using the word "registry" for a central place of storing all system config info and a
I think most commercial unices have maintained a 'registry' with 'keys' for package management for the last ten years or so. Certainly LPP does in AIX, even if it's a file heirarchy w/directories as the 'key.'
It's funny, the difference in a coder and a corporation.. Someone from debian thought 'wow, this would be cool -' and did it. Someone from M$ though 'wow, this would be cool -' and patented it.
There is no reason the VM cannot make calls to specific hardware, as we all know they're written for specific platforms.
1) Do it and post the code.
2) No, not all VMs are written for a single platform. Most people, when writing a unix VM, would probably consider adding hw accelleration too much overheard, especially given the fact that java compliance is such a moving target.
3) Sun's optimizing the swing widget compilation for sun boxes is not laziness - are they really supposed to also support non-sun gfx adaptors? That's a massive undertaking.
4) I agree with you, non-optimized gui elements are one of my favorite things to taunt our java monkies with.
I do not understand. What is the problem with C|Net?
Not a problem with C|Net, a problem with slashdot. There are some weeks where ten of the items posted on/. will be straight from news.com. It's just silly.:)
-- blue
Re:This is linux's biggest problem w.r.t. companie
on
Motif's Not Dead
·
· Score: 1
Whoa there cowboy! Are you bitter or what!
Yes, I am. You represent yet-another company that has written a proprietary product without thinking ahead to platform-independance and is now blaming linux for your crufty code.
If you don't abstract it properly to begin with, or if you don't use a cross-platform GUI, that's fine, it's OK, no one cares - but DON'T go blaming linux for it.
1. Our linux version is _free_ you can download it now from our web page.
2. why do you ask if I'm trolling about our freedoms? Are you one of those open source people who think freedom is secondary to functionality? Sorry bud, not me.
You are completely correct - you, or at least, the 'you' that is your company, is not an open source person at all. Canvas is closed-source with no current plans to release that source. That's free, how? Beer, right, gotcha. Not even good beer, as I have to fill out a stupid poll to get to the download URL.
Sorry your company is lame, mine isn't.
Nice one.:P
Do you know what winelib is?
Do you really think, after reading my post, that I would not know what wine is? (wine, btw, Is Not an Emulator.:P) And, if it worked under wine, why are you even on/. bitching about it? Wine is cheating anyways. Why even post to this thread if you're not actually implementing anything having to do with a linux API?
I guess I just don't understand most of your post or your positions. You say you're all about freedom, the GPL, and open source software while being the lead linux developer for a closed-source product. Which is it? Freedom with the capitol F, or loss-leader-please-download-our-product freedom?
5. As far as the GPL comment, I was talking about the standard API we, the linux community, decide on.
There is no community, and 'we' don't decide anything. You use linux, or you don't. The people who 'decide' what API they're going to use are the people writing the software. Sometimes they use an existing set of tools, and sometimes they don't. It's that simple. I hope that there is never a single API that 'everyone' uses for anything in linux.
Rob, kids, I'd like to propose that nothing presented on ZDNET or C|Net ever get posted to slashdot again. (C|Net for very different reasons from ZD, of course)
ZD is trolling us, and we're feeding them. As any longtime usenet dork will tell you -
Don't feed the troll!
-- blue
Re:This is linux's biggest problem w.r.t. companie
on
Motif's Not Dead
·
· Score: 3
Hi Michael!
This is a huge problem for linux. We need a standard API for companies to seriously be able to develop software in linux.
Linux has a lot of problems, and this is not a member of that set. Strictly speaking, X is not part of linux. You might mean, "We had some problems getting our product to work in a linux environment," but I would appreciate if you would say that. It would be one thing if you were Netscape, and not some extreme late-comer with a high priced product. I disagree that having companies develop seriously for linux is any particular help (see: jouraling file systems, web servers, the OS itself), but, let me see if I can offer some solutions.
Or you can use GTK, (which runs on unix, windows, and beos) or Qt, (runs on unix and windows). As someone else pointed out, any distro that has X is prolly gonna include both of these toolkits.
Also, you fail to mention which sort of API you're looking for, but I'm assuming the gui-toolkit kind of thing. Please clarify a little if I'm wrong.
To preserve our freedoms by convincing corporations to free their software, we need to have a unified, standard, rock solid API for developing large scale applications.
