ideology and not use any modern hardware, or comprise their freedom and use the latest hardware.
Re:libertarian leanings by dryeo · 2013-09-14 18:00 · Score: 1

Leftist doesn't have to mean government involvement. Think of leftist ideals such as credit unions or co-ops.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:libertarian leanings by ultranova · 2013-09-14 22:22 · Score: 1

How is this measured?

Most likely the good old selection bias: "all my friends share my political beliefs, or at least don't contradict them". Also, libertarians have a tendency to take a somewhat religious attitude towards their politics, and "all the cool/smart people agree with me" is a way of feeling validated, so...

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:libertarian leanings by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 22:59 · Score: 0

We have a ton of open source people here in the US (RMS for example)
Hey, that's hardly fair! Sure, he's gained a little weight over the years, but I'd hardly say that RMS weighs a ton.
Re:libertarian leanings by drinkypoo · 2013-09-14 23:01 · Score: 1

If they take heroin, crack, meth, or any new fangled drug that overrides free will, then we need to take away their freedom and help them recover.
You're making a sophomoric error here on the order of supporting cell phone use laws. We don't need a law for that, it's already illegal to drive recklessly, or while distracted. We don't need a law criminalizing drug use, all we need is to treat their behavior with an eye towards rehabilitation, unlike our current legal system.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:libertarian leanings by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-15 04:00 · Score: 1

If anything runs counter to libertarian philosophy it's free software. It's a culture of giving and sharing, a cooperative community, where a libertarian would want competitive market forces, "rational self-interest" and "rugged individualism" to govern.
And with these two sentences, you amply demonstrate that you do not understand the first thing about libertarianism.
Giving and sharing? That can ONLY happen in a free society where the government doesn't compel you to give, or to share.
The first thing you need to learn is, "if the government forces me to give it - it's not freely given. if the government forces me to share it - it's not freely shared."
"B-b-b-b-b-b-but I would've shared anyway! I'm a good doobie, not like those libertarians!" you'll exclaim.
"Then why did you need to give the government the ability to force you to do it?" is the libertarian response.
"B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-because some people are selfish and won't give freely!" you'll exclaim.
So rather than convince these nasty selfish people of the merits of giving freely to your cause, you use the blunt tool of government force to compel everybody to give, even if they don't want to. Why not simply eradicate libertarian thinking in all its forms, and teach children from the first that there is no truth but what they are told by authority, and that any thought of non-collective action is silly, misguided, or downright evil?
What you want is a world free of conflicts - a world where your own precious world view will not be challenged by anybody else, and where you'll never need to provide a rational reason for anything you decide you're entitled to. And yes, that sort of a world would be anathema to libertarians - as it should be to anybody who claims they want people free to share, to give, and to express themselves. Sit back and look at the logical underpinnings of your proposals sometime - you don't "give" by having something taken at the point of a gun. You don't "share" by having something taken from you under the threat of incarceration.
Giving is done voluntarily - or it is not giving. Sharing is done voluntarily - or it is not sharing. If you are okay with "forcing people to give," then that's fine, the fascist parties will certainly have you - but at least be intellectually honest about the consequences of your stance, and where it puts you on the political spectrum.
Re:libertarian leanings by sumdumass · 2013-09-15 05:00 · Score: 1

I don't see credit unions or coops as leftist. They are simply a means to effect a goal of providing goods and services to areas neglected by other providers. Credit unions are coops and coops replace businesses who don't see a profit potential in an area or in addressing aspect of demands of areas. This is no more a leftist idea then the rotary club or chamber of commerce or eagles club or a local church.
People on the left have embraced those concepts and used them to their advantage, but I don't see anything inherently leftist about it. It's only when you place a political spin on it does left right come into play. I used to volunteer at a homeless shelter, people thought I was a leftist when it is far from the truth. I don't know how many times I had to explain that the biggest different between the left and right is not acts of charity but whether or not the government could force you to participate in them.
Re:libertarian leanings by agm · 2013-09-15 09:17 · Score: 1

