Slashdot Mirror
The so-called Linux Rift
David DeGeorge writes "From the San Francisco Examiner;
Rebecca Eisenberg
describing the controversy over playing with the
Big Boys. Most correct newspaper
article I have read about Open Source. She didn't even call Stallman a
genius when mentioning the MacArthur award. "
Compared to all the garbage that gets printed about Linux, this one is pretty good. As far as giving RMS short shrift, hell, everyone does that.
Without RMS, it would be pretty hard for Linux to have ever happened -- and my years on Sun machines would have been far less enjoyable without the GNU compilers.
Too bad she's so openly anti-male. I recommend a strong dose of spacemoose.com to help her get over the whole man-hating thing.
"I would call you an idiotic sexist bastard, but I am above that."
I would call you a man-hater and a waste of oxygen, but I'm above that.
;-)
Hey, if you all dont like stallman's ideals, and the things he's spent his life trying to get across to folks then stop using the things he put together.. take away all your gnu utilities, and your emacs.. what good is a linux kernel without all the things stallman has put togethere over the years to make it what it is?
>Why is everyone perpetuating the myth that free software *needs* the support and interest of the corporate world?
1) Some of us need it to be able to convince bosses we should use freed software instead of NT et al.
2) While need is too strong a term, free software could be helped by corporate types who work to improve free software for their own needs. This gets us what we want faster.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I've encountered several female geeks. They share virtually all of the following traits:
* bisexual
* They think the world revolves around them, their sh:t doesn't smell, etc - probably because they're always the center of attention - not because anyone cares what they think but because everyone's trying to get into their pants
* extremely opinionated in a nihilistic way: "I refuse to acknowledge the existence of gender/organized-religion/etc"
* highly overweight
I dunno why. There's never been a time when I found this combination of traits attractive. I checked out her page just now, and was like, "Wow! An intelligent attractive woman who digs Unix!" Then I read her opinion pages and laughed. Just another bitchy, nihilistic, self-absorbed bi geek girl. Ho hum.
Well, its just so hard to take you seriously when you believe in such archaric nonsense as Wica and Astrology. As skeptical as you seem to be about a lot of things, it strikes me as odd that you would not invoke that same skepticism there. Consistency is a pretty good measure of quality.
Generally, I find your articles to be well written, intelligent and thought provoking. But you have to admit that your not exactly the most technical person, and in the world of journalism too many articles are written by quasi-technical journalists that miss the point.
Its good to see that you're hip enough to read Slashdot (not that association equals rightness)... now if you could just do something about the flim-flam that you believe in...
Read a book on Physics sometime - astrology is bunk! Ugh... why do otherwise intelligent people believe such demonstrably wrong things?
--
Python
Python
Funny, I'd say it's the advocates of proprietary software that are causing the rift.
I'm not well-informed about either. However, if one
believes that *only* the rational is valid, one's
outlook is very limited, indeed. Quantum mechanics, for one, is
certainly far from rational in a traditional sense, as i see it, but it is consistent and valid. Don't be in a hurry to put down that which you dislike or distrust. Be open-minded.
See also ESR's writings about theophany if you want something to think about! Imho, he has it better than 99% of the clerics, who lost it, many generations back, in general.
There are important matters in life that are beyond the ordinary rational.
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
Were it not for Stallman and the GPL, Linux would be another forgotten project, Linus would be another faceless SV hacker, and you would be rebooting your Win95 box 3 times a day and loving it. And you want Stallman to die, huh.
Fuck you. Fuck you and all the other whining newbie Linux lamers. You think you can do better? Go draft your own license and we'll see how many people adopt it.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Why is Wica any more nonsense than Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism, Shinto, etc?
Personal beliefs are exactly that, and while may embarrass or bother you, it's not exactly as if she or anyone else is forcing it upon you. Myself I don't really know the precepts of Wica, except one of my friends dabbles/is interested in it, but that doesn't detract any more than another of my friends being Christian or Buddhist, or preferring Red Hat to Debian to SuSE, or liking pork over chicken over tofu.
Astrology is only as bunk as believing in a hellfire and brimstone God, Hell, and Heavan, or in little tiny partially charged wave-particles interacting via strange carriers to produce forces of interactions, repulsion, attraction, and other things. I myself don't believe in astrology, but I also don't believe in Hell, eternal damnation, or eternal paradise. I believe in an afterlife and a soul, and other things, but there is no proof to them.
A person is a bundle of contradictions, paradoxes, and misleading beliefs-but don't hold it agains her or anyone else, since everyone is like that, even you...
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
When you link to GPL'd code you have to GPL your own code to right? And what about LGPL?
Probably you should talk to John Katz. Or at least read some of his editorials on Slashdot. According to him, those flamers are just a little minority, but a very noisy one. (Just count the flames, then think about the ratio: about 10000 readers that don't flame, but don't anwer either!)
I, for myself, quite liked your article.
It is ironic and hypocritical, if not pathetic as well, that people who accuse me of not doing my homework about Linux feel free to offer their opinions about me without doing their homework about my work.
Just flaming is sooo much easier! ;-)
Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
You cannot disprove anything. You assert that the stars exert influence on the fate of humans. It now falls to you to back up that claim. You can't get pissed off at other people for not being able to disprove it. I can't disprove Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, but I don't believe they really exist.
When is Stallman going to die? He certainly needs to. He's hurting the movement that is Linux. This woman, whoever the hell she is, is right when she says its causing a rift in Linux. Commercial companies are kind of waiting this whole mess out, they don't want riffs, they want a certain future. Stallman, please go off and die, and stop forcing your beliefs on everyone, you made great software, thanks. You should've modified your license to say "if you use my software you must bow down, and give up your freedom, and worship my dirty hippy ass, and recognize!"
Some of us don't mind commercial support/apps for linux. Open source is a great thing, I'm starting to love ESR more and more every day, perhaps he's not the lunatic Stallman is.
Stallman: Don't Tread On Me
Maybe it's a good thing that you choose to remain anonymous.
I think it's sad that you should choose to reveal so much about yourself that seems to be hateful and disrespectful, and probably misogynistic.
Do we call this an ad feminem attack?
I welcome more women in technical fields; I have enough self-confidence to do so. Perhaps those who don't welcome women lack self-confidence.
I do hope Rebecca isn't put off by such ill manners. I value civilization; I'm not sure everybody does.
Legacy hardware/software addict. Midnight hacker, 1960. Codepage 819 in DOS: Total Latin-1 compatibility (no boxes/lines
As much as I agree, I would prefer Hurd over
Linux anyday.
