'True' Libertarianism is kinda like that old saying from the film 'Love Story:"
"Love is never having to say you're sorry."
Libertarianism is never having to enter reality and recognize reality for what it is, a complex mess. Libertarians can always afford to remain idealists, because it ain't never gonna happen the way the theories spin it. Libertarians can safely remain in their dreamy state forever.
Obviously, there are eternal truths and deeply positive aspects to the ideas and ideals of Libertarianism. However, the actual 'on the ground' implementation of Libertarianism is as a game/playground for people to withdraw into instead of participating in real politics. Which is a vulgar practical thing.
the way half the stories have little or nothing to do with IT,
I would just as soon NONE of the stories had anything to do with 'IT' as you term it. Because 'IT' is where nerds go to die.
I mean, seriously. IT is the duds, the people who couldn't think of a creative purpose for all the cool tech, so they became the modern equivalent of file clerks.
Real nerds at least have the understanding that that boring shit is for the non-nerds to do. It's fine to take it 'for a living' but you've got to do a HELL of a lot more than 'work with computers' to be a nerd.
Choosing Libertarianism is about keepin' it virtual. It's idealistic enough that it can never come into to being in the real world. Geeks love that kinda thing. It can remain pure and theoretical and yet people can rant and troll about it forever and ever.
I guess I'm talking about the CP/M 2.2 manual as published by Digital Research, not the third-party manuals bundled by OEMs. The DR manual is an 8-1/2 x 11 bound manual and comes from back when people who wanted to run CP/M bought the Digital Research binaries and had to patch in their own BIOS for their particular machine. The 'bundled with commercial hardware' releases came later. I, in fact, have a CP/M-86 manual set for the version that just runs on any common IBM-PC (a multi-thousand dollar machine in it's day, of course, especially if you sprung for two floppy drives and more than the default 16K of ram on the first generation motherboard.) So I am in fact wrong. Cheap common CP/M manuals published by the OEM hardware distributors are fairly common.
Not just the hardware was expensive back in '79 or so. The 8" floppy diskettes were very expensive, on the order of $10 each.
This thing must make cell phones and any other RF device inoperable within 500 feet. No shielding whatsoever. It would interfere with any other equipment running in the same lab with it.
My Windows NT 4.0 CD is one that was originally bundled with a Compaq box. And the real irony is that not only will it install on any Compaq or other x86 hardware, it also includes the subdirectories with the binaries and installer for the Alpha and Power PC versions, which Compaq didn't even sell at the time. IOW, it's a full complete NT 4.0 Install CD.
Pretty much everyone with an education has had to read the Communist Manifesto and Capital at some point
'Capital' is a thick three volume tome of 19th century political economy. I very much doubt that 'everybody with an education' has had to read it. Most wouldn't be capable, and even more would be bored to tears.
That said, I agree with you that citing Marx in this day and age is about as relevant as, say, citing Henry George.
Well, maybe. But the oldest commmercial CD-ROM with Linux on it that I own is from 1992, and there are two BSD freenixes on the CD, too. One was significantly more mature than the Linux was at the time.
I don't ascribe the 'salvation' of open source software to the GPL. There are plenty of collaborative projects out there that don't feel the need to be GNU.
The one feature that you list this is an actual point if niftiness is the single-DVD install. It's quite convenient.
I suppose it would be if you were installing on all those different hardware variants. Who does that aside from tech support types?
And is it ever really relevant to make 'how an OS installs' a big selling point? Ideally it's something you only do a single time. I suppose it matters a lot if you're prone to screwing up a system or pick a notoriously touchy OS.
The foolish thing the FSF is doing is hopping over the rope and joining in the mud wrestling match. It's almost like they figure they have reached a 'critical mass' now that a sizable number of people are actually using software released under the GPL and they can leap in and play on the 'dirty' level too.
Stallmans original manifesto and a lot of the early GNU message seems naive on a certain level, but it also sounded sincere at the time.
It's safe to say that you work with a fairly selective range of 'large corporate customers.' Perhaps it could be said that said customers are those who don't 'drink the Microsoft Koolaide,' but that's just a point of view, and further, its a significant distinction from many other large corporate entities who've bought deeply into 'The Microsoft Way.'
The thing that saddens me about this whole issue is that it seems like a lot of game playing and entrapment trickery. The FSF already has a rep in this regard that it needs to slough off by not shaking certain rattles in public.
Yes the "old Apple" was as bad as Microsoft (proprietary file formats, protocols and even connectors) but they've changed.