Are you just trolling here?:P
way to implement Canvas, so of course they asked me about the API. The response - that there is no really standard XFree86 api that is supported by the linx community
Now I know this is a troll. Management asked you about an API? Uh uh, no way. Managers don't ask about things like APIs.:P And, duh, giving them the response 'there isn't one' is dumb on two counts. Dumb one, because it's just plain false - you can certainly use the athena widget set if you need guaranteed compliance, and dumb two because, even if it was true, you coulda just lied about it. Lucky for you, it wasn't true, just wrong.
ut, if we could've gone straight into the API and began hacking away, I'm sure those months could've been spent porting to a native app.
Look, are you suggesting that porting something from the MSFC to X should be as easy as a recompile? I mean, aren't you ignoring the fact that what you're REALLY facing is not 'lack of a standard linux/X api" but rather "the quagmire of bullshit one must deal with when porting ANY application to Win32 to Unix (or vice versa)?" I mean, come on, does your application run on some X emulation layer in windows? Noooo, it doesn't (wild guess, there), so it doesn't use any sort of X API, so having one for linux would have saved you exactly dick.
And of course whatever we decide on as a standard will have to be GPL'd..
From the canvas download page:
4.You may not modify, rent, resell for profit, distribute or create derivative works based on the Software or any part thereof.
So you can include it as part of your $375.00 gimp clone? No thankee.
Also, on mention of netscape, does anyone know how the original netscape did it? Did they write their own toolkit for each OS?
of sour grapes. this interview reminds me of nothing so much as the interview with the CEO of SCO a year or so ago, where he roundly denounced linux, said it sucked, etc, etc, and that sco would have nothing to do with it - we all see how that turned out.
the sad, sick fact of the matter is that the crushing majority of new software for unix is being developed for linux/*bsd, and, because motif costs $$ (and looks like ass) - it's not being developed with motif.
in fact, i'd like to label that entire interview as a troll.:P
I really do wonder sometimes if it might be cool to just declare bankruptcy, get a job working at mcdonald's, and spend my free time taking code like this, publishing it, implementing it, and then getting sued.
And then I think, wait.. Who cares? It's Windows, in five years, no one will use it anyways.:P
no. proprietary file formats are not designed to make your life as a geek easier, they are designed to lock people into using, and encouraging other people to use a single applicatation or suite.
other answer: yes, duh, of course an open standard for document exchange would be great. there have, in fact, been several. but there's nothing to keep any given company from extending 'xml' to only be 'fully featured' within their product.
if you don't want sucky proprietary file formats, don't use sucky proprietary tools.
-- blue
Re:Overpopulation is good, based on your "logic"?
on
Thus Spake Stallman
·
· Score: 1
You're certainly right about the 'waste of time' commen. The fact that you have no idea what Easter Island has to do with a discussion about overpopulation pretty much ends the conversation.
And I'm not interested in having a serious discussion any more than I'm interested in talking about 'serious modern philosophy' with some other fellah.
This IS slashdot, ya know. I might be loud and impassioned, but I'd hardly call it 'serious.'
Grain of salt, and all that.:)
-- blue (601st post?:P)
Re:Overpopulation is good, based on your "logic"?
on
Thus Spake Stallman
·
· Score: 1
bzzzzzzt. You failed the assignment, and you did not explain how people = poverty. F minus! You're just making a lot of funny (funny ha-ha) assertions without even trying to back them up without anything other than more funny assertions. The cool part is when you tell me how I don't know what I'm talking about.
Resources are not fixed. This is an economic fact. More people means more labor available for the creation of more wealth. Population growth makes us all richer.
Go explain that 'fact' to the former inhabitants of Easter Island. Please CC: every specie of plant and animal we've extincted.
This progress we have made is not that wonderful, nor that important, in comparison to what we have destroyed. Past a certain point, more humans, no matter how great of a place it makes the planet for humans, generally means more (irreperable) destruction.
Any time some form of life dies forever just to make room for more humans, there are too many of us.
OK, so to promote freedom, would you ban these commercials? Or just put out restrictions on what can or can't be said on TV? Or on their shirt?
Your baiting me, and not even very well. Where have I promoted freedom by restriction? I promote freedom by not watching television. The long version is: by not being subject to advertisements, my purchases are not attributable to the practice of advertising - god forbid I buy based solely on perceived quality, and not at all on the basis of which sportsmodel happens to be, well, sporting something. If no one ever bought anything because of an advertisement, we would become miraculously free of advertising.
