Deja.com is not the sole carrier of the content they provide a search tool for. They do not facilitate, foster, and actively encourage discussion of specific topics on Usenet. Slashdot sets the agenda for anything that becomes a forum topic here, and fosters a system of moderation to force it onto the topic they originate. It's a very different thing.
Well, that will do 'the case' a lot of good. If this is all about getting a DVD client for Linux why is a clump of binary DLL's for Windows being offered? I think this blows the whole arguement many people are making here.
Or is the 'device driver is needed for Linux' just a diversionary tactic? It seems like if Xing or one of the other software publishers had produced a Freely available (not the concept of 'free' people try to fabricate, but freely available) player for Linux, without source code, it wouldn't be enough. Has the more cooperative wing of the Linux community tried to get a 'free' player produced by any of the vendors?
We need a major linux fork, before QW becomes as forked as BSD!
Yes, we need to make sure that the Linux system and userland doesn't 'fork' into dozens of distributions, unlike the Net\Free\Open\BSD userland, which has 'forked' into three.
In modern computing, it seems like Game development plays a leading role. Driving the development of new high end (relatively speaking) hardware.
Maybe this whole issue ultimately shows that the whole GPL scheme is utopian and doesn't scale well to the real world in which everybody doesn't consider themselves the 'member of a community,' where there isn't a 'peer review' process that encompasses the whole. Only time will tell, but so far it doesn't look good.
I don't necessarily buy the idea that ID Software released the source for Quake I "to do a Good Thing."
Isn't it possible that what is happening was expected, and that they're trying to kill Quake I in order to sell the later versions? There are smart people at ID Software, and they're in it to make bux, after all.
I think what you're pointing out, if we carry it just a bit further, is that the GPL will only work in a utopian world.
I don't think that's where you wanted to go with your comment, but it's where your reasoning leads.
Obviously the real problem in this case is that the whole scheme for multiplayer Quake is premised on the source for the clients remaining closed, and as obfuscated as possible.
Carmack should have thought about some of this before setting the source loose 'in the wild' and giving Open Source gaming the black eye it has as a result.
That's because ol' Matt wants to make sure he's right. He should just say it will be somebody mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica and leave it at that.
If I was so inclined at the moment, I could telnet into my NT 4.0 box and start up an X app to display on this machine as it runs on the NT machine. Or I could build the X app with GCC in the telnet session, linking it with the Motif libraries, and then display it on this machine. And I can telnet in simultaneously using any number of the User accounts set up on that machine and talk between the sessions (using the same command-line talk program that ye olde Unix boxen use.) My NT box has Interix installed, of course. It definitely wasn't shareware.
I guess, then, that no version of Solaris has ever been released. And definitely no version of Digital Unix for the Alpha. I doubt if anybody reading this has seen it sitting on the shelf at a consumer-oriented 'local computer store' where it can be 'bought off the shelf.'
Heck, not a single version of MS-DOS has been released then either, as they were ALL available exclusively as OEM products bundled with hardware (IBM's PC-DOS was available retail, and a number of places illegally sold unbundled copies of MS-DOS, of course)
Here's a clue for you- not everything for computers, in particular products for server-class and enterprise-level systems, is available at your friendly Computer Shoppe as a retail product.
You bring up an important point that few Free Software people ever really understand.
The high quality of proprietary software products like IE are based on their commercial success. The quality is "do or die" and if it dies, nothing remains.
The high quality of 'free' software, on the other hand, is based on however much time people feel like working on the code. The quality is "do, or 'later, man; pass the bong, willya'."
One of the poster boys of 'implicit standards' software is the GNU C compiler.
It "complies" with the standards where it sees fit (it 'embraces' the standard), and it thumbs it's nose at the standards where the GCC maintainers figure they can do better than the standards (it 'extends' the standard).
Actually, the "everyone belongs to everyone else" philosopy implied in the GNU concept of software is more Huxleyan (i.e. "Brave New World") than Orwellian.
An infinite amount of zero is still zero. ESR has 'credibility' for a small group of randomly bunched-together ideologues. His writing and analysis don't stand up at to real Peer Review. He's an intellectual midget whose 'act' only works when he can dominate the entire stage.