If anything runs counter to libertarian philosophy it's free software. It's a culture of giving and sharing, a cooperative community, where a libertarian would want competitive market forces, "rational self-interest" and "rugged individualism" to govern.
Libertarianism is all about sharing, charity and compassion. There is nothing compassionate about having agents of the state force you to "help" people. That's not compassion because compassion is a voluntary action. As soon as you force it it stops being compassion. Libertarianism is the philosophy that does not extort or force. It is the only philiosophy where compassion and charity can reign.
Rational self-interest does not equate to being discompassionate or uncharitable. On the contrary. It means that if *I* want to be free, then I must also want others to be free too. That has to be good for everyone.
Re: libertarian leanings by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-15 12:10 · Score: 0

Dead vegan alternative health nut- Steven "blow" Jobs
Re:libertarian leanings by BasilBrush · 2013-09-15 22:01 · Score: 1

Libertarian leanings? This comes from the basic principle that if I'm doing something that hurts no one then the government shouldn't interfere.
With regard to open source, what specifically? The government do nothing to stop you sharing your source for free if you want to. So why does it need campaigning about?
If you mean the right to share other people's source, then that's a problem. Your hypothetical freedom to copy without permission would break their freedom to make a living from their skills and efforts. One of the primary reasons for a government is to balance one persons freedoms against another, where they conflict.
Re:libertarian leanings by BasilBrush · 2013-09-16 01:24 · Score: 1

We don't need a law for that, it's already illegal to drive recklessly, or while distracted.
A law isn't simply a tool to arrest/charge/sentence/ticket people. It's firstly a guide to the public of what is acceptable behaviour. Unfortunately many people think that they can use cell phones whilst driving and that isn't reckless or distracting. Or at least they have different ideas to what elements of use are acceptable. So the law clarifies specifically what is and is not acceptable. So no, it's not redundant.
Drug dependancy on the other hand, I agree that they should be treated as a medical issue not a criminal matter. Because direct harm is to the person taking the drugs, and most of the secondary harm to others is caused by the effects of criminalisation rather than the drugs themselves.
Re:libertarian leanings by drinkypoo · 2013-09-16 01:52 · Score: 1

A law isn't simply a tool to arrest/charge/sentence/ticket people. It's firstly a guide to the public of what is acceptable behaviour.
It's not simply, it's first and foremost. Proof? Selective enforcement. If the law required the police to punish (well, do their part anyway) all violations of the law, then you would be correct. But it doesn't, it leaves them leeway. This is a sign of a system designed to be used unfairly. The cops don't have to arrest, the DA doesn't have to prosecute, and the court doesn't even have to hear the case. This results in the passage of bad laws which can easily be used to ill ends, again, through selective enforcement. The biggest criminals buy off the "justice" system so that they never have to face any, and the average man on the street becomes nothing so much as a sheep to be sheared at the convenience of those buying the laws.
While your statement is technically correct, it is functionally false.

Drug dependancy on the other hand, I agree that they should be treated as a medical issue not a criminal matter. Because direct harm is to the person taking the drugs, and most of the secondary harm to others is caused by the effects of criminalisation rather than the drugs themselves.
And that's why we don't need a law which makes you a criminal for using drugs. We already have laws which criminalize the antisocial behavior. It's the court's job to apply the appropriate solution. When the law specifies mandatory penalties, it oversteps its purpose. But since law is just words on paper, the law doesn't do shit. Men do these things.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:libertarian leanings by BasilBrush · 2013-09-16 05:46 · Score: 1

While your statement is technically correct, it is functionally false.
Yes it is technically correct, and nothing you say makes it "functionally false". It being firstly a guide to the public of what is acceptable behaviour doesn't rely on it being enforced at all.
Where you have laws that are little enforced, by choice or because they are hard to detect, you often get people saying "It's technically illegal, but you'll almost certainly get away with it." That means they have the message as to what is acceptable and what is not. They may choose the illegal path anyway, but that's not through ignorance.
Re:libertarian leanings by drinkypoo · 2013-09-16 06:01 · Score: 1

It being firstly a guide to the public of what is acceptable behaviour doesn't rely on it being enforced at all.
Yes, yes it does. If the behavior is actually unacceptable, then you have to enforce the law. But the behavior is instead simply reserved for some and denied to others on the basis of who is the bigger bully, which is why we have selective enforcement. A system of law designed to be fair would require enforcement, and it would have less stupid laws which criminalize things which ought not to be criminalized because otherwise there would be no one left to enforce the law; everyone would be locked up.