'Social Conditioning' as used by anti-business zealots, could mean virtually any kind of persuasion.
Good thing I'm nothing like an anti-business zealot. Have I not put enough effort into defining 'social conditioning?' Is it not completely clear that I understand that I am also a product of such?
So while RMS is to be loved for advertising his development model, Nike should make people ill and sad for doing the same thing?
Come on, some of your post was good, this is silly. THINK about what I'm trying to say. A corporation, and one famous for human-rights violations, has so ingrained itself into popular culture that it is fashionable to wear the company's logo as a near-permanent embillishment to your body.
Is it the fault of the company that people are bored, lonely, and so in need of group approval that they'll brand themselves with a little swooshie? I don't think it is, but the fact remains that that little swoosh is a corporate logo, that it is intentionally pushed into the face of every human being alive as often as possible with ONE goal and ONE motive, neither of which is "we just wanna make good shoes." They do it for money, clearly irrespective of any damage they may cause.
And that, in my (quasi) relativistic, posted-too-friggin-much-to-slashdot-today, shut-up-already-you're-almost-as-bad-as-john-katz opinion -
Sorry, but how can you claim that his standpoint on relativism is incorrect?? The whole point of relativism is that there is no absolute right or wrong. If you're a relativist then you can't (by definition) claim that somebody else's views are incorrect. They're just different from yours. That's the whole point, isn't it?
You are correct - in order to be 100% self-compliant, I should have said that I disagree with his viewpoint on relativism - not that his viewpoint is incorrect. Fortunately for me, I don't much care for debate - I'm just offering my opinions, flawed as they may be.
That's why no serious modern philosopher espouses relativism. A relativist can't make any interesting arguments, since you can't legitimately disagree with anybody else!
"Serious modern philosophy" "Interesting argument" "Legitimate disagreement"
Those phrases make me giggle.
-- blue
Re:Overpopulation is good, based on your "logic"?
on
Thus Spake Stallman
·
· Score: 1
Those countries that have problems with starvation and over-crowding are due to poverty, not an excess of people.
This is so funny, I emailed it to someone. Are you claiming that poverty can exist without people? Here's a logic puzzle for you:
Take an island. Put 1,000 people on it. Give them all enough infinite wealth. Give them zero food.
Explain to me how poverty, and not an excess of humans -vs- relative access to resources, creates the problems inherent in overpopulation.
It's not my fault that most/.ers disagree with me.
And yet here you are posting to SlashDot. What, do you think that coming here you are avoiding the mass media? Have you forgotten that/. is owned by a corporation? If you are so anti-media why are you even online?
Would it have helped if I had added "and I don't click banner ads?":P Sure, I was grandstanding - someone wanted to point out that I'm weird, and I wholeheartedly agree. Do you have nothing better to do than flame me over it? The whole thread started as "there's no good in making fun of people who stand up for what they believe is right," coupled with "RMS is doing everything he can do stand up for our rights as consumers." Someone chose to call me names for posting that, and that's fine.
As for being as complacent as the rest of us - well, that's just not true. I don't think I'd be spending all day answering flames if I were as complacent as the rest of ya.:P
f you think for one iota of a second that the free software movement has any bearing or relationship to true suffering in this world then you have have your head really far up your ass.
Maybe I do, or maybe you miss the point. Unlike RMS, I'm willing to accept the fact that we might both be right.:P I will say, however, that freedom, in any form, is equally important - be it the right to write software and not have it commandeered for the monetary benefit of a minority of people, or the right of 10 year old children to not spend their days making shoes. None of this is absolute - these are my views, and I'm taking my own little stand on them. I understand that maybe kids don't really have any rights - it's all social conditioning (as in, thinking of children as being something that should be protected from exploitation is social conditioning). I still believe that it is important to speak out against it.
This whole thing, to me, was supposed to be a quick defense of RMS - I never thought I'd spend all day defending myself instead.:P
But, you know, it IS/., after all.
-- blue (/., btw, is hardly a media site as in 'a site which reports news.' it is, to me, a sounding board for reactions to new or opinions. also, your assertion that all corporations and all media are equal, or, your assertion that i imply that all corporations or media are equally bad, is false and baseless.)
