"Linus says (in essence) "reverse engineering the over-the-wire protocol employed by a closed-source application is morally wrong"."
Just curious, where did he say this? I have read a lot of direct writing by Linus on this subject and have NEVER seen this statement. The 'in essence' part leads me to believe this "quote" was either taken out of context or paraphrased.
I think the problem Linus had, paraphrasing, is not that protocols were sniffed but that there was no intention of creating a useful product. In short, something was done that would create problems for others with nothing useful to show for it.
"It's nice to see Linus admitting that licensing problems can make software as useless as technical flaws. In fact, he now seems to think that license barriers are a form of incompatibility, and it's irresponsible to risk having such problems. Good for him. Maybe someday he'll connect those dots and realize who really fucked up."
Of course if you had bothered to go to the other site where he had actually posted you might realize he had considered those things. And even explained some more things you (and a heck of a lot of other posters) obviously don't have a clue about.
But, you (and others) have already made up your mind so more information doesn't really matter....
"I have been actively involved in the academia for two years or so, and i have come acros a number of highly-ranked articles (ie. Nature or Elsevier) that i cant access even by using my library subscription but was asked to actually purchase the article."
You know, I wouldn't even mind buying an article now and then, IF I could reliably ascertain its content via an abstract. But in general the abstracts suck or are not even provided.
Kind of makes you wonder what you are really paying for (well, not really:)
"Personally, I would not cite an article that has been published in an open access journal until they gain more respectability and history (primarily so that I can better judge how stringent their peer-review process is)."
So, if an article in a such a journal had direct bearing on your research, and you read it, you wouldn't cite it if you were publishing something related? I would consider that a poor researcher in ANY field.
Heaven forbid if someone asked you about that article after publishing said paper or a talk at a conference. I don't know what would be worse saying "I haven't read it" or "I didn't wan't to cite it because it came from X journal. The first says sloppy researcher and the second says fool.
It's one thing if the article is crap and stating that is the reason-heck that is the only good reason that won't leave you with egg on the face....t
It may be different in the medicine field. But being an editor IS an academic feather in your cap. I know the previous editor of a well-respected geochemistry publication. He was NOT a professional editor.
Of course, by your definition he WAS a professional editor. Heck, the only think I don't have is the PhD (yet). Editors, in general, often are not highly paid. I know this first hand. But there are a lot of them (often more than is needed).
The cost of reviewing the content is near zero. Now the overhead for that may not be (your production assistants). I suspect there is a lot of unneeded overhead (kind of like how movies tend to make no net profit...)
"Statisticians. A professional is needed to check the figures and calculations in the papers, as they are often wrong."
You mean there is a journal that checks these things? Frankly, I don't believe it. If your publication does, I imagine it is in the minority. Very, very small minority.
If you need lots of people to convert papers into publication ready form, well, you aren't a very good and/or well run journal. Because EVERY publication of any quality I have read indicates authors will submit papers in a specific format ready for the camera (or precise electronic formats). Failure to do so=rejection, delay, or additional cost. Sounds like someone at your publication needs to grow a set of balls.
"Take the New England Journal of Medicine. It's about $150 for an individual subscription and ranges from $1000 to $17,000 for institutions depending on the size. This is for a publication that doesn't pay authors, and in fact can make authors bend over backwards. No wonder all sorts of publication models are being explored."
And I imagine is still publishes papers that are less than perfect. So they aren't spending THAT much money or effort....
"THEY ONLY CHARGE YOU AFTER THE PAPER WAS ACCEPTED, IF YOU ARE REJECTED YOU DONT PAY A DIME."
And you know what, you are still paying to be published.
These two issues need to be separated-paying and quality.
If a journal requires a monetary payment before publishing your paper, it is a "paid" journal. It doesn't matter WHEN that payment is required.
If it has an effective peer review process it is a quality journal.
The key is for this to be widely known. It is generally known inside the field but not to the general public. So saying you had X papers published in Y journals may or may not mean anything. In my opinion, publishing papers in a non-peer reviewed journal is only a little better that presenting a paper and having an abstract published. Because at least I can see the paper if I wasn't at the talk (many/most abstracts suck).
"it's that pilsner beers in general aren't real beer."
Yes, they are real beers. Now we could debate whether macro pilsners are real beers...
