My computer already knows who I talk to, where I go, and how I work. If it didn't, well, we'd all be using UDP instead of TCP, and I wouldn't be able to see what's on the screen
This is nonsense. Unless you computer is logging this information in a fairly exhaustive manner it doesn't know who you talk to, where you go, or how you work, any more than you know the contents of Elevator Inspection Form you glanced at while riding the lift up to your office.
The information is only known if it is kept around in a fashion that can be accessed, and presumably used against you, at a later time. For most non-invasive operating systems like OS X, FreeBSD, and GNU/Linux, this only amounts to a small amount of information, an amount which can be reduced to zero relatively easilly be turning off browser caching and proxy logging completely. Even in its default state these operating systems record relatively little about where you go and who you speak to, and generally nothing whatsoever about what music you listen to or what movies you watch, in contrast to todays Microsoft XP machines, and in stark contrast to the incredibly invasive features described in this rather gushingly pro-microsoft article.
Indeed, it says a lot about how horrific these features are, that a gushingly pro-microsoft article lauding such features can be so chilling, despite its bias. We should all be concerned about this, but I suspect humanity's ability to live in denial means we won't be until it is biting us in the ass directly, hard. At which point in time it will be far too late to do much about it.
You're contradicting yourself left right and center.
No, actually I'm not contradicting myself at all. You, however, are doing quite a bit of creative editing on my comments, construing one meaning where there was another, modifying the implications thereby and attributing them back to me.
I won't bother to go through this point by point (the original post is online and available for anyone to read who wishes to do so, unabridged), but will cite one example of your editorial... ah... creativity:
One of the most frustrating things about using some commercial products under GNU/Linux has been the Red Hat centric methods of distribution: binary RPMS designed for Red Hat that may or may not work with other RPM based distros, (what you snipped out and ignored was) [...] Not all products do this... some of the more intelligent software manufacturers release their products as tarballs, and are thus easilly installed onto any distro whatsoever. That, coupled with a short list of required dynamic libraries and versions, is enough to get the product working with any distro out there.
The reason why this is the way it is has to do with the fact that different distributions have subtle differences at the core. They have slightly different naming conventions, and put files in slightly different places.
As I pointed two sentences later (which you chose to completely remove, since it completely rebuts the point you made based upon my edited comments), binaries can in general be made to work with any distribution, regardless of packaging system or file organization, if the binary is provided in a tarball, along with a list of required dynamic libraries and their versions.
It looks like the behometh forming here has every intention of dictating standards and shoving de-facto norms down the community's throat, rather than taking the consensus-based approach we have used up until now.
Not true. UnitedLinux is based on LSB, which was indeed developed by the community.
Perhaps the suspicion I expressed isn't true, but it is certainly well founded, and may in fact be true. If United Linux is based upon the LSB, then why not certify things as "LSB" compliant and allow them to work with any distro? The answer is rather obvious, if unpleasant: because UL intends to have additional, distro-specific standards to which software vendors will be required to adhere for certification, which may well mean (and, perhaps, even be designed such) that such software will be less compatable with other distributions, whether or not they adhere to the LSB. I hope this suspicion does in fact turn out to be wrong, but your comments certainly do nothing indicate that is so (beyond simple denial, which frankly isn't enough).
This is certainly not an unreasonable suspicion to have in light of the statement I originally quoted, to wit: "Going forward, there will only be two platforms certified by the major hardware and software vendors, Red Hat and UnitedLinux."
You even go so far as to confirm this, when you say: "Here's the bottom line-- you can make your distribution binary-compatible with market leaders, by making it Redhat or LSB compatible, otherwise you're kind of stuck."
You go on to say that you do not see how this constitutes a change in the state of affairs.[1] Perhaps for Caldera software it doesn't, but for a wide range of commercial products (VMWare, numerous commercial games, several office products we use, etc.) it is a change of affairs.
When releasing binary packages, one can package them in a distriubution-neutral format (tar.gz for example, NOT rpm or deb), and provide in the README an exhaustive list of the required libraries and versions said package needs to run, with or without hints for installation on various distros (the latter are nice, but not required for functionality). This is the CORRECT way of doing things, and doesn't coerce one's customer into using a particular distribution in order to use the software. VMWare is good about this, so are several other software vendors.
OR, one can package their software such that it is designed ONLY to work with [Red Hat | UL], taking choice away from their customer (and in our case, and in probably many other cases, forcing those who have chosen to use other distributions to jump through numerous hoops and quite probably losing a customer in the process. Most of the software we write is in-house, and we choose the distribution we like based on technical merit, performance, and stability. If a third party commercial product we'd like to use requires a conflicting distro, most commonly Red Hat, then we use something else. We do not let a vendor's product dictate our infrastructure... too much of our important work would be affected adversely if we did. We are not alone in this, and if commercial products take on the tack your comments suggest, these commercial products will be rejected in favor of less capable, but more compatable, products instead, be they freeware or more intelligently packaged proprietary products).
UL seems designed to incorrectly indicate to commercial software vendors that, rather than packaging their product up in a generic manner usable on any distro (provided the end-user insurs all necessary libraries are in place, as documented in the software release), they should simply target one or two preferred distros and leave everyone else in the cold. Worse, the effort seems designed to incorrectly tell commercial vendors that packing their wares for UL and/or Red Hat, rather than in a more generic and widely compatable way, is the only correct way to do so.
While this may be a win for UL and Red Hat, it is very bad for the commercial vendor who is suddenly out a large chunk of the GNU/Linux marketplace, and a big loss for the GNU/Linux community which faces a behometh who is intent on taking away their freedom of choice through market coercion.
This is the last thing the GNU/Linux community needs, and, frankly, as one who works at a company that has deployed GNU/Linux widely, and uses third party, commercial products on various GNU/Linux distributions, the last thing we the customer want.
[1]The precise quote, so they reader may judge if my characterizatino is fair or not, was: "I don't see how this constitutes a change in the state of affairs, besides the fact that the commercial Linux distribution market is getting its act together (at last)"
Someone modded this up as "insightful"? I don't think it takes much insight to realize that M$ "is ridiculed and made to be Satan incarnate" on/.
In addition the Microsoft apologist post you reply to ignores the singular fact that it only takes a few seconds of research to discover that Microsoft deserves the ridicule they get, and while they might not be Satan incarnate, they are certainly a Big Brother with aspirations to becomming Big Nannie, Big Daddy, perhaps even Big Goddy, with all of us beneath their Watchful Eye, joined perhaps by their pressing thumb.
Ob Microsoft's New Invasive Operating System: Everyone thought we'd lose our freedoms in the end because we were misled by some lofty, but misguided, (e.g. communism). Instead we're merely selling our freedoms and basic privacy to industry for a quarterly bit of profit on the one side (and defending it as innovation within the Holy Free Market(tm)) while begging the government to take those very same freedoms from us on the other so we can feel a trifle safer on the other side, despite knowing intellectually that this feeling of safety is illusary.
Think we'll even be capable of waking up after we've discovered there is no safety in a surveillance society, even after this quarter's earnings are spent and next quarter's remain as elusive as ever? Somehow I'm not so sure we will be.
what he means is that the United Linux vendors will not be making the binaries available for free. This is perfectly legal under the GPL. People who get the source and compile it can distribute the binaries. But United Linux isn't going to help them.
