He inherited his empire from IBM. Aside from the incredible luck (read your history) of getting the original IBM contract, and his even more incredible luck at being left in the cat-bird seat when IBM's monopoly began to bust apart at the seams (which is really just an extension of that first piece of luck), Billy has shown no more than fair-to-middlin' business acumen.
Oh, and he also inherited the wherewithal to start up a successful business from his parents. This is not a case of "successful hacker builds gigantic company from nothing", this is a case of "rich kid with all the right contacts leverages money and contacts into even more money."
I don't think Billy can outsmart me with both hands tied behind his back -- certainly not in my area of expertise (software development). In business acumen, I'm sure he has me beat, because that's not my field, but can he outsmart your average businessman? I seriously doubt it. He didn't show any amazing ability to defeat his opponents until he already had that monopoly in place (thanks to IBM).
Of course, underestimating the power of his monopoly, and or his ruthlessness (which is pretty fair-to-middlin' as far as business ruthlessness is concerned, but is backed by that good ol' monopoly) is a pretty quick road to disaster, but lets not give him more credit than he actually deserves. Down that road lies fear and paralysis, which is just as sure a route to defeat.
At the risk of sounding like flamebait, what's wrong with PNG?
The Debian menu system currently supports ALL window managers (at least, all those that can provide menus). But not all window managers support PNG. (See related articles on "bloat" and "kitchen sinks.") In fact, the only format they all support is the native X format: xpm.
Yes, xpms are large, but we're talking about icons for the menu here. Little pictures that appear next to the text, and should be about the same size as a single character!
> Actually, I love Linux because it's closer to Unix than BSD
A nit to pick, but neither is more "UNIX" than the other.
I didn't claim either was "more UNIX." I said that Linux is closer. By which I mean that it does a better job of imitating a UNIX environment. (At least from this poor programmer's perspective.) I'm not going to argue with any of your other points (though I disagree with some of them) because they're irrelevent to the point I was trying to make. All except this:
I think the great Linux vs. BSD wars are stupid and counterproductive.
I totally agree. I was just responding to the "BSD fans love UNIX, Linux fans hate MS" troll that started this thread.
I think you may have been confused by my subject line. There was supposed to be an implied "I" at the beginning, i.e., it was a personal statement ("I love..."), not a command. I apologise for the ambiguity.
just furthering the saying that "Linux is for people that hate Windows, BSD is for people that love UNIX".
That's not insightful, that's a troll. And anyway, BSD is dying! (One good troll deserves another.):)
Actually, I love Linux because it's closer to Unix than BSD is. And the parts of Linux I find most annoying are the most BSDish parts (like the behavior of ps). Actually, it's not even Linux I like so much as it is GNU. I find the GNU userspace and libraries far preferable to the BSD userspace and libraries.
I don't run FreeBSD or NetBSD because I work with commercial Unixes, and have found that Linux makes it a whole lot easier to do local testing and development. It's better than it used to be (when dealing with BSD meant spending most of your time on gratuitous incompatibilities like using "index()" for "strchr()"), but it's still annoyingly incompatible with real Unix. (Not that Linux is perfect, but it's better.)
I could care less about MS. I haven't used an MS system for anything except playing games since the late eighties.
Of course, this may change with the upcoming release of Debian GNU/BSD. The one thing I don't really like about Linux is, well, Linux. That is to say the kernel. If I could have a BSD kernel with GNU libraries and userland, I'd have (IMO), the best of all possible worlds.
the whole GNU/Linux argument becomes silly since the rest is stuff most users never see anymore and could be replaced (admittedly with less capable versions)
Nobody sees the Linux parts either. In fact, it's a whole lot less visible than the GNU parts. And the kernel could fairly easily be replaced by, say, a BSD one. By this argument, it makes more sense to drop "Linux" from the name than "GNU". (Not that I'm advocating this, merely performing a reductio ad absurdum.)
It would be more accurate to call it XFree86/Linux these days.
Why on earth is that, since the vast majority of Linux installations (note, I'm not a stickler for terminology) are servers that don't have X installed? I'm firmly in the "a rose by any other name" camp, and really don't care what it's called, but all these arguments about "it should really be X/ or Apache/ or KDE/Linux" or whatever are obviously specious. None of the stuff that people suggest for this role is ever a standard component of the system. Linux systems without these components are quite common; Linux systems without GNU code are as rare as tits on a bull.