You have no idea how correct you are. I'm one of those insane people who hates the idea of having my every purchase planted into a database in order to 'make my next purchasing decision easier.' I don't own a television. I don't listen to the radio. I throw away mail advertisements unopened. I don't buy plastic if I can avoid it. I recycle. I drive a small, crappy car that gets good gas mileage - when I drive. I pick up other people's garbage.
Yep, that's me, obviously fucking insane because I give a shit about the planet I leave behind. Thanks for reminding me how good it makes me feel to be a raving lunatic.
We can think and decide for ourselves what is good. We don't need a spokesman.
You don't even know you're being oppressed, and that sucks. If you were black and living in 1950, would you say that same thing? Female, in 1890? Do you really not understand that no one is making this 'erosion of freedom' suff up?
No, you're right - the status quo is OK with everyone. Forget the fact that there are millions of people suffering over absolute bullshit, and allow me to apologize for being so selfish.
I do want to say (since I expected to be moderated to -1, not up where people would see it) that I completely disagree with RMS's viewpoint on absolute right and wrong and on his standpoint that relativism is incorrect.
I am a firm believer that 'right' is defined by the individual, and the needs of the individual - I just happen to agree with him that freedom is being eroded, and I sincerely appreciate his efforts to halt or slow that erosion.
No matter whether you agree with everything he says, you can at least give him credit - he lives by his ideals, and his work helps you.
In some post long ago, someone called RMS a 'kook' for standing up for freedom. I replied that maybe he is crazy, and maybe I am too, and that if standing up for freedom means being crazy, then that's fine.
I hope those of you who seriously detract from Stallman's ideals do so only out of some bitter need to put other people down, or for pure trolling fun - you MUST understand that if you don't stand up for yourselves, or support the people who stand up for you, you will lose. You will lose everything from the right to pick what brand of peanut butter you eat to the right to call Stallman a whacko.
If commercials on television don't revulse you, if you can't see the social conditioning inherent in modern advertising, if the idea that someone might tatoo themselves with the NIKE symbol does not make you ill and sad, then you're already lost.
As an aside, if you log into yahoo chat between 6pm and 2am EST on most nights and head into the "Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris" room, you can usually find some pretty kick-ass help. I go there and answer questions just as a way to keep sharp, and because I sometimes miss doing support.
They have a java chat client for the yoonix kiddies.
(No, I don't work for yahoo or make any money off of this, I do it cuz I like doing it.)
n other words, we want to keep power for ourselves, the public be dammed.
Well, if that's how you feel, ok. But that's not at all what I said.
You've already shown your hand with your earlier post about how little you like ESR.
I did not (and do not) espouse a total lack of regulation, I was just reiterating some of what ESR said.
f it is truly the programmers that make
the regulations, then it is truly Microsoft who makes 90% of them. Is that
really what we want?
Ahhahahahahahaha! Do you REALLY think that M$ cranks out 90% of the code that runs the planet? I mean, sure, 95 or whatever % of luser's desktops might be covered in M$ crap, but I've yet to see an NT box out there routing away on the net. You have half of a point, and I'll give you half of a point for it - but it is the marketing department, not the programmers, who run M$. That is a critical distinction.
That had to be some of the wordiest crap I've read in a long time. It seems to come down to three pundits versus a coder. Three people who talk a lot about open source arguing about it with one person who defines open source.
I don't wanna just me-too ESR's statements, but a lot of the really strong stuff he says, ie, that we the programmers are against regulation because, in absence of government interferance, we ARE the regulation, gets ignored by the pundits in favor of philosophical mud-slinging.
This aint about philosophy, it's about code. Sure, the US government could go in a regulate the internet as we use it into oblivion, but I don't think that such action would be allowed to stand.
Slashdot Mirror
using the word "registry" for a central place of storing all system config info and a
I think most commercial unices have maintained a 'registry' with 'keys' for package management for the last ten years or so. Certainly LPP does in AIX, even if it's a file heirarchy w/directories as the 'key.'
It's funny, the difference in a coder and a corporation.. Someone from debian thought 'wow, this would be cool -' and did it. Someone from M$ though 'wow, this would be cool -' and patented it.
Fuckers.
--
blue
There is no reason the VM cannot make calls to specific hardware, as we all know they're written for specific platforms.
1) Do it and post the code.
