Agreed, and uninteresting, not deserving space at Slashdot. Lacks also Debian (which is an interesting story, unlike these). The only actual things I've learned is that Microsoft's logo's colors are very "visible", and some RedHat guy wore a red lacrose hat. Fail.
Maybe you (Slashdot admins) should make a new category called "Free software" (or if you must, "Open Source") alongside, or better yet, replacing "Linux". All free software news are apparently not suitable for "Linux", and if someone is subscribed to Linux only (as I was), he or she is not getting all the news he'd/she'd want.
Maybe I should put this in terms you will understand: Noone feeds its competition. Free software and non-free software are incompatible by their nature (license, freedoms guaranteed, and even the economic model implied). One who supports free software will not support non-free software, because it compromises the same freedom he supports. In other words: SUPPORTING user's decision to use non-free software is "bad". Also in case you didn't know, the licenses under which the kernel and GNU software are licensed restrict usage (mainly with non-free software) to promote the idea of freedom. If I *must* compare software freedoms to person's free choice, then: Freedom to stay in shackles because one does not know better is hardly a freedom at all. And even if we allow users to make this choice, it shouldn't stop us for trying to convince them otherwise, and it certainly shouldn't mean we should support such a decision. If you disagree with me, fine, but keep your non-free agenda out of *my* copy of the kernel. You do what you want with yours (well, as far as the license permits).
I'm sorry, I can't agree with you.
Coexistence with non-free software only hurts our efforts: We do need to change how people think because it's better in the long run. I didn't say force them, but don't feed their bad habit.
If this helps them and they think they can't do without it, fine - the code is there, I'm sure someone will enable them to easily patch the kernel with the driver. But it has no business in a the official kernel and a free operating system since including it sends a bad message.
We are free software supporters, and our job is not to make easier for people to use non-free software but to understand the importance of their freedom.
I'm not American. I defined what freedom meant and what I refereed to (user freedoms regarding the nature of their software) so imposing a general definition (a "free will" one) is dishonest.
In other words: when we talk about free software we don't talk a freedom to choose non-free software. You are free to walk into a minefield but that's not what people fight for.
There are traditional and free VM's that can run on hosts such as both GNU/Linux and Windows.
As for the "need to earn money", accepting conformist position and developing proprietary software (that's what I assume you mean by it) is just postponing the day that free software will be able to earn you money. Pioneering is, unfortunately, hard and I'm wrestling with it as well. We need to change how people think, not "just" the OS they run. If there really is no alternative free hypervisor and it's a necessity, it should be written. I insist that we should not support (at least not by default) non-free software in our free kernel.
1. Code being free to study doesn't automatically make it so valuable valuable as to be included in the kernel.
As for nr. 2. I did this giant leap myself, and it was extremely hard for me, but I had motives increasingly less people seem to share. My fear is (and I think it's justified) that mixing proprietary with free software only makes it harder to see the importance of software being free, and the danger of it being closed. While transition to semi-free distro might be made easier that way, breaking the habit becomes harder.
A simple user who only uses the code might settle for non-free black box. But a programmer must learn to learn, and build what is lacking. Helping would be writing documentation and manuals. Integrating and encouraging non-free software is not helping. Linux is not its own purpose. The purpose (of GNU) is building a free operating system.
Thanks for reading.
You're confusing choice with freedom. We are primarily free-software supporters. The software the driver is written for is non-free by any FOSS supporter's standards (weather from free or open camp). There is no benefit regarding the user's freedom (as defined by 4 freedoms - use, copy, study, modify+redistribute) in including the above in the kernel.
Free software supporters are skeptic when it comes to code that's designed for the non-free environment (eg. run on Windows, must be compiled with non-free software etc.) - that's the case with me anyway.
This driver, if I understood it correctly, has no other purpose but to enable a proprietary VM to work with the kernel (correct me if I'm wrong).
If I'm right, I see no reason why it should ever be included in it.
I had this Idea few years ago to make a free software colaborative Java IDE for multiple users to work on the same code at the same time.
The friend I was about to program it with (but didn't) sent me a link few months ago. I think it's basically the thing we were trying to do. To be honest I didn't try it out, but from the sound of it, it's the thing you want. Here's the link: http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/
In you decide to use this, please write down my nickname. I'd like to hear your experiences with it.
Thanks.
If indeed such a foundation was to be founded, it should consider returning copyright to authors (at least on request), as Sun required the code to be copyrighted to be surrendered to the company.
Wait a minute. Now wait just a minute.
I must've missed something. When was Microsoft granted FAT patent? I can't believe it was.
But if it somehow was, how, and more importantly where?
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, and uninteresting, not deserving space at Slashdot. Lacks also Debian (which is an interesting story, unlike these). The only actual things I've learned is that Microsoft's logo's colors are very "visible", and some RedHat guy wore a red lacrose hat. Fail.
BTW Why are you quoting free software?
Maybe you (Slashdot admins) should make a new category called "Free software" (or if you must, "Open Source") alongside, or better yet, replacing "Linux". All free software news are apparently not suitable for "Linux", and if someone is subscribed to Linux only (as I was), he or she is not getting all the news he'd/she'd want.
