Remember, there are a zillion zines out there full of new media philosophy trash. Don't forget that: WE DON'T CARE.
Actually, to judge from the people who bothered to vote, you are in a minority position. Somebody does care. The overwhelming majority voted to keep the new writer.
It's funny how the people who are most willing to speak for everyone else are least equipped to do so.
Distortions, such as the reply column ;)
on
Feature:Distortions
·
· Score: 1
I like the new guy. Indeed, apparently quite a few people like the new guy. I would assume the folks who are making snide comments voted in the poll along with everybody else. The overwhelming majority of the voters, so far, seem to want to keep him. The usual batch of flamers explains why this is a terrible idea. It's pretty funny.
Regardless of what you may think of Bruce Perens, he has hit the nail on the head. Most of us will concede that IBM means well, but nonetheless they have written a license that has unlimited downside risk for the end-user.
They have written a license with a clause that is not acceptable in free software---one which provides a strong disincentive to the end-user to get involved. No one says IBM has to play free software, but if they do, they should get some idea of the rules.
Yeah.. Let's just all support HP's efforts. Let them release some half baked buggy source code, let the linux community fix the problems and watch HP make millions of $$$ for our efforts.
There's something wrong with HP making money? I'd much rather see someone profit from releasing open source (that I can continue to use and update) than from releasing software under NDA's and per-use commercial licenses. Give me something I can use and I'm happy as a clam to pay for it.
The Linux community needs to wake up. HP does not have good intentions with the CTs. The 100% pure movement needs to stand up against this crap; it's the thin edge of the wedge. If you've been following this at all, you know that HP is in the MS camp over Java.
Why should we care? If they're producing source, check the license and make sure it's truly open. If it is, anybody can use it, modify it and redistribute it. If you don't like their compatibility suite, write your own or modify theirs.
The real problem here is that Sun has no interest in freeing up their implementation of Java; as long as there is no serious alternative to their work, who is really going to want another proprietary technology? So, if HP really wants to put out an open source compatibility testing suite, kudos to them!
Why does it have to be? Sun invented Java. Doesn't it have the right to make it as open or closed as it chooses?...
Of course Sun has that right. And the market has every right to ignore Java as another proprietary technology. There is a strong business advantage to open source---independence from a single vendor. If Sun holds onto Java as closely as it's trying to do, it's hardly in its customers' interest to pursue the technology....
Good to hear that someone is filling this void. Sun's arguments against open source compatibility testing seem to amount to, "It's too complicated. Leave it to the experts. That will be $50,000. Sign here."
It's no wonder Java has been progressing so slowly in the market. And high time for things to improve.
I'm not so terribly worried about the suits. Remember that what they are getting out of us, they get from having an open source / free software community that works. So they're offering bounties? I don't see this as encouraging software hoarding, not when the *bounties are for open source*.
Licenses are a problem. We're getting new ones every day, and people need to understand the implications of their licenses, and why they might or might not work. An example is the license IBM provided for postfix (or SecureMailer, or whatever the name of the month for that program is). The license provides that if someone *threatens* to sue IBM over an intellectual property dispute with the program, IBM can drop postfix and make you stop using it too. Small wonder the community is not falling over itself to get involved with postfix.
Other problems I've noticed with postfix are instructive. Last I heard, it still did not scale well---large numbers of undelivered emails, as can happen when your net connection becomes spotty, clogged it up horribly. And when I was using it, I noticed that every few emails, it would refuse to deliver one. These problems can be solved, indeed, they may already be solved, but I see them as inevitable in an open source package whose one-year-long alpha test was closed. No bazaar there, and certainly Wietse Venema, one of the authors of SATAN, should have known better.
The message in all this? If you want to participate in open source, research the matter a bit. Learn how people participate in the community. If you must write your own license, make sure it really works as an open source license. And use an open testing regime, if you really want to get people's attention. Even if you don't think your program is anywhere near ready for the world, use the glass cathedral (anonymous CVS and an open license from the start) to get people's attention and interest. Don't be embarrassed at the quality of your code; when it is ready for public consumption, the public will know. And they'll be glad you let them look over your shoulder.
Open source is not created in a vacuum. You know it, I know it, and the suits will figure it out.
You've been successful in ignoring the petty flames up to this point. Don't stop now. Glad to hear your book launching was successful. The subject matter is not really my cup of tea, but it's good to hear that someone has used the system successfully. Congratulations and many happy returns of the day.
There are plenty of disagreements in this community, as in others. Lots of ego involved. Regardless, the work goes on, and when it doesn't, the reputations of the participants tends to suffer.
An excess of ego really doesn't do much good for your reputation. Participants, please take note.
Note first that none of this has been implemented. It requires legislative reform, which can easily end up coopted by the business-as-usual mentality.