"Ease of distribution and storage != good beer."
Nor does it mean BAD beer either.
Remember, the large brewers have a lot of talent. It takes a lot of skill to remove flavor from beer and brew it in many locations and have it taste the same. The previous statement is both scary and sad....
While your points are not entirely correct, they help explain one of the main differences between religion and science.
Science will eventually change its theories, paradigms, etc. based on good new external evidence.
A religion won't. That doesn't mean a religion won't change but that such change will be due to a reinterpretation of its beliefs. This could be triggered by external information but just as likely due to internal politics.
Well, I am not directly in this field of geology/biology, etc. However, you are using the terms micro and macro evolution differently than I was taught.
IIRC there were debates about macroevolution in my courses. Mainly about the difference between it and microevolution in reality. In general, micro at the critter level, macro at the population level-where can you really draw the line?
I think your definitions are not accurate but I am not qualified to give the correct ones. Sorry.
"I say NASA really dropped the ball on this one, this whole if we don't spend our whole budget we'll never get anymore crap should have been stomped when it started."
Oh, it's not limited to NASA. Applies to the military too. Probably everywhere in the government. And probably a large of decent sized companies.
"What you got or needed last year has nobearing on what you need or get this year nor what you will need or get next year."
True. But it makes budgeting hard. Much easier to take money you didn't "need" and give it to someone else who "did".:)
"Whatever happened to NASA getting whatever money, man and brain power it needed."
In exactly what alternate universe did this ever happen?
Think of it this way. Your employer or company you contract with has an agreement that their employees or contractors won't do X with their software. Contractor/employee knows this. Contractor does X. Is this ethical? Debate:)
"Remember, those folks refused to use BK, so they were never bound by the license."
Not directly, at least. What if, for instance, you work for, or say, do contract work for, a company that has agreed to the license? Tridge was not DIRECTLY bound by the license but he certainly could have done something to make his EMPLOYER violate the license.
"Actually, Tridge didn't violate any agreement. He didn't make any agreement with Bitmover. He never used their software or accepted their license terms."
Well, I'm a different poster, but I'll give it a shot. He may have caused his employer to violate said agreements. At which point you can argue whether it is ethical or not.
After reading some of the strong opinions early on, can't say I am surprised that this agreement failed. Seemed to be set up that way now that I know more of the details.
Of course, you DO have the option of not doing business with them or working for them if they use formats you don't like. It may not be a GOOD one but it is there. If you are valuable enough, it will work.
But most are screwed because of the herd mentality (and laziness).
"All that happened was that Torvalds deliberately picked a proprietary SCM system, and other developers - who happen to have strong opinions on the ethics of using Free (as in liberty) vs Proprietary software - wanted to interoperate with Linus."
IIRC some senior Linux hackers never used BK. Seemed they could still interoperate with Linus.
What some people wanted was a totally free BK clone. They are entitled to code it. To reverse engineer it. And the BK owners were free to pull the software over it.
They WERE undermining the business model. I also have no doubt that the people involved did not have this as their primary goal. Hell, it may not have even been intended. But the clone was not needed to work with Linus.
"But it takes willful ignorance, contempt for those who think differently, not to mention a complete loss of logic, to ignore the fact that this was a Free (as in liberty) software issue, not about trying to get software without paying for it."
With all due respect, if they manage to code a replacement and release it under the GPL it will be free. So, in a sense, they were. Even if it wasn't a primary goal.
"The quote is made up, but this is to show the inconsistency of Linus' position."
Just curious, exactly what inconsistency? Linux wasn't reverse engineered. We may, of course, have different ideas of what that phrase means. The others, well, I don't know for certain and in any case, I believe are irrelevent.
As far as I can tell, Linus wants to use the best tool for the job. That he would defend a proprietary file format is consistent with that fact. And, as near as I can tell, people still have access to their own data even though the plug is/was being pulled.
"Personally, I'd run from anyone claiming a publication in this or any of its affiliated conferences."
True.
"Paying $$ to get a paper in print doesn't count as research."
Actually, that is common in MANY good publications. Of course, it is peer reviewed and generally still a good paper. But probably will have to pay quite a bit (fees of various types) to get them to publish it....
"The deal is, in an effort to get tenure or grants in a publish-or-perish world, mediocre researchers submit to these things."