Quite right.
However, anyone purchasing a copy of the certified binaries may in fact distribute those binaries, for free, to as many people or institutions as they like. If United Linux were to require people to sign contracts agreeing not to redistribute these certified, but nevertheless still GPLed, binaries, then they would most certainly be in violation of the GPL, having added additional restraints to the GPLed product in direct violation of that license.
So, in other words, United Linux cannot go after Cheap Bytes when they release a $2 CD of UL's $800 product.
Going forward, there will only be two platforms certified by the major hardware and software vendors, Red Hat and UnitedLinux. For Linux to move from the peripheral of the business network into mainstream application server market, businesses must be assured that their platform is certified and will work with other applications and hardware solution in their environment. What the UnitedLinux customer is paying for is 1) the assurance that his applications will work together, and 2) the ongoing maintenance and support of that certified platform.
One of the most frustrating things about using some commercial products under GNU/Linux has been the Red Hat centric methods of distribution: binary RPMS designed for Red Hat that may or may not work with other RPM based distros, and will require quite a bit of hoop-hopping on non-RPM distros such as Slackware, Debian, and all of the excellent Source Based Distros.
Not all products do this... some of the more intelligent software manufacturers release their products as tarballs, and are thus easilly installed onto any distro whatsoever. That, coupled with a short list of required dynamic libraries and versions, is enough to get the product working with any distro out there (even if you have to retroactively install some older libraries yourself, by hand).
Now it looks like United Linux is trying to reduce the choice of anyone wanting to run a commercial product on their system to two choices: Red Hat or United Linux. How likely is a product released as a cross-distro compatable tarball going to be to get "certification" vs. a Red Hat/United Linux RPM. It looks like the behometh forming here has every intention of dictating standards and shoving de-facto norms down the community's throat, rather than taking the consensus-based approach we have used up until now. If this impression is correct, this is anything but a positive development for GNU/Linux or free software and will likely be quite detrimental to the communities which surround and support them.
Having tried Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian, Source Mage, Gentoo, and others, I can unequivocably say that, in my place of work as well as in my home, the kind of prior restraint on my choice they seem to be aiming for (with their 'certification' requirements) is such that it will eliminate commercial products we would have considered purchasing from contention altogether (We are a Debian shop, currently transitioning to a source based distro for performance/reliability reasons. Red Hat and United Linux are not, and never will be, under consideration for deployment here).
It would be unfortunate if this were to become the norm... we actually do use commercial products under GNU/Linux where I work, but we have never, and will never, allow a commercial product to dictate the distribution we deploy. To do so would be absurd... and it sounds very much like this 'certification' process they're talking about is designed to coerce any and all commercial GNU/Linux vendors to target Red Hat and United Linux, to the detriment of other, likely better, distros out there.
This reduces choice, and is a bad thing for the Linux community IMHO. The result is more likely to be less willingness to deploy commerical products if a marginally usable free alternative exists that happens to be usable on the platform/distro of choice (whatever that may be). Contrast this to current conditions, where many vendors are sufficiently neutral that one can deploy their product anywhere, and the free community drives most standards, not Red Hat and Caldera.
I started reading this interview with a very positive "I'm glad to hear the negative rumors are likely wrong" and by the end of the interview have reluctantly concluded that this isn't going to be a positive development for GNU/Linux at all, and many of the worst fears expressed by others earlier are quite probably entirely well founded.
Worse still, the answer given to the patent question was downright chilling...thank [deity] it only affects the United States, and not (yet) the entire world. This is one way they could very effectively steal our work and cut off our access to the products of our own labor, perhaps even in spite of the GPL.
Just because someone doesn't adamantly handle every possible threat to his being doesn't mean he DESERVES to die. (One wonders exactly which ethical system it is that says this.)
Mother Nature's ethical system, which basically says all life will have an equal chance to evolve and grow and the chips will fall where they may, but stupidity is a capital offense. Since we have deliberately (and quite foolishly) chosen to trust to luck in this case, mother nature (or the Universe if you prefer) has been nominated the final arbiter by default, so that seems a reasonable ethos to apply in that case.
We have recognized a danger with a proven track record in killing virtually all larger surface life on the planet.
We have had several near misses with rocks that would have caused devistating damage, in at least one case our complete extinction, and have observed a cometary impact on Jupiter first hand.
We know this danger exists.
We have the wherewithall to prevent it.
We have the wherewithall to see it coming, if we can be bothered to spend a few tenths of a cent on the tax dollar to do so.
Instead we bury our heads in the sand and say inane things like "we are statistically likely to develop blah blah before one ever hits our planet" (ignoring the fact that many astronomers think we are long overdue for just such an impact).
If we chose not to take the minimal preventative steps necessary to protect ourselves (fund enough astronomers so that we can watch, and chart, 100% of the sky), then, if and when such an impact does occur and we either don't see it coming, or see it too late to do anything about it, then it is our own fault for being complete dumbasses and we will be appropriately removed from the evolutionary process.
Re:What needs to happen...
on
ICANN Updates
·
· Score: 2
Are you suggesting that voting on issues that affect so many naive users should be reduced to a tug-of war between nerds and corporations?
That would certainly be preferable to simply letting the corporations win by default.
If you choose not to vote, you have only yourself to blame and should probably quit bitching now and forever.
If your right to vote is taken away from you by [insert favorite hated authority figure here], then you have not only the right, but the moral obligation to take up arms and drive [said authority figure] from power. In the case of ICANN and the Internet such weopons might be more metaphorical than real (one can hope), but I wouldn't count on it.
Only a few astronomers are engaged in the search for potentially threatening comets and asteroids, in fact the total number of people working on this problem is less than the staff of one McDonalds
This, even more than the annoying and useless nature of children, epitomizes why we as human beings deserve extinction. If we can't be bothered to put even a trace of effort in fending off a danger that has a demonstrated track record of eradicating entire classes of species o this planet (including virtually every surface animal larger than a medium-sized rodent at one time), then we, in our collective and profound stupidity, absolultely deserve to be eradicated and replaced by a more competent species, likely one that will emerge some tens of millions of years hence from some small creature poking around our ashes.
Hmm. I've tried following this link 3 times (from 3 different posts to this story). Each time it has crashed Mozilla 1.0... which has otherwise been rock solid.
Either their web page is b0rked, they are running a b0rked java or javascript applet, servlet, or what have you, or they've managed to uncover a bug in Mozilla that slipped through the release process. Well, I guess a 4th possiblity is that it is a malicious site, and the link is a troll, akin to the goatse.cx link of yore, but that seems unlikely.
Has anyone had any luck viewing the Iquirer site with a non-microsoft browser, and would they perhaps be willing to post the text here for those of us who do not, or cannot, run internet exploder?
I've really got to start proofreading my posts. Rereading it made it sound like I was convinced the original post is wrong, which is not necessarilly the case.
I'm looking for a solid reference to indicate IBM is in fact taking a more agnostic, distribution (and specific *nix OS) independent approach, rather tha simply dumping support altogether.