The parent poster had a great point - IF all of your client machines are Windows, then yes, a Windows domain controller is probably your best choice.
Why? Most of the large companies I've worked with over the last 5 or so years have found Samba to be an excellent, very reliable tool, even in otherwise Winders-only networks. Of course, these were companies that needed big iron, and were using the support from HP or Sun. But even for smaller companies that can get by with using the almost-a-computer machines that MS's stuff runs on, why isn't something like Linux+Samba a better choice? It's obviously cheaper and just as reliable (some would say more so). Where's the downside?
Why is advocating homogeneous networks sound advice? I would say that you should use the right tool for the right job, and if that means adding some non-homogeneous systems, well, people do it all the time, it works great, it's a robust and well-tested approach, so why the hell not?
At my local Walgreens store, I find VHS copies of public-domain films starring Bugs Bunny.
Yeah, and those particular images of Bugs Bunny are now in the public domain, but if you try to make your own brand-new Bugs Bunny cartoon, you're still going to fall afoul of the Warners lawyers, because Bugs is still a trademark of Warners. Which was my original point.
You're right that it's not quite as simple as I originally implied, but trademarks are still a very important factor. If Steamboat Willy went into the public domain, then we might see cheap knock-offs of Steamboat Willy on the market, but not cheap knock-offs of Micky in general.
If Steam-Boat Willie falls into the public domain, then it's possible that you'll be able to make a derivative work using the character of Mickey Mouse and Disney can't stop you.
Mickey is trademarked, so it doesn't matter what happens to Steamboat Willy. You still can't use Disney's trademarked character.
Anyway, the whole "cheap knockoff" argument is overrated. There are plenty of legitimate, authorized "cheap knockoffs" of all kinds of characters. Go buy a "Kids Meal" at McDonalds to see what I mean. And endless copyright prevents new and interesting ideas just as much as it prevents cheap knockoffs. (For examples, see Dan O'Neill and Berkeley Breathed.)
I know, I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said. I just wanted to make the point.
I wish folks would just stop with the GNU/Linux junk.
And I wish folks would stop with the "just stop with the GNU/Linux junk" junk. WHO FREAKIN' CARES!
In answer to the oft-mentioned (and incredibly stupid) argument that it should be X/Apache/BSD/Mozilla/GNU/Linux, X, Apache, and Mozilla are OPTIONAL ADD-ONS! You can't boot the freekin' system without GNU's glibc and fileutils and the like! You can run all day and night, doing useful, and even critical work, without any of that other crap. Except maybe BSD, but the fact is that a bare minimum working Linux system is MOSTLY GNU software, with maybe 20% of Linus's code and maybe 5% or less BSD code.
Anyway, RMS has contibuted an awful lot; I'm willing to silently ignore his rants. WTF have you done that I should pay attention to your ignorant opinion?
Is true. In fact, Linux has never been essential. BSD has been around since before there was a Linux.
Which is just egotistical masturbation,
Given the traditional antipathy between RMS and the BSD folks, I don't see how there's anything egotistical about RMS's simple statement of fact.
Your arguments suggest that Linux is important. They do not establish that Linux is essential! Switching to BSD would probably cause some disruption and confusion in some parts of the world, but for the most part, it would be a simple and smooth transistion, and many (most?) of the people involved might not even notice.
For that matter, your arguments about press and marketing only apply to the name "Linux". Which is Linus's trademark, clean and clear. If the existing Linux codebase went away, Linus could simply say, "ok, BSD is close enough, I'll allow my trademark to be used to describe BSD systems." And your problem is solved. Linux is important; Linux is not essential.
Lone Ranger: "Tonto, we're surrounded by savage Indians who want to kill us!"
Tonto: "What you mean, `we,' white man?"
Michael Richardson is the one that made this decision. I had nothing to do with it. Note that the Debian system which Lindows is based on (which I do have something to do with) doesn't work this way. But Debian clearly grants him the freedom to make his systems work that way. "I don't agree with what he has to say, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it" also seems like an applicable quote here.
Didn't even try very hard, since they encouraged concert taping and tape trading! "Those bastards only gave away most of their music, not all of it! String 'em up!"