2) No, not all VMs are written for a single platform. Most people, when writing a unix VM, would probably consider adding hw accelleration too much overheard, especially given the fact that java compliance is such a moving target.
3) Sun's optimizing the swing widget compilation for sun boxes is not laziness - are they really supposed to also support non-sun gfx adaptors? That's a massive undertaking.
4) I agree with you, non-optimized gui elements are one of my favorite things to taunt our java monkies with.
--
blue
I do not understand. What is the problem with C|Net?
/. will be straight from news.com. It's just silly. :)
Not a problem with C|Net, a problem with slashdot. There are some weeks where ten of the items posted on
--
blue
Whoa there cowboy! Are you bitter or what!
:P
:P) And, if it worked under wine, why are you even on /. bitching about it? Wine is cheating anyways. Why even post to this thread if you're not actually implementing anything having to do with a linux API?
Yes, I am. You represent yet-another company that has written a proprietary product without thinking ahead to platform-independance and is now blaming linux for your crufty code.
If you don't abstract it properly to begin with, or if you don't use a cross-platform GUI, that's fine, it's OK, no one cares - but DON'T go blaming linux for it.
1. Our linux version is _free_ you can download it now from our web page.
2. why do you ask if I'm trolling about our freedoms? Are you one of those open source people who think freedom is secondary to functionality? Sorry bud, not me.
You are completely correct - you, or at least, the 'you' that is your company, is not an open source person at all. Canvas is closed-source with no current plans to release that source. That's free, how? Beer, right, gotcha. Not even good beer, as I have to fill out a stupid poll to get to the download URL.
Sorry your company is lame, mine isn't.
Nice one.
Do you know what winelib is?
Do you really think, after reading my post, that I would not know what wine is? (wine, btw, Is Not an Emulator.
I guess I just don't understand most of your post or your positions. You say you're all about freedom, the GPL, and open source software while being the lead linux developer for a closed-source product. Which is it? Freedom with the capitol F, or loss-leader-please-download-our-product freedom?
5. As far as the GPL comment, I was talking about the standard API we, the linux community, decide on.
There is no community, and 'we' don't decide anything. You use linux, or you don't. The people who 'decide' what API they're going to use are the people writing the software. Sometimes they use an existing set of tools, and sometimes they don't. It's that simple. I hope that there is never a single API that 'everyone' uses for anything in linux.
--
blue
Or a vote -
Rob, kids, I'd like to propose that nothing presented on ZDNET or C|Net ever get posted to slashdot again. (C|Net for very different reasons from ZD, of course)
ZD is trolling us, and we're feeding them. As any longtime usenet dork will tell you -
Don't feed the troll!
--
blue
Hi Michael!
:P
:P And, duh, giving them the response 'there isn't one' is dumb on two counts. Dumb one, because it's just plain false - you can certainly use the athena widget set if you need guaranteed compliance, and dumb two because, even if it was true, you coulda just lied about it. Lucky for you, it wasn't true, just wrong.
This is a huge problem for linux. We need a standard API for companies to seriously be able to develop software in linux.
Linux has a lot of problems, and this is not a member of that set. Strictly speaking, X is not part of linux. You might mean, "We had some problems getting our product to work in a linux environment," but I would appreciate if you would say that. It would be one thing if you were Netscape, and not some extreme late-comer with a high priced product. I disagree that having companies develop seriously for linux is any particular help (see: jouraling file systems, web servers, the OS itself), but, let me see if I can offer some solutions.
You can: buy a copy of.. MOTIF!
Or you can use GTK, (which runs on unix, windows, and beos) or Qt, (runs on unix and windows). As someone else pointed out, any distro that has X is prolly gonna include both of these toolkits.
Also, you fail to mention which sort of API you're looking for, but I'm assuming the gui-toolkit kind of thing. Please clarify a little if I'm wrong.
To preserve our freedoms by convincing corporations to free their software, we need to have a unified, standard, rock solid API for developing large scale applications.
Are you just trolling here?
way to implement Canvas, so of course they asked me about the API. The response - that there is no really standard XFree86 api that is supported by the linx community
Now I know this is a troll. Management asked you about an API? Uh uh, no way. Managers don't ask about things like APIs.
ut, if we could've gone straight into the API and began hacking away, I'm sure those months could've been spent porting to a native app.
