Hell, I probably spend less than four hours a day off the Internet (except for sleep, of course). At work, I have a browser open the whole time, check my mail about once every fifteen minutes, etc. etc., and at home, the first thing I do when I get back from work is fire up ppp. Am I addicted? Hell yes! And guess what? I wouldn't have it any other way.
Yeah, here in Japan MITI (the Ministry of Trade and Industry) has just gotten around to issuing a recall on certain models of car navigation equipment which, come August 22nd, is apparently not going to even switch on properly. Great, guys, all of a week to get 95,000 systems fixed. I can't wait for Y2K.
Well done, dork. You've just proved your unworthiness to write Y2K-compliant software. I hope your employer (if you have one) knows what a lousy programmer you are.
For those who still haven't wrapped their tiny little minds around the concept of leap years: Any year divisible by four is a leap year, except when it ends in two zeros - unless it is also divisible by 400. In other words, 2000 is a leap year.
Actually, they just had their birthdays and turned 107, which means they were born in 1892 (presumably making them seven years old on a non-Y2K compliant system).
I like the MS mouthpiece's quote - "Change is always difficult". I'm gonna send that off to Big Bill G when Linux puts the smack down on NT's ass...mmm yeah.
I think the ComputerSurplus MBs are 275MHz (at least, they were when I bought one about a year ago).
When it arrived, I tried to get it working and failed; it then sat in its box for three months, until I worked up the energy to try again. After reseating the SIMMs and cache chips, it came up fine, and I've been using it as an X terminal since then.
It's been rock solid (it fell over one time about three months ago, but I'm pretty certain that was a kernel problem), but it's not particularly fast (about equivalent to my K6-200). It helps if you put in decent SCSI and video cards. I've got an 8MB Matrox Mill2 and an Adaptec 2940UW with a 7200rpm UW-SCSI drive, and it's fairly snappy. Wouldn't mind buying another one if there wasn't the problem with the non-standard power supply (I'm too lazy to knock my own together from an ATX supply).
I agree with ESR, basically, although I do have some reservations. This is, at the moment, not much more than a pissing contest between two giant corporations that would like nothing better than see their competitor have to pull in their horns. The free software community is pretty much just being stomped on by one or the other giant (which one it is depends on the phase of the moon, the position of the constellations, etc.)
It wouldn't surprise me in the least for MS to come out with an "improved" Internet messenger protocol within days of stomping AOL into the ground. That's the way it works - they're just looking for an advantage, any advantage, and they both have less than zero concern for "right" and "wrong".
Sorry to burst your balloon about piracy in Japan - most companies have a "don't know, don't care" attitude towards piracy by employees. They might buy one legitimate copy of Photoshop, NT Workstation, or whatever, and then a dozen people will come round and "borrow" it. It happens. Don't generalize about how the Japanese are honest and law-abiding. They are when it suits them, just the same as any other people on the planet.
Something I've found amazing about Alan is how he always seems to have half a dozen projects in the air at the same time, and still manages to sleep. I mean, everyone knows he's a kernel hacker - but he does some much other stuff as well. In some ways, I respect him more than Linus - for one thing, Alan has never presented himself as anything more than one hacker among many.
ObComment on the article: Yet another interviewer shows their general lack of clues and unwillingness to do even the most basic research before conducting an interview...
Go to the web site and have a look at the screenshots.
Could someone PLEASE tell me why in Ghod's name you would need miniaturize/maximize/close buttons on a fscking INSTALL window? Prettying it up is OK, but let's think while we're doing it, huh guys?
At last, we have support for CID fonts. Now if the Japanese font makers would only get off their collective asses (*cough*Morisawa*cough*) and release fonts under a fucking REASONABLE license, then I'd be happy...
Ahhh, Wonko, back again are we? I'm not sure I should bother making a serious reply to your post, considering that you're not exactly known for your impartiality, but:
1) Many people using Linux/*BSD have tried Windows and found it painful/bloated/expensive/etc., and are thus not particularly interested in a comparison.