Metallica's last plan (letting people freely tape their shows, and trade the tapes, and even creating special "taper sections" so people could set up fancy rigs for taping without interfering with the main crowd) was done earlier (with great success) by the Grateful Dead. Doesn't mean Metallica weren't awfully nice guys for allowing it.
Of course, the fact that this band was already giving away 99.9% of the music they created doesn't matter to the/. crowd, who wants to yell and scream about how those bastards tried to protect that last little fraction of their own creation. ("How unfair! Only giving away most of their music! We'd better boycott 'em!")
Metallica used to be one of the bands (like the Dead, Phish, Allman Brothers, Pearl Jam, Flaming Lips, Throwing Muses, etc.) that allowed open taping at their shows, and free (non-commercial) trading of the tapes. The only thing that they asked was that people NOT trade their official releases.
Note this part from the interview:
Lars: "Well, 1st of all, you have to remember that you're talking to somebody who advocates bootlegging, who has alwyas been pro-bootlegging. We have always let fans tape our shows, we've always had a thing for bootlegging live materials, for special appearances, for that type of stuff. Knock yourselves out, bootleg the fuck out of it, we don't give."
The people who try to paint Metallica as the posterboys of the anti-music-trading movement are just full of it. Metallica was (and probably still is) far more generous with their music than probably 99% of the bands that these Metallica-haters DO like. This is not like Disney, who wants you to pay for humming the theme to one of their movies in the bath. This is a band that was already giving away most of their music for free!
They put very few restrictions on their music. Speaking as free software developer who puts very few restrictions on his software, I feel a lot of sympathy for the band, and I feel about as much sympathy for the napster leeches as I would for a company that was found to be violating the GPL.
Rip off Disney, rip off Microsoft, I won't blink an eye. But when you start ripping off the people who are already giving it away free, that's when I start to get upset.
You have no choice but to put your own code under the GPL if you use GPL'd code.
Using the code IS a choice! Your argument makes about as much sense as if I used MS's code, and then claimed I had not choice but to violate their copyrights!
So what you are saying, you can break copyright law and joe might sue you, or you can release under GPL.
No, what I'm saying is that you can JUST NOT USE THE FREAKIN' CODE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT!
By default, you don't have ANY right to use Joe's code. However, since he published it under the GPL, you can, IF YOU WANT, agree to the terms of the GPL and use the code under those terms. If you don't want to agree to the GPL, then tough! Joe didn't have to offer you the code under ANY TERMS. Whining that he's trying to "infect" your code is sheer intellectual dishonesty! He's not trying to do anything to your code. YOU are the one that is trying to do something with HIS code!
"SCO won't let people see the contested source code without signing an outrageous NDA but the article gives a mechanism for publishing appropriate MD5 checksums which allow code trees to be compared without anyone else seeing the code. This is offered as a means to locate the source of SCO's contested code.... This mechanism gives a concrete procedure that SCO can be challenged to follow as part of the community's "put up or shut up" response. There would be no threat to SCO's claimed IPR."
SCO will never agree to this. They want to own Linux (or kill it). Their goal is to get paid anytime anyone sells or gives away any Unixlike system, including Linux. If they made it possible for the "infringing" code to be identified, even by an indirect mechanism like this, then the code could be removed/replaced and they would no longer be able to say, "all your *nix are belong to us!"
Of course their answer to this has been that they're really talking about violation of a license agreement, which purportedly governed use of the copyright- and/or patent-protected code they showed IBM, even though they may not have held those patents or copyrights themselves.
Actually, it's worse than that. Some of the (all-too-skimpy) evidence suggest that what they're trying to claim is that code and ideas developed by IBM have become SCO's "intellectual property" and SCO's trade secret because IBM included that code and those ideas in IBM's own USL-derived system.
So while SCO seems to have been intentionally vague, it still helps to know there is a difference between patent and copyright.
Yes, trying to suggest that Linus's opinions on patents show any indication of his opinions on copyrights, trademarks or trade secrets is a case of intellectual dishonesty at its finest! This, of course, is why any use of the term "intellectual property" should be viewed with extreme mistrust. It conflates four very distinct things.