Look, are you suggesting that porting something from the MSFC to X should be as easy as a recompile? I mean, aren't you ignoring the fact that what you're REALLY facing is not 'lack of a standard linux/X api" but rather "the quagmire of bullshit one must deal with when porting ANY application to Win32 to Unix (or vice versa)?" I mean, come on, does your application run on some X emulation layer in windows? Noooo, it doesn't (wild guess, there), so it doesn't use any sort of X API, so having one for linux would have saved you exactly dick.
And of course whatever we decide on as a standard will have to be GPL'd..
From the canvas download page:
4.You may not modify, rent, resell for profit, distribute or create derivative works based on the Software or any part thereof.
So you can include it as part of your $375.00 gimp clone? No thankee.
Also, on mention of netscape, does anyone know how the original netscape did it? Did they write their own toolkit for each OS?
--
blue
of sour grapes. this interview reminds me of nothing so much as the interview with the CEO of SCO a year or so ago, where he roundly denounced linux, said it sucked, etc, etc, and that sco would have nothing to do with it - we all see how that turned out.
:P
the sad, sick fact of the matter is that the crushing majority of new software for unix is being developed for linux/*bsd, and, because motif costs $$ (and looks like ass) - it's not being developed with motif.
in fact, i'd like to label that entire interview as a troll.
--
blue
I really do wonder sometimes if it might be cool to just declare bankruptcy, get a job working at mcdonald's, and spend my free time taking code like this, publishing it, implementing it, and then getting sued.
:P
And then I think, wait.. Who cares? It's Windows, in five years, no one will use it anyways.
--
blue
no. proprietary file formats are not designed to make your life as a geek easier, they are designed to lock people into using, and encouraging other people to use a single applicatation or suite.
other answer: yes, duh, of course an open standard for document exchange would be great. there have, in fact, been several. but there's nothing to keep any given company from extending 'xml' to only be 'fully featured' within their product.
if you don't want sucky proprietary file formats, don't use sucky proprietary tools.
--
blue
You're certainly right about the 'waste of time' commen. The fact that you have no idea what Easter Island has to do with a discussion about overpopulation pretty much ends the conversation.
:)
:P)
And I'm not interested in having a serious discussion any more than I'm interested in talking about 'serious modern philosophy' with some other fellah.
This IS slashdot, ya know. I might be loud and impassioned, but I'd hardly call it 'serious.'
Grain of salt, and all that.
--
blue (601st post?
bzzzzzzt. You failed the assignment, and you did not explain how people = poverty. F minus! You're just making a lot of funny (funny ha-ha) assertions without even trying to back them up without anything other than more funny assertions.
The cool part is when you tell me how I don't know what I'm talking about.
Resources are not fixed. This is an economic fact. More people means more labor available for the creation of more wealth. Population growth makes us all richer.
Go explain that 'fact' to the former inhabitants of Easter Island. Please CC: every specie of plant and animal we've extincted.
This progress we have made is not that wonderful, nor that important, in comparison to what we have destroyed. Past a certain point, more humans, no matter how great of a place it makes the planet for humans, generally means more (irreperable) destruction.
Any time some form of life dies forever just to make room for more humans, there are too many of us.
Danke!
--
blue
Cool, thanks. I also emailed the link @ the bottom of the page, but no one has yet replied.
So I'm assuming that it's ok for us to put this up on our mp3z related web pages?
--
blue
OK, so to promote freedom, would you ban these commercials? Or just put out restrictions on what can or can't be said on TV? Or on their shirt?
Your baiting me, and not even very well. Where have I promoted freedom by restriction? I promote freedom by not watching television. The long version is: by not being subject to advertisements, my purchases are not attributable to the practice of advertising - god forbid I buy based solely on perceived quality, and not at all on the basis of which sportsmodel happens to be, well, sporting something. If no one ever bought anything because of an advertisement, we would become miraculously free of advertising.
'Social Conditioning' as used by anti-business zealots, could mean virtually any kind of persuasion.
Good thing I'm nothing like an anti-business zealot. Have I not put enough effort into defining 'social conditioning?' Is it not completely clear that I understand that I am also a product of such?
So while RMS is to be loved for advertising his development model, Nike should make people ill and sad for doing the same thing?
Come on, some of your post was good, this is silly. THINK about what I'm trying to say. A corporation, and one famous for human-rights violations, has so ingrained itself into popular culture that it is fashionable to wear the company's logo as a near-permanent embillishment to your body.