They may choose the illegal path anyway, but that's not through ignorance.
No, that's my point. In our current system, the average person could be arrested for a felony for their activities on any given day.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 09:18 · Score: 0

Here we go with the lip service toward open source, while Slashdot hires Microsoft tech writers and prints articles about Apple and Google.

When's the last time you saw an article about a new distro? You don't. Those get rejected.

getstudio1337.com

Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 09:21 · Score: 0

HAD it's chance? Open source is just getting started.

Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 09:22 · Score: 0

That's why it's important to see that there's a difference between the open source and the free software movement.

Market barriers to technology imports by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 09:40 · Score: 1

About the "Reserva de Mercado de Informática" (computer market reserve), from TFA: "The policy lasted through the mid-1980s, and its legacy has been disputed ever since. For some, it was a heroic battle of David against Goliath that left Brazil stronger, even though it eventually lost the fight. For others, it was a nationalistic boondoggle that deprived a generation of Brazilians from access to good foreign computers."

I am from that generation -- the policy was incredibly short-sighted. It meant that all PC software was pirated, all (nationally made) computers were "clones", rip-offs from computers made elsewhere in the world. I had a Microdigital TK-82-C (which was a rip-off from a Sinclair ZX-81) and later a TK-2000 (a rip-off from an Apple II+). TK-2000 was quite a frustration, in fact, because in the name of originality they changed some stuff in the ROM, and it was different enough to have trouble with lots of computer games. Later I had a PC-XT and a 286 built from parts smuggled into the country (mostly it came through Paraguay).

So here we are, a generation of Brazilians whose government taught to smuggle, pirate and clone technology... open source software comes to save the day.

Libre crowd by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 09:59 · Score: 0

I wish open source would divorce the free software/libre crowd. They make contributing thoroughly unpleasant. I'd rather volunteer my time to the sanitation department.

Re:Libre crowd by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 10:23 · Score: 0

I'd rather volunteer my time to the sanitation department.
Because you never had anything but shit to contribute anyway?

Collision Anticipated by b4upoo · 2013-09-14 10:11 · Score: 2

There is a growing left wing in South America but there is also a deeply established and quite violent right wing. For example many Priests and Nuns as well as other Christian workers have been murdered in South America as Christianity is considered a radical, left wing doctrine there. The rich and powerful seek to maintain their positions and any movement that is felt to be a threat to the power of the right wing tends to let lose the butchers. If they see open source as some sort of socialist or communist tainted notion then violent conflicts will surely follow. Even the idea of sharing with others may offend some of the old, stuffed shirt, aristocrats. I can not bring myself to scream kill a right winger for Jesus but I do come close to it.

Re:Collision Anticipated by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 11:34 · Score: 0

I can not bring myself to scream kill a right winger for Jesus but I do come close to it.
Thus you function as proof because it is blatant you actually wish —no, lust— to, and only refrain because otherwise absolutely anyone no matter how feeble including other leftists themselves ought to see through you. And you know it.
Leftist “passive” aggression does not work in the manner and with the results the leftists as a group think it does. Otherwise sane leftists eventually grow tired of it and run away from the insanity if they can and aren't killed instead.
Re:Collision Anticipated by cusco · 2013-09-14 17:37 · Score: 1

You're about two decades behind the times.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Collision Anticipated by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-09-15 02:11 · Score: 0

Maybe that's because they've seen what happens to right-wing dissidents when left-wingers take over a country. It ain't pretty.
The left-wingism has nothing to do with Christianity, it has to do with the people who take up the cloth. If they're despicable then that reflects on everything they do. Just like pedophile priests reflect on Christians in other countries.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Collision Anticipated by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-15 02:52 · Score: 0