Saying that Linus's comments on patents reflect his view of "intellectual property" is like saying that Linus's comments on MS-Windows reflect his view of operating systems!:)
The GPL is not viral! If you take MS's code and stick it in your program, they can (and will) sue you for copyright violation. If you take Joe's GPL'd code and stick it in your program, Joe can (and might) sue you for copyright violation, OR you can release your work under the GPL and everything's hunky-dory. Note the "OR" there. That's a new freedom you didn't have before. It may not be the freedom you want, but it's still a damn freedom you didn't have before. And hurling insulting terms like "viral" simply because someone doesn't give you every bloody permission you might possibly ever want, when the law doesn't require them to give you ANY permissions at all, is pathetic and whiney.
When it comes to licensing, the BSD fanatics (as opposed to mere BSD fans, of which I are one) are one of the few groups in the world that can make RMS look like a moderate.
Boxen is traditional, with decades of use behind it. It's linguistically related to VAXen, and even has its own entry in the jargon file.
Distrii?
Yeah, unless someone wants to point me to a Latin (or English, misapplying Latin rules to English words has a long history in hackerdom) word, "Distrius" of which this is supposed to be the plural, I have to side with you here. This one is an abomination I hope to never see again.
Well, it seems pretty obvious that their definition would be self-serving to include as many people as possible into their group.
Likewise, if you don't approve of atheists, it would be in your own best interest to distort the definition to include as few people as possible, so you don't accidentally end up disapproving of people you like.
However, I still stand behind the Webster definition that requires you to deny there can be a god, which is the proper "a" to the "theist".
Two other dictionaries I have here (one a Webster's too) both say, "deny the existence of God," not "deny that there can be a God." And looking up deny, I find "refuse to accept or believe." And I refuse to accept gods, leprechauns, astrology, purple unicorns, and the healing power of crystals because I don't believe in gods, leprechauns, etc. QED, I'm an atheist, by at least three dictionaries.
But don't you see that [making a judgement call] is exactly the same thing the traditionally religious people are doing as well?
Of course. I never claimed to be any different or any better than anyone else.
>...my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis...
Point well taken. Still, in taking that approach you have placed the burden of and are relying on the efforts by other people to find your own personal enlightenment.
You're assuming that I care whether or not there are gods; that this "personal enlightenment" you speak of is a goal of mine. I don't, and it isn't. I'm more interested in the question of whether or not there's a Higg's Boson. And I'm only mildly interested in that. And guess what? I'm letting other people do the work there too.:)
More to the point, I don't feel that my belief (or lack thereof) has any bearing on anything. I could believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and that wouldn't change the fact that it's actually made out of balsa wood, hand-painted canvas and thumbtacks (or whatever). If there is a God, my lack of belief won't make him poof out of existence, and if there is no God, my belief wouldn't make one appear out of nowhere. And please don't bring up Pascal's wager - that one is covered here.
And not everyone thinks God is a magical man in the sky, which is junk if taken literally.
We're treading dangerously close to an actual religious discussion here, which is where I will bow out. But yes, if you insist, I will admit that there are notions of gods that I would consider "entertaining whimsy", not just junk. But I'm afraid that "entertaining whimsy" is probably the best you'll get out of me.
Or are you saying you're unable formulate a way to put the universe in perspective yourself?
I'm happy with the perspective I have of the universe as a strange, amazing, awe-inspiring place. I don't need to make up fairy tales (or entertaining whimsies) to humanize the universe or reduce its awesome majesty, and make it feel like something I could comfortably fit in my back pocket. I'm perfectly satisfied to take the universe on the terms it presents itself to me. Big, odd, and quirky (not to mention quarky).:)
If you have tried to take a path you think is the best way to live life, isn't that an appeal to something greater; an ideal you could call God?
Nope, sorry. First, I don't believe that there is one "best" way to live life. And second, I think the fact that I'm a social animal provides a perfectly adequate explanation for why I enjoy being a good person (insofar as I do, of course).
Anyway, I'm starting to sense that you really want to turn this into a religious debate, and I really, really, really don't want to, so maybe it would be best to end this now. Not that I haven't enjoyed the discussion so far, but a couple more questions like that last one, and I'm going to end up hopping around and barking at the moon in exasperation.