Second, note that we are only talking about 128 bit encryption, and it's not clear whether it will apply to all 128 bit encryption or (more likely) a set of approved programs. Since they are limiting the number of bits, they will require you to use an encryption program on the 'approved' list.
Third, note again that export is disallowed for anything stronger than 56-bit encryption, which is certainly not a strength of encryption which is safe from prying eyes.
Fourth (and this is unclear from my reading since I have no French and must rely on highly imperfect translations), some form of beefed-up law enforcement capability is included. Not sure what that's about, but it's unlikely to be good news.
It's very simple. The current structure of licensing reinforces a clear message. Music is not a part of your life. It is an external thing that you may only use with the permission of its owners.
Is it just me, or does this view of culture seem as if it has inherent problems?:)
I'm not awfully worried about the commercialization of Linux. On the subject of Red Hat Linux: Note that while they are not putting out more than N releases per year, the updates directory goes on and on. One way to work well with a marketing department is to put the procedures in place to ignore them successfully at just the right moments.
The author is quite right in saying that the community could rebuild Linux from scratch, and it might even be an improvement. The essential resource is the community, and you simply cannot own that community. Not when it includes plenty of people who are actively annoyed at the concept of being owned. It won't happen.
In fact, there are quite a few people in quite a few organizations who are beginning to understand that the community is the Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs. Expect them to become quite vocal when that goose is threatened. We call these people 'converts', and they show up in the most unlikely places.
Finally, let's not fall for what I call the 'Gates Fallacy.' This is the fallacy which says that our interests are the same as those we pay money to. This could also be referred to as the 'exit poll syndrome'; it's demonstrated when the major networks do exit polls on election day which affect the course of voting, because people vote for the perceived winner, often in contradiction to their own best interests.
How do you avoid the Gates Fallacy? Simplicity itself. Remember that the software industry could fall apart tomorrow and there would still be software. We don't need Corel or IBM to write professional, usable software. That's been amply demonstrated. Indeed, even Microsoft doesn't always need its own software; look at the number of Linux and other Unix boxes in Redmond.
Everybody is a user of software, but not everybody is a seller of software. Remember.
Sounds neat. The 'machines' versus 'chemicals' issue sounds a bit like a religious issue---but it sounds as if this is very good, exciting work, and credit is due....
Slashdot Mirror
An anonymous flamer wrote: Actually, to judge from the people who bothered to vote, you are in a minority position. Somebody does care. The overwhelming majority voted to keep the new writer.
It's funny how the people who are most willing to speak for everyone else are least equipped to do so.
I like the new guy. Indeed, apparently quite a few people like the new guy. I would assume the folks who are making snide comments voted in the poll along with everybody else. The overwhelming majority of the voters, so far, seem to want to keep him. The usual batch of flamers explains why this is a terrible idea. It's pretty funny.
smithdog wrote: Allegedly found on a state sign welcoming motorists to New Hampshire:
Regardless of what you may think of Bruce Perens, he has hit the nail on the head. Most of us will concede that IBM means well, but nonetheless they have written a license that has unlimited downside risk for the end-user.
They have written a license with a clause that is not acceptable in free software---one which provides a strong disincentive to the end-user to get involved. No one says IBM has to play free software, but if they do, they should get some idea of the rules.
Rob Levin, Head of Operations
Open Projects Net
"Open source, open technology, open information"
rcooper wrote: There's something wrong with HP making money? I'd much rather see someone profit from releasing open source (that I can continue to use and update) than from releasing software under NDA's and per-use commercial licenses. Give me something I can use and I'm happy as a clam to pay for it.
Rob Levin, Head of Operations
Open Projects Net
"Open source, open technology, open information"
Another anonymous user wrote: Why should we care? If they're producing source, check the license and make sure it's truly open. If it is, anybody can use it, modify it and redistribute it. If you don't like their compatibility suite, write your own or modify theirs.
The real problem here is that Sun has no interest in freeing up their implementation of Java; as long as there is no serious alternative to their work, who is really going to want another proprietary technology? So, if HP really wants to put out an open source compatibility testing suite, kudos to them!
Rob Levin, Head of Operations
Open Projects Net
"Open source, open technology, open information"
An anonymous user wrote: Of course Sun has that right. And the market has every right to ignore Java as another proprietary technology. There is a strong business advantage to open source---independence from a single vendor. If Sun holds onto Java as closely as it's trying to do, it's hardly in its customers' interest to pursue the technology....
Rob Levin
Head of Operations, Open Projects Net
"Open source, open technology, open information"
Good to hear that someone is filling this void. Sun's arguments against open source compatibility testing seem to amount to, "It's too complicated. Leave it to the experts. That will be $50,000. Sign here."