Well, maybe it helps for grants. But conferences aren't very useful for tenure. Much better are published PAPERS. Now if you replaced "conferences" with "journals", you would be spot on.
"It was a "debate and opinion" publication aimed at encouraging exchange of new, possibly provocative ideas."
Then, exactly what is its point of existence? I mean, other than padding your published papers column. This is the reason conferences exist. I would suggest human contact and interaction would be better. And proceedings can be published. Then no one would get an inflated sense of the importance of the journal. But that IS the point.
"Imagine you head a physics magazine - not a scientific journal, a magazine. A well-known historian submits an article about history of science. You don't really know what he's talking about, and some of the things he mentions seem really strange (what, Newton was gay ?) but you think, "hey, the guy is a respectable historian, so he must know things that we don't, right ?""
Then you, at a minimum, deserve to be BADLY embarrassed. Fired would be ideal-especially if you failed to retract the article, apologize, and make changes to prevent it in the future (not all of these apply to the Sokal case). Not for publishing something that is wrong, but for failing to do "due diligence" for lack of a better phrase.
Papers in journals (right or wrong) are assumed to be reviewed. There is a reason they carry more weight than presentations at conferences whose main record is an abstract. Controversal statements have to be JUSTIFIED-how depends upon the discipline. If they can't, then they shouldn't be published, or be published in the opinion part of the journal.
You also make an important point (that you may not realize). One that many forget. Just because you are an expert in one field does not mean that you should be given special consideration in a field outside your specialty. For instance, a scientist can/may be an expert in politics and vice versa but it should NEVER be assumed.
Reputation is incredibly important, for journals and editors alike. It affects the perception of "sceintists" by their peers AND the public.
"What was she doing citing a paper that she didn't understand?"
Hey, now, let's not be so harsh. After all, she may not have even read it. I mean a PhD doing research. What will they expect next? Students to actually write their own dissertions?
I vote for public humiliation:)
Of course, I have heard of this actually happening (not reading a cited source) from reliable sources....
"Yes, Sokal was being dishonest, submitting a paper that he could not in good faith claim was legitimate."
Was/is it illegitimate? The journal didn't think so. Any peer reviewers didn't think so. Sure, it may be worthless for the content ITSELF but that wouldn't be the first time. I would say it is legitimate for the simple fact it shows how worthless the journal is.
There are good reasons to cite this article when doing research in the particular field. Of course, if you are using its conclusions to support your research, I would have to question the usefulness of the research....
People shouldn't think a "respectable" journal is better though. Not too long ago a reputable medical journal published a paper later shown to be badly flawed (aka crap). Dealing with prayer and healing. They haven't retracted it yet....
"Of course Linus has done some great things, but obviously he's siding with McVoy because he's his buddy, not for any logical reason."
Your evidence please? Or can't you be bothered with this "logic" thing?
"Linus could just as well blame McVoy for the situation, but doesn't."
True, but that wouldn't be very logical, now would it? I think the terms were very clear. Linus is known, I think, for pragmatism over idealism.
"Isn't it a bit ironic though, that the poster-child open source project is taking a productivity hit from retooling due to lock-in to a proprietary product?"
What "lock-in" exactly? How would this be any different if a open-source project died and one needed to transfer files? I don't think moving the files is the problem-what to move them to is a greater one...
Remember, Linus doesn't want to build a SCM or maintain one. He wants to maintain a kernel. Whatever he views best for the task he will use.
You may not be bound by it, but your employer may be. And THEY may be required to insure no one infringes.
It didn't happen in this case, but ultimately, they don't have to continue to employ your services. The convenience of the company often outways the opinions of the individual....
"We know he didn't accept the license because he never used the software."
Well, so what? Not really the point. As near as I can tell, his employer accepted the license and was bound by it. By continuing to employ the person they were breaking the license (at least according to the maker of the software-and without going to court that's the only persons opoinion that matters).
Now, whether all this was ethical, moral, legal, etc, that is another discussion altogether.
That's actually pretty easy. They are basically unscripted sitcoms/dramas/etc filled with unpaid actors.
In other words, they are cheap to produce and get decent to good ratings. Which is far more important than expensive to produce and decent to good ratings. Or quality.
Slashdot Mirror
"Linus says (in essence) "reverse engineering the over-the-wire protocol employed by a closed-source application is morally wrong"."