I>> Christianity is considered a radical, left wing doctrine
And yet I seem to recall a radical, left wing man named Stalin executing a few million Christians for their beliefs.
Re:Collision Anticipated by lsatenstein · 2013-09-15 11:55 · Score: 1

There is a growing left wing in South America but there is also a deeply established and quite violent right wing. For example many Priests and Nuns as well as other Christian workers have been murdered in South America as Christianity is considered a radical, left wing doctrine there. The rich and powerful seek to maintain their positions and any movement that is felt to be a threat to the power of the right wing tends to let lose the butchers. If they see open source as some sort of socialist or communist tainted notion then violent conflicts will surely follow. Even the idea of sharing with others may offend some of the old, stuffed shirt, aristocrats. I can not bring myself to scream kill a right winger for Jesus but I do come close to it.
Open source is taking hold in Argentina, Chile, Ecuador and other countries, not because it is open, but due to cost. MS licenses are expensive, and the governments there can't afford to pay to acquire MS software. We should see a lot of great Linux software emanating out of Latin America in the coming months and years.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Re:Collision Anticipated by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 00:12 · Score: 0

For example many Priests and Nuns as well as other Christian workers have been murdered in South America as Christianity is considered a radical,

Christians have been killing people since they landed in South America.

Re:Not this again... by Blaskowicz · 2013-09-14 10:13 · Score: 2

Agreed and whole countries get some of their population wired with DSL, fiber etc. only now I guess, or 4G/3G and microwave. Linux and open source software rely on broadband to install software, for development and collaboration, and cheap 24/7 servers on VMs are useful for project sites, repos, even screen sessions so you can stay on IRC channels.
Open source relies on reliable power and bandwith infrastructure, moreso than Windows XP laptops and desktops.

It's only very recently getting started on cell phones, with Firefox OS. Cheap hardware with security and feature updates, no need for a google or microsoft or apple account, no-bullshit freedom, you'll just make compatible web apps and run or develop the server side stuff yourself, hosted at home or in a datacenter.

I think open source will be well useful and welcome in Brazil, Chile, Equator, Venezuala and other places.

Free software and leftist politics? by codeusirae · 2013-09-14 10:24 · Score: 1

That whole argument is totally bogus. You might as well argue that Free software is fundamentalist Christian because Michael Meeks supports it. Or Free software is fundamentalist atheist because Richard Stallman supports it

Why do we attach labels? by jmd · 2013-09-14 10:28 · Score: 2

Each and every one of us uses free software...open source software... etc etc for any number of reasons. Putting labels on things and writing articles like this only serve to dumb people down.

Re:Not this again... by bmo · 2013-09-14 10:29 · Score: 1

Linux and open source software rely on broadband to install software, for development and collaboration, and cheap 24/7 servers on VMs are useful for project sites, repos, even screen sessions so you can stay on IRC channels. Open source relies on reliable power and bandwith infrastructure, moreso than Windows XP laptops and desktops.

It's like all those years I used Linux with dialup never happened.

--
BMO

in Brazil, all software is free by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 10:32 · Score: 0

up until about a year ago I used to work on a Sports MMORPG that (while produced in Europe) was very popular in Brazil and the rest of Latin America.
When the suits eventually tried to "monetize" the game, one thing we found is that pretty much every copy of Windows in use in those markets is pirated and nobody cares - so the incentive for Linux is non existent.

Re:Not this again... by dmbasso · 2013-09-14 10:33 · Score: 1

The winmodems certainly make me wish it never happened.

--
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com

Worlds apart by iksrazal_br · 2013-09-14 10:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've programmed professionally in both the USA as an American in the 90's, and in Brazil for about 6 years until I started doing remote contracting for US companies. I contributed modestly to open source in both countries.

In Brazil it was pretty eye opening to see how the programming market is pretty much 90% paid by the government in one form or another. Truly private companies are few, even fewer are smaller startups. In the USA I didn't even know anyone employed by the government as a programmer - I guess because I didn't live in Virginia or Maryland (Pentagon and NSA). And in Brazil for white collar work, its jobs for life as its mostly impossible to get fired - there's very little turn over.

