Greg, coming from the dead opposite side of the fence on liscencing, I have to say that I agree with you. The AC was completely misrepresenting the FSF, because while I don't really believe that pure altruism is possible, the "mine mine mine" attitude is awful.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have flame and trolls...
To our anonymous friend, I am ashamed to see someone who does not understand what he defends. In the name of any cause, one close to my heart, or one which grates against my core beliefs. As an FSF supporter, I am ashamed.
Isn't that precisely what the FSF is all about? Altruism?
Depends on who you are. If you go look at my previous comments, I'm a Stallmanist Kook. However, I see the GPL as a method for ensuring openness in software. *I* don't argue the morality issue anymore, because I've seen it torn to shreds. The GPL and the BSDL use different definitions of "free," and that is really all there is to it. I still use of the GPL by the fact that when everyone plays nice and opens their source, there is no *noticeable* difference between the BSDL and the GPL (pay attention to the emphasis, I didn't say *anything* about them having the same wording/backing philosophies/etc, just the same external *effects*). However, in my paranoid mind, not everyone out in the field wants to play "nice," so in the end, my support of the FSF is about a political agenda, and hell yes that is written all the way through the GPL. Even though it is legally untested, the GPL itself is a statement of those politics, not necessarily anything to do with altruism. In fact, one of the first things I'll explain about open source software is what a boon it is for me as a programmer. Everything is in the interpretation.
My view is that everything should be open, which of course is open to exceptions where *good* *reason* exists. Haven't seen any reasons for it yet.
It makes the bold statement about the gullability (with relation to computers) of the computer illiterate, and how easily they might have been fooled by this bug. In essence, it is my statement that nothing will happen, and if you think otherwise, poo on you.
I do have this feeling that kids that are growing up right now, ppl that are immersed in technology from day one will know better and see through the marketing crap. Ill stop becuase I am rambling now, and slightly off-topic.
I would just like to inform you that yes, that is absolutely correct. I'm 17, I've been pounding at keyboards since I could reach one (sometime when I was 6 or so, I'm not totally sure anymore...;). At the moment, I'm the anomaly (from looking at my peers in HS), but the immersion in tech early on is what I think has fueled my current interests.
I figure any guy who can get his hands on that kind of equipment (.50 cal Machine Guns, Sherman Tanks, LAWS rockets, and knows his ammo), probably has a shot at it. I suggest a small neutron bomb, most of the radiation will disipate in a couple of days (screw wasting the electronics of Portland/Vancouver, kill everyone in the area).
Exactly. That's why I've equipped myself with frag grenades (great for crowd control), a LAW missle launcher (for those pesky armored vehicles), an AK-47, and a.45 (just in case, y'know). Oh yeah, never go in the front door. Shoot out a window, throw in some tear gas, climb on in and loot.
Now I just gotta figure out how to walk with all this...
1. Use their language and idiotic strongarming to prove that they have been smoking lots and lots of crack cocain (such as the threats of litigation against parties *outside* of the US, against people *linking* to the source, etc).
2. US anti-drug laws go after them, no more problem. They'll get more time than a murderer..
BTW: I grabbed the source from signal11. If you want a copy, remove the bad advice from my email address, and ask. Happy Mole Wacking this Armagghedon.
John Carmack is an incredibly gifted programmer, and I respect him for that, but this is totally a matter of a security flaw. It could have been exploited earlier, but I don't think anyone really went through with a good sniffer and decoded the protocol.
What the problem is, is the amount of trust given to the clients. Now, with some revamping of the system, all the cheats dealing with the communication between the server and the client could be cleared up (however, the clientside mods would be a little harder).
Using a combination of a "blessed" client model, guest access and random accuracy checking by the server, we might just have a workable system, where there is very little oppurtunity to cheat, while leaving everything open source.
Go through the posts and see what these various solutions are.
This is going to make for one hilarious PR stunt for the Linux community (not to mention make us look good..). Anyway, I'm guessing just for the gag value, at least originally.