I didn't say it was. All of those are belief system based on mythological stories and faith. None of which provides one shread of proof for any of the subnatural things they claim. In short, they are all equally silly. Believe what you, but we should only care about what you can *prove*. I find it highly ironic that Rebecca rails against "orgainzed religion" when, apparently, she practices one of the older organized religions - Wica. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Personal beliefs are exactly that, and while may embarrass or bother you, it's not exactly as if she or anyone else is forcing it upon you.
I didn't say she was. I mearly called her rationality and ability to be skeptical and logical into question. Her beliefs neither bother me nor embarrass me. Its just disappointing to see such an intelligent person believing in things that are nothing but whimsical fancy. Care to challenge that? Great, prove some of these magical things to be real. Publish the results in a peer reviewed and serious scientific journal.
Myself I don't really know the precepts of Wica, except one of my friends dabbles/is interested in it, but that doesn't detract any more than another of my friends being Christian or Buddhist, or preferring Red Hat to Debian to SuSE, or liking pork over chicken over tofu.
Indeed. But if I said I believed the tooth fairy was real, wouldn't you think twice about other things I profess to be true? Then why is it that when people believe in other silly things, like invisible gods that pat you on the head and make the faces of their sons appear in a Tortilla, or the SeCkRiT OT Powers of a Scientologist, or the professed ability of some "psychic" to see the future we consider that to not be grounds for questioning this persons grip on reality? I have no beef with any particular belief system. I just think they are no way to figure things out, and should certainly not be the basis for understanding the word. Intelligent people along time ago agreed to the following two rules.
1) the burden of proof rests with the affirmative.
2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
So I wonder about the rationality of someone that believes such wierd and silly things. I understand why people believe these things, but it doesnt mean that I should consider those people the best judges of the validty of other, possibly more important things. Its all the more ironic that someone which professes to be so learned, would believe in things that most of the rest of us recognize as the bunk that it is.
Astrology is only as bunk as believing in a hellfire and brimstone God, Hell, and Heavan
Couldn't agree with you more. They all sound pretty bunk to me. Wheres the proof?
or in little tiny partially charged wave-particles interacting via strange carriers to produce forces of interactions, repulsion, attraction, and other things.
Considering the large body of evidence and reproducible experiments that validate these theories, I would certainly not put this in the same category as Astrology. I suggest you read up a little on the current state of physics.
I myself don't believe in astrology, but I also don't believe in Hell, eternal damnation, or eternal paradise. I believe in an afterlife and a soul, and other things, but there is no proof to them.
So thats what you believe and not what you can prove. So why should we consider your beliefs to be anything by whimsical fancy? Why do you not require proof before you believe those things, and you would (I hope) require proof that a car you are buying really does have X miles on it, before you believe that it really is worth Y? Perhaps you're not as rational as you might believe. Its nice to think that something happens to us after we die, other than just decaying, but its no more valid that any other belief, like the tooth fairy, without proof.
A person is a bundle of contradictions, paradoxes, and misleading beliefs-but don't hold it agains her or anyone else, since everyone is like that, even you...
Everyone holds beliefs that are not true. Thats because we're irrational, illogical, emmotional and thick headed creatures. But thats no excuse for embracing silly ideas, poor reasoning or making exceptions for weak and impoverished ideas deduced from any number of fallacious arguments - just because we it might challenge our cherished belief system to do otherwise. The truth is HARD to find and requires one to set aside ones *beliefs*, think rationally, logically and work within the scientific method - and even then to look harder. The worlds problems are the products of poor and short-term thinking. We could do well to challenge ourselves to think rationally and be a little bit more skeptical about things we believe to be true.
--
Python
Python
What's your beef against astrology, just because you don't believe in it? How does belief in anything question anyone's common sense? It's not that I agree or disagree, but your excuses and rationalizations for your belief bother me. Even scientists, especially scientists, use your mentioned method of thinking; they already believe or know or assume something, and all of their experiements then are to prove and disprove their belief; you don't come to a conclusion without knowing what you are looking for in the first place!
It may sound odd, but it's really true. A scientist(maybe not all, but the ones I work with at Caltech), have an intuitive or idealized model that has no proof, no understanding, or logic, except it seems right, or it would simplify a whole lot of things if the universe really did work like this, so they set up all these experiments and tests to show that the universe does work like this... If they can't show it, then they throw it away, of course, but the underlying process is to have a preconcieved belief beforehand! Scientists are no more trained to think logically than anyone else-we are just able to change our minds more easily, if given enough proof, and sometimes not even that.
I can't and won't argue with your analysis or opinion over her personality and abilities, since they are exactly opinions, but I strongly disagree with your comments about her beliefs, opinions, and mindset; to each their own, and if it works for her, there really is no reason for you to comment or criticize her for them.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
That developer has a point. By packaging an idea about software development along with value-laden judgments about capitalism and commercialism, Stallman and the FSF risk offending the very people they need to recruit to spread their ideas.
she's missing the point. stallman and fsf don't care about market acceptance or widespread use of their software, so they're not sabotaging anything with their idealism. while i am not opposed to commercial proprietary software on pronciple asstallman is, i do think that open source is a joke. it's free or it's not, we don't need a whole bunch of pseudo-free commercial products muddying the water. i for one think that keeping linux free is more important than achieving any sort of merket domination.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
be spelled discernible.
However, I did not get paid to write my response.
I am assuming that Eisenberg was paid for
writing that column, which is also my point;
these people, journalists, men and women both,
get paid to write, yet they cannot write, it seems,
above the level of a high school freshman.
I am as equally harsh about Katz's pieces, that
is, when I feel like trudging through them.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Yeah, right on brother! And fuck the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, too. Everyone claims that slavery takes away freedom, but if you take that away you remove my FREEDOM to trade slaves... and you also remove my FREEDOM to sell myself into slavery. If a person wants to sell themself into slavery by all means they should...I wish those abolitionists would quit their whinning [sic]...
(And before everyone gets in a tizzy, I'm not equating proprietary software with slave trade. I'm only trying to make a point.)
"So if you disagree with someone's philosophy, you should not use anything they have produced?"
Using that logic, since RMS disagrees with Linus's pragmatic approach then he should stop using Debian with the Linux kernel.
Hmmm. "Politics as Hacking" -- sounds like a topic for a bit of cultural analysis.
I shouldn't read it because most people who post (1) have little regard for the fact that I am a human being and (2) use a single piece of writing of mine to generalize about me as a human being. The truth is that I have written no less than a dozen stories about Linux and Open Source. Most are linked from my page. It is ironic and hypocritical, if not pathetic as well, that people who accuse me of not doing my homework about Linux feel free to offer their opinions about me without doing their homework about my work.
At any rate, I appreciate the helpful comments and constructive criticism from those who gave them.
Rob really should check the accuracy of the txt of the submitters. David DeGeorge is clearly biased. What he said as "Correct" is actually wrong.
