The real target audience for KDE
on
The KDE Future
·
· Score: 5
Personally, I like Gnome/E, but one of the things to keep in mind is that if we really want Linux to make significant inroads into the desktop arena, it really has to be easy for the newbies to use.
Since most desktop gains will probably be converts from windows, having an interface that is similar in behaviour to windows will ease the transition for those who choose to switch. Once they've switched, and start to become familiar with Linux, they will start to see not only the power of the platform, but also the far greater number of choices in the interface, etc.
I suspect that many will start to use Linux _because_ of KDE, and many of those will see the other WM's, like WindowMaker, Gnome/E, etc. and will discover that they have a choice that they didn't have under Windows.
In a way, this is very much the same argument made by the RIAA about mp3 players. The contention that the availability of some mechanism that allows someone to play an mp3 (or a rom game) automatically constitutes an illegal act is based on a flawed assumption.
Since it is legal to make copies of music or games that you already own, and to use those copies if you wish, it is also legal to use whatever mechanism you like to play them.
In a way, you could compare it to having a gun. Target practice, for example, is legal, killing someone is not. To automatically label the gun as illegal completely misses the issue, as it is the one who uses the gun that is responsible.
In exactly the same fashion, if someone uses a game emulator to play a game they already own, they are behaving legally, and if they do not own the game, they are breaking the law. It is therefore the individual breaking the law that is responsible, and not the mechanism that they use to break it.
IANAL, but in looking at the requirements of getting a patent (esp a utility patent, which would apply in this case), the two primary requirements are that the invention being patented be:
(the definitions quoted here are from an overview on patent law at: http://www.nolo.com/PCTM/3overview.html)
1. Novel. "That is, a new development in at least one or more of its constituent elements--as of the date the inventor conceived it or when the patent application was filed."
This is where prior art would apply.
2. Non-obvious. "If the PTO determines that the invention was novel, it then must make another more difficult decision: was the invention nonobvious? To make this determination, the PTO asks this question: Would someone who was skilled in the particular field as of the invention date consider the invention to be an unexpected or surprising development?"
Judging from some of the responses here, it would seem that this patent would fail the non-obviousness test, by the fact that the technique involved is not considered to be an unexpected or surprising development in this field.
Since IANAL, it is possible that there is some aspect to the definition of non-obviousness that I'm missing, but on the face of it, this patent does fail in this regard.
The current ruling assigns freedom of speech to source code within a limited context, that of encryption scientists using it as a medium of communication in their field. While this is a step in the right direction, it leaves open many issues in the more general source code = free speech issue.
In the dissenting opinion in this case, as well as several respondents here, it has been stated that source code, in and of itself, constitutes a mechanism, or machine, with the inherent capability of performing the task for which it was written. In rebuttal, I will provide the following argument:
Source code, in and of itself, can do nothing, regardless of the format it is in (electronic, written in a book, or tatooed on your arm).
That source code is the clear and explicit instructions for the performance of some task is non-arguable, however the most ingenious 'C' source code, stored on a floppy, sitting on your desk, does nothing but gather dust.
In order for source code to perform the task for which it was written, it requires the additional resource that interprets those instructions to produce the effect described by the source. This additional resource *must* always be present in some form. If not, the source then becomes nothing more that a fairly rigorous description of some task.
The argument has been presented that the deterministic nature of source code provides the mechanical aspect of it's nature, in that as the instructions are unambiguous, they would be interpreted identically by any device designed to execute code. While this is true, it does not abrogate the need for the execution device, without which, source code becomes merely words.
The free speech concept enters in when we consider that we can communicate, in equally unambiguous terms, the entire functionality of a given program, using any human language. Or if you wish, we can create a program listing of sorts using prepositional logic, that would be just as deterministic and unambiguous as any specified programming language, and yet there would be little argument that such descriptions would fall under the umbrella of free speech.
In other words, the argument against source code as free speech boils down to the assertion that since no further human interpretation or modification is necessary to allow this task to execute on some device, that it automatically loses its free speech privelege as a result.
Since a sufficiently rigorous human language description of a process is effectively equal to a source code description of the same process, either both must be considered free speech, or neither. The act of translating the human language process into a source language process does not remove the freedom from the speech.
"Besides which, maybe exporting strong crypto isn't that great of an idea in the first place. Anybody care to comment?"
I'm not sure that the issue is *solely* one of exporting crypto, per se.
If strong crypto was truly considered to be a national security issue, it would be illegal to publish the source code in a paper book, as well. It is not so much the that encryption is or is not a national security issue, though, but that the laws regarding the export of strong encryption are oxymoronic and effectively unenforcable. Since nothing prevent someone from printing the source code to an encryption routine and then mailing it overseas, there is, essentially, no real restriction at all. If someone really wants to use that routine, having to type it in by hand is only a minor inconvenience.
That bit aside, there are at least two reasons offhand why I consider these export restrictions to be a bad idea.
1. The US does not have any kind of unique position with regards to strong encryption. It is possible (and very easy) to acquire encryption tools at least as strong as any available within the US. If someone wants strong encryption, they will get it somewhere, whether the US likes it or not.