If I'm not an atheist, them I'm a non-atheist who subscribes to atheism (see my dictionary def'n of atheism earlier). Also, I'm definitely an atheist according to the alt.atheism FAQ. Although I meet only their definition of "weak atheist", while what you're talking about fits their definition of "strong atheist".
Note that the strict historical definition of "agnostic" is one who believes that it's not possible to know whether gods exist or not. So, if we're going to get technical, I'm clearly not an agnostic.
However the language evolves. Most people would say that if you had a poll: "Do you believe in God? A) yes, B) no, C) maybe, D) don't know," anyone who chose A is a theist, anyone who chose B is an atheist, and anyone who chose C or D is an agnostic. Since I'd choose B, I think most people (including myself) would consider me an atheist.
You're failing to disassociate yourself from the example.
As a relativist, I feel that doing anything else would be a mistake.:)
You show no reasoning process that is any better than those who believe in some form of deity because it is consistent with their world view and their witnesses. That is, your belief in the iPod is as sound as most people's belief in God.
I didn't show my reasoning at all! I simply said that I have reasoned from the evidence available to me, and formed certain conclusions. If by "sound", you mean, "based on incontrovertible evidence", then yes, I agree with you. The evidence for the iPod is not incontrovertible. However, as an intelligent human being, able to form personal opinions, I have weighed the evidence available to me and formed certain conclusions. That's one thing humans are good at - reasoning from incomplete evidence. Sometimes (frequently) we make mistakes, but on the whole it has proved to be a highly useful trait. And my personal judgement, made with my very human brain, is that the evidence for the iPod, incomplete though it may be, is vastly superior to the evidence for gods.
> Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods.
This, of course, completely contradicts your earlier statement of reasoning "based on the information available to me". By ignoring new information, you further damage your ability to reach sound conclusions.
You really are into this weasel-worded, pure-aristotelian logic junk, aren't you?:)
No, it doesn't completely contradict my earlier statement, because in the actual, messy, complicated, REAL world, things aren't pure black and white. 99.999999% of the discussions I've seen on this topic involved people with closed minds (yes, usually on both sides) rehashing tired old topics over and over. I haven't got the time to winnow through all that chaff for the possible (but improbable) kernel of wisdom. However, I rest comfortably, knowing that if anyone ever does come up with new information on the topic, it will attract enough attention and media publicity that I'll end up hearing about it, probably whether I want to or not. In other words, my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis, not some sort of absolute and unwavering rule.
Maybe being agnostic is a form of cop-out, but it is the limit of a reasonable response.
Yes, it is. I rib agnostics, but I still respect them. Heck, I used to be one, or at least that's what I told myself. But as I've gotten older, I've come to grips with the fact that I really never did believe in gods. At most, I paid lip service to uncertainty, but in my heart, I've never believed any of this junk even for a second. (Well, ignoring that time at a Pink Floyd concert back in the early seventies, but I wasn
There is a difference between not believing something exists and believing something does not exist.
There can be. An agnostic might say, "I don't believe in gods, but I don't disbelieve in them either." But that's not what I said. I don't believe gods exist, period. And yes, that does mean that I believe gods don't exist. It's still just my belief; I'm still not trying to claim that it's a cold, hard fact. But I'm sorry, no matter how you to try to slice it or weasel-word it, the fact remains that I am an atheist.
What does seem significant is that you are willing to re-weigh new evidence and change your mind. If you were an atheist, I would instead expect you to recast the evidence to fit within the framework of your belief.
And what I'm trying to tell you is that your expectations of atheists are wrong! Recasting evidence to fit within the framework of your belief is a sign of dogmatism, and I'm not a dogmatist. I deny the existence of gods and purple unicorns and many other things that I find silly, based on the information available to me, but I'm not dogmatic about it. Its a value judgement. My belief in iPods (which I've never seen) is also a value judgement. The existence of iPods is consistent with the worldview I've formed over the course of my life, and I find the witnesses credible. The same cannot be said for gods or purple unicorns.
Dogma isn't the factor I take issue with
Actually, I think dogma is exactly the factor you take issue with. Which is reasonable, I'm not a fan of dogmatism either. Which is why I find your attempt to paint atheists as dogmatists to be offensive. Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods. I further suspect that most self-professed agnostics are really atheists who know they can't prove that there's no gods, and would rather claim to reserve judgement than get sucked into tedious and pointless debate. I've been known to use this cop-out myself.