IFF the post was correct, this is indeed Good News(tm). If, however, it isn't correct them there should be some concern, and the speculation I posted above may have some real relevance.
IBM also said it was going to include Generic Unix support rather than Linux only (scroll down).
Do you have a reference to back this up? Both articles on the/. story made no reference whatsoever to this. The first is just a link to the thinkpad mailing lists, while the second is an email sent to the lists by the IBM lead developer who was laid off.
I see absolutely no indication, anywhere, that IBM plans on continuing any sort of non-Windoze support of their T-series thinkpads, which is a shame as my company alone bought 4 of them specifically to run GNU/Linux (we are, after all, a GNU/Linux shop). Aside from individual sales they will loose with this rather short-sighted and foolish policy, they are likely to loose a number of corporate customers who are migrating away from Windows because of BSA-Licensing nonsense and don't want Microsoft licenses or software anywhere on their premesis. And if you were to foolishly think we are unique in that desire, you would be sorely mistaken.
IBM was uniquely positioned to take advantage of the ever-growing number of companies moving away from Microsoft because of their ever-more-draconian licensing terms, fees, and enforcement, as the ability to run the target operating system (likely GNU/Linux) on their laptops is an important part of such a migration.
This is a profoundly unstrategic move for IBM to make, and I suspect has a great deal more to do with bulk OEM licensing of Microsoft's monopoly operating system for installation on their hardware than it does with their desire (or lack thereof) to support GNU/Linux. Especially with the DOJ making it clear that they have no intention of enforcing anti-trust law against Microsoft in any meaningful way, IBM may well have felt they had no choice if they were to avoid paying twice what everyone else is for the privelege of reselling Microsoft's shoddy products.
Oh well, there are plenty of other laptop manufactuerers out there... I suspect as the migration away from Microsoft picks up steam one or more of IBM's competitors will step up to the plate. In the meantime its back to getting everything working ourselves, something we Free Software users have always been pretty good at.
Either, there's a hell of a lot of windows uses looking at Linux. or There's a hell of a lot of Linux uses searching from a windows box because there boxen has bwoken.
Likely both.
Some GNU/Linux users keep an old Windows box aroudn for playing games, surfing IE only websites, or running MS Office. Such people will likely use that machine to look up GNU/Linux answers if they mess their GNU/Linux box's configuration or installation up.
People converting to GNU/Linux will likely use their old Windows box to bring up on-line docs and answers to questions while they install.
And, of course, people running Windows but trying to get out from under Microsoft's Yoke will also be doing their surfing from their existing Windows box.
Based on the circle of people I know (in other words, anectdotal evidence with some humanitarian but no scientific interest), I'd say its probably 1/3 GNU/Linux users, 2/3 Windows users looking for something better. YMMV of course.
Hands off like the steel industry, the energy industry, the airline industry, and the insurance industry.
Pretty hands off alright.
Any and all mod points to this very insightful parent post, please.
wINDEPENDENCE, i.e Freedom
on
Windependence Day
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
To help celebrate wIndependence Day (or, perhaps more accurately, WinDependence Day), do we have just not be Windows users, or do we have to use Linux? If it's just about not using Linux, then somebody [apple.com] has already started promoting a similar idea.
First, you need to rephrase your question.
As stated, no, you don't have to use GNU/Linux, but you do have to use a Free Operating System (Free as in Freedom). This rules out Apple, Sun, etc. Replacing one set of masters with another set of masters doesn't by you an ounce of freedom or independence, which is what "Windependence" is all about.
So, if you had phrased your question "...do we have just not be Windows users, or do we have to use Free Software" then the answere would be, if you wish to be free and independent, then yes, you have to use free software. If you do not care that a corporate vendor has veto power over your ability to use your PC, then Apple, Microsoft, or any number of other proprietary vendors will likely serve your purposes just fine.
Ok, maybe not Microsoft based on their track record for the last 10 years vis-a-vis reliability, security, and forced obsolescence...but don't kid yourself: Sun and Apple are just failed Microsoft wannabe's, and if you switch to their product you may find, while you are breathing a sigh of relief to be free of Microsoft's stranglehold, that you have in fact only replaced one set of masters with another and are now firmly entrenched in Apple, or Sun's, stranglehold. It only becomes a question of time then, before you are looking for escape once more.
When you publish something on the web, it is publicly available via HTTP. End of story.
Exactly. By publishing online and publicly you've already opted-in.
This is just another example of how incompatibel copyright is with any kind of normalcy vis-a-vis individual freedom and, in this particular case, the freedom to archive information and hold someone accountable if they try to change it retroactively (and on the sly). Unless we want Orwellian-style changing of the facts post facto copyright must lose to the right of archivists to preserve information from being lost. Any other policy would be disasterous.
Isn't it a tad irresponsible to accuse Bush of being "bought" by Microsoft because his administration is hesitant to interfere with market forces
No, it isn't irresponsible to accuse Bush of exactly that, when all of the available information appears to indicate that that is precisely what happened.
Usually this sort of sleaze is party-neutral... the demopublicans have their hand out as much as the republicrats, but in this case the DOJ is deliberately throwing the sentencing phase after having won a conviction, and having that conviction upheld on appeal. They are deliberately snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in what is very transparently a sweetheart deal, and records of campaign contributions by Microsoft (which you can look up online if you're so inclinded) bear this out.
Is it so far-fetched that Microsoft is actually trying to provide it's users with the features that they want?
Yes, it is, particularly since the java they're including is a horribly outdated version that won't run must of the java code on the net today.
It is a ploy designed to confuse the user, break as many existing java apps as possible, and spin the tale to place the blame on 'java' or Sun, rather than squarely on Microsoft where it belongs.
Which part of "...this isn't intended as a slight against China... these sorts of things are documented to have happened historically in the United States as well" didn't you understand?
Apple Doesn't Understand The Price of Closed Tech
on
Toshiba's iPod Competitor
·
· Score: 2, Flamebait
Apple's iPod hardware is entirely compatible. It's just a hard drive, with MP3 data stored in a particular sort of file tree. It's the software that Windows and Linux need to access it, and Apple hasn't bothered making that for the simple reason that they're not in the business of making PC products.
This is the standard excuse Apple constantly uses for shooting themselves in the foot. "We are not in the PC business" [which is why we implimented a completely proprietary way of doing what everyone else has been doing using standard protocols/hardware specs for years now].
Apple keeps hoping to lure in new customers and then snare them with their proprietary hardware/software combination ("You can only do that with our stuff, switch to Apple"). What they do not understand is that anything sufficiently compelling will be implimented elsewhere, on people's preferred platform (whatever it may be), and that relatively few people are going to be compelled to switch platforms on the basis of such things.
Wintel, for all of its faults, is at least open on the hardware side (even if you're unlucky enough to be running windows), and if you're using *BSD or GNU/Linux, it is a completely open system. Contrast this with Apples growing list of "works only with Apple" peripherals, from their iPods to their proprietary LCD monitors. To be fair Apple's OS X is based on an open and free system (*BSD), but if all of their filesharing and other functions are implimented with proprietary protocols on top of that, it means very little in terms of the overall openness of the system, which in turn translates to virtual imprisonment of the customer. That may be Apple's goal (just as it has been Microsoft and Sun's goal), but customers do not like to be imprisoned, even in a gilded cage, and Apple is playing a game that, rather than taking advantage of the growing backlash against Microsoft, is likely to put them squarely in the same camp from their users' point of view.