Here's what I do. I've got a cablemodem, and I've hooked myself up with Sendmail. However, I've also got a POP account, plus one sitting on a box down in California. I can check all three of these accounts from anywhere. I simply telnet or ssh (where I can get at it) to my box at home, and check the account set up there, and I can use Mutt (the mail reader that sucks less than all the others) to also get the mail from the pop server.
The account down in Cali (which is my personal email account, and not posted here) is one that I have to reach by telnet/ssh.
It's pretty nice, and I don't ever fsck with my friends settings. Sometimes Mutt renders poorly in a telnet window, but I've got pine as a back up (and since I can remember some simple keybindings, I can still grab the new mail off of the pop account, and then look at it through pine). Anyway, I'm satisfied with the setup.
the laws as you state. Your site is rife with admittedly pirated mp3s. Legal might not be good, but illegal is most likely bad, eh?
No idea what you are talking about. I never said anything about "illegal being bad" and I most certainly did not say that the "IP laws are my God." I have no qualms about my mp3 collection.
I really don't know why I bothered with this. Oh well.
You spout off about the Constitution of the United States as if somehow this justifies arbitrary actions against legitimate businesses that do not want to play the GPL game.
Of course I do, because it is a rather good parallel here. The American Revolution was like any other movement, headed by a small number of people who believed in something and forced it on a lot of people. There were a lot of people who disagreed with the Founding Fathers--the loyalists--and there were a lot more sitting on the fence--everyone else. The parallel continues in that the Founding Fathers did many things that could be looked at in the same light as any other form of activism (the Sons of Liberty, read up about those thugs, or how about waging war, not paying their taxes, openly critisizing England, the list goes on and on), but the system was changed to reflect their beliefs. Those changes were also shoved down a lot of people's throats. Meaning, of course, sometimes rights need to be shoved down everyone's throats. I think this is one of those times.
That's not how the law is set up in this country.
Not quite, the liscence law does allow for it (see the GPL), but then the law also allows for the SCSL and the M$ EULA.
Now, you can try and introduce law that gives you these rights, but currently you just don't have them.
Good idea, but it isn't necessarily needed. Strong arming companies to use liscences that will give these rights will work too. Laws needn't be the end all, say all solution of rights. I think it would be a better system if it was brought about with as little judiciary action as possible, but if that ends up being needed, bring it on.
And in this case, Sun already knows who the FSF is, and they don't seem to want to play; so now it is a matter of coercing them to.
Sun is completely inside it's rights here, you aren't. Too bad, you lose.
Nope. I say Sun is out of their rights. How do I defend this? Because I personally believe that the current view of proprietary software is wrong. Things should be Open and Free to change, given that they stay open, and that's all I need.
I know everyone out there is going to read that last paragraph wrong. Before you haul off and call me a Stallmanist-Commie-Fanatic-Basketcase-Loony-Crackw hore-Sheep, allow me to clarify. Sometimes this question comes up in life: "Who has the right to dictate to the masses?" The answer to this question is totally personal, and can change for different situations. There are many many people out there who tend to shy away from this question and never answer it meaningfully (eg, answering it deep down and with confidence). In this case, I answer with a loud, "I do." For the simple reason that I am using a system that is plain better, because it is open and the user has rights. The GPL isn't the end all solution, but notsosilentbob and I seem to agree that it fits here, along with many other/.ers. It is perfectly fine to answer any other way, which I do believe is where nssb and I differ.
Sun releases Java under the BSD liscence (hmm, now where did I get that...).
M$ grabs the source, plays a little game called "Embrace and Extend." Calls their product "COOL." Then, they market it (binary only) as a "Better Java than Java."
Sun get's fscked, hard. M$ get's away with it, totally.
In the current arena, and with the Java product there are players who do not give a flying monkey turd about the community (at the moment, Sun included). This is a situation where the community needs to be enforced.
I care more about the user's rights than the developer's, and that is my underlying assumption. My best shot at yours is that you care about the developer's rights, which would say, "M$ is fine in this situation." Flame me if I have my head up my arse.
Could Sun really completely GPL Java without losing money due to the developers they have in-house? Their expert knowledge would only go so far as expert knowledge in competing firms when intending to offer support. This is why so many people argue against blind hordes of people advocating the application of the GPL on everything.