2) Many Linux/*BSD users are quite simply not interested in a non-free OS.
3) Any such comparison would eventually deteriorate into "Linux/*BSD has this - Windows doesn't", "Windows has this - Linux/*BSD doesn't" discussion, simply because Un*x systems and Windows systems were originally designed for very different purposes. Windows was designed as a graphic shell to DOS; Linux was designed as a Un*x replacement; the *BSD design comes from the original Unix, aiming for a proper multiuser OS.
And last of all:
4) I find your comment about Windows - "most aspects of it suck" - to be a more than sufficient answer to your question.
Well, not near Osaka as such... It's the whole Kansai area, covering Osaka, Kyoto, etc.
Re:GNU do say what they mean
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
What you do apparently believe is that the people supposedly being deceived are stupid. The reason RMS chose the term 'free' is to make people think about the concept (as he has stated many times); if you use a convenient term such as Open Source, it becomes no more than a label, requiring little thought in its use. I think RMS has been careful enough in his use of the term 'free' to avoid misleading users; he has ensured that either a copy of the GPL or the location of such a copy is included with every piece of software distributed by the FSF. He doesn't assume that users are too simple to understand the concept of freedom - I don't see why you should, Tom.
Hi Tom, nice to see that you haven't quit your GPL-bashing...
To pick up your art analogy and run with it: The artwork is available to everyone, in infinite numbers. Just walk in and pick up whatever piece you want, and take it home. Great, huh? Now, suppose you decide to make a few additions to that artwork. You slap some paint on here and there, fix up a few places where the original artist missed some spots, whatever. You're free to view that artwork in your own home as much as you want. Stick it in a safe, set fire to it, put it up on the wall with a Picasso, whatever. Now, take that artwork out of your home and start telling people, "Look at what I painted. Isn't it great? But only look, don't touch - and you're not allowed to copy it." Don't you think that's a little unfair to the original artist? Or you could take the altered painting, start making your own copies, and hand them out to whoever wants them. Now suppose that they altered it further, and then started selling copies encased in Perspex to other people, saying "This is a painting by me. You're not allowed to make copies. If you do, you can be arrested. You're not allowed to alter the painting, not even to improve it. If you do, you can be arrested. You're only allowed to put that painting on a blue wall. In fact, we've made it so that the painting will self-destruct if it's put on anything other than a blue wall."
Are still following me here, Tom? The GPL provides about the only way to distribute software in its source form without allowing others to reuse the source in a manner that does not allow further replication. If you don't want to accept the ideas behind the GPL, just write your own versions of the software that you need. I mean, you're bitching because you get something for free and then can't reduce others' ability to use that software freely. Interesting way of viewing things.
I'm positive that this is going to do zero good, considering how often you have publicly stated your dislike of the GPL, but if the FSF write software, they get to call the shots - just the way that Larry got to call the shots with Perl.
Oh, and nowhere in the GPL does it force you to release code under the GPL if you write it for your own use, as you well know. Don't try cheap tricks, Tom - they only make you look cheap.
I love the software, I could do without the attitude.
Life's tough, isn't it?;)
The whole point of the FSF is that by using the software, you should also accept the ideas behind it - that software does not have to be hoarded, that there are real, material gains in distributing source freely, and so on. Read the GNU Manifesto for a better explanation.
I really find the attitude of "nice software, pity I have to put up with RMS" offensive. If it weren't for RMS, you wouldn't be reading/. today. Think about it.
Looking at the documentation available for GNOME/Gtk+ and KDE, I've found the KDE documentation to be more complete - which is annoying, because I want to program under GNOME. If this book is any good, I'll be first in line...
Once in a while it'd be nice to see a non-AC spreading FUD... *sigh*
1. A bit tax on the Internet. Why should tax money it's competitors pay be used against them.
Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
2. Corporations tightening up on wasted time by their programming staffs. Why should companies pay their programmers to diddle around in projects that aren't on the agenda as revenue producing projects.
(a) Many companies are now paying their staff to work on Linux; perhaps this escaped your notice. (b) I think you'll find that most Linux programmers would happily continue work on private projects on their own time (presuming that they're using company time at the moment, which I think you'll find is not as widespread as you make out.)