Saying "this is bad for Linux" is just a way of silencing us. It's politics that SMELL bad... using "the enemy" to steamroll over internal dissent has been done again and again.
Commercial software is OK. Using commercial software as a way to manipulate people, like Microsoft is guilty of, is BAD. No one puts "a gun to your head" and forces you to use Word, but that assumes "force" has just one definition. It's really a pain to unencode Word's binary format into a text one, which is why most software does it poorly.
LET THEM sell their commercial software -- but at the same time lets support the good guys who made Linux and free software possible.
It seems like the increased painting of RMS as a fanatic corrosponds with the commercial software industry's recent idea of Microsofting us. These arguements would never have been this intense 18 months ago. Show some respect please..
how about this, copyrights are socialist adn that's the propriatary software model fails where the open source model succedes. If there were no copyrights at all, there would be natural economic pressures to open and share source (just like there is to share UPC barcode standards in the retail industry)
In sum, both RMS and Eric Raymond are wrong.
I think a lot of people have to be thankful to the gnu org. software for free is a dirty word for commercial vendors (especially OS vendors) and before linux I can't think of any other os that was free and a heap of tools to boot.
without fsf and gnu, the growth of linux and even the internet would have been slower (and at least less colourful). but times are changing. the most single important thing gnu has given us is free development environment and tools. this has given developers the ability to create the cool apps out there.
but times are changing. let's face it the majority (!average slashdot usr) does't like (or know) how to use the command prompt. They have been bought up in the 'point&click' generation. these are the people who will now start using gnu based app's, OS's et.,el. (assuming it passes the mum test) . they not concerned with copyleft and simply want the power, ease of use of windows.
we owe the a lot to the gnu movement and I for one question paying a lot for buggy commercial - ware but do the consuming hoards?
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
That includes freedom to disagree with Richard Stallman's philosophies and ideals.
The day that "loyalty to the GPL" becomes more important than freedom of thought is the day that the spirit of free software dies a slow and painful death, while the still-shambling corpse of the General Public License stagnates and rots.
So stop with the characterizations already.
The only way I see someone like him "preventing" commercial software is if he writes something free that's better than commercial software... which means no one but the suits will buy the commercial software (and even they will "get it" someday).
Remember, companies like INTEL brought us the "Digital ID", and they've recently been saying things like "the consumer is the enemy". We all know what Microsoft is capable of, and Microsoft is NOT the only corporation that's doing bad things (Intel demanding royalty-free access to Intergraph's chip patents in return for "permission" to use Slot One, Slot One in the first place, ID markers...).
I'm not saying all corporations are bad... but it's generally true that when a company is run by a board and not a person, it's generally more capable of the things we see Microsoft, Intel, and the cable monopolies be guilty of. Let's not embrace these companies so quickly that we lose control of our own destiny.
I fear it's too late. Too many of the Linux "Elite" have been bought out already, and even Slashdot has stepped up censorship (maybe there is no connection).
There are so many Linux users on Intel I don't think people OBJECT to Intel buying and muscling their way in. But really, if we close the door on the other chips we've traded one king for another. Keeping Linux alive on other CPU's forces Intel to compete with real innovation, since a portable OS is a much better benchmark than BYTEmarks and Specint.
Let's see how tolerant linux.com is to supporting Alpha Linux, and other CPU's.
Have either Oracle or IBM announced that they will be making source to their database software freely available? (That is not implied by the existence of a Linux port.)
Seems like half the people flaming Judith Lewis for daring to suggest that there are reasons for using MS software didn't notice that she wasn't a male. Most of their flames indicated that they read her article about as carefully as they did her byline.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Argh. What is this? Some schoolyard playground? Name calling and smearing and ugh.
If I were in her position and someone challenged me like that, I would believe it was a sexist comment or statement; and it was fully in her right to be upset. While I don't myself believe she was in the right to start calling names herself, it can be excused for being upset. Perhaps it was unintentional or a coincidence that the original poster decried 2 female journalists, Judith Lewis and now Rebeca Eisenberg, but it sure sounded sexist because of that.
What reason/excuse/rationalization do you have for name calling unless it's to continue the life of this thread by calling people out to respond? It's bad enough that there is such a low female:male ratio in the techno-geek circles without us making it worse by insulting, demeaning, or assaulting those who do frequent our circles. I'm not talking special treatment, but about courtesy and respect, difficult things to conjure in anonymous cyber-realities, but still worthwhile and noble things.
As well, you're probably a lost cause...
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Ehm, well, if you hadn't noticed, RMS *is* some sort of hippie like software activist. Not that that is a bad thing, I'm one myself. Well, except the beard. I've got long hair instead. (Which, for some weird reason, seems to be a telltale sign that I'm a UNIX geek at work, while it has a camouflage effect outside geek circles ('You're a what??'):).
:P.
Actually, read some of her other stuff, it's hardly her first article on geek stuff. Good solid pieces.
The only annoying thing is I wish she'd stop stealing my opinions, just because I happen to be right. They're *mine*, and under GPL so I hope she's obeying the license
see:
7 4c-060b7ba0
http://segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=367b0
Eisenberg comments at the very end of the page.
I feel sorry for you that you seem to only attract such a poor sample of the female species. Perhaps it's your attitude that does it?
People, men and women, respond according to the body language and signal you send off, and by this insulting piece, if you are anything at all like this tactless, rude, and discourteous post, I wouldn't be surprised if women tended to act as you've described.
Heck, if you were like this around me I would be pissed and edgy too, and I'm not bisexual, overweight, nihlistic, or arrogant. I just don't like people who seem to be like you...
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Goodness you people are creepy. I follow neither astrology nor Wicca as some sort of religion.
Perhaps y'all need a refresher course in IRONY.
Most of all, what does my IRONY-laden Web page have to do with my column?
she kinda left me hangin' there with her
last two sentences!
then again, there has never been a oh so important precedent setting test case of the GPL in court, has there?
someone tell me something
kinda hard to find details about exactly what
happened. too bad the FSF internal political
crap isn't "open" and i cant find anything about it anywhere.
No, he's not the main force behind Linux, necessarily, but he is/was very powerful in the Free Software/Open Source movement. My own conception of him sees him in the same light as Marx, perhaps, because of his strong ideologies and beliefs. I don't necessarily believe Marx was wrong either, just that all the particular implementations left some things to be desired. RMS really does seem to believe that information has no reason to be closed and proprietary, not since doing so only retards software development and such.