Just curious, where did he say this? I have read a lot of direct writing by Linus on this subject and have NEVER seen this statement. The 'in essence' part leads me to believe this "quote" was either taken out of context or paraphrased.
I think the problem Linus had, paraphrasing, is not that protocols were sniffed but that there was no intention of creating a useful product. In short, something was done that would create problems for others with nothing useful to show for it.
"It's nice to see Linus admitting that licensing problems can make software as useless as technical flaws. In fact, he now seems to think that license barriers are a form of incompatibility, and it's irresponsible to risk having such problems. Good for him. Maybe someday he'll connect those dots and realize who really fucked up."
Of course if you had bothered to go to the other site where he had actually posted you might realize he had considered those things. And even explained some more things you (and a heck of a lot of other posters) obviously don't have a clue about.
But, you (and others) have already made up your mind so more information doesn't really matter....
"I have been actively involved in the academia for two years or so, and i have come acros a number of highly-ranked articles (ie. Nature or Elsevier) that i cant access even by using my library subscription but was asked to actually purchase the article."
:)
You know, I wouldn't even mind buying an article now and then, IF I could reliably ascertain its content via an abstract. But in general the abstracts suck or are not even provided.
Kind of makes you wonder what you are really paying for (well, not really
"Personally, I would not cite an article that has been published in an open access journal until they gain more respectability and history (primarily so that I can better judge how stringent their peer-review process is)."
So, if an article in a such a journal had direct bearing on your research, and you read it, you wouldn't cite it if you were publishing something related? I would consider that a poor researcher in ANY field.
Heaven forbid if someone asked you about that article after publishing said paper or a talk at a conference. I don't know what would be worse saying "I haven't read it" or "I didn't wan't to cite it because it came from X journal. The first says sloppy researcher and the second says fool.
It's one thing if the article is crap and stating that is the reason-heck that is the only good reason that won't leave you with egg on the face....t
A few notes.
It may be different in the medicine field. But being an editor IS an academic feather in your cap. I know the previous editor of a well-respected geochemistry publication. He was NOT a professional editor.
Of course, by your definition he WAS a professional editor. Heck, the only think I don't have is the PhD (yet). Editors, in general, often are not highly paid. I know this first hand. But there are a lot of them (often more than is needed).
The cost of reviewing the content is near zero. Now the overhead for that may not be (your production assistants). I suspect there is a lot of unneeded overhead (kind of like how movies tend to make no net profit...)
"Statisticians. A professional is needed to check the figures and calculations in the papers, as they are often wrong."
You mean there is a journal that checks these things? Frankly, I don't believe it. If your publication does, I imagine it is in the minority. Very, very small minority.
If you need lots of people to convert papers into publication ready form, well, you aren't a very good and/or well run journal. Because EVERY publication of any quality I have read indicates authors will submit papers in a specific format ready for the camera (or precise electronic formats). Failure to do so=rejection, delay, or additional cost. Sounds like someone at your publication needs to grow a set of balls.
"Take the New England Journal of Medicine. It's about $150 for an individual subscription and ranges from $1000 to $17,000 for institutions depending on the size. This is for a publication that doesn't pay authors, and in fact can make authors bend over backwards. No wonder all sorts of publication models are being explored."
And I imagine is still publishes papers that are less than perfect. So they aren't spending THAT much money or effort....
"I never understood the economics of peer-reviewed scientific journals."
Oh, I think you understand them very well. The point is to make money. As much as possible.
"THEY ONLY CHARGE YOU AFTER THE PAPER WAS ACCEPTED, IF YOU ARE REJECTED YOU DONT PAY A DIME."
And you know what, you are still paying to be published.
These two issues need to be separated-paying and quality.
If a journal requires a monetary payment before publishing your paper, it is a "paid" journal. It doesn't matter WHEN that payment is required.
If it has an effective peer review process it is a quality journal.
The key is for this to be widely known. It is generally known inside the field but not to the general public. So saying you had X papers published in Y journals may or may not mean anything. In my opinion, publishing papers in a non-peer reviewed journal is only a little better that presenting a paper and having an abstract published. Because at least I can see the paper if I wasn't at the talk (many/most abstracts suck).
"it's that pilsner beers in general aren't real beer."