Not relevant, allow me to explain. Stallman and all his followers are not concerned with Sun's bottom line, at least not primarily, now it isn't that we are against money, just it isn't top priority. This is more about user's rights and having a working technology that fulfils it's stated goals (already been discussed how Perl does a better job than Java at being WORA).
At this point, Sun would have to change their business plan, but that's their problem. Show me the (Free) source.
And.. P2 had a proprietary liscence and isn't Free Software. Thus things are bad, because the user no longer can fix bugs add features to the better program, P2. User loses. Checkmate.
Jeff
Why is there anything wrong with activism?
on
RMS on Java and GPL
·
· Score: 1
From what I can tell, activism can do a lot of good. I personally agree with Stallman, and I feel that he has been very much acting within his stated viewpoints and acting for his cause.
There really is nothing wrong with calling for a boycott. You don't like it, don't participate, but what Amazon.com did was a Very Bad Thing(tm) (hehheh.. sorry, harkening to other debates on this article). What Stallman is doing is the same things as any other political leader has done for any other movement. Ghandi, MLK, both Women's Rights movements, and many many many others. These are common and proven tactics, and I think he's doing what's best for the Free Software Foundation and the movement. Sometimes it is better not to sit back and just be meek; sometimes you need to be outspoken and active to make things change. Stallman is doing this, and I think it is needed. Some companies and people aren't going to be "sold" by a pitch for the GPL. Sun already knows the pitch well (see: SCSL), and they aren't going to change anymore than they have.
Stallman is acting in accordance to his stated beliefs and philosophies. I am happy whenever I see him at this. Here's why.
He has declared that users have four basic freedoms (don't like this? What do you think the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independance are?). These freedoms happen to be:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
Stallman and all his followers (myself included) have decided that users need to have these rights, and that these rights should apply to all software. Thus we will demand those rights. These demands preclude any IP laws and rights. Period. On a most basic level we do not agree with IP. The fact that they own the trademark is ok, that is fine, but the liscence is just slimy, and as such, there needs to be a replacement, and Sun is at fault and deserves a good sound tongue lashing from Stallman.
Remember, just because it's legal doesn't mean it is good.
Oh yeah, go read over the "why we exist" section on www.gnu.org. It might help you to understand what we stand for.
Jeff
Dude, look at the rest of the page, he does!
on
Behold the Lizardman
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't seem like a good mix. I can here some choice Buchanan quotes right now, like "What the hell am I doing in a room with this damn commie?" and good ol' Zhirinovski retorting along the lines of how Americans are stuck up pigs who couldn't care about anything except consumerism, then the fist fight starts with both of them raving about nukes, Buchanan yelling about the "Duke" and the American way, while Zhirinovski is yelling about Sputnik and unstoppable force of the Russian empire....
I would like to point out that he was being funny. I got a good chuckle out of that, and damnit, I'm a sufferer too. I'm fighting my own fight against RSI (and I'm 17, sucks to be me).
Anyway, reread it, see the authors attempt at humor, have a chuckle. Have a nice day.
Now, I have yet to use Win2000, but I have had some experience with NT4...
M$ had said that NT4 didn't need to be defragmented, and people at the hospital where my dad works were instructed not to defrag their NT workstations (NTFS != VFAT and all that).
Unfortunately, NTFS needs to be defragged, which is a bug in NTFS, and M$ admitted as much by releasing a defrag utility. My dad found his workstation at work horribly defragged, and I do believe this did help with its performance...
But we users of Linux and Ext2 wouldn't know anything about that kind of problem, now would we?
Slashdot Mirror
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have flame and trolls...
To our anonymous friend, I am ashamed to see someone who does not understand what he defends. In the name of any cause, one close to my heart, or one which grates against my core beliefs. As an FSF supporter, I am ashamed.