The commercial push of Linux is very strongly scented of a Darwinistic evolutionary competative situation in which the best implementations, the best service, and the most marketing will probabaly prevail, and that is all well and Good. But RMS complains that the intellectual/spiritual side of the equation is being ignored by those who have supplanted the movement with the Open Source initiative; he wants attention not only for his own ego, as he admits, but so he can use the attention to focus on the values and strengths of Free Source; not Costless Software, but that information and exchange of ideas is good and vital.
It has nothing to do with how the real world operates; RMS sees an ideal, wants the ideal, and is working for it, even if it is unrealistic or unattainable. The Open Source model's engineering benefits are immense, what with massive parallization and debugging, fast turnaround, distributed responsibility and costs, and self improvement, but RMS is pushing something else just as good/noble/beneficial, but for different reasons and effects.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
"Off the record," said Sokolsky, "Microsoft sent a shill to our press conference."
Apparently Ms. Eisenberg chose not only to ignore the spokeswoman's request for non-publication, but to advertise it.
her near total ignorance of the topics upon which
she writing?
If so, the column was a remarkable success.
You were able to graduate from Harvard LawSchool crafting sentences like that one?!!!
Ohhhh...right...Affirmative Action; forgot
about that...nevermind!
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Well if the GPL were found invalid in court, then there would be no license on the code and the person owning the copyright would retain all rights to its distribution. Therefore, MS (or any other entity) still couldn't "steal" GPL'd work.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
She does have a knack for setting up straw men. The average user doesn't care about 8 or 16 processors.
I'm the average user, and I just need something to handle the dialups, the email, and the database well enough so I can go on vacation. The issues she chooses to rattle on about are irrelevant.
Linux solves problems for a pittance. No version of Windows even begins to do the things Linux does, not for any price.
This reporter has absolutely no clue what it takes to make a business go round, and she is so typical in this.
Her reporting would fit right in at the Mercury.
What rock do you people crawl out from under, anyway? Someone writes an intelligent article, and you can't get past the fact that the author is female. I have to agree that many journalists do seem to have the "Wacky Distortion Filter(tm)" that you describe, but it has nothing to do with gender. I'm really, really hoping that all the posts I've seen recently with the misogynist viewpoint demonstrated here are all by the same misguided troll. Sadly, there's probably more than one of you out there.
Just so you know, I lean more towards the Stallman camp myself. I think there is a danger that the creep of commercialism could damage the actual freedom of the software. I think we could see a slippery slope of licenses, right on the fringes of the Open Source definition (think about the controversies over the QT license), that steal more and more of the actual freedom of the software until great harm is done to the development community. At the very least, I think it's something to watch out for. In that sense, I don't agree with the article. I also disliked the mis-representation of the GPL in the article. The GPL does _not_ require that software developed with GPL'd tools be GPL'd. I think these are fair criticisms of the article. You will note, however, that the article can be criticised without personal attacks on the author.
Rebecca Eisenberg is definitely one of the most clued in journalists out there. The stories are well researched and thought through, wether they are about Opensource stuff, stock markets or anything else. In this day and age it is rare, but heartwarming to see. Berst and company, go look how it's done and please, try to learn something.
:)
(And if the Opensource industry ever makes a journalist award, I'd like to nominate her
"Taking away the products, minus the process and license..."
She does not under what is Open Source. Open Source is nothing but the process plus the license. Open Source cannot be stolen if the process and the license are intact.
I don't understand why it is so important to bend over backwards to get businesses on board. The vast majority of people writing truely free software are not doing so on the behalf of a corporation. The only way "open source" software improves is by a community of developers working on it. Getting developers is important, not getting corporations.
*Why as a freed software developer would you spend time working on a project where you have no guarantee that tomorrow it will still be "open source"?
*Why don't people see that Linux is not at he mercy of these large corporations like ESR suggests?
Fools
First we get the L.A. Weekly's Judith Lewis, now we hear from Becky of the S.F. Examiner. Are all the columnists on crack out there?
I do not believe RMS said anything of the sort. That is her characterization of what he believes; "Proprietary software is bad..." run through the Wacky Distortion Filter(tm) inside every journalist's mind comes out as the statement above. No wonder people come away from an article about RMS thinking he is some sort of hippie like software activist. Much easier for them to do that when the writer actually calls him that in the column.
Oh, the shallow, feeble minds of journalists.
in every large movement, there are revolutionaries and pragmatists, and they dont have to agree on everything to keep it going.
the free software / open source people have worked together quite well. at least their combined efforts led to an os that doesnt suck (some companies that shall remain nameless will probably never manage to do this). and dont forget x: its roots are in commercial unix.
obviously, the success of linux wouldnt have been possible without gnu. on the other hand, the fsf profits a lot by linux: fewer people knew the gpl philosophy if linux wouldnt exist, even if its mostly not called gnu/linux.
and now for something completely different
I acctually thought this article was a rather good one, even if I don't agree with the conclusion that the author comes to at the and (which I thought was rather sudden and uncalled for).
RMS is not in the minority.
Take a stand for the future of open source.
Well, see, she's a woman, so OBVIOUSLY the only way should could have gotten a degree from a prestegious school is because an inherently-more-qualified man got booted out to make room for her.
And, see, operating systems other than windows are OBVIOUSLY inferior, because if they were better, they'd be more popular.
crock
All that "bitter" stuff. Makes ya wonder what they are teaching at these '1337 ivy league schools. This chick has every natural advantage in the world: smarts, education, looks, but everything she says points towards a huge hole in her heart. Blessed but knows it not. I pity her.
Not that she would pity from anyone, especially (ugh) a male.
Anyway, I like her stuff. I would probably like her if I ever met her.
IF you were actually brave enough to create a name for slashdot.org or use the "reply to this" option, you will notice it is agaisnt the rules of slashdot to create offensive, Inflammatory or Inappropriate comments. In such an event the post might be moderated or even deleted if cmd taco (Rob Malta)finds the comment very innapropriate or troublesome. I have seen him do this once when one stupid troll tried to create a flame war and within 45 mins the whole comment section had over 100 flames. (this was a year ago when 100 comments were considered large).
:-)
/. ers. Thanks*
Anyway its not polite or appropriate to talk to women this way. Perhaps when your ready for your first date you will relize this.
*IF any moderator happens to find this particular previous comment about female jounralists, please moderate it so it wont offend any female
I meant:
take a stand! for open source!
Crap. *smacks self*
I'd have to agree that the "RMS-led idealists" probably are in the minority at the moment. However, the notion that we should just shut up and support non-Free software for the sake of defeating MS or, as Eric Raymond likes to say, in the hope of getting "software that doesn't suck" is just silly.
I support RMS because I believe he is morally in the right. There seems to be an assumption among some people that I should compromise my principles for the sake of those who are seeking "world domination" for GNU/Linux. Why? Frankly, I'd rather the userbase didn't grow at all than that it grew into simply a Free platform for closed applications.