2. As a result of (1), the US is placed in the position of being unable to effectively compete on an international arena where any strong encryption is concerned.
Apparently, the ad server is down. I've been getting error messages from it all morning. A while back, I was messing around with redirecting the url's for some of the ad servers, and had the same problem you're having, when I redirected adfu.blockstackers.com.
The problem does appear to be restricted to netscape. I'm currently posting from work (NT/IE5), and have no trouble seeing the pages.
Interestingly enough, you can view the page source, even when it doesn't appear in the browser.
I've had this book for about 10 years now, and have read it all the way through three times, and have referenced it many more.
When I first got the book, it was because of my interest in AI, and I thought the book would be just about that. I was surprised (and pleased) that it turned out to be *much* more. The dialogs, especially, did a great deal to clarify the more technical tone of the chapters, and were extremely entertaining, as well.
From his insightful treatment of number theory, including the best discussion of Godel's number (and what it means) that I have ever encountered, to wonderful examples of self-reference and symbols, this book has gained a permanent spot in my library, and I would recommend it to *anyone*, even the non-technical among us.
Also, as a musician myself, I was pleased by the extent that music played a part in his arguments, especially since Bach is one of my favorites.
To me, this book represents the definitive examination of intelligence, and especially self-awareness from the symbols and mechanical systems that underlie them.
While disagreement and dissension are part of any active community, it's also very important to realize that there are times when that needs to be set aside, at least for a time, to further our goals.
And of course, the goals may be different among differing factions in the community. The problem is that ad hominem attacks, childish 'me too isms', and in general spouting off without engaging the brain only diminishes us, both within our community, and especially in the viewpoint of those outside of it.
If we truly believe that linux, and by extension, the free software philosophy is a worthwhile goal, we *must* be willing to back this up with intelligent, reasoned, and mature discussion. To do otherwise only harms us.
Whether or not ESR is really resigning, we need to realize that our community is just a part of a bigger community, and we need to represent ourselves to that bigger community, both as a community itself, and through the efforts of people like ESR. Either we work for the world we want, or we get a world we don't want.
While I agree that the first amendment is *extremely* important, I don't think that laws against spam violate that amendment.
Using snail mail as an example, would you like to pay postage due on all the junk mail you recieve?
To those without per minute charges or bandwidth limits, spam is merely an annoyance. But if you have to pay (per bit, whatever), it becomes a real issue of cost. This will be aggravated even more if the phone co's get the interstate charges they want from ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I like Gnome/E, but one of the things to keep in mind is that if we really want Linux to make significant inroads into the desktop arena, it really has to be easy for the newbies to use.
Since most desktop gains will probably be converts from windows, having an interface that is similar in behaviour to windows will ease the transition for those who choose to switch. Once they've switched, and start to become familiar with Linux, they will start to see not only the power of the platform, but also the far greater number of choices in the interface, etc.
I suspect that many will start to use Linux _because_ of KDE, and many of those will see the other WM's, like WindowMaker, Gnome/E, etc. and will discover that they have a choice that they didn't have under Windows.
In a way, this is very much the same argument made by the RIAA about mp3 players. The contention that the availability of some mechanism that allows someone to play an mp3 (or a rom game) automatically constitutes an illegal act is based on a flawed assumption.
Since it is legal to make copies of music or games that you already own, and to use those copies if you wish, it is also legal to use whatever mechanism you like to play them.
In a way, you could compare it to having a gun. Target practice, for example, is legal, killing someone is not. To automatically label the gun as illegal completely misses the issue, as it is the one who uses the gun that is responsible.
In exactly the same fashion, if someone uses a game emulator to play a game they already own, they are behaving legally, and if they do not own the game, they are breaking the law. It is therefore the individual breaking the law that is responsible, and not the mechanism that they use to break it.
IANAL, but in looking at the requirements of getting a patent (esp a utility patent, which would apply in this case), the two primary requirements are that the invention being patented be:
(the definitions quoted here are from an overview on patent law at: http://www.nolo.com/PCTM/3overview.html)
1. Novel. "That is, a new development in at least one or more of its constituent elements--as of the date the inventor conceived it or when the patent application was filed."
This is where prior art would apply.
2. Non-obvious. "If the PTO determines that the invention was novel, it then must make another more difficult decision: was the invention nonobvious? To make this determination, the PTO asks this question: Would someone who was skilled in the particular field as of the invention date consider the invention to be an unexpected or surprising development?"
Judging from some of the responses here, it would seem that this patent would fail the non-obviousness test, by the fact that the technique involved is not considered to be an unexpected or surprising development in this field.
Since IANAL, it is possible that there is some aspect to the definition of non-obviousness that I'm missing, but on the face of it, this patent does fail in this regard.
The current ruling assigns freedom of speech to source code within a limited context, that of encryption scientists using it as a medium of communication in their field. While this is a step in the right direction, it leaves open many issues in the more general source code = free speech issue.