I mention this because while I worked with Brazilian programmers that were often great - I suspect because in Brazil you mostly need a degree for a job so the bar is higher - but its about as far from USA style libertarian culture as you can get. One quick example: There is a 60% VAT on imported computers and anything electronic, in effect about double the USA retail price on Chinese imports. There would be a revolution in most world countries if that was tried there.

Brazil has greatness in many ways - its where I live happily. But there is nothing libertarian about it currently or trending that way. I say that as someone who often votes and supports USA libertarian candidates.

Re:Worlds apart by bmo · 2013-09-14 11:12 · Score: 2

There is a 60% VAT on imported computers and anything electronic,
That's all? Pfffft!
You don't want to know what the tax is on a car in Denmark or Singapore.
http://www.expatsingapore.com/content/view/1152
Denmark is 180% to over 200% depending on how you add the taxes.
--
BMO

Re:Not this again... by bmo · 2013-09-14 10:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Win-anything is crap. Winprinters, winmodems, winscanners should be labeled "loseprinters" "losemodems" and "losescaners" for truth-in-labeling

Even connected to Windows systems, they're crap.

The solution to the win- problem: don't buy crap.

--
BMO

Ideologies are a mental disease. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 10:52 · Score: 0

Ideals are not.

Politics? Fuck off!

Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 10:53 · Score: 0

and it now runs on 76% of all computers world wide?

why did you assume it failed or something?

oh wait, thats just the linux kernel(includes non-PC computers)

total Open Source OSes to include the BSDs is even more.

Then we have the two most popular web servers, Apache and ngix are both open source. I am confused on what metrics you use to gauge "success"

"OPEN SORES, OPEN WOUND" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 10:54 · Score: 0

LMAO, it's true. Watch the penguins downmod me for it, so predictable.

Left or Right Libertarian? by jmcharry · 2013-09-14 11:20 · Score: 1

There are at least two different schools of "libertarian" thought. There are right libertarians like Ron Paul and left libertarians like Noam Chomsky.

Re:Left or Right Libertarian? by Dasher42 · 2013-09-14 12:20 · Score: 1

Not only that, the first people to call themselves libertarians were also anarcho-syndicalist socialists. In the USA where people have been conditioned to think of socialism as a big-scary-government thing, a minimally hierarchic socialism has been excised from most thought and language. Libertarians in the USA don't even know their roots. So, TFA has some pretty shallow caricatures to work with from the start.
Re:Left or Right Libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 13:55 · Score: 0

What you call right wing libertarians are actually a branch of classical liberals and have existed since the industrial revolution. The term, libertarian, is used because it is less ambiguous. Todays liberals are mostly big-gov crony capitalists or moral neoconservatives, very unlibertarian and all. On the other hand being confused for a leftist anarchist is not all that bad, at least they share a big part of the right libertarian ideals. But I usually use anarcho-capitalist, free market anarchist or minarchist (if that is the case).

CFR and FLOSS by quantic_oscillation7 · 2013-09-14 11:47 · Score: 1

BE AFRAID....

Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 12:06 · Score: 0

Exactly, although I personally call them failprinters, failmodems and failscanners.

Import duties by tepples · 2013-09-14 13:24 · Score: 1

It might be because Brazil's harsh import duties make anything electronic cost about a brazillion reais.

Re: Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-14 13:27 · Score: 0

If you are including non-PC computers the king is closed source binary blobs. The multiplier effect takes over, and there are a multiple of closed-source embedded controllers per PC in use. Just counting the 'computers' in each keyboard and mouse alone means double as many as the PCs.

Re:Not this again... by Blaskowicz · 2013-09-14 14:12 · Score: 1

Most people will try to install a program and will get something like "21 packages will be installed. Need to take 195MB in archives." If you have expert knowledge on how to install software (from distro) an offline way, that's interesting.

I tried to mirror debian wheezy i386, and I ran out of space after downloading 86GB (even excluding backports, updates, squeeze, jessie etc.). A guy on IRC had to tell me what the unofficial official program for replication is (some scripted rsync scripts) and that the official program (apt-mirror) was unsupported unused garbage. I needed an IPv6 connection too. Very funny. Still peeved I couldn't do what I wanted, because I wanted to believe if they didn't explain what the "all" architecture is, I hope I won't need it?