I believe that "pure" Free software will win, given time, and without compromising any of the GNU principles. It may be slow - a short term win for Microsoft, perhaps, if that's important to you - but worth it in the long run, and infinitely better than the current situation.
-- John Swinbank - currently lacking a username.
-- john.swinbank@hertford.ox.ac.uk
Wel, well, well, well, if its not the same poster as the one who printed "..not Another female journalist again". You must have a had a terrible childhood. I bet you didn't get along with your mother that well hu. THese comments are not only not called for and rude but its against slashdot.org's policy about offensive, inapropriate remarks. If you post another sexist comment like this, I will rob to delete it. He has done this on occasion and will do so again. Ladies! Ignore him. He is probably just a teenager. When he matures and discovers girls he will understand how to treat women. Please don't have a grudge or anything about the rest of us male /.ers.
COuld some moderators please lower the score of the original post. SUch inflamatory and offtopic posts are to be marked down.
So? How does this demean RLE or anyone else to believe this? The original poster made some comments about her qualifications for her beliefs.
How is the belief that stars can affect us be any more or less arrogant that there exists a supreme creator that sits and watches over all of us like a parental figure, throwing at us tragedy and misery, joy, bliss, and heartache? Or the belief that the entire universe and all of existence can be analyzed, dissected, understood, and predicted? That seems awfully misguided and arrogant, and is the norm for many scientists, whom the original poster was praising.
How can you say that stars and such don't affect our personal relationships? How can you show there isn't a God laughing at our foolishness, or crying at our stupidity, or smiling at our uniqueness? How can you prove that fate or destiny doesn't exist?
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
She did make one major error in stating the terms of the GPL. She states that "if you use GPL'd software to produce your software that you must distribute the product under the GPL". This is nowhere near being true. The GPL only requires that you redistribute modifications that you make to _GPL'd_ software. For example, if Cisco uses gcc to create IOS this can remain a proprietary router operating system, but if you sell extentions to Linux, a GPL'd OS, the changes must be released.
You say you should not read posts here in response to your
article, but you did more than that. You took the bait by
posting here, yourself. Welcome to Slashdot.
Having gone so far, you can throw professional restraint out
the window. I think it's great that you did.
I'm sure that as a seasoned journalists you can take the heat
of reading letters to the editor in your own papers, and it is
no different here. Flaming has been around for as long as
public forums for opinions existed. The only difference here
is that it's more immediate, and is not often censored. Come on,
don't you think most people who respond to your articles in other
ways do so without "doing their homework about your work." They
sure do in most letters to the editor. Generally, people who post here
will do their homework. That may be something new for you -
intelligent feedback.
Anyway, it is obvious that you have done a lot of research on
Linux an open source, so how about posting regular feature
articles at Slashdot (contact Rob Malda, the publisher here, or
Jon Katz, a regular columnist). I'm sure they would welcome
your articles - something else to add to your resume, at least.
Regardless of how much research you have done or might to
to prep for a story, please consider a few things:
1. Unlike the commerical media (print or electronic)
people who use Linux ARE concerned with freedom far more
than with the success or failure of Open Source in business.
Adoption of LInux and other free software by businesses and
support from corporations is all right, but that IS NOT a goal
of those who have been involved in the creation and development
of Linux and related open source products, or for most of those
who use LInux at home at this time. Looking at it from a business
(investment) perspective won't work in this community
the same way it might work on the financial page.
2. Regardless of how much research you might do, or how
smart you might be, a small but vocal percentage of readers
and frequent posters here will dismiss you because you are
not a technical person by vocation. There is no way to respond
to this kind of criticism, for anyone, except to call them nasty
names.
3. Everything here is personal. There is no compartmentalization
or separation of "personal" and "professional" life as there might
be in most settings. This encourages honesty, but also irrationality
by those who otherwise have the ability to think rationally if necessary.
If someone disagrees with your ideas of explanations he may
take it personally. That's better, I feel, that pretending to be
rational about everything because it encourages more give and
take more quickly, and more learning in a shorter amount or time.
Usually, grudges are forgotten the next day. I have found myself
expressing one thing and then being forced by my own actions
to think about my statements and modify my thinking, without
anyone asking me to do that. Had I held back, I'd never have
been forced to examine my own thoughts and actions.
Not to be patronizing, but the Linux community and the software
world in general is greatly in need of more involvement by
females. Yes, there are plenty of talented female programmers
and sysadmins in the world, but these tend to have more normal
lives after work. They are not fanatics. The people heavily
involved are 99% male at this time. They need to be challenged
or countered by a female who can meet them half way intellec-
tually ( and who wants to).
I feel that you are a fanatic - at least about yourself. Why be modest?
Nobody needs to tell you that, I fhink. Therefore, you qualify as a "nerd"
- the original meaning of the word being someone who thinks he
(or she) knows it all.
For that matter, the underlying principle of Science requires a great deal of faith: that the universe has unchanging laws which can be discovered through experimentation.
/prove/ that gravity follows any specific rule, just that it has certainly seemed to for quite some time, and we can probably (most of us) agree that it will continue to do so.
For that matter, most of science isn't even logically sound; you can drop apples 'till your blue in the face, but that doesn't
How do you know that the universe won't "change its mind?" You can't; that's faith.
Doesn't mean Science isn't rational.
Ha, you are showing your true face...companies are the main force pushing Linux forward?
You are not a Linux person.Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
>- but at the same time lets support the good guys who made Linux and free software possible.
well stated, how else would I get a freeware compiler (gcc), an editor (emacs) without paying for it. dont see may other free tools avaialable from commercial companies
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Most poeple don't care about ideals... if they did, the world wouldn't be as dark as it is right now.
If someone believes that billion year old massive stars, the light of which took millions of years to reach us on our tiny little planets orbit have an effect on their personal relationships, they are not only misguided, but insanely arrogant!
Dave
ok... :)
BSD: used in Apache-name me a competing gpl server
NPL: used in mozilla-name me a competing gpl browser
QPL: used in QT and alot of people like KDE
GPL is no longer the only game in town.
I mostly agree with you here, but I would like to take exception with two points:
1) As a whole, the people who use and/or develop free software are often interested in both the freedom angle and the business angle. Just because the active posters on Slashdot tend to lean towards the political side of things, I wouldn't assume their counterparts in the real world feel the same way. A lot of open source development is funded or carried out by corporations.
2) The last thing the Linux community needs is more fanatics. Extremists like RMS are necessary to sow the seeds of change, but by their very extremism they're not well-equipped to actually lead the change. The ideals of the FSF have inspired a host of more moderate leaders (including Linus) who have what it takes to bring free software to the masses. You seem to equate fanaticism with intellectual ability, which is completely unrelated.