3. An end to the classic "Internet." Linux development is heavily subsidized by the mere existence of Usenet, IRC, and various other Internet technologies, which are based on the old notion that the Internet is "free" and available to the government and it's contractors.
I'd like to know what could bring this about. Also, last I heard, most Linux programmers are neither members of the government nor government contractors. Usenet is sustained by the worldwide cooperation of many organizations, including ISPs; those ISPs make their money by attracting customers. If you wanted Usenet, you certainly wouldn't use an ISP that didn't provide it. It's called supply and demand. Look it up.
4. Trojans, hackers, and other goons. Companies that let employees install Linux on machines all over the place in an anarchic fashion are asking for serious trouble. Unsecured Linux boxes are nests for criminals to lodge their code into for further attacks on other parts of the corporate infrastructure. This in particular is going to get Linux banned in companies all over the place. A Linux machine on the company network is in itself somewhat of a trojan horse. People joke about it all the time in the Linux community. IS managers don't laugh at that kind of humor.
Let's try changing this a little, shall we? "4. Trojans, hackers, and other goons. Companies that let employees install NT on machines all over the place in an anarchic fashion are asking for serious trouble. Unsecured NT boxes are nests for criminals to lodge their code into for further attacks on other parts of the corporate infrastructure. This in particular is going to get NT banned in companies all over the place. A NT machine on the company network is in itself somewhat of a trojan horse. People joke about it all the time in the NT community. IS managers don't laugh at that kind of humor." Do you see my point? It's not the OS, it's the security policy of your IS department that's responsible for these problems. An IS department (BOFHs not withstanding) are responsible for providing the equipment and software needed to conduct business efficiently while ensuring that any security risks are kept at acceptable levels. Linux is becoming more and more viable in the workplace; IT departments need to be able to cope with it. This means educating users, providing automated scripts for securing Linux boxes, etc. All of these things have to be done for NT, Solaris, BSDI, Tru64, or any other OS that you care to name.
5. Intellectual Property Issues. The GPL has never seen it's day in court. When some legal precedents are set, we will see how strong it is. In particular, many people who have contributed to the Linux effort work for companies at a day job. Many of them are subject to agreements with their employer that prohibits them from contributing code to non-company efforts. As the litigation picks up (it will, when Linux becomes more than a 1-2% phenomenon) the Linux kernel will start looking like swiss cheese, with sections that are pulled because the code belongs to the company a hacker worked for when producing it. Lots of fun will then emerge as people have to fill those holes with new cleanroom code.
I'm not going to comment about the GPL; I'm no lawyer. However, I can comment about your second point. Apparently, you consider kernel hackers to be mentally deficient, because this is a problem that has come up before, and if you bothered to check, you would see that the major kernel hackers have themselves covered, while everybody else is at least aware of the problem and mostly careful to avoid any such conflicts. Even if such an event did come to pass, it wouldn't be difficult to replicate their work (the kernel is highly modularized, and it's not really that complicated when you look at the individual bits.) The only areas that could be considered vulnerable are device drivers, and it wouldn't be too hard to reproduce those, given that to be in the kernel in the first place, either the device specifications have to be available or the device has to have been reverse engineered.
These points need to be considered by any commercial entity seriously considering putting a significant part of it's infrastructure on Linux. They'll be thinking about stuff like this. Don't forget that with Microsoft all they have to do is budget it in.
And some gratuitous FUD to finish up with, eh? Just remember to budget in all the other crap you'll need when you're setting up an NT server. Go and crawl back under your rock, troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, I probably spend less than four hours a day off the Internet (except for sleep, of course). At work, I have a browser open the whole time, check my mail about once every fifteen minutes, etc. etc., and at home, the first thing I do when I get back from work is fire up ppp. Am I addicted? Hell yes! And guess what? I wouldn't have it any other way.
