Every time I have to choose a new password, I use whatever comes to my mind at the moment, usually being careful not to choose words that can be found in a dictionary. After that, I rely in muscular memory, I mean, if I used it a couple of times then I don't have to think in it to write it, just let my fingers go. Not so long ago I discovered I don't have two password starting with the same letter, so, I'm able to write down the first letter of each password and that's enough to recall it later. Now, I enforce this property on purpose.
One of the side effects of using SCLS as the licensing terms is that people from some countries are not allowed to download the code. As you can see when you check the link above, they want to enforce their IP, thus, you don't have to wonder they don't feel like using GPL.
Well, http://www.barrapunto.com is not only the spanish translation of Slashdot, but they are a spanish-speakers-oriented-Slashdotlike site. It's even being run using the Slashdot Engine TM, IIRC.
Several months ago, having been a Java developer for some time and being interested in looking at the source code, I decided to download it from Sun ( under Sun Community Source License ). I got a big surprise when I realized that the country where I live in, is not among authorized countries to receive source code. I contacted Sun Legal department by mail, and they kindly explained me that the specific problem with my country was its weak copyright laws concerning software.
What the author is describing is nothing else that the evolution path followed by Microsoft to get from DOS to Windows. Why would you want another Windows? If you read between lines, the author is asking for a FREE Windows. Furthermore, he's confusing ( I don't know whether on purpose or not ) the use of *free* in Free Software ( when he says that Open Source is the developer-centered version of Free Software ). Last but not least, his description of what a good UI is seems to be very biased ( influenced by the Microsoft way, which, personally, I don't share ).
Availability of Java sources is not like Sun would like everyone to believe. If you happens to live in a country where IP legislation is weak or there's evidence that's difficult or next to impossible to sue you using them, they WON'T allow you to download the source. That was my case, I'm afraid. Of course, you can manage to get them anyway ( that's the net way, isn't it? ), but obviously, illegally. Anyway, the source of the non-native classes of Java ( that part IS distributed ), are so poorly engineered ( look the source! ), so low quality IMNSHO that, who cares?
AT&T didn't try to make profits selling Unix ( back in the 70's ) because they couldn't. Don't know the complete case, but It was illegal for them trying to do that. Something to do with their own Antimonopolic-case.
The fact is that as a by-product of his intrussion, Kevin Mitnick copied some files ( don't know whether data, binaries or source code, but I think THERE was some source code involved ). In fact, those files are part of the evidence being used to incriminate him.
I may say this book is the best I ever read ( and I've read a lot along my life ). I think GEB is about lots of things. About multiplicity of levels of reality, about what self-conciousness ( what's that and how that can be achieved from unconciouss matter ), about AI. The book is also about beautifulness in mathematic, music and pictorial art. I'm sure most people that would never read it, are missing a lot ( because it could teach THOSE people to appreciate the mistery hidden in the universe, but this lack of appreciation is the reason they won't read it ). And finally, is clearly a book to enjoy. Every word, every page. Very clever. Difficult, may be, but surely worth the effort.
I can't understand the point comparing/.ers with Bill Gates. I think is more relevant to compare two different ways of producing software, from the philosophical point of view. And if you want, also two different Operative Systems. Don't buy the argument that problems with Microsoft products has to do with Gates personality. In fact, to keep the ball rolling not only Microsoft but all the other wrapped-software companies are building obsolescense ( sp? ) in their products right from the start. Making things right would oblige them to look for new markets all the time. And would be more expensive, of course, for them. Well, probably for customers too, but, where's the point in buying cheap software you don't need? And if the solution that Open Source Software ( or whatever you wanna name it ) is better, that remains being true ( or not ) even if all their current supporters were immature, selfish, or anything you like. Furthermore, Open Source Software is bigger than LT, ER or RS. Of course, they made a lot. But they wouldn't have gone anywhere alone. We're not talking about theory. The code is there for anyone who want to use it. I think our community deserves to be judged for its fruits, not for its words.
Well, in fact, I share some of the points of view with Jon. What mass media guys are saying resemble what it was said about car or computers when they were first introduced. Furthermore, I don't think that The Net is over-hyped. However, the problem I see ( and not such an original topic ) is: Would the net scale up? I'm not talking about hardware supporting the net ( anyway I would end eating my own words like Bob Metcalfe ). The point is whether the Net would become unusable victim of its own success or not. I'm not the first to realize that search engines aren't able to cop with the big volumes of crap in the web ( well, in fact the user of those engines is the one having to extract some info from the pile of garbage brought to him/her in response of a request ). Ditto for news websites, etc. Maybe the answer is putting inteligence in the Net. Or that might just happen, whether we want it or not, but not in a planned way. Who knows?