You mean you don't believe in selfish genes? How silly of you.
Has anyone read the FAQ on the authors page??? This chick is hysterical... and i'm not sure she
means to be. funny stuff
If you're American, I sure hope you agree with every single thing that the U.S. government and all its divisions (including the IRS and the Department of Defense) has ever done, then. Otherwise, you're a pretty big hypocrite driving on Interstate highways, exercising your First Amendment rights, and using TCP/IP.
The logical answer for most people to "Stop using GNU software if you disagree with RMS" is not "Oh no, I'll agree with him, stop scaring me." It is "Four copies of Windows NT Server, a 500-seat license for Windows 98, and can I get a copy of Visual C++ with that?"
The author wasn't say that MS could steal GPLed software. He was saying that MS could steal the Open Source development model.
Copyrights are socialist? Interesting. A system dedicated to making it possible for an individual to retain ownership is a socialist concept. And, I suppose, communes are capitalist?
..of course.
Okay, makes perfect sense then, your comment. In my haste I had interpreted her statement to mean that Open Source, as an alternative to the Free Software movement, was practical and pragmatic and utilitarian, free from judgemental or ideological issues, where the Free Software name and movement demands freedom of ideas, software, source, and use, unconditionally, for the betterment of software, humanity, and individuals who code. Perhaps it is my wrong for assigning that value to her statement, but at least to my eyes it had a value that I understood.
But you are right that her sentence was essentially wordy, verbose, and could have been more concisely state as such
Open Source stresses productivity, useability, and efficient use of resources and manpower whereas Free Software argues for the unconditional freedom of use, dissemination, and spread of source, ideas, and information
How do you get the tab feature? Non-blanking whitespace?
Of course, the above assumes my interpretation of her statement is correct, but as all things, to each their own.
On the other hand I do feel as if your last statement about affirmative action uncalled for. Highlighting her fault as a function of her gender isn't appropriate when it is something any person can do, especially if it has no relation to gender. Being pompous, verbose, silly, or wordy are faults that do not limit themselves to women.
On your last statement about stealing free software, yes, it can be done. Using Open Source software assumes that modified code is returned back to the fold. If M$ takes the Linux kernal as their own for Win2010, modifies it for specific functionality and adds DVD, 3d acceleration, and USB, and doesn't give back to the Open Source movement, they have essentially abused the concept of Open Source, without any recompense for the effort others have put into it. If I took the source, added USB somehow somewhere, the value added is recompense to all the others that worked on it before I, and the work others have done are the recompense for me adding USB, for without a workable OS I would have no need for USB either.
If you're using the Free Software definition, then by making the previously open software proprietary, M$ has violated and abused the Free Software movement, and the same arguments as above hold.
It's assuming that people's time and energy are equivalent to value and monetary worth, and by taking without giving anything back, you are stealing.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I don't think the article accurately portrayed Richard Stallman's distinction between commerical and proprietary software. Selling free software and running a business are just fine with him. It is only proprietary software he does not like.
The important thing about linux is that it levels the playing field... companies like microsoft have an unfair advantage when they provide the proprietary OS. Linux takes that advantage away for both open source and proprietary software developers and creates a fair playing field for all parties. RMS claims that proprietary software takes away freedom, but if you take that away you remove my FREEDOM to sell proprietary software... and you also remove my FREEDOM to buy proprietary software. If a person wants to buy proprietary software then by all means they should... if they don't agree with the terms then they can use an OpenSource alternative or write their own. Simple as that.. I wish RMS would quit his whinning...
has no discernable meaning, even read in context
of the whole column.
It is the type of phrase one might find in a high
school student essay, which, if the teacher who
received it had any sense, would be immediately
returned with a request for clarification.
There is no mistake, per se, in the sentence,
other than that of the nonexistent word
"value-laden". No harm in making up words, if they
serve to add to the reader's enjoyment, or no word
that already exists serves the writer's purpose.
What is a writer's purpose, if not to communicate
an idea to the reader? NO idea has been
communicated here; only so much padding of a
hopelessly weak structure.
As far as factual errors go, her attempt at a
conclusion to the column is only the most
glaring:
One cannot steal free software!
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
I'm wondering myself if the previous poster has some sort of gender bias against the reporter...
I liked the article, if a bit short. Some more in depth anaylsis into the issues, even if biased, incorrect, and silly, gives us at least the mindset of those that are ignorant... However, I didn't think she was any of those.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Why is everyone perpetuating the myth that free software *needs* the support and interest of the corporate world?
I would argue that it doesn't need any at all, because even without such support it will bloom into all the software niches and be completely unstoppable. There is no other way for it to go but up, because once software is freed it is always free and available, whereas commercial products die as soon as their developers and marketing staff lose interest. You just can't stop the body of free software growing by accretion, whatever you do.
No, it's not free software that needs the support of commerce, but merely the people of the free software community who like to see their camp being given a vote of confidence by well-respected corporates. Yes, that is nice to see, but it's not *needed*. GNU, BSD and Linux were heading into the stratosphere long before the Netscapes and Oracles of this world decided that free software was a good thing.
The big names did not make Linux good by signing up to it; Linux already was excellent, as were countless other products of the community. At best it has accelerated the already very rapid takeup, but it's far from being fundamental in any way. The credit has to go to the community of free software developers and users. Corporates are merely sensible enough to recognize a pearl beyond price when they seen one, and to understand that there is little point in arguing with a tidal wave.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I doubt that. Rebecca is an intelligent woman to be sure, but she has some very silly beliefs - like astrology for instance that really call her common sense into question.
Rebecca likes to think of herself as a knowledgable, well read and intelligent person, and in some areas there is little reason to doubt it. But shes handicapped by an arrogance that causes her to internalize beliefs that agree with the ones she already holds, and to generally dismiss things which disagree with here beliefs. In short, as smart as she is, her method for arriving at conclusions is seriously flawed (shes a lawyer afterall not a scientist or someone trained to think logically).
Rebecca has a tendency to spout out off at the mouth (on TV!) about things she barely understands (like her tirades about Java, when she knows almost nothing about Java - or Operating Systems she doesn't run - like Linux, or Solaris or even Windows for example.) Its really a quirk that she is considered a "Technology Consultant" when she has barely any skills or qualifications to justify such a position. Becky is a well read Lawyer with a real gift for gab, but a technologist she is not.
Rebecca is a cool chick IMHO, but shes not as smart as she pretends to be. (Read about how she got mugged - what the hell was she thinking? She was careless, and was lucky that something worse didnt happen, like rape or death perhaps.) I think all that Ivy league education went to her head and now she thinks she can think no wrong. Catch her on Silicon Spin (on ZDTV... I know... ZD=clueless, but sometimes you have to watch the clueless and correct them to make sure they dont hurt themselves.) She has some interesting comments, but they come largely from seondary sources - and not conclusions she herself has arrived at. In short, nice to look at, but nothing substantive to say on technology issues.