Perhaps eventually Apple will manage to ensnare massive quantities of new people into their proprietary lock-in products... but in the meantime their proprietary "we control everything and we interact with nothing" strategy means they deliberately cut off 90% of the market in a (likely vain) effort to make the other 10% look appealing.
I have friends who are not GNU/Linux users, who have come to hate Microsoft with a passion, but are unwilling to switch to Apple because they know that then not only will their software be monopolized (by Apple), but so too will their hardware, putting them in an even worse (and even more expensive) predicament. What is interesting is that they, even without understanding all of their options vis-a-vis FreeBSD and GNU/Linux, still have managed to develope a sense of the entrapment proprietary hardware and software platforms imply, and they are sick to death of it (having experienced it first hand from Microsoft on the software side).
Apple's leadership will have to learn, sooner or later, to work with open standards and make their products able to interact and function with computers in general, not just their particular brand. Until they do so they will never be anything more than a niche player, and likely a small niche at that. It is interesting how many people, desperate to leave Microsoft, are unwilling to switch to Apple because they see Apple's proprietary nonsense as even worse.
And you know what? Even though they are relatively uninformed users, they are still absolutely right.
It is frustrating to see a company that produces so many neat things behave in such a destructive manner. Destructive to their customers, destructive to the computing community and marketplace, and most of all destructive to themselves. One would have thought they would have learned from the last time they engaged in this particular folly and nearly went bankrupt as a result, but alas it appears not.
The students are killed as all possible exits were either blocked or locked up.
The building has only one entrance/exit, and it was locked at the time of fire, and the windows were barred with steel. As a matter of fact the owner didn't get proper license to open an Internet cafe and the door was always locked to avoid inspection.
Two points you should consider in all this (please note that this isn't intended as a slight against China... these sorts of things are documented to have happened historically in the United States as well)
1) Making a service illegal often leads to safety issues like this. Speakeasies during prohibition in the United States, unsanitary abortion clinics in the United States prior to Roe v. Wade, etc. The answere isn't to shut down all internet cafes, as if the demand is strong enough they will reopen regardless, perhaps even more secretively, and likely be just as unsafe as before.
2) Have you considered the possiblity that the fire was deliberately set by agent provocatuers, in order to manufacture an excuse for a widespread crackdown? What better way to turn a very unpopular move into an acceptable one "we have your safety at heart, that's why we must take away your access to information that we don't want you to see"? Again, this sort of thing (though generally without the loss of life) has happened in western society more than once.
Of course, I'd expect people in Beijing has tough time accessing Internet in the future, as the conservative people would sneak chance to impose more restrictions.
Creating conditions where such an action becomes popular is a time-honored method by doing exactly this: sneaking it "through the front door" so to speak, in plain view, because the frightened masses have suddenly started demanding exactly what before they would have fought tooth and nail to avoid. Whether it is exploiting happy circumstance, or manufacturing such circumstance, nearly every government engages in this despicable behavior, including my own right now in response to 9/11 (USA).
I don't have time to rebut this point by point, but this completely inaccurate characterization must be dealt with, to whit:
Well, this is where you pseudo-freedom advocates run into an inconsistency of your own logic. The argument is that IP should be treated on a different basis from physical property because there are no limits to ideas or copies of machine-readable artefacts. However, simultaneously you argue that restrictions on redistribution of derivative works are necessary to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" which applies to limited goods.
Ad homonim innuendos aside, this is not at all a contradiction. The argument is that we should not have copyright, that software (and information) should be completely free. However, the reality is that it is not. Indeed, the reality is that, by default, information is locked down so tightly that every individual must effectively reinvent the wheel each time one wishes to write a new novel/program/script/whatever. Because of this severe, artificial scarcity that has been created as a direct result of copyright law, a license such as the GPL is regrettably necessary to protect the freedom of material that would otherwise be effectively taken away and potentially made (once again artifically) scarce.
As an example, say I write program A. In a world without copyright it is in the public domain, and anyone can use it, copy it, or whatever. I'm not obligated to provide source in this scenerio, but there is little reason for me not to as a free software programmer who wants to collaborate with others, so I will likely choose to do so. Someone might take that work and release a different version with some new features, and horde the source, but there is little incentive for them to do so since anyone can copy the program at no cost anyway, and there is nothing preventing me from disassembling it and releasing the reverse-engineered source myself.
Now enter a world which has made the tragic error of inventing copyright. Suddenly my program, which I've had to consciously, and publicly, release into the public domain, can be taken by another firm, which adds to it, and can now put onerous restrictions on the derivative work.
Now, I cannot reverse engineer what they've done, so I decide to write my own version that has the same nifty new feature. Unfortunately, now I am vulnerable to legal attack and thuggary, and now I must prove my innocence, that I did in fact write that feature myself and did not violate the copyright of the person or corporation that wrote a similiar, perhaps superficially identical, addon. And if there happens to be only one way one can reasonably impliment something, I'm going to be hard pressed to convince anyone I did the work myself and didn't violate the copyright in question.
Even if they have no case, the threat of a lawsuit alone will have a chilling effect, essentially locking me out of improving my own program along the same lines as the copyright holder who made the improvement first. In other words, my own work has become less free as a result.
The only real protection against this is the GPL, so, like it or not, in the context of a world with such draconian copyright laws as this one, the GPL is actually necessary to protect my freedom, in exactly the same way a law preventing anyone from arbitrarilly locking me in a cellar does more to enhance my freedom than reduce it (despite the fact that it means I can't lock someone in my cellar).
IP is not inherently a limited resource that needs protection at all. But copyright has made it an artificially limited resource, so until and unless copyright is repealed (a long shot at best) the GPL is necessary as a defense against that law's depredations. I do not understand how you can claim there is an inconsistency in this stance with a straight face.
The difference between Peano and Jean axioms are names only - i.e. Jean::5 == Peano::4 but this on the level of calling them eins, zwei, drei, vier, fuenf or ichi, ni, san, shi, go.
No, actually, the difference is that the plus sign adds one to the result, wheras, for example, the multiplication sign behaves exactly as in standard mathematics.
In other words: 2 + 2 = 5, but 2 x 2 = 4. Jean::5 == Peano::5, but the process of addition has been defined to do something rather silly (add one more to what the result should have been).
The problem of course is that we tend to think two apples plus two apples equals four apples, so therefore 2+2=4 must have some fundamental, unversal truth inherent in it. But in reality the definition is arbitrary (though wisely chosen to yeild useful results in the physical world)... the defenition could just as easilly be something that yields nonsense in the physical world, but is nevertheless internally consistent. Of course, such a form of arithmetic is useless, but that doesn't mean you can't define the axiom to create it.
You can in fact prove that 2+2 = 4 assuming the truth of the Peano axioms. (hint 4:= 3 + 1; 3:= 2 + 1; 2:= 1+ 1;)
You have really just said exactly what I said, you've merely brushed it under the carpet a little. To whit, the Peano axioms define what addition means.