Jeff
Depends on who you are. If you go look at my previous comments, I'm a Stallmanist Kook. However, I see the GPL as a method for ensuring openness in software. *I* don't argue the morality issue anymore, because I've seen it torn to shreds. The GPL and the BSDL use different definitions of "free," and that is really all there is to it. I still use of the GPL by the fact that when everyone plays nice and opens their source, there is no *noticeable* difference between the BSDL and the GPL (pay attention to the emphasis, I didn't say *anything* about them having the same wording/backing philosophies/etc, just the same external *effects*). However, in my paranoid mind, not everyone out in the field wants to play "nice," so in the end, my support of the FSF is about a political agenda, and hell yes that is written all the way through the GPL. Even though it is legally untested, the GPL itself is a statement of those politics, not necessarily anything to do with altruism. In fact, one of the first things I'll explain about open source software is what a boon it is for me as a programmer. Everything is in the interpretation.
My view is that everything should be open, which of course is open to exceptions where *good* *reason* exists. Haven't seen any reasons for it yet.
Jeff
It makes the bold statement about the gullability (with relation to computers) of the computer illiterate, and how easily they might have been fooled by this bug. In essence, it is my statement that nothing will happen, and if you think otherwise, poo on you.
Merry Apocalypse y'all.
Jeff
The dish itself is a traditional Southern breakfast food (South-East US). Some people like 'em, some people don't.
Jeff
I would just like to inform you that yes, that is absolutely correct. I'm 17, I've been pounding at keyboards since I could reach one (sometime when I was 6 or so, I'm not totally sure anymore... ;). At the moment, I'm the anomaly (from looking at my peers in HS), but the immersion in tech early on is what I think has fueled my current interests.
Just FYI.
Jeff
Just stay clear of Olympia.
Jeff
Now I just gotta figure out how to walk with all this...
Jeff
You asked for it... ;)
Jeff
2. US anti-drug laws go after them, no more problem. They'll get more time than a murderer..
BTW: I grabbed the source from signal11. If you want a copy, remove the bad advice from my email address, and ask. Happy Mole Wacking this Armagghedon.
Jeff
Jeff
What the problem is, is the amount of trust given to the clients. Now, with some revamping of the system, all the cheats dealing with the communication between the server and the client could be cleared up (however, the clientside mods would be a little harder).
Using a combination of a "blessed" client model, guest access and random accuracy checking by the server, we might just have a workable system, where there is very little oppurtunity to cheat, while leaving everything open source.
Go through the posts and see what these various solutions are.
Jeff
Jeff
Jeff
The account down in Cali (which is my personal email account, and not posted here) is one that I have to reach by telnet/ssh.
It's pretty nice, and I don't ever fsck with my friends settings. Sometimes Mutt renders poorly in a telnet window, but I've got pine as a back up (and since I can remember some simple keybindings, I can still grab the new mail off of the pop account, and then look at it through pine). Anyway, I'm satisfied with the setup.
Jeff
No idea what you are talking about. I never said anything about "illegal being bad" and I most certainly did not say that the "IP laws are my God." I have no qualms about my mp3 collection.
I really don't know why I bothered with this. Oh well.
Jeff
Of course I do, because it is a rather good parallel here. The American Revolution was like any other movement, headed by a small number of people who believed in something and forced it on a lot of people. There were a lot of people who disagreed with the Founding Fathers--the loyalists--and there were a lot more sitting on the fence--everyone else. The parallel continues in that the Founding Fathers did many things that could be looked at in the same light as any other form of activism (the Sons of Liberty, read up about those thugs, or how about waging war, not paying their taxes, openly critisizing England, the list goes on and on), but the system was changed to reflect their beliefs. Those changes were also shoved down a lot of people's throats. Meaning, of course, sometimes rights need to be shoved down everyone's throats. I think this is one of those times.
That's not how the law is set up in this country.
Not quite, the liscence law does allow for it (see the GPL), but then the law also allows for the SCSL and the M$ EULA.
Now, you can try and introduce law that gives you these rights, but currently you just don't have them.
Good idea, but it isn't necessarily needed. Strong arming companies to use liscences that will give these rights will work too. Laws needn't be the end all, say all solution of rights. I think it would be a better system if it was brought about with as little judiciary action as possible, but if that ends up being needed, bring it on.
And in this case, Sun already knows who the FSF is, and they don't seem to want to play; so now it is a matter of coercing them to.
Sun is completely inside it's rights here, you aren't. Too bad, you lose.