Peer review, incidentally, is an academic tradition that implies a cost-of-entry to get onto the review board (Academic credentials, earned standing in an intellectual community.) Credibility that dilettantes and misfits like ESR and just about any other "hacker" I can think of can't earn by merely sitting down in the computer lab in the basement of the Physics building and plonking away at code.
The "peer review" process in Computer Science involves intellectual giants like Andrew Tannenbaum and Donald Knuth, and many other people who devote many years to real research. Eric just ain't it.
Re:I agree. Use a GPL's java-workalike or not.
on
RMS on Java and GPL
·
· Score: 1
That, however, was an entire different world of computing. In those days no individual could ever own an entire computer, and the software was a far smaller proportion of the cost of purchasing/leasing and operating a computer.
If you're going to refer to that as the "good old days" you'd better get ready for people who suffered through those days to pound you into the dust with their walkers and canes.
On the other hand, Linux, and all Unices, have "security through a single valuable secret." Once a single key secret (the root password) is known to someone penetrating the system, the entire resources of the system is at that individual's disposal. On a Unix system once a hacker has the command prompt, there isn't a thing s/he can't do. There isn't a single additional layer of security. There's no granularity at all. This isn't necessarily a good thing.
Actually the title should be "UK expert" and singular. It should not be 'blown up' into a claim that the entire agency has weighed in on the matter. I noticed that right away in the story summary, that it sounded like a "snowball effect" endorcement. One 'expert' issues an 'endorsement' and suddenly an entire government agency is behind what he claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Deja.com is not the sole carrier of the content they provide a search tool for. They do not facilitate, foster, and actively encourage discussion of specific topics on Usenet. Slashdot sets the agenda for anything that becomes a forum topic here, and fosters a system of moderation to force it onto the topic they originate. It's a very different thing.
Well, that will do 'the case' a lot of good. If this is all about getting a DVD client for Linux why is a clump of binary DLL's for Windows being offered? I think this blows the whole arguement many people are making here.
Or is the 'device driver is needed for Linux' just a diversionary tactic? It seems like if Xing or one of the other software publishers had produced a Freely available (not the concept of 'free' people try to fabricate, but freely available) player for Linux, without source code, it wouldn't be enough. Has the more cooperative wing of the Linux community tried to get a 'free' player produced by any of the vendors?
I doubt if little kids in Chile are having big loads of Political Correctness shoveled over them. That's a North American phenomenon.
You're forgetting many parts of Europe, Australia, etc.
Do you remember what the machine-breakers of England called themselves?
Luddites.
In other words, Front Page is very, very, very Politically Incorrect!
Grrr! Grrr! Bad, bad Front Page! Grrr! Grrr!
(insert doinky sound clip of Martin the Marvin saying "you are making me very, very angry!")
We need a major linux fork, before QW becomes as forked as BSD!
Yes, we need to make sure that the Linux system and userland doesn't 'fork' into dozens of distributions, unlike the Net\Free\Open\BSD userland, which has 'forked' into three.
Yes, this does present an interesting problem.
In modern computing, it seems like Game development plays a leading role. Driving the development of new high end (relatively speaking) hardware.
Maybe this whole issue ultimately shows that the whole GPL scheme is utopian and doesn't scale well to the real world in which everybody doesn't consider themselves the 'member of a community,' where there isn't a 'peer review' process that encompasses the whole. Only time will tell, but so far it doesn't look good.
I don't necessarily buy the idea that ID Software released the source for Quake I "to do a Good Thing."
Isn't it possible that what is happening was expected, and that they're trying to kill Quake I in order to sell the later versions? There are smart people at ID Software, and they're in it to make bux, after all.
I think what you're pointing out, if we carry it just a bit further, is that the GPL will only work in a utopian world.
I don't think that's where you wanted to go with your comment, but it's where your reasoning leads.
Obviously the real problem in this case is that the whole scheme for multiplayer Quake is premised on the source for the clients remaining closed, and as obfuscated as possible.
Carmack should have thought about some of this before setting the source loose 'in the wild' and giving Open Source gaming the black eye it has as a result.
If Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard didn't make the top 20, I think you can simply forget your theory that there was ballot stuffing involved.