A cool chick, no doubt, but astrology? Come on Rebecca!
--
Python
Python
but studied law!, it amazes me the number of so-called smart people who study law, on eof the most archane, protected professions I can think of. and certainly up there with accountants
while ms eisenburg may appear techno-savvy, when it comes to lawyers & IT - 'high maintenance users" with attitude is about all I observe.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Not so - you forget that a lot of people use Linux because its more stable, faster etc, not for some nebulous ideal.
Oh, shit.
I guess I won't buy the Monica book and start
reading Segfault instead.
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
I don't know about ESR's stats, but if you're relying on a stupid slashdot "poll" then I have a bridge to sell to you
btw Linus doesn't read slashdot
---
While true that the GPL has never been tested in court, thus far actually going to court has not been necessary.
There _have_ been cases in which someone has tried to include GPL'ed code in their closed source software, but a call from the FSF lawyers caused them to rectify the situation (I heard this in one of the panel discussions at LinuxWorld, but I don't remember who said it).
You want all the benefits that RMS has given the community without all the messy details concerning the ramifications or responsibility - or worse - the duty to loyalty to the GPL.
You're just the kind of people that the corporate state finds easiest to control.
I am unclear on exactly how you suggest Microsoft could "steal" Free software.
If Microsoft use the Linux kernel for Windows 2010, and make the modifications you suggest, surely, under the terms of the GPL, they would be forced to make source available under the GPL for the modifications? Essentially, they have then contributed to the Free (or OS, if you must) software movement.
-- John Swinbank - currently without a username
-- john.swinbank@hertford.ox.ac.uk
the real world effects of the has been to turn operating system technology into a public commodity. It is now public knowledge. And the experience of doing it has created a community of researchers and developers that will insure it's evolution.
The important point about this community, however, is that it is made up of whom ever whishes to participate. There are no tests of political correctness required. As long as it works, people will use it.
I don't have to like RMS or his ideals to use his utilities. I'm confused...does the GPL say I have to stop using software if I dislike the author?
If not, please keep the idealistic nonsense to yourself.
Yup. She is a live one. She wears everything on her sleeve; emotionally naked, like RMS...
I don't know if all of this has been said before considering i have not read all of the replies to this article, however i would like to voice my opinion. I believe that proprietary software can do some good things for Linux in the recognition area, but we all have to be careful how far we let this go. All of the excitement over "OMG, they're taking us seriously" is leaving some people blind to the future. The corporate support is good, but if we're not watchful things could take a turn for the worse and the only open source/GPL'd software will be out of date and the kernel will be the only thing freely available/changable/distributable. This is either close to or a transitional point for the Linux community and things can go in a good or bad direction. Just my pov
I find myself sympathising with the FSF more and more these days. Trading freedom for acceptance may make good sense today, but I don't think its worth jeapordizing the movement for.
Not too worried though. THe GPL is still the same GPL Stallman wrote. No one can sell it out now, not even Linus.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Anyone see the irony of shallow here? I suspect the only thing shallow here is your mind. Would you have believed RMS said it if a guy told you asshole?
Chris Kuhi
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
Huh? What has IBM done for the community? Jikes is about all I can think of. Certainly nothing on the order of gcc or the work of the FSF.
Corporate support will come and go. The only solid thing we can rely on is what we do ourselves. Looking to IBM for salvation is just cargo cultism.
Sure, be friendly to them, court their support, but do not make the mistake of relying on corporations for the future of Linux.
I find the idea of studing law fascinating (though being a lawyer would suck). Think of it as a vast, complex, seemingly illogical system to be conquered, understood, hacked...
writes whats worth reading.
;)
Not sure I agree with her conclusions, but she is one us: "...a girl never forgets the man who first taught her unix..."
Anyway, let the commercial factions war it out. Let the marketplace splinter and fragment. As long as there is a FSF, a Debian, and the BSD communities, free (as in speech) software will thrive. It simply does not matter what the rest of the market is doing. In fact, if the commercial market takes off and really does end up fragmenting that badly, people will flock right back to free software.
Stallman and the GPL ultimately work in favor of the consumer. If commercial software houses provide quality software for reasonable prices they are in no danger of being run out of business by free software. If they provide mission critical services with monopoly pricing and support structures, they are doomed.
Really, if windows worked as advertised, and I could purchase a set of utilities for a reasonable price, without getting gouged for upgrades when someone else (i.e. MS) decides I need one, I would still be using it.
Detroit pulled this same BS for years with their planned obsolecsence/new car every 2 years attitude. Coroporate greed resulted in crappy products, which opened a huge whole for japanese imports, which in part fueled some nasty recessions. I remember. Unemployment rate at %15. So MS is going down. And they are going to take a bunch of people with them. Fine. Sooner the better; let's get it over with.
Frankly, an operating system ought to have at least 10 years of life in it. My Toyo 4x4 does.
---mtngrown
Well, the people who don't care about ideals won't want KDE and Corel. They'll just get Corel on Win95 and not bother with Linux.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yah, you're right... they just want to take, take, take.. and make money.. MONEY MONEY MONEY.. it's really sad.. ole stallman got some good ideas.. and has committed to them pretty much without contradicting himself in some way or another as most 'evangelists' do.. it's sad.
The government didn't create the right to free speech; it just sometimes defends it (and often does not).
yea but shes kinda cute though...
I simply ignore him and I'm sure many other people do. He's not the main force pushing linux-it's companies like IBM, Oracle as well as many people who find that it just works better than NT. It's all about Linux vs. Microsoft not free software vs spending a few bucks. And people who push open source are pointing out that it helps create better software (sometimes) without any of this lala pie in the sky stuff that has nothing to do with how the real world operates.
---
Meanwhile, many free market supporters don't believe that "intellectual property" exists in the first place; thus, copyright looks a good deal like government intervention to control people's behavior -- a characteristic we associate with all real-world examples of socialist movements that had political power (not anarchist socialists, though).
Check out what Lizard writes about capitalism to see why communes should be a part of it and copyrights should not.
And you are a troll. If you're not a troll, and you're truly wishing death on someone for an ideological difference, then you're far worse than a troll. You're right that some of us don't mind commercial applications and support for Linux. In general, I don't mind commercial games for Linux for example. RMS doesn't mind commercial support. I think all you're interested in is sowing discord. Tell me, are you the same troll who posted in the Kubrick article about how glad you were that he was dead?
Excuse me, but can you please enlighten me?
/.