Yes, they are real beers. Now we could debate whether macro pilsners are real beers...
"Ease of distribution and storage != good beer."
Nor does it mean BAD beer either.
Remember, the large brewers have a lot of talent. It takes a lot of skill to remove flavor from beer and brew it in many locations and have it taste the same. The previous statement is both scary and sad....
While your points are not entirely correct, they help explain one of the main differences between religion and science.
Science will eventually change its theories, paradigms, etc. based on good new external evidence.
A religion won't. That doesn't mean a religion won't change but that such change will be due to a reinterpretation of its beliefs. This could be triggered by external information but just as likely due to internal politics.
Well, I am not directly in this field of geology/biology, etc. However, you are using the terms micro and macro evolution differently than I was taught.
IIRC there were debates about macroevolution in my courses. Mainly about the difference between it and microevolution in reality. In general, micro at the critter level, macro at the population level-where can you really draw the line?
I think your definitions are not accurate but I am not qualified to give the correct ones. Sorry.
"I say NASA really dropped the ball on this one, this whole if we don't spend our whole budget we'll never get anymore crap should have been stomped when it started."
:)
Oh, it's not limited to NASA. Applies to the military too. Probably everywhere in the government. And probably a large of decent sized companies.
"What you got or needed last year has nobearing on what you need or get this year nor what you will need or get next year."
True. But it makes budgeting hard. Much easier to take money you didn't "need" and give it to someone else who "did".
"Whatever happened to NASA getting whatever money, man and brain power it needed."
In exactly what alternate universe did this ever happen?
Think of it this way. Your employer or company you contract with has an agreement that their employees or contractors won't do X with their software. Contractor/employee knows this. Contractor does X. Is this ethical? Debate :)
"Remember, those folks refused to use BK, so they were never bound by the license."
Not directly, at least. What if, for instance, you work for, or say, do contract work for, a company that has agreed to the license? Tridge was not DIRECTLY bound by the license but he certainly could have done something to make his EMPLOYER violate the license.
"Actually, Tridge didn't violate any agreement. He didn't make any agreement with Bitmover. He never used their software or accepted their license terms."
Well, I'm a different poster, but I'll give it a shot. He may have caused his employer to violate said agreements. At which point you can argue whether it is ethical or not.
After reading some of the strong opinions early on, can't say I am surprised that this agreement failed. Seemed to be set up that way now that I know more of the details.
Of course, you DO have the option of not doing business with them or working for them if they use formats you don't like. It may not be a GOOD one but it is there. If you are valuable enough, it will work.
But most are screwed because of the herd mentality (and laziness).
"All that happened was that Torvalds deliberately picked a proprietary SCM system, and other developers - who happen to have strong opinions on the ethics of using Free (as in liberty) vs Proprietary software - wanted to interoperate with Linus."
IIRC some senior Linux hackers never used BK. Seemed they could still interoperate with Linus.
What some people wanted was a totally free BK clone. They are entitled to code it. To reverse engineer it. And the BK owners were free to pull the software over it.
They WERE undermining the business model. I also have no doubt that the people involved did not have this as their primary goal. Hell, it may not have even been intended. But the clone was not needed to work with Linus.
"But it takes willful ignorance, contempt for those who think differently, not to mention a complete loss of logic, to ignore the fact that this was a Free (as in liberty) software issue, not about trying to get software without paying for it."
With all due respect, if they manage to code a replacement and release it under the GPL it will be free. So, in a sense, they were. Even if it wasn't a primary goal.
"The quote is made up, but this is to show the inconsistency of Linus' position."
Just curious, exactly what inconsistency? Linux wasn't reverse engineered. We may, of course, have different ideas of what that phrase means. The others, well, I don't know for certain and in any case, I believe are irrelevent.
As far as I can tell, Linus wants to use the best tool for the job. That he would defend a proprietary file format is consistent with that fact. And, as near as I can tell, people still have access to their own data even though the plug is/was being pulled.
"Personally, I'd run from anyone claiming a publication in this or any of its affiliated conferences."
True.
"Paying $$ to get a paper in print doesn't count as research."
Actually, that is common in MANY good publications. Of course, it is peer reviewed and generally still a good paper. But probably will have to pay quite a bit (fees of various types) to get them to publish it....
"The deal is, in an effort to get tenure or grants in a publish-or-perish world, mediocre researchers submit to these things."