The Jean axioms, on the other hand, define (5:= 3+1; 4:= 2 + 1; 3:= 1 + 1; and 2:= 0 + 1;), which of course can yield an internally consistent, but relatively useless, mathematics all its own. The reason 2 + 2 = 4, or doesn't, is entirely a result of its axiomatic definition. In other words, it is so because we say it is so.
Slashdot Mirror
My computer already knows who I talk to, where I go, and how I work. If it didn't, well, we'd all be using UDP instead of TCP, and I wouldn't be able to see what's on the screen
This is nonsense. Unless you computer is logging this information in a fairly exhaustive manner it doesn't know who you talk to, where you go, or how you work, any more than you know the contents of Elevator Inspection Form you glanced at while riding the lift up to your office.
The information is only known if it is kept around in a fashion that can be accessed, and presumably used against you, at a later time. For most non-invasive operating systems like OS X, FreeBSD, and GNU/Linux, this only amounts to a small amount of information, an amount which can be reduced to zero relatively easilly be turning off browser caching and proxy logging completely. Even in its default state these operating systems record relatively little about where you go and who you speak to, and generally nothing whatsoever about what music you listen to or what movies you watch, in contrast to todays Microsoft XP machines, and in stark contrast to the incredibly invasive features described in this rather gushingly pro-microsoft article.
Indeed, it says a lot about how horrific these features are, that a gushingly pro-microsoft article lauding such features can be so chilling, despite its bias. We should all be concerned about this, but I suspect humanity's ability to live in denial means we won't be until it is biting us in the ass directly, hard. At which point in time it will be far too late to do much about it.
You're contradicting yourself left right and center.
... ah ... creativity:
... some of the more intelligent software manufacturers release their products as tarballs, and are thus easilly installed onto any distro whatsoever. That, coupled with a short list of required dynamic libraries and versions, is enough to get the product working with any distro out there.
... too much of our important work would be affected adversely if we did. We are not alone in this, and if commercial products take on the tack your comments suggest, these commercial products will be rejected in favor of less capable, but more compatable, products instead, be they freeware or more intelligently packaged proprietary products).
No, actually I'm not contradicting myself at all. You, however, are doing quite a bit of creative editing on my comments, construing one meaning where there was another, modifying the implications thereby and attributing them back to me.
I won't bother to go through this point by point (the original post is online and available for anyone to read who wishes to do so, unabridged), but will cite one example of your editorial
One of the most frustrating things about using some commercial products under GNU/Linux has been the Red Hat centric methods of distribution: binary RPMS designed for Red Hat that may or may not work with other RPM based distros,
(what you snipped out and ignored was)
[...] Not all products do this
The reason why this is the way it is has to do with the fact that different distributions have subtle differences at the core. They have slightly different naming conventions, and put files in slightly different places.
As I pointed two sentences later (which you chose to completely remove, since it completely rebuts the point you made based upon my edited comments), binaries can in general be made to work with any distribution, regardless of packaging system or file organization, if the binary is provided in a tarball, along with a list of required dynamic libraries and their versions.
It looks like the behometh forming here has every intention of dictating standards and shoving de-facto norms down the community's throat, rather than taking the consensus-based approach we have used up until now.
Not true. UnitedLinux is based on LSB, which was indeed developed by the community.
Perhaps the suspicion I expressed isn't true, but it is certainly well founded, and may in fact be true. If United Linux is based upon the LSB, then why not certify things as "LSB" compliant and allow them to work with any distro? The answer is rather obvious, if unpleasant: because UL intends to have additional, distro-specific standards to which software vendors will be required to adhere for certification, which may well mean (and, perhaps, even be designed such) that such software will be less compatable with other distributions, whether or not they adhere to the LSB. I hope this suspicion does in fact turn out to be wrong, but your comments certainly do nothing indicate that is so (beyond simple denial, which frankly isn't enough).
This is certainly not an unreasonable suspicion to have in light of the statement I originally quoted, to wit: "Going forward, there will only be two platforms certified by the major hardware and software vendors, Red Hat and UnitedLinux."
You even go so far as to confirm this, when you say: "Here's the bottom line-- you can make your distribution binary-compatible with market leaders, by making it Redhat or LSB compatible, otherwise you're kind of stuck."
You go on to say that you do not see how this constitutes a change in the state of affairs.[1] Perhaps for Caldera software it doesn't, but for a wide range of commercial products (VMWare, numerous commercial games, several office products we use, etc.) it is a change of affairs.
When releasing binary packages, one can package them in a distriubution-neutral format (tar.gz for example, NOT rpm or deb), and provide in the README an exhaustive list of the required libraries and versions said package needs to run, with or without hints for installation on various distros (the latter are nice, but not required for functionality). This is the CORRECT way of doing things, and doesn't coerce one's customer into using a particular distribution in order to use the software. VMWare is good about this, so are several other software vendors.
OR, one can package their software such that it is designed ONLY to work with [Red Hat | UL], taking choice away from their customer (and in our case, and in probably many other cases, forcing those who have chosen to use other distributions to jump through numerous hoops and quite probably losing a customer in the process. Most of the software we write is in-house, and we choose the distribution we like based on technical merit, performance, and stability. If a third party commercial product we'd like to use requires a conflicting distro, most commonly Red Hat, then we use something else. We do not let a vendor's product dictate our infrastructure
UL seems designed to incorrectly indicate to commercial software vendors that, rather than packaging their product up in a generic manner usable on any distro (provided the end-user insurs all necessary libraries are in place, as documented in the software release), they should simply target one or two preferred distros and leave everyone else in the cold. Worse, the effort seems designed to incorrectly tell commercial vendors that packing their wares for UL and/or Red Hat, rather than in a more generic and widely compatable way, is the only correct way to do so.
While this may be a win for UL and Red Hat, it is very bad for the commercial vendor who is suddenly out a large chunk of the GNU/Linux marketplace, and a big loss for the GNU/Linux community which faces a behometh who is intent on taking away their freedom of choice through market coercion.
This is the last thing the GNU/Linux community needs, and, frankly, as one who works at a company that has deployed GNU/Linux widely, and uses third party, commercial products on various GNU/Linux distributions, the last thing we the customer want.
[1]The precise quote, so they reader may judge if my characterizatino is fair or not, was: "I don't see how this constitutes a change in the state of affairs, besides the fact that the commercial Linux distribution market is getting its act together (at last)"
Someone modded this up as "insightful"? I don't think it takes much insight to realize that M$ "is ridiculed and made to be Satan incarnate" on /.
In addition the Microsoft apologist post you reply to ignores the singular fact that it only takes a few seconds of research to discover that Microsoft deserves the ridicule they get, and while they might not be Satan incarnate, they are certainly a Big Brother with aspirations to becomming Big Nannie, Big Daddy, perhaps even Big Goddy, with all of us beneath their Watchful Eye, joined perhaps by their pressing thumb.
