I don't think this writing is hard to understand because it's academic in style (it's not) -- it's hard to understand because there's nothing there to understand.
Theime is just spinning his/her wheels (like Katz, but more glib), merely postponing the reader's realization of the obvious: (s)he has nothing to say.
In that respect, this article does resemble some of the worst academic writing.
Apple is perfectly within its rights to say "This is our license, like it or don't use it" just like everyone else
You are undeniably correct. But the free software community has every right to say, 'These are our terms of membership -- you cannot abuse us'.
Apple seems to be making an honest attempt at an OpenSource OS
Releasing the already-free sub-components of an OS (does Darwin even boot?) under a non-free license does not count as 'an honest attempt' in my book. It counts as graft and manipulation -- nothing new to Apple, Inc.
hard-line whiners
I hope you're not referring to people who value freedom and community above all else.
Great. Now we're creating a battle over the semantics of "Open Source".
Yes, we certainly are. Precisely what 'free software' or 'open source' means is what our community is founded upon.
I refuse to condemn Apple for taking a step in the right direction,
If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that's a compliment to your trusting nature. But I'm more cynical, and I think Jobs is just trying to get developers for his product (free bug fixes! woo hoo!) and also trying to trump MS without actually giving anything away. (Mach and 4.4 BSD were already free!) Apple has traditionally been one of the most closed and secretive companies ever. Recall Alan Cox' essay about how hard Apple made it for him to port Linux to the 68k Macs. Apple is not Freedom-friendly.
It should be made clear, however, that licneses like APSL are not really in the spirit of GNU/Linux, GNU Emacs, and the other software we know and love.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed again. If RMS' numbers lie, Tom's are no more honest. I mean, seriously -- GCC. Compiler technology is some of the most difficult stuff in computer science, and the free software movement is built (literally) wiht GCC. Good luck, Tom, and shut up until you have TCC for us, and Temacs as well.
Please do tell us -- what is your gripe with RMS? So he wants credit for his vision and his excellent work. I'm more than happy to give it to him.
1. Yes, I know the BSD license allows the stealth of the code. That's why I prefer the GPL. And no, I don't think the Apple developers were pulling the pud...they were writing pud code. What I mean by that is that while the Mac OS UI is unparalleled (I personally LOVE it), the underlying OS is outdated and crappy. Check out 8.5 -- all we get is the schlocky Sherlock and...themes?!?! How about protected memory? Or usable virtual memory? They leave the important stuff behind, or just 'borrow' BSD.
2. They want to keep their UI closed. Okay fine, I'll just not use it or develop for it then. And the Wired article didn't make it so clear that that was Apple's reasonable plan. It looked like Apple was trying to pass itself off as a free software-friendly company, which they are decidedly not.
3. The Mac OS UI will never become the Unix UI, even though it is the best. Too many Unix people refuse closed-source and freedom-subtracted software (look at KDE, another fine product, but based on closed-source APIs). The fact that GNOME still exists shows that KDE/Qt, and thus Mac UI/YellowBox, will not win everyone over.
Non-free software just does not cut it. Apple is not committed to freedom. They have repeatedly demonstrated this throughout their history.
What Apple is 'opening up' is the microkernel and the BSD underpinnings. These things were already free!
Apple is giving us nothing that we didn't already have -- they're just trying to pander to the free software movement and phenomenon. "Oooh, gee thanks Mr. Jobs for that BSD source -- I never would have seen it otherwise..." >:| The Univesity of Utah gives away their microkernel source, and I think Mach is free as well (not sure on that).
This is bullshit. Fuck Apple. I'll never buy their products -- they're no better than Microsoft to me. (And at least MS doesn't try to pass itself off as a free software company.)
I feel really bad for you Apple partisans. Wake up.
I am a long-time anti-Katz-er. I think this guy is better, both in terms of writing mechanics (if there were any dorky spelling errors, I missed them) and in terms of prose quality (shorter, creative without being tedious). I also think the bit about networks constraining/defining our possible modes of action was an insight beyond what Katz could come up with. But it wasn't exactly Claude Shannon or anything.:^P
Now that we have customizable front pages, I say keep him, and Katz too. I personally do not filter Katz, because I just have to read his articles every time (makes me feel better about myself), and I will not filter this column, either.