First off, unless Apple publishes the source code, they have proprietary file formats, procols, etc. They have a whole proprietary fricking Windowing System. You can jump through their hoops and use the 'hooks' they provide to develop code for said Windowing System, but just as with Microsoft, the Apple products will always work 'best' because they're coded to the full API, not just the 'top layer' one provided to third parties.
Third parties and end users don't have to care about wether the source code is available for it to be in their interest for it to be available to developers who might write apps for them if they didn't have to kiss the ring.
Tons of stuff has been assembled in plants all over the world, for a long time.
Just because something is assembled in China doesn't mean the critical IP is under the control of Chinese interests. With chips, for instance, there have been integrated circuits for decades that say 'Made in Sri Lanka' or 'Made in Hati' on them. Haiti, for cripes sake. All that means is that the final assembly and packaging was done in Haiti. Silicon wafers were produced somewhere in the US and shipped to Haiti for the labor intensive process of slicing them into dice, wire bonding, and packaging.
You'd have a point if anybody, anywhere, could point to an instance where the US Government coveted anything 'High Technology' from China and stole it.
Geek: How about this old IDE drive and this 8-bit ISA-bus IDE controller?
I don't think you realize how rare 8-bit ISA-bus IDE controllers are and were. There were really almost none of them ever produced (the 8-bit machines used good old ST-506 interfaces for the most part) and even fewer of them in existence today. I have one or two, but know nobody else who does.
Apple isn't releasing the source code for any of the interesting bits of their current OS.
There isn't really anything they're 'giving us' that isn't better packaged and managed from one of the BSD organizations (I prefer the NetBSD Project, personally)
Slashdot Mirror
'True' Libertarianism is kinda like that old saying from the film 'Love Story:"
"Love is never having to say you're sorry."
Libertarianism is never having to enter reality and recognize reality for what it is, a complex mess. Libertarians can always afford to remain idealists, because it ain't never gonna happen the way the theories spin it. Libertarians can safely remain in their dreamy state forever.
Obviously, there are eternal truths and deeply positive aspects to the ideas and ideals of Libertarianism. However, the actual 'on the ground' implementation of Libertarianism is as a game/playground for people to withdraw into instead of participating in real politics. Which is a vulgar practical thing.
the way half the stories have little or nothing to do with IT,
I would just as soon NONE of the stories had anything to do with 'IT' as you term it. Because 'IT' is where nerds go to die.
I mean, seriously. IT is the duds, the people who couldn't think of a creative purpose for all the cool tech, so they became the modern equivalent of file clerks.
Real nerds at least have the understanding that that boring shit is for the non-nerds to do. It's fine to take it 'for a living' but you've got to do a HELL of a lot more than 'work with computers' to be a nerd.
Choosing Libertarianism is about keepin' it virtual. It's idealistic enough that it can never come into to being in the real world. Geeks love that kinda thing. It can remain pure and theoretical and yet people can rant and troll about it forever and ever.
That kinda sums it up.
I guess I'm talking about the CP/M 2.2 manual as published by Digital Research, not the third-party manuals bundled by OEMs. The DR manual is an 8-1/2 x 11 bound manual and comes from back when people who wanted to run CP/M bought the Digital Research binaries and had to patch in their own BIOS for their particular machine. The 'bundled with commercial hardware' releases came later. I, in fact, have a CP/M-86 manual set for the version that just runs on any common IBM-PC (a multi-thousand dollar machine in it's day, of course, especially if you sprung for two floppy drives and more than the default 16K of ram on the first generation motherboard.) So I am in fact wrong. Cheap common CP/M manuals published by the OEM hardware distributors are fairly common.
Not just the hardware was expensive back in '79 or so. The 8" floppy diskettes were very expensive, on the order of $10 each.
IF the DHS folks don't get you, the FCC will.
This thing must make cell phones and any other RF device inoperable within 500 feet. No shielding whatsoever. It would interfere with any other equipment running in the same lab with it.
My Windows NT 4.0 CD is one that was originally bundled with a Compaq box. And the real irony is that not only will it install on any Compaq or other x86 hardware, it also includes the subdirectories with the binaries and installer for the Alpha and Power PC versions, which Compaq didn't even sell at the time. IOW, it's a full complete NT 4.0 Install CD.
Almost nobody, anywhere, ever had a CP/M Manual. I don't doubt it is slightly possible you had one, but it's not likely.
I still have one, (CP/M 2.2) but I have it because I found it at a swapmeet and considered it an exceedingly lucky find.
Reminders to 'back up your disk' used to be stuck in the instructions for many pieces of software. Maybe you're confusing which software you remember.