That's because ol' Matt wants to make sure he's right. He should just say it will be somebody mentioned in the Encyclopedia Britannica and leave it at that.
Umm, there are more than 'shareware' daemons.
If I was so inclined at the moment, I could telnet into my NT 4.0 box and start up an X app to display on this machine as it runs on the NT machine. Or I could build the X app with GCC in the telnet session, linking it with the Motif libraries, and then display it on this machine. And I can telnet in simultaneously using any number of the User accounts set up on that machine and talk between the sessions (using the same command-line talk program that ye olde Unix boxen use.) My NT box has Interix installed, of course. It definitely wasn't shareware.
I guess, then, that no version of Solaris has ever been released. And definitely no version of Digital Unix for the Alpha. I doubt if anybody reading this has seen it sitting on the shelf at a consumer-oriented 'local computer store' where it can be 'bought off the shelf.'
Heck, not a single version of MS-DOS has been released then either, as they were ALL available exclusively as OEM products bundled with hardware (IBM's PC-DOS was available retail, and a number of places illegally sold unbundled copies of MS-DOS, of course)
Here's a clue for you- not everything for computers, in particular products for server-class and enterprise-level systems, is available at your friendly Computer Shoppe as a retail product.
Did you check in your stocking? Maybe Santa left a bootable Slackware 7 CD-ROM there.
You bring up an important point that few Free Software people ever really understand.
The high quality of proprietary software products like IE are based on their commercial success. The quality is "do or die" and if it dies, nothing remains.
The high quality of 'free' software, on the other hand, is based on however much time people feel like working on the code. The quality is "do, or 'later, man; pass the bong, willya'."
One of the poster boys of 'implicit standards' software is the GNU C compiler.
It "complies" with the standards where it sees fit (it 'embraces' the standard), and it thumbs it's nose at the standards where the GCC maintainers figure they can do better than the standards (it 'extends' the standard).
Embrace and Extend.
You're forgetting that almost the only thing Scott McNealy has going for him in life is that he's a skilled businessman and a hockey player.
He has almost no intellectual weight at all when it comes to technical matters. But RMS would be a big red streak on the floor in a matter of seconds.
If you leave Sun's sick parody of a "standarization process" alone and don't call it a fraud, they could really care less.
That isn't saying much, though, is it?
Actually, the "everyone belongs to everyone else" philosopy implied in the GNU concept of software is more Huxleyan (i.e. "Brave New World") than Orwellian.
Actually, Linus used Minix, and Minix includes it's own C compiler which is completely non-GNU in nature.
An infinite amount of zero is still zero. ESR has 'credibility' for a small group of randomly bunched-together ideologues. His writing and analysis don't stand up at to real Peer Review. He's an intellectual midget whose 'act' only works when he can dominate the entire stage.
Peer review, incidentally, is an academic tradition that implies a cost-of-entry to get onto the review board (Academic credentials, earned standing in an intellectual community.) Credibility that dilettantes and misfits like ESR and just about any other "hacker" I can think of can't earn by merely sitting down in the computer lab in the basement of the Physics building and plonking away at code.
The "peer review" process in Computer Science involves intellectual giants like Andrew Tannenbaum and Donald Knuth, and many other people who devote many years to real research. Eric just ain't it.
That, however, was an entire different world of computing. In those days no individual could ever own an entire computer, and the software was a far smaller proportion of the cost of purchasing/leasing and operating a computer.
If you're going to refer to that as the "good old days" you'd better get ready for people who suffered through those days to pound you into the dust with their walkers and canes.
On the other hand, Linux, and all Unices, have "security through a single valuable secret." Once a single key secret (the root password) is known to someone penetrating the system, the entire resources of the system is at that individual's disposal. On a Unix system once a hacker has the command prompt, there isn't a thing s/he can't do. There isn't a single additional layer of security. There's no granularity at all. This isn't necessarily a good thing.
Actually the title should be "UK expert " and singular. It should not be 'blown up' into a claim that the entire agency has weighed in on the matter. I noticed that right away in the story summary, that it sounded like a "snowball effect" endorcement. One 'expert' issues an 'endorsement' and suddenly an entire government agency is behind what he claims.