Yeah, here in Japan MITI (the Ministry of Trade and Industry) has just gotten around to issuing a recall on certain models of car navigation equipment which, come August 22nd, is apparently not going to even switch on properly. Great, guys, all of a week to get 95,000 systems fixed. I can't wait for Y2K.
Well done, dork. You've just proved your unworthiness to write Y2K-compliant software. I hope your employer (if you have one) knows what a lousy programmer you are.
For those who still haven't wrapped their tiny little minds around the concept of leap years: Any year divisible by four is a leap year, except when it ends in two zeros - unless it is also divisible by 400. In other words, 2000 is a leap year.
Actually, they just had their birthdays and turned 107, which means they were born in 1892 (presumably making them seven years old on a non-Y2K compliant system).
I like the MS mouthpiece's quote - "Change is always difficult". I'm gonna send that off to Big Bill G when Linux puts the smack down on NT's ass...mmm yeah.
I think the ComputerSurplus MBs are 275MHz (at least, they were when I bought one about a year ago).
When it arrived, I tried to get it working and failed; it then sat in its box for three months, until I worked up the energy to try again. After reseating the SIMMs and cache chips, it came up fine, and I've been using it as an X terminal since then.
It's been rock solid (it fell over one time about three months ago, but I'm pretty certain that was a kernel problem), but it's not particularly fast (about equivalent to my K6-200). It helps if you put in decent SCSI and video cards. I've got an 8MB Matrox Mill2 and an Adaptec 2940UW with a 7200rpm UW-SCSI drive, and it's fairly snappy. Wouldn't mind buying another one if there wasn't the problem with the non-standard power supply (I'm too lazy to knock my own together from an ATX supply).
I agree with ESR, basically, although I do have some reservations. This is, at the moment, not much more than a pissing contest between two giant corporations that would like nothing better than see their competitor have to pull in their horns. The free software community is pretty much just being stomped on by one or the other giant (which one it is depends on the phase of the moon, the position of the constellations, etc.)
It wouldn't surprise me in the least for MS to come out with an "improved" Internet messenger protocol within days of stomping AOL into the ground. That's the way it works - they're just looking for an advantage, any advantage, and they both have less than zero concern for "right" and "wrong".
Perhaps that's because "nakid" isn't an actual word? I think you want "naked"
Sorry to burst your balloon about piracy in Japan - most companies have a "don't know, don't care" attitude towards piracy by employees. They might buy one legitimate copy of Photoshop, NT Workstation, or whatever, and then a dozen people will come round and "borrow" it. It happens. Don't generalize about how the Japanese are honest and law-abiding. They are when it suits them, just the same as any other people on the planet.
Something I've found amazing about Alan is how he always seems to have half a dozen projects in the air at the same time, and still manages to sleep. I mean, everyone knows he's a kernel hacker - but he does some much other stuff as well. In some ways, I respect him more than Linus - for one thing, Alan has never presented himself as anything more than one hacker among many.
ObComment on the article: Yet another interviewer shows their general lack of clues and unwillingness to do even the most basic research before conducting an interview...
Why don't you hit my site? It's at 127.0.0.1... go on, have a ball.
Go to the web site and have a look at the screenshots.
Could someone PLEASE tell me why in Ghod's name you would need miniaturize/maximize/close buttons on a fscking INSTALL window? Prettying it up is OK, but let's think while we're doing it, huh guys?
At last, we have support for CID fonts. Now if the Japanese font makers would only get off their collective asses (*cough*Morisawa*cough*) and release fonts under a fucking REASONABLE license, then I'd be happy...
Hmmm... my RH5.2 Alpha is ticking along just fine, but I had been wanting to try out 2.2.x on it, so maybe I should just install SUSE...
Default setting for logged-in users, m'friend. Just think - if you get a login, you too, could be automatically rated at 1!
Especially considering several people (including me) gouged him a couple of times during that discussion...ah well, he deserved it.
Fixed it? I saw it after seeing your comment, so you're obviously still asleep...
I dare say they'll have a mirror up at HNN before long, though, in case you really do wake up too late.