Is it the fault of the company that people are bored, lonely, and so in need of group approval that they'll brand themselves with a little swooshie? I don't think it is, but the fact remains that that little swoosh is a corporate logo, that it is intentionally pushed into the face of every human being alive as often as possible with ONE goal and ONE motive, neither of which is "we just wanna make good shoes." They do it for money, clearly irrespective of any damage they may cause.
And that, in my (quasi) relativistic, posted-too-friggin-much-to-slashdot-today, shut-up-already-you're-almost-as-bad-as-john-katz opinion -
is dead wrong.
--
blue
You get a copy when you go to download it, but before the GPL, you have to click thru (above) this:
:P
This software shall not be further distributed without prior written permission from Compaq Computer Corporation.
Oversight? Evil?
You be the judge.
--
blue
Sorry, but how can you claim that his standpoint on relativism is incorrect?? The
whole point of relativism is that there is no absolute right or wrong. If you're a relativist then you can't (by definition) claim that somebody else's views are incorrect. They're just different from yours. That's the whole point, isn't it?
You are correct - in order to be 100% self-compliant, I should have said that I disagree with his viewpoint on relativism - not that his viewpoint is incorrect. Fortunately for me, I don't much care for debate - I'm just offering my opinions, flawed as they may be.
That's why no serious modern philosopher espouses relativism. A relativist can't make any interesting arguments, since you can't legitimately disagree with anybody else!
"Serious modern philosophy"
"Interesting argument"
"Legitimate disagreement"
Those phrases make me giggle.
--
blue
Those countries that have problems with starvation and over-crowding are due to poverty, not an excess of people.
/.ers disagree with me.
This is so funny, I emailed it to someone. Are you claiming that poverty can exist without people? Here's a logic puzzle for you:
Take an island. Put 1,000 people on it. Give them all enough infinite wealth. Give them zero food.
Explain to me how poverty, and not an excess of humans -vs- relative access to resources, creates the problems inherent in overpopulation.
It's not my fault that most
... You're right. It's Richard Stallman's fault.
--
blue
And yet here you are posting to SlashDot. What, do you think that coming here you are avoiding the mass media? Have you forgotten that /. is owned by a corporation? If you are so anti-media why are you even online?
:P Sure, I was grandstanding - someone wanted to point out that I'm weird, and I wholeheartedly agree. Do you have nothing better to do than flame me over it? The whole thread started as "there's no good in making fun of people who stand up for what they believe is right," coupled with "RMS is doing everything he can do stand up for our rights as consumers." Someone chose to call me names for posting that, and that's fine.
:P
:P I will say, however, that freedom, in any form, is equally important - be it the right to write software and not have it commandeered for the monetary benefit of a minority of people, or the right of 10 year old children to not spend their days making shoes. None of this is absolute - these are my views, and I'm taking my own little stand on them. I understand that maybe kids don't really have any rights - it's all social conditioning (as in, thinking of children as being something that should be protected from exploitation is social conditioning). I still believe that it is important to speak out against it.
:P
/., after all.
Would it have helped if I had added "and I don't click banner ads?"
As for being as complacent as the rest of us - well, that's just not true. I don't think I'd be spending all day answering flames if I were as complacent as the rest of ya.
f you think for one iota of a second that the free software movement has any bearing or relationship to true suffering in this world then you have have your head really far up your ass.
Maybe I do, or maybe you miss the point. Unlike RMS, I'm willing to accept the fact that we might both be right.
This whole thing, to me, was supposed to be a quick defense of RMS - I never thought I'd spend all day defending myself instead.
But, you know, it IS
--
blue (/., btw, is hardly a media site as in 'a site which reports news.' it is, to me, a sounding board for reactions to new or opinions. also, your assertion that all corporations and all media are equal, or, your assertion that i imply that all corporations or media are equally bad, is false and baseless.)
and so are you.
You have no idea how correct you are. I'm one of those insane people who hates the idea of having my every purchase planted into a database in order to 'make my next purchasing decision easier.' I don't own a television. I don't listen to the radio. I throw away mail advertisements unopened. I don't buy plastic if I can avoid it. I recycle. I drive a small, crappy car that gets good gas mileage - when I drive. I pick up other people's garbage.
Yep, that's me, obviously fucking insane because I give a shit about the planet I leave behind. Thanks for reminding me how good it makes me feel to be a raving lunatic.