LOAD, LKLM, LOAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadeh! *breathes*
Gotta love the simplicity of Cox's message.
Unrelated Linkage
Maybe I should put this in terms you will understand: Noone feeds its competition. Free software and non-free software are incompatible by their nature (license, freedoms guaranteed, and even the economic model implied). One who supports free software will not support non-free software, because it compromises the same freedom he supports. In other words: SUPPORTING user's decision to use non-free software is "bad". Also in case you didn't know, the licenses under which the kernel and GNU software are licensed restrict usage (mainly with non-free software) to promote the idea of freedom. If I *must* compare software freedoms to person's free choice, then: Freedom to stay in shackles because one does not know better is hardly a freedom at all. And even if we allow users to make this choice, it shouldn't stop us for trying to convince them otherwise, and it certainly shouldn't mean we should support such a decision. If you disagree with me, fine, but keep your non-free agenda out of *my* copy of the kernel. You do what you want with yours (well, as far as the license permits).
I'm sorry, I can't agree with you. Coexistence with non-free software only hurts our efforts: We do need to change how people think because it's better in the long run. I didn't say force them, but don't feed their bad habit. If this helps them and they think they can't do without it, fine - the code is there, I'm sure someone will enable them to easily patch the kernel with the driver. But it has no business in a the official kernel and a free operating system since including it sends a bad message. We are free software supporters, and our job is not to make easier for people to use non-free software but to understand the importance of their freedom.
I'm not American. I defined what freedom meant and what I refereed to (user freedoms regarding the nature of their software) so imposing a general definition (a "free will" one) is dishonest. In other words: when we talk about free software we don't talk a freedom to choose non-free software. You are free to walk into a minefield but that's not what people fight for.
There are traditional and free VM's that can run on hosts such as both GNU/Linux and Windows. As for the "need to earn money", accepting conformist position and developing proprietary software (that's what I assume you mean by it) is just postponing the day that free software will be able to earn you money. Pioneering is, unfortunately, hard and I'm wrestling with it as well. We need to change how people think, not "just" the OS they run. If there really is no alternative free hypervisor and it's a necessity, it should be written. I insist that we should not support (at least not by default) non-free software in our free kernel.
I just don't believe switch and bait are effective here. I understand however that you can't risk losing your proprietary users.
1. Code being free to study doesn't automatically make it so valuable valuable as to be included in the kernel. As for nr. 2. I did this giant leap myself, and it was extremely hard for me, but I had motives increasingly less people seem to share. My fear is (and I think it's justified) that mixing proprietary with free software only makes it harder to see the importance of software being free, and the danger of it being closed. While transition to semi-free distro might be made easier that way, breaking the habit becomes harder. A simple user who only uses the code might settle for non-free black box. But a programmer must learn to learn, and build what is lacking. Helping would be writing documentation and manuals. Integrating and encouraging non-free software is not helping. Linux is not its own purpose. The purpose (of GNU) is building a free operating system. Thanks for reading.
According to the linked leaderboard it's 10.10% for Ensemble, and 10.09% for BellKor's Pragmatic Chaos.
There's only one problem with this. I'm not American.
Please explain how this driver helps people earn money?
You're confusing choice with freedom. We are primarily free-software supporters. The software the driver is written for is non-free by any FOSS supporter's standards (weather from free or open camp). There is no benefit regarding the user's freedom (as defined by 4 freedoms - use, copy, study, modify+redistribute) in including the above in the kernel.
Actually, we don't consider non-free as a valid choice. That's why there is a GNU/Linux.
Free software supporters are skeptic when it comes to code that's designed for the non-free environment (eg. run on Windows, must be compiled with non-free software etc.) - that's the case with me anyway. This driver, if I understood it correctly, has no other purpose but to enable a proprietary VM to work with the kernel (correct me if I'm wrong). If I'm right, I see no reason why it should ever be included in it.
I had this Idea few years ago to make a free software colaborative Java IDE for multiple users to work on the same code at the same time. The friend I was about to program it with (but didn't) sent me a link few months ago. I think it's basically the thing we were trying to do. To be honest I didn't try it out, but from the sound of it, it's the thing you want. Here's the link: http://gobby.0x539.de/trac/ In you decide to use this, please write down my nickname. I'd like to hear your experiences with it. Thanks.
Sure, but it's still irrelevant which one.
I just want to say: WTH. Slashdot, really.
Wow cool. Did Stallman publish a response to this?
And THAT my friends, is the difference between free software and open source. Canonical l33Ch0rZ
If indeed such a foundation was to be founded, it should consider returning copyright to authors (at least on request), as Sun required the code to be copyrighted to be surrendered to the company.
If intentional, wording is inappropriate at best. Show some respect.
Wait a minute. Now wait just a minute. I must've missed something. When was Microsoft granted FAT patent? I can't believe it was. But if it somehow was, how, and more importantly where?
I blame her school & instructors/*tions. Noone else is to blame.