Linus writes and maintains code and gives away the results for public consumption. RMS writes and maintains code and gives it away for whoever is willing to subscribe to his set of beliefs.
Get it right, troll. Both LT and RMS distribute their code under the same license, and that license says nothing about an ideology requirement on the part of its users. (It does have something to say about freedom and fairness, however.) Furthermore, RMS has written far more of such code than LT has. (Not that LOC is all-important.)
I think the real issue at stake here is that the US (media and majority of/.ers) are unwilling to credit a "foreigner" (Linus) with a major contribution to the future.
Since when do you have your finger on the pulse of 'a majority of Slashdotters'? I assure you that most posts I see on Slashdot are extremely pro-Linus (as well they should be), and I think the majority (not all) of posts come from US readers. In fact I don't think I've ever seen an anti-Linus post on Slashdot (from anyone, anywhere).
The bottom line is that people are afraid of RMS, because he levels serious and true accusations against our materialistic and anti-community way of life. Rather than react in fear, I think people should question what they've recieved as culture and as wisdom. (I am not saying that we should all become Stallmanites. I am saying we should all reexamine ourselves and our society.)
Yes, S.u.S.E. has upgraded to glibc 2.0 in their recent 6.0 release (which they did not see fit to send me, even though I ordered it). I installed 6.0 from a friend's CDs, and let me tell you it is frightfully unstable. I don't know if this is the fault of glibc 2, or what, but both tar and gzip are semi-broken ("Oh, you wanted to usetar?!?"), it includes an old and buggy version of Window Maker (my preferred wm), and Netscape can barely stay up.
People buy Windows because it runs apps, not because it's Windows -- this is why Linux isn't huge. It has no (full-grown) mouse-clicky apps that people want and need. MS' monopoly is in Office, not in Windows.
For this reason I consider it possible that the story is true, but unlikely because Linux lacks a lot of what Windows users have come to expect. (Another way to put it: Windows lacks a lot of what Linux users have come to expect.)
And yes, most of Office is in VB, if what I hear is true. That would explain the lack of performance!
Those things said, I'll never use it if they do port it -- it's proprietary and will very much have the effect of deterring new development in free-as-in-speech office suites.
Help out with AbiWord/KWord/LyX/Thot!!! We don't need or want proprietary software. People who use proprietary applications on free OSs are completely missing the point.
My personal experience with Red Hat
on
Red Hat Backlash?
·
· Score: 1
Michael Johnson, a Red Hat developer, came and gave a speech to my LUG as soon as Red Hat heard about us -- one of their marketing people, Lisa, apparently searches the LUG databases and contacts their founders. Well, she wrote me, said she and Michael were coming to Minneapolis, and would we like to hear him give a talk? And what's your address so we can send you 100 free Power Tools CD sets?
In his talk, Michael stressed numerous times that everything coded at Red Hat is released under the GPL, and that they are committed to free software. Red Hat Linux is a quality product that is free-as-in-speech. That's all that matters, and I wish them well.
And the Power Tools CDs? Into the hands of more than a few people who had never heard of Linux before. I defy any of you to say that introducing people to free software is a bad thing.
I basically agree with you, except that there is a non-business-related reason to spread free software beyond the hacker realm and into the real world: to afford our fellow citizens freedom, real freedom for its very own sake.
Information is power. If information and the tools to process it are equally accessible to all (effectively, free), well -- that could shake things up.
Jon, unsurprisingly, has had editors working over his text for his entire career. It should not come as a shock to anyone that he is out of the habit of performing sufficient cycles of editing to generate polished, publication ready prose.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever happened to John Locke's 'informed public' that is able to 'do the right thing?'
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA
I don't think this writing is hard to understand because it's academic in style (it's not) -- it's hard to understand because there's nothing there to understand.