Pretty much everyone with an education has had to read the Communist Manifesto and Capital at some point
'Capital' is a thick three volume tome of 19th century political economy. I very much doubt that 'everybody with an education' has had to read it. Most wouldn't be capable, and even more would be bored to tears.
That said, I agree with you that citing Marx in this day and age is about as relevant as, say, citing Henry George.
Hmmm. what to do about those other 5.4 billion people.
Build a really big methane digester?
Well, maybe. But the oldest commmercial CD-ROM with Linux on it that I own is from 1992, and there are two BSD freenixes on the CD, too. One was significantly more mature than the Linux was at the time.
I don't ascribe the 'salvation' of open source software to the GPL. There are plenty of collaborative projects out there that don't feel the need to be GNU.
People who win cars pay a sweepstakes tax, which is quite stiff.
This person received a car as renumeration, and as he is 17 he is probably in a pretty low tax bracket.
The one feature that you list this is an actual point if niftiness is the single-DVD install. It's quite convenient.
I suppose it would be if you were installing on all those different hardware variants. Who does that aside from tech support types?
And is it ever really relevant to make 'how an OS installs' a big selling point? Ideally it's something you only do a single time. I suppose it matters a lot if you're prone to screwing up a system or pick a notoriously touchy OS.
If you're on any laptop at all, you're not on the right equipment for 'serious' graphical work.
I mean, comeon now.
I was going to comment about a Mac enthusiast accusing somebody else of cultishness, but you did a pretty good job of covering the point for me.
The foolish thing the FSF is doing is hopping over the rope and joining in the mud wrestling match. It's almost like they figure they have reached a 'critical mass' now that a sizable number of people are actually using software released under the GPL and they can leap in and play on the 'dirty' level too.
Stallmans original manifesto and a lot of the early GNU message seems naive on a certain level, but it also sounded sincere at the time.
The FSF itself strongly urges contributors to assign copyright to the FSF, in addition to releasing the code under the GPL.
It's safe to say that you work with a fairly selective range of 'large corporate customers.' Perhaps it could be said that said customers are those who don't 'drink the Microsoft Koolaide,' but that's just a point of view, and further, its a significant distinction from many other large corporate entities who've bought deeply into 'The Microsoft Way.'
The thing that saddens me about this whole issue is that it seems like a lot of game playing and entrapment trickery. The FSF already has a rep in this regard that it needs to slough off by not shaking certain rattles in public.
"You're soaking your hand in it."
I was responding to:
Yes the "old Apple" was as bad as Microsoft (proprietary file formats, protocols and even connectors) but they've changed.
First off, unless Apple publishes the source code, they have proprietary file formats, procols, etc. They have a whole proprietary fricking Windowing System. You can jump through their hoops and use the 'hooks' they provide to develop code for said Windowing System, but just as with Microsoft, the Apple products will always work 'best' because they're coded to the full API, not just the 'top layer' one provided to third parties.
Third parties and end users don't have to care about wether the source code is available for it to be in their interest for it to be available to developers who might write apps for them if they didn't have to kiss the ring.
Tons of stuff has been assembled in plants all over the world, for a long time.
Just because something is assembled in China doesn't mean the critical IP is under the control of Chinese interests. With chips, for instance, there have been integrated circuits for decades that say 'Made in Sri Lanka' or 'Made in Hati' on them. Haiti, for cripes sake. All that means is that the final assembly and packaging was done in Haiti. Silicon wafers were produced somewhere in the US and shipped to Haiti for the labor intensive process of slicing them into dice, wire bonding, and packaging.
You'd have a point if anybody, anywhere, could point to an instance where the US Government coveted anything 'High Technology' from China and stole it.
Geek: How about this old IDE drive and this 8-bit ISA-bus IDE controller?
I don't think you realize how rare 8-bit ISA-bus IDE controllers are and were. There were really almost none of them ever produced (the 8-bit machines used good old ST-506 interfaces for the most part) and even fewer of them in existence today. I have one or two, but know nobody else who does.
And to make things worse, ITAR stops many US companies from selling some high-tech stuff that China would love to have
You're free to think of that as 'making things worse' if you like.
Me, I'd rather the Chinese had all kinds of paper money and printed certificates and paperwork they can't utilize in weapons systems.
How did your comment contribute to the discussion?
Apple isn't releasing the source code for any of the interesting bits of their current OS.
There isn't really anything they're 'giving us' that isn't better packaged and managed from one of the BSD organizations (I prefer the NetBSD Project, personally)