(Note that we're discussing the nature of atheists here. If we were discussing the existence of gods, I would be gone so fast it would make your head spin. I. Don't. Care.)
An individual should feel free to deny the existence of anything they like, but they should do so with the foundation of their person not a the whim of what that represents.
I deny the existence of purple unicorns, but I don't think I do so with the "foundation of my person," whatever that means.
For what ever reason they might say there is no god, they should also say there is no iPod (or whatever).
So you're saying that I can't examine two different sets of incomplete evidence and form two different conclusions? I think you're wrong. There's a little thing called "judgement" that comes into play here.
I can sort of understand it used in hotels, where you may not want to waste room space...But why would anyone want a monitor in their mirror at home?
Uh, because you may not want to waste room space? Could be really handy in some of the ultra-dense urban areas (Tokyo, Manhattan, etc.), where even the tiniest studio apts are insanely expensive (and thus inhabited by people who can afford one of these).
Slashdot Mirror
He inherited his empire from IBM. Aside from the incredible luck (read your history) of getting the original IBM contract, and his even more incredible luck at being left in the cat-bird seat when IBM's monopoly began to bust apart at the seams (which is really just an extension of that first piece of luck), Billy has shown no more than fair-to-middlin' business acumen.
Oh, and he also inherited the wherewithal to start up a successful business from his parents. This is not a case of "successful hacker builds gigantic company from nothing", this is a case of "rich kid with all the right contacts leverages money and contacts into even more money."
I don't think Billy can outsmart me with both hands tied behind his back -- certainly not in my area of expertise (software development). In business acumen, I'm sure he has me beat, because that's not my field, but can he outsmart your average businessman? I seriously doubt it. He didn't show any amazing ability to defeat his opponents until he already had that monopoly in place (thanks to IBM).
Of course, underestimating the power of his monopoly, and or his ruthlessness (which is pretty fair-to-middlin' as far as business ruthlessness is concerned, but is backed by that good ol' monopoly) is a pretty quick road to disaster, but lets not give him more credit than he actually deserves. Down that road lies fear and paralysis, which is just as sure a route to defeat.
At the risk of sounding like flamebait, what's wrong with PNG?
The Debian menu system currently supports ALL window managers (at least, all those that can provide menus). But not all window managers support PNG. (See related articles on "bloat" and "kitchen sinks.") In fact, the only format they all support is the native X format: xpm.
Yes, xpms are large, but we're talking about icons for the menu here. Little pictures that appear next to the text, and should be about the same size as a single character!
> Actually, I love Linux because it's closer to Unix than BSD
A nit to pick, but neither is more "UNIX" than the other.
I didn't claim either was "more UNIX." I said that Linux is closer. By which I mean that it does a better job of imitating a UNIX environment. (At least from this poor programmer's perspective.) I'm not going to argue with any of your other points (though I disagree with some of them) because they're irrelevent to the point I was trying to make. All except this:
I think the great Linux vs. BSD wars are stupid and counterproductive.
I totally agree. I was just responding to the "BSD fans love UNIX, Linux fans hate MS" troll that started this thread.
I think you may have been confused by my subject line. There was supposed to be an implied "I" at the beginning, i.e., it was a personal statement ("I love..."), not a command. I apologise for the ambiguity.
just furthering the saying that "Linux is for people that hate Windows, BSD is for people that love UNIX".
:)
That's not insightful, that's a troll. And anyway, BSD is dying! (One good troll deserves another.)
Actually, I love Linux because it's closer to Unix than BSD is. And the parts of Linux I find most annoying are the most BSDish parts (like the behavior of ps). Actually, it's not even Linux I like so much as it is GNU. I find the GNU userspace and libraries far preferable to the BSD userspace and libraries.
I don't run FreeBSD or NetBSD because I work with commercial Unixes, and have found that Linux makes it a whole lot easier to do local testing and development. It's better than it used to be (when dealing with BSD meant spending most of your time on gratuitous incompatibilities like using "index()" for "strchr()"), but it's still annoyingly incompatible with real Unix. (Not that Linux is perfect, but it's better.)