Theime is just spinning his/her wheels (like Katz, but more glib), merely postponing the reader's realization of the obvious: (s)he has nothing to say.
In that respect, this article does resemble some of the worst academic writing.
Apple is perfectly within its rights to say "This is our license, like it or don't use it" just like everyone else
You are undeniably correct. But the free software community has every right to say, 'These are our terms of membership -- you cannot abuse us'.
Apple seems to be making an honest attempt at an OpenSource OS
Releasing the already-free sub-components of an OS (does Darwin even boot?) under a non-free license does not count as 'an honest attempt' in my book. It counts as graft and manipulation -- nothing new to Apple, Inc.
hard-line whiners
I hope you're not referring to people who value freedom and community above all else.
Great. Now we're creating a battle over the semantics of "Open Source".
Yes, we certainly are. Precisely what 'free software' or 'open source' means is what our community is founded upon.
I refuse to condemn Apple for taking a step in the right direction,
If you want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that's a compliment to your trusting nature. But I'm more cynical, and I think Jobs is just trying to get developers for his product (free bug fixes! woo hoo!) and also trying to trump MS without actually giving anything away. (Mach and 4.4 BSD were already free!) Apple has traditionally been one of the most closed and secretive companies ever. Recall Alan Cox' essay about how hard Apple made it for him to port Linux to the 68k Macs. Apple is not Freedom-friendly.
It should be made clear, however, that licneses like APSL are not really in the spirit of GNU/Linux, GNU Emacs, and the other software we know and love.
Agreed.
He has probably never seen a machine running Linux, yet he's talking as he was an expert...
I assure you, Simson Garfinkel has more than just seen Linux computers. And he definitely qualifies as an expert.
Of course, he also had a hand in the completely fucking ridiculous and stupid Unix Haters' Handbook -- proving that even experts can be crack smokers.
Agreed, agreed, and agreed again. If RMS' numbers lie, Tom's are no more honest. I mean, seriously -- GCC. Compiler technology is some of the most difficult stuff in computer science, and the free software movement is built (literally) wiht GCC. Good luck, Tom, and shut up until you have TCC for us, and Temacs as well.
Please do tell us -- what is your gripe with RMS? So he wants credit for his vision and his excellent work. I'm more than happy to give it to him.
1. Yes, I know the BSD license allows the stealth of the code. That's why I prefer the GPL. And no, I don't think the Apple developers were pulling the pud...they were writing pud code. What I mean by that is that while the Mac OS UI is unparalleled (I personally LOVE it), the underlying OS is outdated and crappy. Check out 8.5 -- all we get is the schlocky Sherlock and ...themes?!?! How about protected memory? Or usable virtual memory? They leave the important stuff behind, or just 'borrow' BSD.
2. They want to keep their UI closed. Okay fine, I'll just not use it or develop for it then. And the Wired article didn't make it so clear that that was Apple's reasonable plan. It looked like Apple was trying to pass itself off as a free software-friendly company, which they are decidedly not.
3. The Mac OS UI will never become the Unix UI, even though it is the best. Too many Unix people refuse closed-source and freedom-subtracted software (look at KDE, another fine product, but based on closed-source APIs). The fact that GNOME still exists shows that KDE/Qt, and thus Mac UI/YellowBox, will not win everyone over.
Non-free software just does not cut it. Apple is not committed to freedom. They have repeatedly demonstrated this throughout their history.
What Apple is 'opening up' is the microkernel and the BSD underpinnings. These things were already free!
Apple is giving us nothing that we didn't already have -- they're just trying to pander to the free software movement and phenomenon. "Oooh, gee thanks Mr. Jobs for that BSD source -- I never would have seen it otherwise..." >:| The Univesity of Utah gives away their microkernel source, and I think Mach is free as well (not sure on that).
This is bullshit. Fuck Apple. I'll never buy their products -- they're no better than Microsoft to me. (And at least MS doesn't try to pass itself off as a free software company.)
I feel really bad for you Apple partisans. Wake up.