That's the point, I think. He's just showing us how technology GOES on changing the world, even some things we take for given... I don't think he's playing unfair.
I don't agree with the concept that creativity can only be used for designing user interfaces. My experience's that you can find a piece of code that's a work-of-art ( althought that's not so common, neither in commercial or noncommercial code ). And as code and user interface are differents view of the product ( although not necessarily orthogonal), that's not uncompatible with an awful user interface ( that you might have been ordered to implement ). What's more, don't believe that a good user interface implies that the coder has done a nice piece of code. Two programs can look very alike ( from the user point of view ) and be anyway of very different quality. ( You might thing that I'm just stating rather obvious things, but I've come to think that even people with many years in our profession don't realize that point, nor see so clearly its self-evidence ).
microsoft = ( Sun == x ? EVIL : EVIL ); cerrSun;
on
Microsoft's COOL
·
· Score: 1
Sun is not better than Microsoft. Nor even a little bit. And besides, there software is even buggier. That's something, isn't it?
He he, if I here something like that out of context, I would swear your just describing Symantec Cafe. That product REALLY sucks. Nor even the guys from Redmond could have made something so crappy.
The problem isn't that Microsoft has a big marketshare in the OS market, but if their commercial practices are legal or illegal. And I think DOJ just should proof ( if they can ) weather Microsoft is making illegal practices to broaden their marketshare ( and act accordingly ) or not ( and in that case leave them alone ). DOJ shouldn't destroy or at least weaken Microsoft ( as IBM, Oracle, Sun, etc. would like ) forcing them to give away their source code or anything equally stupid ( Don't saying that giving away code it's stupid, don't think so, just forcing someone do it with not any fair reason it's ). The right thing to do is avoiding that Microsoft ( or anyone else ) use monopolic practices. DOJ shouldn't 'shutdown' Microsoft ( as I read here once ) just because they are succesful. Let's not fight unfairness with more unfairness. Besides, do you thing that Microsoft is evil and the others companies involved in this trial wouldn't like to take all the cake for them? Come on!
And what if a payed lawyer does a crappy will? Wouldn't that be the same, anyway? Please, don't try to make me believe that $150/hr attorneys CANNOT do wrong. I don't believe ( and think I'm not the only slashdotter that thinks that way ) that expensive and well-done are the same thing...
Slashdot Mirror
Every time I have to choose a new password, I use whatever comes to my mind at the moment, usually being careful not to choose words that can be found in a dictionary. After that, I rely in muscular memory, I mean, if I used it a couple of times then I don't have to think in it to write it, just let my fingers go.
Not so long ago I discovered I don't have two password starting with the same letter, so, I'm able to write down the first letter of each password and that's enough to recall it later. Now, I enforce this property on purpose.
One of the side effects of using SCLS as the licensing terms is that people from some countries are not allowed to download the code. As you can see when you check the link above, they want to enforce their IP, thus, you don't have to wonder they don't feel like using GPL.
Well, http://www.barrapunto.com is not only the spanish translation of Slashdot, but they are a spanish-speakers-oriented-Slashdotlike site. It's even being run using the Slashdot Engine TM, IIRC.
Several months ago, having been a Java developer for some time and being interested in looking at the source code, I decided to download it from Sun ( under Sun Community Source License ).
I got a big surprise when I realized that the country where I live in, is not among authorized countries to receive source code.
I contacted Sun Legal department by mail, and they kindly explained me that the specific problem with my country was its weak copyright laws concerning software.
What the author is describing is nothing else that the evolution path followed by Microsoft to get from DOS to Windows.
Why would you want another Windows? If you read between lines, the author is asking for a FREE Windows. Furthermore, he's confusing ( I don't know whether on purpose or not ) the use of *free* in Free Software ( when he says that Open Source is the developer-centered version of Free Software ).
Last but not least, his description of what a good UI is seems to be very biased ( influenced by the Microsoft way, which, personally, I don't share ).
Availability of Java sources is not like Sun would like everyone to believe. If you happens to live in a country where IP legislation is weak or there's evidence that's difficult or next to impossible to sue you using them, they WON'T allow you to download the source. That was my case, I'm afraid. Of course, you can manage to get them anyway ( that's the net way, isn't it? ), but obviously, illegally.
Anyway, the source of the non-native classes of Java ( that part IS distributed ), are so poorly engineered ( look the source! ), so low quality IMNSHO that, who cares?
AT&T didn't try to make profits selling Unix ( back in the 70's ) because they couldn't. Don't know the complete case, but It was illegal for them trying to do that. Something to do with their own Antimonopolic-case.
The fact is that as a by-product of his intrussion, Kevin Mitnick copied some files ( don't know whether data, binaries or source code, but I think THERE was some source code involved ).