Ob Microsoft's New Invasive Operating System: Everyone thought we'd lose our freedoms in the end because we were misled by some lofty, but misguided, (e.g. communism). Instead we're merely selling our freedoms and basic privacy to industry for a quarterly bit of profit on the one side (and defending it as innovation within the Holy Free Market(tm)) while begging the government to take those very same freedoms from us on the other so we can feel a trifle safer on the other side, despite knowing intellectually that this feeling of safety is illusary.
Think we'll even be capable of waking up after we've discovered there is no safety in a surveillance society, even after this quarter's earnings are spent and next quarter's remain as elusive as ever? Somehow I'm not so sure we will be.
what he means is that the United Linux vendors will not be making the binaries available for free. This is perfectly legal under the GPL. People who get the source and compile it can distribute the binaries. But United Linux isn't going to help them.
Quite right.
However, anyone purchasing a copy of the certified binaries may in fact distribute those binaries, for free, to as many people or institutions as they like. If United Linux were to require people to sign contracts agreeing not to redistribute these certified, but nevertheless still GPLed, binaries, then they would most certainly be in violation of the GPL, having added additional restraints to the GPLed product in direct violation of that license.
So, in other words, United Linux cannot go after Cheap Bytes when they release a $2 CD of UL's $800 product.
One of the most frustrating things about using some commercial products under GNU/Linux has been the Red Hat centric methods of distribution: binary RPMS designed for Red Hat that may or may not work with other RPM based distros, and will require quite a bit of hoop-hopping on non-RPM distros such as Slackware, Debian, and all of the excellent Source Based Distros.
Not all products do this
Now it looks like United Linux is trying to reduce the choice of anyone wanting to run a commercial product on their system to two choices: Red Hat or United Linux. How likely is a product released as a cross-distro compatable tarball going to be to get "certification" vs. a Red Hat/United Linux RPM. It looks like the behometh forming here has every intention of dictating standards and shoving de-facto norms down the community's throat, rather than taking the consensus-based approach we have used up until now. If this impression is correct, this is anything but a positive development for GNU/Linux or free software and will likely be quite detrimental to the communities which surround and support them.
Having tried Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake, Debian, Source Mage, Gentoo, and others, I can unequivocably say that, in my place of work as well as in my home, the kind of prior restraint on my choice they seem to be aiming for (with their 'certification' requirements) is such that it will eliminate commercial products we would have considered purchasing from contention altogether (We are a Debian shop, currently transitioning to a source based distro for performance/reliability reasons. Red Hat and United Linux are not, and never will be, under consideration for deployment here).
It would be unfortunate if this were to become the norm
This reduces choice, and is a bad thing for the Linux community IMHO. The result is more likely to be less willingness to deploy commerical products if a marginally usable free alternative exists that happens to be usable on the platform/distro of choice (whatever that may be). Contrast this to current conditions, where many vendors are sufficiently neutral that one can deploy their product anywhere, and the free community drives most standards, not Red Hat and Caldera.
I started reading this interview with a very positive "I'm glad to hear the negative rumors are likely wrong" and by the end of the interview have reluctantly concluded that this isn't going to be a positive development for GNU/Linux at all, and many of the worst fears expressed by others earlier are quite probably entirely well founded.
Worse still, the answer given to the patent question was downright chilling...thank [deity] it only affects the United States, and not (yet) the entire world. This is one way they could very effectively steal our work and cut off our access to the products of our own labor, perhaps even in spite of the GPL.
Works fine for me in Mozilla 1.0
The bug turned out to be related to java and gcc 3.1. When I brought Mozilla up on a system built with gcc 2.95 it worked fine.
Just because someone doesn't adamantly handle every possible threat to his being doesn't mean he DESERVES to die. (One wonders exactly which ethical system it is that says this.)
Mother Nature's ethical system, which basically says all life will have an equal chance to evolve and grow and the chips will fall where they may, but stupidity is a capital offense. Since we have deliberately (and quite foolishly) chosen to trust to luck in this case, mother nature (or the Universe if you prefer) has been nominated the final arbiter by default, so that seems a reasonable ethos to apply in that case.
We have recognized a danger with a proven track record in killing virtually all larger surface life on the planet.
We have had several near misses with rocks that would have caused devistating damage, in at least one case our complete extinction, and have observed a cometary impact on Jupiter first hand.
We know this danger exists.
We have the wherewithall to prevent it.
We have the wherewithall to see it coming, if we can be bothered to spend a few tenths of a cent on the tax dollar to do so.
Instead we bury our heads in the sand and say inane things like "we are statistically likely to develop blah blah before one ever hits our planet" (ignoring the fact that many astronomers think we are long overdue for just such an impact).
If we chose not to take the minimal preventative steps necessary to protect ourselves (fund enough astronomers so that we can watch, and chart, 100% of the sky), then, if and when such an impact does occur and we either don't see it coming, or see it too late to do anything about it, then it is our own fault for being complete dumbasses and we will be appropriately removed from the evolutionary process.
Are you suggesting that voting on issues that affect so many naive users should be reduced to a tug-of war between nerds and corporations?
That would certainly be preferable to simply letting the corporations win by default.
If you choose not to vote, you have only yourself to blame and should probably quit bitching now and forever.
If your right to vote is taken away from you by [insert favorite hated authority figure here], then you have not only the right, but the moral obligation to take up arms and drive [said authority figure] from power. In the case of ICANN and the Internet such weopons might be more metaphorical than real (one can hope), but I wouldn't count on it.
This, even more than the annoying and useless nature of children, epitomizes why we as human beings deserve extinction. If we can't be bothered to put even a trace of effort in fending off a danger that has a demonstrated track record of eradicating entire classes of species o this planet (including virtually every surface animal larger than a medium-sized rodent at one time), then we, in our collective and profound stupidity, absolultely deserve to be eradicated and replaced by a more competent species, likely one that will emerge some tens of millions of years hence from some small creature poking around our ashes.
a server colocation farm. how cool would it be if you site was hosted from... space.
... yet.
The netlag sucks though. 2 1/2 lightseconds makes my pings at around 5000.2 ms round trip. Oh well, at least the DMCA can't touch me there
Hmm. I've tried following this link 3 times (from 3 different posts to this story). Each time it has crashed Mozilla 1.0 ... which has otherwise been rock solid.
Either their web page is b0rked, they are running a b0rked java or javascript applet, servlet, or what have you, or they've managed to uncover a bug in Mozilla that slipped through the release process. Well, I guess a 4th possiblity is that it is a malicious site, and the link is a troll, akin to the goatse.cx link of yore, but that seems unlikely.
Has anyone had any luck viewing the Iquirer site with a non-microsoft browser, and would they perhaps be willing to post the text here for those of us who do not, or cannot, run internet exploder?
I've really got to start proofreading my posts. Rereading it made it sound like I was convinced the original post is wrong, which is not necessarilly the case.
I'm looking for a solid reference to indicate IBM is in fact taking a more agnostic, distribution (and specific *nix OS) independent approach, rather tha simply dumping support altogether.
IFF the post was correct, this is indeed Good News(tm). If, however, it isn't correct them there should be some concern, and the speculation I posted above may have some real relevance.
Here is hoping all of my speculation is wrong.
IBM also said it was going to include Generic Unix support rather than Linux only (scroll down).
/. story made no reference whatsoever to this. The first is just a link to the thinkpad mailing lists, while the second is an email sent to the lists by the IBM lead developer who was laid off.