Re:Not this again... by bmo · 2013-09-14 15:08 · Score: 1

> If you have expert knowledge on how to install software (from distro) an offline way, that's interesting.

Yes, I know how. It's called "ordering a set of CDs or DVDs", like I used to do back in the 1990s and you can still do today.

>I tried to mirror debian wheezy i386, and I ran out of space after downloading 86GB (even excluding backports, updates, squeeze, jessie etc.).

>ran out of space

In which decade? No, really, in which decade? Oh wait, Jessie? That's the new one, so we're talking about modern drives that cost 4.5 cents a gigabyte. You ran out of space?

Not bloody likely.

> I needed an IPv6 connection too.

Now I know you're a liar and a troll.

--
BMO

Re:Not this again... by dryeo · 2013-09-14 17:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Linux and dialup has been getting worse and worse though it probably depends on distribution. I have a Ubuntu install, it doesn't even come with a dialup client besides good old pon and poff and even pon is broken. I've setup dialup on various Linux dists since Slackware 2 so do know a bit. On Ubuntu, the dialup group is broken. Pon seems to work, the chat script runs correctly, papsecrets is correct but it doesn't connect to PPP except when first booted it does it automatically. Then of course there is the /dev hell. Not only does /dev frequently change but plug in the USB serial port and what device is it? (sttyUSB0). Plug in the USRRobotic USB modem and what device is it? I can't even remember though it was only last week when I used dmesg to figure it out.
VXdial and the Gnome dialer also don't work worth a shit anymore.
This is probably due to all the developers having long moved away from dial-up as well as the majority of users.
Then as others mention, install a package and it wants to pull in a 100 MBs of dependencies. The system continuously complains about updates that need installing and such.
The days of Linux and dial-up seem to be over so I'm typing this from OS/2 ver 4.5 where my USB modem works fine if I leave it plugged in, I have a developer trying to fix the unplugging breakage, I have a decent dialer that does NAT so I can be the gateway for the rest of the household. The only positive about Linux is it is better then Win7 at sharing.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Re:Not this again... by Blaskowicz · 2013-09-14 17:31 · Score: 1

So you assume :
- I have 60 euros or more to blow on a whim on a HDD (it's nice enough that I own one USB thumb drive)
- That HDD would fit in the computer I wanted to use for this (a laptop with IDE HDD)
- the distro I want to use or that people use is available as a big pile of DVDs (Ubuntu seems to have only installation isos, ditto Mint). Granted there's Debian, which is what I tried mirroring to a local copy but could get about 60% of what I needed
- I may want to buy Debian has a big pile of DVD for who knows what price, or burn unreliable taxed DVD-R and read them in unreliable drives, and I would want to limit myself to installing on OS on PCs with a DVD drive.
- I'm a liar, and people who maintain the scripts are liars too

Sorry for not doing the right thing, i.e. happening to own a spare 4TB volume raided and/or backuped sitting around.
My idea anyway (I should not have blattered as much) was to have a local copy of a distro on a laptop, and a DCHP and PXE server running on the laptop that can serve the text mode installer for the distro.
So that I can install an OS on a PC, old or new, with just a short RJ45 cable to the laptop. Select my laptop (say 192.168.1.1) as the software sources / distro mirror in the installer. Do the network installation that way and after the base OS is installed be able to install any software in the distro's main repos (which for debian or ubuntu is a huge collection of great stuff and crap)

I like network installations because it's cheaper than buying USB drives and optical media/drives, it seems faster and more reliable too. It works on PC that don't boot on USB. I would need a netbook with at least a 1.5TB 2.5" drive (ideally I'd like to mirror Debian stable, Ubuntu 12.04 and 13.04, all in 32 and 64bit ; then mirror the update repos too). I have a few 14 year old network cards that can boot, this can be inserted in a non-bootable PC during the initial installation. Downloading whole huge mirrors is fine, I can let the uncapped, unthrottled IPv6 DSL run for days.

tl;dr : I want to walk around with entire distros, have a sneakernet repo handy, not have to prepare subsets of software just the whole big thing. Of course you used to be able to do that with a half-dozen CD-R or less in the 90s but that can spiral out to dozens or hundreds of DVD.