In fact, those files are part of the evidence being used to incriminate him.
Then, regarding what is happening in Kosovo, I would think it twice before exporting to any country belonging to the NATO.
I may say this book is the best I ever read ( and I've read a lot along my life ).
I think GEB is about lots of things. About multiplicity of levels of reality, about what self-conciousness ( what's that and how that can be achieved from unconciouss matter ), about AI. The book is also about beautifulness in mathematic, music and pictorial art.
I'm sure most people that would never read it, are missing a lot ( because it could teach THOSE people to appreciate the mistery hidden in the universe, but this lack of appreciation is the reason they won't read it ).
And finally, is clearly a book to enjoy. Every word, every page. Very clever. Difficult, may be, but surely worth the effort.
I can't understand the point comparing /.ers with Bill Gates.
I think is more relevant to compare two different ways of producing software, from the philosophical point of view. And if you want, also two different Operative Systems.
Don't buy the argument that problems with Microsoft products has to do with Gates personality. In fact, to keep the ball rolling not only Microsoft but all the other wrapped-software companies are building obsolescense ( sp? ) in their products right from the start. Making things right would oblige them to look for new markets all the time. And would be more expensive, of course, for them. Well, probably for customers too, but, where's the point in buying cheap software you don't need?
And if the solution that Open Source Software ( or whatever you wanna name it ) is better, that remains being true ( or not ) even if all their current supporters were immature, selfish, or anything you like.
Furthermore, Open Source Software is bigger than LT, ER or RS. Of course, they made a lot. But they wouldn't have gone anywhere alone.
We're not talking about theory. The code is there for anyone who want to use it. I think our community deserves to be judged for its fruits, not for its words.
Well, in fact, I share some of the points of view with Jon. What mass media guys are saying resemble what it was said about car or computers when they were first introduced.
Furthermore, I don't think that The Net is over-hyped. However, the problem I see ( and not such an original topic ) is: Would the net scale up? I'm not talking about hardware supporting the net ( anyway I would end eating my own words like Bob Metcalfe ). The point is whether the Net would become unusable victim of its own success or not.
I'm not the first to realize that search engines aren't able to cop with the big volumes of crap in the web ( well, in fact the user of those engines is the one having to extract some info from the pile of garbage brought to him/her in response of a request ). Ditto for news websites, etc.
Maybe the answer is putting inteligence in the Net. Or that might just happen, whether we want it or not, but not in a planned way. Who knows?
That's the point, I think. He's just showing us how technology GOES on changing the world, even some things we take for given...
I don't think he's playing unfair.
I don't agree with the concept that creativity can only be used for designing user interfaces. My experience's that you can find a piece of code that's a work-of-art ( althought that's not so common, neither in commercial or noncommercial code ). And as code and user interface are differents view of the product ( although not necessarily orthogonal), that's not uncompatible with an awful user interface ( that you might have been ordered to implement ).
What's more, don't believe that a good user interface implies that the coder has done a nice piece of code. Two programs can look very alike ( from the user point of view ) and be anyway of very different quality. ( You might thing that I'm just stating rather obvious things, but I've come to think that even people with many years in our profession don't realize that point, nor see so clearly its self-evidence ).
Sun is not better than Microsoft. Nor even a little bit.
And besides, there software is even buggier. That's something, isn't it?
He he, if I here something like that out of context, I would swear your just describing Symantec Cafe.
That product REALLY sucks. Nor even the guys from Redmond could have made something so crappy.
The problem isn't that Microsoft has a big marketshare in the OS market, but if their commercial practices are legal or illegal. And I think DOJ just should proof ( if they can ) weather Microsoft is making illegal practices to broaden their marketshare ( and act accordingly ) or not ( and in that case leave them alone ).
DOJ shouldn't destroy or at least weaken Microsoft ( as IBM, Oracle, Sun, etc. would like ) forcing them to give away their source code or anything equally stupid ( Don't saying that giving away code it's stupid, don't think so, just forcing someone do it with not any fair reason it's ).
The right thing to do is avoiding that Microsoft ( or anyone else ) use monopolic practices. DOJ shouldn't 'shutdown' Microsoft ( as I read here once ) just because they are succesful.
Let's not fight unfairness with more unfairness.
Besides, do you thing that Microsoft is evil and the others companies involved in this trial wouldn't like to take all the cake for them?
Come on!
Seldon
And what if a payed lawyer does a crappy will?
Wouldn't that be the same, anyway?
Please, don't try to make me believe that $150/hr attorneys CANNOT do wrong.
I don't believe ( and think I'm not the only slashdotter that thinks that way ) that expensive and well-done are the same thing...