Nope. I say Sun is out of their rights. How do I defend this? Because I personally believe that the current view of proprietary software is wrong. Things should be Open and Free to change, given that they stay open, and that's all I need.
I know everyone out there is going to read that last paragraph wrong. Before you haul off and call me a Stallmanist-Commie-Fanatic-Basketcase-Loony-Crackw hore-Sheep, allow me to clarify. Sometimes this question comes up in life: "Who has the right to dictate to the masses?" The answer to this question is totally personal, and can change for different situations. There are many many people out there who tend to shy away from this question and never answer it meaningfully (eg, answering it deep down and with confidence). In this case, I answer with a loud, "I do." For the simple reason that I am using a system that is plain better, because it is open and the user has rights. The GPL isn't the end all solution, but notsosilentbob and I seem to agree that it fits here, along with many other /.ers. It is perfectly fine to answer any other way, which I do believe is where nssb and I differ.
One last thing, Happy Holidays.
Jeff
Sun releases Java under the BSD liscence (hmm, now where did I get that...).
M$ grabs the source, plays a little game called "Embrace and Extend." Calls their product "COOL." Then, they market it (binary only) as a "Better Java than Java."
Sun get's fscked, hard. M$ get's away with it, totally.
In the current arena, and with the Java product there are players who do not give a flying monkey turd about the community (at the moment, Sun included). This is a situation where the community needs to be enforced.
I care more about the user's rights than the developer's, and that is my underlying assumption. My best shot at yours is that you care about the developer's rights, which would say, "M$ is fine in this situation." Flame me if I have my head up my arse.
Jeff
Not relevant, allow me to explain. Stallman and all his followers are not concerned with Sun's bottom line, at least not primarily, now it isn't that we are against money, just it isn't top priority. This is more about user's rights and having a working technology that fulfils it's stated goals (already been discussed how Perl does a better job than Java at being WORA).
At this point, Sun would have to change their business plan, but that's their problem. Show me the (Free) source.
Jeff
Jeff
There really is nothing wrong with calling for a boycott. You don't like it, don't participate, but what Amazon.com did was a Very Bad Thing(tm) (hehheh.. sorry, harkening to other debates on this article). What Stallman is doing is the same things as any other political leader has done for any other movement. Ghandi, MLK, both Women's Rights movements, and many many many others. These are common and proven tactics, and I think he's doing what's best for the Free Software Foundation and the movement. Sometimes it is better not to sit back and just be meek; sometimes you need to be outspoken and active to make things change. Stallman is doing this, and I think it is needed. Some companies and people aren't going to be "sold" by a pitch for the GPL. Sun already knows the pitch well (see: SCSL), and they aren't going to change anymore than they have.
Jeff
He has declared that users have four basic freedoms (don't like this? What do you think the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independance are?). These freedoms happen to be:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
Stallman and all his followers (myself included) have decided that users need to have these rights, and that these rights should apply to all software. Thus we will demand those rights. These demands preclude any IP laws and rights. Period. On a most basic level we do not agree with IP. The fact that they own the trademark is ok, that is fine, but the liscence is just slimy, and as such, there needs to be a replacement, and Sun is at fault and deserves a good sound tongue lashing from Stallman.
Remember, just because it's legal doesn't mean it is good.
Oh yeah, go read over the "why we exist" section on www.gnu.org. It might help you to understand what we stand for.
Jeff
Jeff
Such happy thoughts.
Jeff
I would like to point out that he was being funny. I got a good chuckle out of that, and damnit, I'm a sufferer too. I'm fighting my own fight against RSI (and I'm 17, sucks to be me).
Anyway, reread it, see the authors attempt at humor, have a chuckle. Have a nice day.
Jeff
M$ had said that NT4 didn't need to be defragmented, and people at the hospital where my dad works were instructed not to defrag their NT workstations (NTFS != VFAT and all that).
Unfortunately, NTFS needs to be defragged, which is a bug in NTFS, and M$ admitted as much by releasing a defrag utility. My dad found his workstation at work horribly defragged, and I do believe this did help with its performance...
But we users of Linux and Ext2 wouldn't know anything about that kind of problem, now would we?
Jeff