It's no wonder Java has been progressing so slowly in the market. And high time for things to improve.
I'm not so terribly worried about the suits. Remember that what they are getting out of us, they get from having an open source / free software community that works. So they're offering bounties? I don't see this as encouraging software hoarding, not when the *bounties are for open source*.
Licenses are a problem. We're getting new ones every day, and people need to understand the implications of their licenses, and why they might or might not work. An example is the license IBM provided for postfix (or SecureMailer, or whatever the name of the month for that program is). The license provides that if someone *threatens* to sue IBM over an intellectual property dispute with the program, IBM can drop postfix and make you stop using it too. Small wonder the community is not falling over itself to get involved with postfix.
Other problems I've noticed with postfix are instructive. Last I heard, it still did not scale well---large numbers of undelivered emails, as can happen when your net connection becomes spotty, clogged it up horribly. And when I was using it, I noticed that every few emails, it would refuse to deliver one. These problems can be solved, indeed, they may already be solved, but I see them as inevitable in an open source package whose one-year-long alpha test was closed. No bazaar there, and certainly Wietse Venema, one of the authors of SATAN, should have known better.
The message in all this? If you want to participate in open source, research the matter a bit. Learn how people participate in the community. If you must write your own license, make sure it really works as an open source license. And use an open testing regime, if you really want to get people's attention. Even if you don't think your program is anywhere near ready for the world, use the glass cathedral (anonymous CVS and an open license from the start) to get people's attention and interest. Don't be embarrassed at the quality of your code; when it is ready for public consumption, the public will know. And they'll be glad you let them look over your shoulder.
Open source is not created in a vacuum. You know it, I know it, and the suits will figure it out.
Jon,
You've been successful in ignoring the petty flames up to this point. Don't stop now. Glad to hear your book launching was successful. The subject matter is not really my cup of tea, but it's good to hear that someone has used the system successfully. Congratulations and many happy returns of the day.
Rob Levin
There are plenty of disagreements in this community, as in others. Lots of ego involved. Regardless, the work goes on, and when it doesn't, the reputations of the participants tends to suffer.
An excess of ego really doesn't do much good for your reputation. Participants, please take note.
Note first that none of this has been implemented. It requires legislative reform, which can easily end up coopted by the business-as-usual mentality.
Second, note that we are only talking about 128 bit encryption, and it's not clear whether it will apply to all 128 bit encryption or (more likely) a set of approved programs. Since they are limiting the number of bits, they will require you to use an encryption program on the 'approved' list.
Third, note again that export is disallowed for anything stronger than 56-bit encryption, which is certainly not a strength of encryption which is safe from prying eyes.
Fourth (and this is unclear from my reading since I have no French and must rely on highly imperfect translations), some form of beefed-up law enforcement capability is included. Not sure what that's about, but it's unlikely to be good news.
Rob Levin
Head of Operations, Open Projects Net
"Open source, open technology, open information"
Is it just me, or does this view of culture seem as if it has inherent problems? :)
I'm not awfully worried about the commercialization of Linux. On the subject of Red Hat Linux: Note that while they are not putting out more than N releases per year, the updates directory goes on and on. One way to work well with a marketing department is to put the procedures in place to ignore them successfully at just the right moments.
The author is quite right in saying that the community could rebuild Linux from scratch, and it might even be an improvement. The essential resource is the community, and you simply cannot own that community. Not when it includes plenty of people who are actively annoyed at the concept of being owned. It won't happen.
In fact, there are quite a few people in quite a few organizations who are beginning to understand that the community is the Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs. Expect them to become quite vocal when that goose is threatened. We call these people 'converts', and they show up in the most unlikely places.
Finally, let's not fall for what I call the 'Gates Fallacy.' This is the fallacy which says that our interests are the same as those we pay money to. This could also be referred to as the 'exit poll syndrome'; it's demonstrated when the major networks do exit polls on election day which affect the course of voting, because people vote for the perceived winner, often in contradiction to their own best interests.
How do you avoid the Gates Fallacy? Simplicity itself. Remember that the software industry could fall apart tomorrow and there would still be software. We don't need Corel or IBM to write professional, usable software. That's been amply demonstrated. Indeed, even Microsoft doesn't always need its own software; look at the number of Linux and other Unix boxes in Redmond.
Everybody is a user of software, but not everybody is a seller of software. Remember.
Sounds neat. The 'machines' versus 'chemicals' issue sounds a bit like a religious issue---but it sounds as if this is very good, exciting work, and credit is due....
matthew wrote: Typo's happen. Such is life.
To Scoop--you've been doing a dern fine job and I hope you won't let a small collection of idiots ruin your day. Thanks for all your work!
Rob L.