I could care less about MS. I haven't used an MS system for anything except playing games since the late eighties.
Of course, this may change with the upcoming release of Debian GNU/BSD. The one thing I don't really like about Linux is, well, Linux. That is to say the kernel. If I could have a BSD kernel with GNU libraries and userland, I'd have (IMO), the best of all possible worlds.
the whole GNU/Linux argument becomes silly since the rest is stuff most users never see anymore and could be replaced (admittedly with less capable versions)
Nobody sees the Linux parts either. In fact, it's a whole lot less visible than the GNU parts. And the kernel could fairly easily be replaced by, say, a BSD one. By this argument, it makes more sense to drop "Linux" from the name than "GNU". (Not that I'm advocating this, merely performing a reductio ad absurdum.)
It would be more accurate to call it XFree86/Linux these days.
Why on earth is that, since the vast majority of Linux installations (note, I'm not a stickler for terminology) are servers that don't have X installed? I'm firmly in the "a rose by any other name" camp, and really don't care what it's called, but all these arguments about "it should really be X/ or Apache/ or KDE/Linux" or whatever are obviously specious. None of the stuff that people suggest for this role is ever a standard component of the system. Linux systems without these components are quite common; Linux systems without GNU code are as rare as tits on a bull.
The parent poster had a great point - IF all of your client machines are Windows, then yes, a Windows domain controller is probably your best choice.
Why? Most of the large companies I've worked with over the last 5 or so years have found Samba to be an excellent, very reliable tool, even in otherwise Winders-only networks. Of course, these were companies that needed big iron, and were using the support from HP or Sun. But even for smaller companies that can get by with using the almost-a-computer machines that MS's stuff runs on, why isn't something like Linux+Samba a better choice? It's obviously cheaper and just as reliable (some would say more so). Where's the downside?
Why is advocating homogeneous networks sound advice? I would say that you should use the right tool for the right job, and if that means adding some non-homogeneous systems, well, people do it all the time, it works great, it's a robust and well-tested approach, so why the hell not?
At my local Walgreens store, I find VHS copies of public-domain films starring Bugs Bunny.
Yeah, and those particular images of Bugs Bunny are now in the public domain, but if you try to make your own brand-new Bugs Bunny cartoon, you're still going to fall afoul of the Warners lawyers, because Bugs is still a trademark of Warners. Which was my original point.
You're right that it's not quite as simple as I originally implied, but trademarks are still a very important factor. If Steamboat Willy went into the public domain, then we might see cheap knock-offs of Steamboat Willy on the market, but not cheap knock-offs of Micky in general.
If Steam-Boat Willie falls into the public domain, then it's possible that you'll be able to make a derivative work using the character of Mickey Mouse and Disney can't stop you.
Mickey is trademarked, so it doesn't matter what happens to Steamboat Willy. You still can't use Disney's trademarked character.
Anyway, the whole "cheap knockoff" argument is overrated. There are plenty of legitimate, authorized "cheap knockoffs" of all kinds of characters. Go buy a "Kids Meal" at McDonalds to see what I mean. And endless copyright prevents new and interesting ideas just as much as it prevents cheap knockoffs. (For examples, see Dan O'Neill and Berkeley Breathed.)
I know, I'm not actually disagreeing with anything you said. I just wanted to make the point.
I wish folks would just stop with the GNU/Linux junk.
And I wish folks would stop with the "just stop with the GNU/Linux junk" junk. WHO FREAKIN' CARES!
In answer to the oft-mentioned (and incredibly stupid) argument that it should be X/Apache/BSD/Mozilla/GNU/Linux, X, Apache, and Mozilla are OPTIONAL ADD-ONS! You can't boot the freekin' system without GNU's glibc and fileutils and the like! You can run all day and night, doing useful, and even critical work, without any of that other crap. Except maybe BSD, but the fact is that a bare minimum working Linux system is MOSTLY GNU software, with maybe 20% of Linus's code and maybe 5% or less BSD code.
Anyway, RMS has contibuted an awful lot; I'm willing to silently ignore his rants. WTF have you done that I should pay attention to your ignorant opinion?
"Linux itself is no longer essential"
Is true. In fact, Linux has never been essential. BSD has been around since before there was a Linux.