We can think and decide for ourselves what is good. We don't need a spokesman.
You don't even know you're being oppressed, and that sucks. If you were black and living in 1950, would you say that same thing? Female, in 1890? Do you really not understand that no one is making this 'erosion of freedom' suff up?
No, you're right - the status quo is OK with everyone. Forget the fact that there are millions of people suffering over absolute bullshit, and allow me to apologize for being so selfish.
--
blue
Yeah, I'm replying to my own post, so sue me. :P
I do want to say (since I expected to be moderated to -1, not up where people would see it) that I completely disagree with RMS's viewpoint on absolute right and wrong and on his standpoint that relativism is incorrect.
I am a firm believer that 'right' is defined by the individual, and the needs of the individual - I just happen to agree with him that freedom is being eroded, and I sincerely appreciate his efforts to halt or slow that erosion.
No matter whether you agree with everything he says, you can at least give him credit - he lives by his ideals, and his work helps you.
--
blue
In some post long ago, someone called RMS a 'kook' for standing up for freedom. I replied that maybe he is crazy, and maybe I am too, and that if standing up for freedom means being crazy, then that's fine.
I hope those of you who seriously detract from Stallman's ideals do so only out of some bitter need to put other people down, or for pure trolling fun - you MUST understand that if you don't stand up for yourselves, or support the people who stand up for you, you will lose. You will lose everything from the right to pick what brand of peanut butter you eat to the right to call Stallman a whacko.
If commercials on television don't revulse you, if you can't see the social conditioning inherent in modern advertising, if the idea that someone might tatoo themselves with the NIKE symbol does not make you ill and sad, then you're already lost.
--
blue
As an aside, if you log into yahoo chat between 6pm and 2am EST on most nights and head into the "Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris" room, you can usually find some pretty kick-ass help. I go there and answer questions just as a way to keep sharp, and because I sometimes miss doing support.
They have a java chat client for the yoonix kiddies.
(No, I don't work for yahoo or make any money off of this, I do it cuz I like doing it.)
--
blue
n other words, we want to keep power for ourselves, the public be dammed.
Well, if that's how you feel, ok. But that's not at all what I said.
You've already shown your hand with your earlier post about how little you like ESR.
I did not (and do not) espouse a total lack of regulation, I was just reiterating some of what ESR said.
f it is truly the programmers that make
the regulations, then it is truly Microsoft who makes 90% of them. Is that
really what we want?
Ahhahahahahahaha! Do you REALLY think that M$ cranks out 90% of the code that runs the planet? I mean, sure, 95 or whatever % of luser's desktops might be covered in M$ crap, but I've yet to see an NT box out there routing away on the net. You have half of a point, and I'll give you half of a point for it - but it is the marketing department, not the programmers, who run M$. That is a critical distinction.
--
blue
That had to be some of the wordiest crap I've read in a long time. It seems to come down to three pundits versus a coder. Three people who talk a lot about open source arguing about it with one person who defines open source.
I don't wanna just me-too ESR's statements, but a lot of the really strong stuff he says, ie, that we the programmers are against regulation because, in absence of government interferance, we ARE the regulation, gets ignored by the pundits in favor of philosophical mud-slinging.
This aint about philosophy, it's about code. Sure, the US government could go in a regulate the internet as we use it into oblivion, but I don't think that such action would be allowed to stand.
--
blue
Well, the docs say the impact is negligible, so I decided to give it a shot.
Box is a celery, 450mhz, 128MB RAM, intel i810 chipset, kernel is 2.2.12-20 (stock RH 6.1)
Apache is 1.3.12, freshly compiled just for this benchmark.
Without:
Running 15,000 requests over three iterations:
1: 373 req/sec - 677 kb/sec
2: 374 req/sec - 675 kb/sec
3: 375 req/sec - 679 kb/sec
With libsafe:
1: 334 req/sec - 605 kb/sec
2: 343 req/sec - 621 kb/sec
3: 355 req/sec - 642 kb/sec
Benchmark command line was:
./ab -n5000 -c100 -k http://cobalt/index.html
So, not bad, it it does what it says it does. The box was loaded to the gills, so every little extra makes a difference.
I'll probly be putting this to at least some serious testing in our production environment.
--
blue
It always sucks to lose a true hacker.
Peace.
Blue