... I suspect as the migration away from Microsoft picks up steam one or more of IBM's competitors will step up to the plate. In the meantime its back to getting everything working ourselves, something we Free Software users have always been pretty good at.
Do you have a reference to back this up? Both articles on the
I see absolutely no indication, anywhere, that IBM plans on continuing any sort of non-Windoze support of their T-series thinkpads, which is a shame as my company alone bought 4 of them specifically to run GNU/Linux (we are, after all, a GNU/Linux shop). Aside from individual sales they will loose with this rather short-sighted and foolish policy, they are likely to loose a number of corporate customers who are migrating away from Windows because of BSA-Licensing nonsense and don't want Microsoft licenses or software anywhere on their premesis. And if you were to foolishly think we are unique in that desire, you would be sorely mistaken.
IBM was uniquely positioned to take advantage of the ever-growing number of companies moving away from Microsoft because of their ever-more-draconian licensing terms, fees, and enforcement, as the ability to run the target operating system (likely GNU/Linux) on their laptops is an important part of such a migration.
This is a profoundly unstrategic move for IBM to make, and I suspect has a great deal more to do with bulk OEM licensing of Microsoft's monopoly operating system for installation on their hardware than it does with their desire (or lack thereof) to support GNU/Linux. Especially with the DOJ making it clear that they have no intention of enforcing anti-trust law against Microsoft in any meaningful way, IBM may well have felt they had no choice if they were to avoid paying twice what everyone else is for the privelege of reselling Microsoft's shoddy products.
Oh well, there are plenty of other laptop manufactuerers out there
Either, there's a hell of a lot of windows uses looking at Linux.
or
There's a hell of a lot of Linux uses searching from a windows box because there boxen has bwoken.
Likely both.
Some GNU/Linux users keep an old Windows box aroudn for playing games, surfing IE only websites, or running MS Office. Such people will likely use that machine to look up GNU/Linux answers if they mess their GNU/Linux box's configuration or installation up.
People converting to GNU/Linux will likely use their old Windows box to bring up on-line docs and answers to questions while they install.
And, of course, people running Windows but trying to get out from under Microsoft's Yoke will also be doing their surfing from their existing Windows box.
Based on the circle of people I know (in other words, anectdotal evidence with some humanitarian but no scientific interest), I'd say its probably 1/3 GNU/Linux users, 2/3 Windows users looking for something better. YMMV of course.
Hands off like the steel industry, the energy industry, the airline industry, and the insurance industry.
Pretty hands off alright.
Any and all mod points to this very insightful parent post, please.
To help celebrate wIndependence Day (or, perhaps more accurately, WinDependence Day), do we have just not be Windows users, or do we have to use Linux? If it's just about not using Linux, then somebody [apple.com] has already started promoting a similar idea.
First, you need to rephrase your question.
As stated, no, you don't have to use GNU/Linux, but you do have to use a Free Operating System (Free as in Freedom). This rules out Apple, Sun, etc. Replacing one set of masters with another set of masters doesn't by you an ounce of freedom or independence, which is what "Windependence" is all about.
So, if you had phrased your question "...do we have just not be Windows users, or do we have to use Free Software" then the answere would be, if you wish to be free and independent, then yes, you have to use free software. If you do not care that a corporate vendor has veto power over your ability to use your PC, then Apple, Microsoft, or any number of other proprietary vendors will likely serve your purposes just fine.
Ok, maybe not Microsoft based on their track record for the last 10 years vis-a-vis reliability, security, and forced obsolescence...but don't kid yourself: Sun and Apple are just failed Microsoft wannabe's, and if you switch to their product you may find, while you are breathing a sigh of relief to be free of Microsoft's stranglehold, that you have in fact only replaced one set of masters with another and are now firmly entrenched in Apple, or Sun's, stranglehold. It only becomes a question of time then, before you are looking for escape once more.
When you publish something on the web, it is publicly available via HTTP. End of story.
Exactly. By publishing online and publicly you've already opted-in.
This is just another example of how incompatibel copyright is with any kind of normalcy vis-a-vis individual freedom and, in this particular case, the freedom to archive information and hold someone accountable if they try to change it retroactively (and on the sly). Unless we want Orwellian-style changing of the facts post facto copyright must lose to the right of archivists to preserve information from being lost. Any other policy would be disasterous.
Isn't it a tad irresponsible to accuse Bush of being "bought" by Microsoft because his administration is hesitant to interfere with market forces
... the demopublicans have their hand out as much as the republicrats, but in this case the DOJ is deliberately throwing the sentencing phase after having won a conviction, and having that conviction upheld on appeal. They are deliberately snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in what is very transparently a sweetheart deal, and records of campaign contributions by Microsoft (which you can look up online if you're so inclinded) bear this out.
No, it isn't irresponsible to accuse Bush of exactly that, when all of the available information appears to indicate that that is precisely what happened.
Usually this sort of sleaze is party-neutral
Is it so far-fetched that Microsoft is actually trying to provide it's users with the features that they want?
Yes, it is, particularly since the java they're including is a horribly outdated version that won't run must of the java code on the net today.
It is a ploy designed to confuse the user, break as many existing java apps as possible, and spin the tale to place the blame on 'java' or Sun, rather than squarely on Microsoft where it belongs.
I can only attribute this point to utter bigotry.
... these sorts of things are documented to have happened historically in the United States as well" didn't you understand?
Then you are a complete ass.
Which part of "...this isn't intended as a slight against China
Apple's iPod hardware is entirely compatible. It's just a hard drive, with MP3 data stored in a particular sort of file tree. It's the software that Windows and Linux need to access it, and Apple hasn't bothered making that for the simple reason that they're not in the business of making PC products.
... but in the meantime their proprietary "we control everything and we interact with nothing" strategy means they deliberately cut off 90% of the market in a (likely vain) effort to make the other 10% look appealing.
This is the standard excuse Apple constantly uses for shooting themselves in the foot. "We are not in the PC business" [which is why we implimented a completely proprietary way of doing what everyone else has been doing using standard protocols/hardware specs for years now].
Apple keeps hoping to lure in new customers and then snare them with their proprietary hardware/software combination ("You can only do that with our stuff, switch to Apple"). What they do not understand is that anything sufficiently compelling will be implimented elsewhere, on people's preferred platform (whatever it may be), and that relatively few people are going to be compelled to switch platforms on the basis of such things.
Wintel, for all of its faults, is at least open on the hardware side (even if you're unlucky enough to be running windows), and if you're using *BSD or GNU/Linux, it is a completely open system. Contrast this with Apples growing list of "works only with Apple" peripherals, from their iPods to their proprietary LCD monitors. To be fair Apple's OS X is based on an open and free system (*BSD), but if all of their filesharing and other functions are implimented with proprietary protocols on top of that, it means very little in terms of the overall openness of the system, which in turn translates to virtual imprisonment of the customer. That may be Apple's goal (just as it has been Microsoft and Sun's goal), but customers do not like to be imprisoned, even in a gilded cage, and Apple is playing a game that, rather than taking advantage of the growing backlash against Microsoft, is likely to put them squarely in the same camp from their users' point of view.