In the dissenting opinion in this case, as well as several respondents here, it has been stated that source code, in and of itself, constitutes a mechanism, or machine, with the inherent capability of performing the task for which it was written. In rebuttal, I will provide the following argument:
Source code, in and of itself, can do nothing, regardless of the format it is in (electronic, written in a book, or tatooed on your arm).
That source code is the clear and explicit instructions for the performance of some task is non-arguable, however the most ingenious 'C' source code, stored on a floppy, sitting on your desk, does nothing but gather dust.
In order for source code to perform the task for which it was written, it requires the additional resource that interprets those instructions to produce the effect described by the source. This additional resource *must* always be present in some form. If not, the source then becomes nothing more that a fairly rigorous description of some task.
The argument has been presented that the deterministic nature of source code provides the mechanical aspect of it's nature, in that as the instructions are unambiguous, they would be interpreted identically by any device designed to execute code. While this is true, it does not abrogate the need for the execution device, without which, source code becomes merely words.
The free speech concept enters in when we consider that we can communicate, in equally unambiguous terms, the entire functionality of a given program, using any human language. Or if you wish, we can create a program listing of sorts using prepositional logic, that would be just as deterministic and unambiguous as any specified programming language, and yet there would be little argument that such descriptions would fall under the umbrella of free speech.
In other words, the argument against source code as free speech boils down to the assertion that since no further human interpretation or modification is necessary to allow this task to execute on some device, that it automatically loses its free speech privelege as a result.
Since a sufficiently rigorous human language description of a process is effectively equal to a source code description of the same process, either both must be considered free speech, or neither. The act of translating the human language process into a source language process does not remove the freedom from the speech.
"Besides which, maybe exporting strong crypto isn't that great of an idea in the first place. Anybody care to comment?"
I'm not sure that the issue is *solely* one of exporting crypto, per se.
If strong crypto was truly considered to be a national security issue, it would be illegal to publish the source code in a paper book, as well. It is not so much the that encryption is or is not a national security issue, though, but that the laws regarding the export of strong encryption are oxymoronic and effectively unenforcable. Since nothing prevent someone from printing the source code to an encryption routine and then mailing it overseas, there is, essentially, no real restriction at all. If someone really wants to use that routine, having to type it in by hand is only a minor inconvenience.
That bit aside, there are at least two reasons offhand why I consider these export restrictions to be a bad idea.
1. The US does not have any kind of unique position with regards to strong encryption. It is possible (and very easy) to acquire encryption tools at least as strong as any available within the US. If someone wants strong encryption, they will get it somewhere, whether the US likes it or not.
2. As a result of (1), the US is placed in the position of being unable to effectively compete on an international arena where any strong encryption is concerned.
Apparently, the ad server is down. I've been getting error messages from it all morning. A while back, I was messing around with redirecting the url's for some of the ad servers, and had the same problem you're having, when I redirected adfu.blockstackers.com.
The problem does appear to be restricted to netscape. I'm currently posting from work (NT/IE5), and have no trouble seeing the pages.
Interestingly enough, you can view the page source, even when it doesn't appear in the browser.
I've had this book for about 10 years now, and have read it all the way through three times, and have referenced it many more.
When I first got the book, it was because of my interest in AI, and I thought the book would be just about that. I was surprised (and pleased) that it turned out to be *much* more. The dialogs, especially, did a great deal to clarify the more technical tone of the chapters, and were extremely entertaining, as well.
From his insightful treatment of number theory, including the best discussion of Godel's number (and what it means) that I have ever encountered, to wonderful examples of self-reference and symbols, this book has gained a permanent spot in my library, and I would recommend it to *anyone*, even the non-technical among us.
Also, as a musician myself, I was pleased by the extent that music played a part in his arguments, especially since Bach is one of my favorites.
To me, this book represents the definitive examination of intelligence, and especially self-awareness from the symbols and mechanical systems that underlie them.
While disagreement and dissension are part of any active community, it's also very important to realize that there are times when that needs to be set aside, at least for a time, to further our goals.
And of course, the goals may be different among differing factions in the community. The problem is that ad hominem attacks, childish 'me too isms', and in general spouting off without engaging the brain only diminishes us, both within our community, and especially in the viewpoint of those outside of it.
If we truly believe that linux, and by extension, the free software philosophy is a worthwhile goal, we *must* be willing to back this up with intelligent, reasoned, and mature discussion. To do otherwise only harms us.
Whether or not ESR is really resigning, we need to realize that our community is just a part of a bigger community, and we need to represent ourselves to that bigger community, both as a community itself, and through the efforts of people like ESR. Either we work for the world we want, or we get a world we don't want.
Check their site.
I got the windows version just for grins,
removed it right away. Tried to take over my whole desktop, ugh!
While I agree that the first amendment is *extremely* important, I don't think that laws against spam violate that amendment.
Using snail mail as an example, would you like to pay postage due on all the junk mail you recieve?
To those without per minute charges or bandwidth limits, spam is merely an annoyance. But if you have to pay (per bit, whatever), it becomes a real issue of cost. This will be aggravated even more if the phone co's get the interstate charges they want from ISPs.