Ahhh, Wonko, back again are we? I'm not sure I should bother making a serious reply to your post, considering that you're not exactly known for your impartiality, but:
1) Many people using Linux/*BSD have tried Windows and found it painful/bloated/expensive/etc., and are thus not particularly interested in a comparison.
2) Many Linux/*BSD users are quite simply not interested in a non-free OS.
3) Any such comparison would eventually deteriorate into "Linux/*BSD has this - Windows doesn't", "Windows has this - Linux/*BSD doesn't" discussion, simply because Un*x systems and Windows systems were originally designed for very different purposes. Windows was designed as a graphic shell to DOS; Linux was designed as a Un*x replacement; the *BSD design comes from the original Unix, aiming for a proper multiuser OS.
And last of all:
4) I find your comment about Windows - "most aspects of it suck" - to be a more than sufficient answer to your question.
Well, not near Osaka as such... It's the whole Kansai area, covering Osaka, Kyoto, etc.
What you do apparently believe is that the people supposedly being deceived are stupid. The reason RMS chose the term 'free' is to make people think about the concept (as he has stated many times); if you use a convenient term such as Open Source, it becomes no more than a label, requiring little thought in its use. I think RMS has been careful enough in his use of the term 'free' to avoid misleading users; he has ensured that either a copy of the GPL or the location of such a copy is included with every piece of software distributed by the FSF. He doesn't assume that users are too simple to understand the concept of freedom - I don't see why you should, Tom.
Hi Tom, nice to see that you haven't quit your GPL-bashing...
To pick up your art analogy and run with it: The artwork is available to everyone, in infinite numbers. Just walk in and pick up whatever piece you want, and take it home. Great, huh? Now, suppose you decide to make a few additions to that artwork. You slap some paint on here and there, fix up a few places where the original artist missed some spots, whatever. You're free to view that artwork in your own home as much as you want. Stick it in a safe, set fire to it, put it up on the wall with a Picasso, whatever.
Now, take that artwork out of your home and start telling people, "Look at what I painted. Isn't it great? But only look, don't touch - and you're not allowed to copy it." Don't you think that's a little unfair to the original artist?
Or you could take the altered painting, start making your own copies, and hand them out to whoever wants them. Now suppose that they altered it further, and then started selling copies encased in Perspex to other people, saying "This is a painting by me. You're not allowed to make copies. If you do, you can be arrested. You're not allowed to alter the painting, not even to improve it. If you do, you can be arrested. You're only allowed to put that painting on a blue wall. In fact, we've made it so that the painting will self-destruct if it's put on anything other than a blue wall."
Are still following me here, Tom? The GPL provides about the only way to distribute software in its source form without allowing others to reuse the source in a manner that does not allow further replication. If you don't want to accept the ideas behind the GPL, just write your own versions of the software that you need. I mean, you're bitching because you get something for free and then can't reduce others' ability to use that software freely. Interesting way of viewing things.
I'm positive that this is going to do zero good, considering how often you have publicly stated your dislike of the GPL, but if the FSF write software, they get to call the shots - just the way that Larry got to call the shots with Perl.
Oh, and nowhere in the GPL does it force you to release code under the GPL if you write it for your own use, as you well know. Don't try cheap tricks, Tom - they only make you look cheap.
"Jolt - for those really nasty tumors!"
"Melanomas just melt away with Nescafe."
"Drop in at Starbucks for a cup of cancer treatment."
Naa... honesty in advertising never works.
I love the software, I could do without the attitude.
Life's tough, isn't it?
The whole point of the FSF is that by using the software, you should also accept the ideas behind it - that software does not have to be hoarded, that there are real, material gains in distributing source freely, and so on. Read the GNU Manifesto for a better explanation.
I really find the attitude of "nice software, pity I have to put up with RMS" offensive. If it weren't for RMS, you wouldn't be reading
Looking at the documentation available for GNOME/Gtk+ and KDE, I've found the KDE documentation to be more complete - which is annoying, because I want to program under GNOME. If this book is any good, I'll be first in line...