Perhaps eventually Apple will manage to ensnare massive quantities of new people into their proprietary lock-in products
I have friends who are not GNU/Linux users, who have come to hate Microsoft with a passion, but are unwilling to switch to Apple because they know that then not only will their software be monopolized (by Apple), but so too will their hardware, putting them in an even worse (and even more expensive) predicament. What is interesting is that they, even without understanding all of their options vis-a-vis FreeBSD and GNU/Linux, still have managed to develope a sense of the entrapment proprietary hardware and software platforms imply, and they are sick to death of it (having experienced it first hand from Microsoft on the software side).
Apple's leadership will have to learn, sooner or later, to work with open standards and make their products able to interact and function with computers in general, not just their particular brand. Until they do so they will never be anything more than a niche player, and likely a small niche at that. It is interesting how many people, desperate to leave Microsoft, are unwilling to switch to Apple because they see Apple's proprietary nonsense as even worse.
And you know what? Even though they are relatively uninformed users, they are still absolutely right.
It is frustrating to see a company that produces so many neat things behave in such a destructive manner. Destructive to their customers, destructive to the computing community and marketplace, and most of all destructive to themselves. One would have thought they would have learned from the last time they engaged in this particular folly and nearly went bankrupt as a result, but alas it appears not.
The students are killed as all possible exits were either blocked or locked up.
... these sorts of things are documented to have happened historically in the United States as well)
The building has only one entrance/exit, and it was locked at the time of fire, and the windows were barred with steel. As a matter of fact the owner didn't get proper license to open an Internet cafe and the door was always locked to avoid inspection.
Two points you should consider in all this (please note that this isn't intended as a slight against China
1) Making a service illegal often leads to safety issues like this. Speakeasies during prohibition in the United States, unsanitary abortion clinics in the United States prior to Roe v. Wade, etc. The answere isn't to shut down all internet cafes, as if the demand is strong enough they will reopen regardless, perhaps even more secretively, and likely be just as unsafe as before.
2) Have you considered the possiblity that the fire was deliberately set by agent provocatuers, in order to manufacture an excuse for a widespread crackdown? What better way to turn a very unpopular move into an acceptable one "we have your safety at heart, that's why we must take away your access to information that we don't want you to see"? Again, this sort of thing (though generally without the loss of life) has happened in western society more than once.
Of course, I'd expect people in Beijing has tough time accessing Internet in the future, as the conservative people would sneak chance to impose more restrictions.
Creating conditions where such an action becomes popular is a time-honored method by doing exactly this: sneaking it "through the front door" so to speak, in plain view, because the frightened masses have suddenly started demanding exactly what before they would have fought tooth and nail to avoid. Whether it is exploiting happy circumstance, or manufacturing such circumstance, nearly every government engages in this despicable behavior, including my own right now in response to 9/11 (USA).
I don't have time to rebut this point by point, but this completely inaccurate characterization must be dealt with, to whit:
Well, this is where you pseudo-freedom advocates run into an inconsistency of your own logic. The argument is that IP should be treated on a different basis from physical property because there are no limits to ideas or copies of machine-readable artefacts. However, simultaneously you argue that restrictions on redistribution of derivative works are necessary to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" which applies to limited goods.
Ad homonim innuendos aside, this is not at all a contradiction. The argument is that we should not have copyright, that software (and information) should be completely free. However, the reality is that it is not. Indeed, the reality is that, by default, information is locked down so tightly that every individual must effectively reinvent the wheel each time one wishes to write a new novel/program/script/whatever. Because of this severe, artificial scarcity that has been created as a direct result of copyright law, a license such as the GPL is regrettably necessary to protect the freedom of material that would otherwise be effectively taken away and potentially made (once again artifically) scarce.
As an example, say I write program A. In a world without copyright it is in the public domain, and anyone can use it, copy it, or whatever. I'm not obligated to provide source in this scenerio, but there is little reason for me not to as a free software programmer who wants to collaborate with others, so I will likely choose to do so. Someone might take that work and release a different version with some new features, and horde the source, but there is little incentive for them to do so since anyone can copy the program at no cost anyway, and there is nothing preventing me from disassembling it and releasing the reverse-engineered source myself.
Now enter a world which has made the tragic error of inventing copyright. Suddenly my program, which I've had to consciously, and publicly, release into the public domain, can be taken by another firm, which adds to it, and can now put onerous restrictions on the derivative work.
Now, I cannot reverse engineer what they've done, so I decide to write my own version that has the same nifty new feature. Unfortunately, now I am vulnerable to legal attack and thuggary, and now I must prove my innocence, that I did in fact write that feature myself and did not violate the copyright of the person or corporation that wrote a similiar, perhaps superficially identical, addon. And if there happens to be only one way one can reasonably impliment something, I'm going to be hard pressed to convince anyone I did the work myself and didn't violate the copyright in question.
Even if they have no case, the threat of a lawsuit alone will have a chilling effect, essentially locking me out of improving my own program along the same lines as the copyright holder who made the improvement first. In other words, my own work has become less free as a result.
The only real protection against this is the GPL, so, like it or not, in the context of a world with such draconian copyright laws as this one, the GPL is actually necessary to protect my freedom, in exactly the same way a law preventing anyone from arbitrarilly locking me in a cellar does more to enhance my freedom than reduce it (despite the fact that it means I can't lock someone in my cellar).
IP is not inherently a limited resource that needs protection at all. But copyright has made it an artificially limited resource, so until and unless copyright is repealed (a long shot at best) the GPL is necessary as a defense against that law's depredations. I do not understand how you can claim there is an inconsistency in this stance with a straight face.
The difference between Peano and Jean axioms are names only - i.e. Jean::5 == Peano::4 but this on the level of calling them eins, zwei, drei, vier, fuenf or ichi, ni, san, shi, go.
... the defenition could just as easilly be something that yields nonsense in the physical world, but is nevertheless internally consistent. Of course, such a form of arithmetic is useless, but that doesn't mean you can't define the axiom to create it.
No, actually, the difference is that the plus sign adds one to the result, wheras, for example, the multiplication sign behaves exactly as in standard mathematics.
In other words: 2 + 2 = 5, but 2 x 2 = 4. Jean::5 == Peano::5, but the process of addition has been defined to do something rather silly (add one more to what the result should have been).
The problem of course is that we tend to think two apples plus two apples equals four apples, so therefore 2+2=4 must have some fundamental, unversal truth inherent in it. But in reality the definition is arbitrary (though wisely chosen to yeild useful results in the physical world)
You can in fact prove that 2+2 = 4 assuming the truth of the Peano axioms. (hint 4 := 3 + 1; 3 := 2 + 1; 2 := 1+ 1;)
:= 3+1; 4 := 2 + 1; 3 := 1 + 1; and 2 := 0 + 1;), which of course can yield an internally consistent, but relatively useless, mathematics all its own. The reason 2 + 2 = 4, or doesn't, is entirely a result of its axiomatic definition. In other words, it is so because we say it is so.
You have really just said exactly what I said, you've merely brushed it under the carpet a little. To whit, the Peano axioms define what addition means.
The Jean axioms, on the other hand, define (5