Re:Not this again... by Blaskowicz · 2013-09-14 17:41 · Score: 1

Yes, I know how. It's called "ordering a set of CDs or DVDs", like I used to do back in the 1990s and you can still do today.

I should have been more clear, it's "expert" knowledge as in like less than 1% people know you can do this, and then know what distros are available this way, which you may want to use, what's the software selection on those CD/DVD (fresh? old? semi-old? does it have Blender, Avidemux, etc.?)
So Slackware is available on six CD or one DVD, Debian stable seems to be on 10 DVD. Well I guess I can grab them all, burn only the first one and then see if "apt-get install foo" prompts me to insert DVD 6..

Re:Not this again... by ultranova · 2013-09-14 22:59 · Score: 1

- I have 60 euros or more to blow on a whim on a HDD (it's nice enough that I own one USB thumb drive)

So what's your complaint here? That the Debian repository doesn't fit on your hard drive?

--

Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

Re:Not this again... by dmbasso · 2013-09-14 23:35 · Score: 1

I never bought them, but I had to help friends and relatives to make the darn things work. I can't believe you were lucky enough not to.

--
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com

Re:Not this again... by VortexCortex · 2013-09-15 01:02 · Score: 1

winmodems are especially crap though. Since they offload a lot of the modem's functionality into the driver / OS, and require expensive polling instead of CPU friendly hardware interrupt driven IO. That's why making open source drivers for them is so ridiculous. It's literally the shittiest corner cutting hardware you can buy. I'd rather wire an RJ11 to a COM port than use a winmodem...

Re:Not this again... by bmo · 2013-09-15 02:04 · Score: 1

>tl;dr : I want to walk around with entire distros, have a sneakernet repo handy, not have to prepare subsets of software just the whole big thing. Of course you used to be able to do that with a half-dozen CD-R or less in the 90s but that can spiral out to dozens or hundreds of DVD.

So you want to carry around a /whole/ archive but don't want to buy a drive big enough? And you get mad that the archive is too big? Then you're a moron on top of all that.

Jesus Christ. I've foed you. You're that dumb.

--
BMO

Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-15 02:29 · Score: 0

Believe it or not, the command prompt isn't always the preferred route for everything...

Re:Not this again... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-15 06:15 · Score: 0

BMO: asshole, zealot, and TROLL. Yet, accuses others of being trolls. Stay classy, BMO.

Re:Not this again... by bmo · 2013-09-15 07:11 · Score: 0

When I make people such as yourself angry, I smile.

You have no idea how many false assumptions went into your one-sentence reply to me in the previous message.

You are that stupid.

--
BMO

Re:Not this again... by bmo · 2013-09-16 15:17 · Score: 1

This is late but....

>winmodems are especially crap though. Since they offload a lot of the modem's functionality into the driver / OS,

Are you familiar with IBM's MWave card?

It could be a modem or a sound card (and a great floor wax, too!) but not both at the same time. It was based around a dsp chip (when dsp chips were new) and the concept meant that a modem or sound card was merely a program that you loaded into the MWave board. Unlike the Winmodem phenomenon, the card itself had actual (for the time and price, amazing) processing power. It also meant that since the modem was entirely in software, as the ITU approved standards, you could load a new program into the card and instantly have a "new modem" that met the higher speed standard.

And unlike the Winmodem phenomenon, it wasn't dependent on the OS what the card was executing. You just had to blast the bits at the card.

I thought it was pretty cool. I wanted to build a digital oscilloscope around the card.

Unfortunately many PCs were shipped with only one MWave board so you had to choose whether you wanted sound or a modem and reconfigure the card if you wanted to do the other. This angered various consumers that wanted both so lawsuits and a whole lotta derp ensued.

--
BMO

Open Source is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-16 19:26 · Score: 0

If it cannot be monetized, there is no need for it in a civilized society

76 comments