Well, maybe it helps for grants. But conferences aren't very useful for tenure. Much better are published PAPERS. Now if you replaced "conferences" with "journals", you would be spot on.
"It was a "debate and opinion" publication aimed at encouraging exchange of new, possibly provocative ideas."
Then, exactly what is its point of existence? I mean, other than padding your published papers column. This is the reason conferences exist. I would suggest human contact and interaction would be better. And proceedings can be published. Then no one would get an inflated sense of the importance of the journal. But that IS the point.
"Imagine you head a physics magazine - not a scientific journal, a magazine. A well-known historian submits an article about history of science. You don't really know what he's talking about, and some of the things he mentions seem really strange (what, Newton was gay ?) but you think, "hey, the guy is a respectable historian, so he must know things that we don't, right ?""
Then you, at a minimum, deserve to be BADLY embarrassed. Fired would be ideal-especially if you failed to retract the article, apologize, and make changes to prevent it in the future (not all of these apply to the Sokal case). Not for publishing something that is wrong, but for failing to do "due diligence" for lack of a better phrase.
Papers in journals (right or wrong) are assumed to be reviewed. There is a reason they carry more weight than presentations at conferences whose main record is an abstract. Controversal statements have to be JUSTIFIED-how depends upon the discipline. If they can't, then they shouldn't be published, or be published in the opinion part of the journal.
You also make an important point (that you may not realize). One that many forget. Just because you are an expert in one field does not mean that you should be given special consideration in a field outside your specialty. For instance, a scientist can/may be an expert in politics and vice versa but it should NEVER be assumed.
Reputation is incredibly important, for journals and editors alike. It affects the perception of "sceintists" by their peers AND the public.
"What was she doing citing a paper that she didn't understand?"
:)
Hey, now, let's not be so harsh. After all, she may not have even read it. I mean a PhD doing research. What will they expect next? Students to actually write their own dissertions?
I vote for public humiliation
Of course, I have heard of this actually happening (not reading a cited source) from reliable sources....
"Yes, Sokal was being dishonest, submitting a paper that he could not in good faith claim was legitimate."
Was/is it illegitimate? The journal didn't think so. Any peer reviewers didn't think so. Sure, it may be worthless for the content ITSELF but that wouldn't be the first time. I would say it is legitimate for the simple fact it shows how worthless the journal is.
There are good reasons to cite this article when doing research in the particular field. Of course, if you are using its conclusions to support your research, I would have to question the usefulness of the research....
People shouldn't think a "respectable" journal is better though. Not too long ago a reputable medical journal published a paper later shown to be badly flawed (aka crap). Dealing with prayer and healing. They haven't retracted it yet....
"Of course Linus has done some great things, but obviously he's siding with McVoy because he's his buddy, not for any logical reason."
Your evidence please? Or can't you be bothered with this "logic" thing?
"Linus could just as well blame McVoy for the situation, but doesn't."
True, but that wouldn't be very logical, now would it? I think the terms were very clear. Linus is known, I think, for pragmatism over idealism.
"Isn't it a bit ironic though, that the poster-child open source project is taking a productivity hit from retooling due to lock-in to a proprietary product?"
What "lock-in" exactly? How would this be any different if a open-source project died and one needed to transfer files? I don't think moving the files is the problem-what to move them to is a greater one...
Remember, Linus doesn't want to build a SCM or maintain one. He wants to maintain a kernel. Whatever he views best for the task he will use.
You may not be bound by it, but your employer may be. And THEY may be required to insure no one infringes.
It didn't happen in this case, but ultimately, they don't have to continue to employ your services. The convenience of the company often outways the opinions of the individual....
"We know he didn't accept the license because he never used the software."
Well, so what? Not really the point. As near as I can tell, his employer accepted the license and was bound by it. By continuing to employ the person they were breaking the license (at least according to the maker of the software-and without going to court that's the only persons opoinion that matters).
Now, whether all this was ethical, moral, legal, etc, that is another discussion altogether.
"No? Well, then, YOU explain reality TV shows!"
That's actually pretty easy. They are basically unscripted sitcoms/dramas/etc filled with unpaid actors.
In other words, they are cheap to produce and get decent to good ratings. Which is far more important than expensive to produce and decent to good ratings. Or quality.