Once in a while it'd be nice to see a non-AC spreading FUD... *sigh*
1. A bit tax on the Internet. Why should tax money it's competitors pay be used against them.
Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
2. Corporations tightening up on wasted time by their programming staffs. Why should companies pay their programmers to diddle around in projects that aren't on the agenda as revenue producing projects.
(a) Many companies are now paying their staff to work on Linux; perhaps this escaped your notice.
(b) I think you'll find that most Linux programmers would happily continue work on private projects on their own time (presuming that they're using company time at the moment, which I think you'll find is not as widespread as you make out.)
3. An end to the classic "Internet." Linux development is heavily subsidized by the mere existence of Usenet, IRC, and various other Internet technologies, which are based on the old notion that the Internet is "free" and available to the government and it's contractors.
I'd like to know what could bring this about. Also, last I heard, most Linux programmers are neither members of the government nor government contractors. Usenet is sustained by the worldwide cooperation of many organizations, including ISPs; those ISPs make their money by attracting customers. If you wanted Usenet, you certainly wouldn't use an ISP that didn't provide it. It's called supply and demand. Look it up.
4. Trojans, hackers, and other goons. Companies that let employees install Linux on machines all over the place in an anarchic fashion are asking for serious trouble. Unsecured Linux boxes are nests for criminals to lodge their code into for further attacks on other parts of the corporate infrastructure. This in particular is going to get Linux banned in companies all over the place. A Linux machine on the company network is in itself somewhat of a trojan horse. People joke about it all the time in the Linux community. IS managers don't laugh at that kind of humor.
Let's try changing this a little, shall we?
"4. Trojans, hackers, and other goons. Companies that let employees install NT on machines all over the place in an anarchic fashion are asking for serious trouble. Unsecured NT boxes are nests for criminals to lodge their code into for further attacks on other parts of the corporate infrastructure. This in particular is going to get NT banned in companies all over the place. A NT machine on the company network is in itself somewhat of a trojan horse. People joke about it all the time in the NT community. IS managers don't laugh at that kind of humor."
Do you see my point? It's not the OS, it's the security policy of your IS department that's responsible for these problems. An IS department (BOFHs not withstanding) are responsible for providing the equipment and software needed to conduct business efficiently while ensuring that any security risks are kept at acceptable levels. Linux is becoming more and more viable in the workplace; IT departments need to be able to cope with it. This means educating users, providing automated scripts for securing Linux boxes, etc. All of these things have to be done for NT, Solaris, BSDI, Tru64, or any other OS that you care to name.
5. Intellectual Property Issues. The GPL has never seen it's day in court. When some legal precedents are set, we will see how strong it is. In particular, many people who have contributed to the Linux effort work for companies at a day job. Many of them are subject to agreements with their employer that prohibits them from contributing code to non-company efforts. As the litigation picks up (it will, when Linux becomes more than a 1-2% phenomenon) the Linux kernel will start looking like swiss cheese, with sections that are pulled because the code belongs to the company a hacker worked for when producing it. Lots of fun will then emerge as people have to fill those holes with new cleanroom code.
I'm not going to comment about the GPL; I'm no lawyer. However, I can comment about your second point. Apparently, you consider kernel hackers to be mentally deficient, because this is a problem that has come up before, and if you bothered to check, you would see that the major kernel hackers have themselves covered, while everybody else is at least aware of the problem and mostly careful to avoid any such conflicts. Even if such an event did come to pass, it wouldn't be difficult to replicate their work (the kernel is highly modularized, and it's not really that complicated when you look at the individual bits.) The only areas that could be considered vulnerable are device drivers, and it wouldn't be too hard to reproduce those, given that to be in the kernel in the first place, either the device specifications have to be available or the device has to have been reverse engineered.
These points need to be considered by any commercial entity seriously considering putting a significant part of it's infrastructure on Linux. They'll be thinking about stuff like this. Don't forget that with Microsoft all they have to do is budget it in.
And some gratuitous FUD to finish up with, eh? Just remember to budget in all the other crap you'll need when you're setting up an NT server. Go and crawl back under your rock, troll.