What is so wrong with the statement:
Open Source requirements are similar to those of
Free Software, but the packaging is different,
lacking any value-laden, ideological generalities.
Maybe I don't know enough grammer(I don't have a law degree from Harvard, am working for a CS/EE at Caltech), or I don't know enough about Open Source vs Free Software. I admit, sometimes I get confused by all the rhetoric and semantics bandied about among the many factions that visit daily
And exactly how does affirmative action make her statement any more or less ignorant than your own? Perhaps it is just I being ignorant, and as soon as someone enlightens me I can join you in your elevated position of worth and value, and laugh at RLE and others who make the same ignorant mistake I must have for not catching whatever you have seen.
Thanks.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Sokolsky gave me permission to write it that way. I have an email to prove it. Lighten up.
I realize that I shouldn't read these threads, but how could I not?
This is really the only powerful argument that creationists can level at material scientists: the scientists take materialism axiomatically, then show how the evidence supports their assumptions. Exactly the charge they (the materialists) level at the creationists.
Note that I have degree in Geology. I am not taking sides either way, merely pointing out the the materialists should take a good, hard look at their true axiom set.
Of course, according to Dawkins, I am "scientifically illiterate" for not believing his brand of darwinism. Although I think Gould would also be there: they have been known to disagree!
Flame away!
I'd like to know where Eric Raymond get's his 85% from. On slashdot (hardly a hotbed of Stallman-esque free software radicals) the last poll on the topic had fully 40% of the people supporting the "free software" term.
Well then, let us be the judge of it. All I read so far is her whining.
Why shouldn't you read the threads? It's not like this isn't a public forum, after all. And it's somewhat reassuring to see that at least some of the reporters do read forums like Slashdot and see what the response to their articles is.
Interesting article, but I gotta question that first sentence.
"Unlike a year ago, most people these days have heard of the Linux operating system."
Even if you restrict the definition of "people" to computer users, I don't think that the majority are aware of Linux.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Why is the onus on me? I'm not trying to make anyone agree with me. The only concession I'm asking is that your disagreement with me doesn't indicate any sort of moral or character flaw, other than you disagree with me.
I don't get pissed off, btw, as long as flames aren't being tossed =).
Your comment confuses me; you mention you cannot disprove Santa or the Tooth Fairy, but you don't believe in their existence.
You also mention things cannot be disproven; that is incorrect. A disproof can be performed by assuming Santa Claus exists, and this existence indicates another truth or value that is obviously false, and thus by assuming he exists, you show that he cannot.
How do you disprove that I am dead? Easy...
Assume that I am dead. If I were dead, I would no longer exist on the same plane of existence as you. If I cannot interact with you, I cannot send you this message. If you see this message, then I have sent it, and I cannot be dead. It doesn't mean I'm not a computer entity, or a virus, or a non-human, it just means, under the definition of dead as non-existence with accordance to this reality, I can't be dead.
The real tricky part is making sure the base assumptions are all correct in the first place. We don't know that the dead can't interact with our existence, just as we don't know that the stars don't interact with our existence. In fact its a given that gravitational forces, neutrinos, gamma rays, alpha particles, and photons from stars to interact very physically with us and our existence. Showing how they do so is tough, but until astrologists can show us that they do, the best we should do is give them their chance to do so. Likewise for those who advocate quantum superstrings or hyperdimensional folds or quantum foam. None of those have any shred of proof, yet people are spending millions/billions of dollars building supercolliders and performing deep space, deep earth, and other experiments to show/disprove those theories.
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
You should check out the Eisenberg's resume. Pretty impressive. She has a BA from Stanford and a JD from Harvard. She's been a cocktail waitress, a law clerk, a webmistress, etc...
/. flame war.
Plus reading some of the stuff on her web site indicates a certain attitude. She could probably hold her own ground during a
Jon Katz will be on C-SPAN 1 Monday morning (3/8/99) from 7:30 am EST to 8:45 am EST.
It's a call-in, fax-in, e-mail in type show but let's support him there and save the flames for here.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
OK, so I am female. But I read slashdot. And I am a geek. And sometimes my editors don't catch typographical errors. At least I post with my own name and not as an anonymous coward. Plus, you are wrong. Stallman did make that comment at dinner last Sunday night. I would call you an idiotic sexist arrogant bastard, but I am above that.
rle
I think we all need oss but with microsoft and the now stanard unethical bussiness practices by alot of software companies. oss will hurt IBM. Oracle and many other companies who port to linux. I have a very awkward feeling that microsoft appluaded oralce and IBM developing software for linux because they can just cut and paste the database code into sql server and they can put money for more important things like marketing and legal trials rahter then software development.:-)
If ms did such a thing who would stop them.? How would anyone know that the code was stolen? The onyl reason why caldera finally won its court case was because ex employees who all had legal contracts with ms mentioned it. If an ms employee leaves the empire with the knowelde about stealing code, he or her would have to keep his mouth shut about it for four years. Oracle would be out fo bussiness by then (assuming sql server becomes as powerfull as oracles because of stolen code.). Microsoft will always win. I support having software companies port to linux. I just hope the big migration waits untill ms is split up or down. It would be a shame if its already to late and all those programers at ms have the best of both worlds with db2 and oracle code in sql server. If no software products get ported to linux then it would be a hacker os and NT would take over everything and corperations would flee linux like the plague (remember os/2). If you still jsut want a hacker os, you can try hurd and various other experimental kernels or download the old 1.X kernels. Please dont let the modern linux die because you wish for the old glory days. I know linux was never meant as an anti microsoft os but for those of us who hate them, we dont have much of a choice. The old kernels and hurd are alwyas available.
Maybe I'm a little out of touch, but I think that the RMS-led idealists are in the minority, and that this so-called fragmenting positioning seems to be a story that would operate in M$'s favor. It is clearly in their interest to FUD the open source movement, and one of the surest ways to spread uncertainty and doubt is to point out and magnify any internal divisions, no matter how small or insignificant, within the movement. What we need to do is to come up with an effective counter-strategy, including making it clear that everyone involved with the movement realizes that if we fragment we lose.
Umm...there are times that you need a 8 or 16 processor machine. This does not mean linux sucks, or that linux isn't right for a whole lot of people. It just means there are some markets where something like Solaris.
Nowhere in the article did the author say NT could do any of the things we're talking about. It can't. However, many commercial unices can do it very well.
It was an extremely well written article.
I am impressed. It's refreshing to actually get feedback and hear from the author of content linked to by /.
/. Every voice is important, otherwise we get swamped by noise and pointless rhetoric of trolls and flames.
It is a bother how rude and disrespectful people can get, but I hope it doesn't stop you from continuing your contributions, esp to
I at least appreciated the article =) Back to bashing trolls and posting comments...
AS
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*