I am a long-time anti-Katz-er. I think this guy is better, both in terms of writing mechanics (if there were any dorky spelling errors, I missed them) and in terms of prose quality (shorter, creative without being tedious). I also think the bit about networks constraining/defining our possible modes of action was an insight beyond what Katz could come up with. But it wasn't exactly Claude Shannon or anything. :^P
Now that we have customizable front pages, I say keep him, and Katz too. I personally do not filter Katz, because I just have to read his articles every time (makes me feel better about myself), and I will not filter this column, either.
Linus writes and maintains code and gives away the results for public consumption. RMS writes and maintains code and gives it away for whoever is willing to subscribe to his set of beliefs.
Get it right, troll. Both LT and RMS distribute their code under the same license, and that license says nothing about an ideology requirement on the part of its users. (It does have something to say about freedom and fairness, however.) Furthermore, RMS has written far more of such code than LT has. (Not that LOC is all-important.)
I think the real issue at stake here is that the US (media and majority of /.ers) are unwilling to credit a "foreigner" (Linus) with a major contribution to the future.
Since when do you have your finger on the pulse of 'a majority of Slashdotters'? I assure you that most posts I see on Slashdot are extremely pro-Linus (as well they should be), and I think the majority (not all) of posts come from US readers. In fact I don't think I've ever seen an anti-Linus post on Slashdot (from anyone, anywhere).
The bottom line is that people are afraid of RMS, because he levels serious and true accusations against our materialistic and anti-community way of life. Rather than react in fear, I think people should question what they've recieved as culture and as wisdom. (I am not saying that we should all become Stallmanites. I am saying we should all reexamine ourselves and our society.)
Yes, S.u.S.E. has upgraded to glibc 2.0 in their recent 6.0 release (which they did not see fit to send me, even though I ordered it). I installed 6.0 from a friend's CDs, and let me tell you it is frightfully unstable. I don't know if this is the fault of glibc 2, or what, but both tar and gzip are semi-broken ("Oh, you wanted to use tar?!?"), it includes an old and buggy version of Window Maker (my preferred wm), and Netscape can barely stay up.
Maybe MS will learn something about coding during this project.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
People buy Windows because it runs apps, not because it's Windows -- this is why Linux isn't huge. It has no (full-grown) mouse-clicky apps that people want and need. MS' monopoly is in Office, not in Windows.
For this reason I consider it possible that the story is true, but unlikely because Linux lacks a lot of what Windows users have come to expect. (Another way to put it: Windows lacks a lot of what Linux users have come to expect.)
And yes, most of Office is in VB, if what I hear is true. That would explain the lack of performance!
Those things said, I'll never use it if they do port it -- it's proprietary and will very much have the effect of deterring new development in free-as-in-speech office suites.
Help out with AbiWord/KWord/LyX/Thot!!! We don't need or want proprietary software. People who use proprietary applications on free OSs are completely missing the point.
Michael Johnson, a Red Hat developer, came and gave a speech to my LUG as soon as Red Hat heard about us -- one of their marketing people, Lisa, apparently searches the LUG databases and contacts their founders. Well, she wrote me, said she and Michael were coming to Minneapolis, and would we like to hear him give a talk? And what's your address so we can send you 100 free Power Tools CD sets?
In his talk, Michael stressed numerous times that everything coded at Red Hat is released under the GPL, and that they are committed to free software. Red Hat Linux is a quality product that is free-as-in-speech. That's all that matters, and I wish them well.
And the Power Tools CDs? Into the hands of more than a few people who had never heard of Linux before. I defy any of you to say that introducing people to free software is a bad thing.
I basically agree with you, except that there is a non-business-related reason to spread free software beyond the hacker realm and into the real world: to afford our fellow citizens freedom, real freedom for its very own sake.
Information is power. If information and the tools to process it are equally accessible to all (effectively, free), well -- that could shake things up.
Jon, unsurprisingly, has had editors working over his text for his entire career. It should not come as a shock to anyone that he is out of the habit of performing sufficient cycles of editing to generate polished, publication ready prose.
It is still readable, so give the guy a break.
No.