Which is just egotistical masturbation,
Given the traditional antipathy between RMS and the BSD folks, I don't see how there's anything egotistical about RMS's simple statement of fact.
Your arguments suggest that Linux is important. They do not establish that Linux is essential! Switching to BSD would probably cause some disruption and confusion in some parts of the world, but for the most part, it would be a simple and smooth transistion, and many (most?) of the people involved might not even notice.
For that matter, your arguments about press and marketing only apply to the name "Linux". Which is Linus's trademark, clean and clear. If the existing Linux codebase went away, Linus could simply say, "ok, BSD is close enough, I'll allow my trademark to be used to describe BSD systems." And your problem is solved. Linux is important; Linux is not essential.
Lone Ranger: "Tonto, we're surrounded by savage Indians who want to kill us!"
Tonto: "What you mean, `we,' white man?"
Michael Richardson is the one that made this decision. I had nothing to do with it. Note that the Debian system which Lindows is based on (which I do have something to do with) doesn't work this way. But Debian clearly grants him the freedom to make his systems work that way. "I don't agree with what he has to say, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it" also seems like an applicable quote here.
They tried not to get stolen from!
Didn't even try very hard, since they encouraged concert taping and tape trading! "Those bastards only gave away most of their music, not all of it! String 'em up!"
Metallica's last plan (letting people freely tape their shows, and trade the tapes, and even creating special "taper sections" so people could set up fancy rigs for taping without interfering with the main crowd) was done earlier (with great success) by the Grateful Dead. Doesn't mean Metallica weren't awfully nice guys for allowing it.
/. crowd, who wants to yell and scream about how those bastards tried to protect that last little fraction of their own creation. ("How unfair! Only giving away most of their music! We'd better boycott 'em!")
Of course, the fact that this band was already giving away 99.9% of the music they created doesn't matter to the
Metallica used to be one of the bands (like the Dead, Phish, Allman Brothers, Pearl Jam, Flaming Lips, Throwing Muses, etc.) that allowed open taping at their shows, and free (non-commercial) trading of the tapes. The only thing that they asked was that people NOT trade their official releases.
Note this part from the interview:
Lars: "Well, 1st of all, you have to remember that you're talking to somebody who advocates bootlegging, who has alwyas been pro-bootlegging. We have always let fans tape our shows, we've always had a thing for bootlegging live materials, for special appearances, for that type of stuff. Knock yourselves out, bootleg the fuck out of it, we don't give."
The people who try to paint Metallica as the posterboys of the anti-music-trading movement are just full of it. Metallica was (and probably still is) far more generous with their music than probably 99% of the bands that these Metallica-haters DO like. This is not like Disney, who wants you to pay for humming the theme to one of their movies in the bath. This is a band that was already giving away most of their music for free!
They put very few restrictions on their music. Speaking as free software developer who puts very few restrictions on his software, I feel a lot of sympathy for the band, and I feel about as much sympathy for the napster leeches as I would for a company that was found to be violating the GPL.
Rip off Disney, rip off Microsoft, I won't blink an eye. But when you start ripping off the people who are already giving it away free, that's when I start to get upset.
You have no choice but to put your own code under the GPL if you use GPL'd code.
Using the code IS a choice! Your argument makes about as much sense as if I used MS's code, and then claimed I had not choice but to violate their copyrights!
So what you are saying, you can break copyright law and joe might sue you, or you can release under GPL.
No, what I'm saying is that you can JUST NOT USE THE FREAKIN' CODE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT!
By default, you don't have ANY right to use Joe's code. However, since he published it under the GPL, you can, IF YOU WANT, agree to the terms of the GPL and use the code under those terms. If you don't want to agree to the GPL, then tough! Joe didn't have to offer you the code under ANY TERMS. Whining that he's trying to "infect" your code is sheer intellectual dishonesty! He's not trying to do anything to your code. YOU are the one that is trying to do something with HIS code!
"SCO won't let people see the contested source code without signing an outrageous NDA but the article gives a mechanism for publishing appropriate MD5 checksums which allow code trees to be compared without anyone else seeing the code. This is offered as a means to locate the source of SCO's contested code. ... This mechanism gives a concrete procedure that SCO can be challenged to follow as part of the community's "put up or shut up" response. There would be no threat to SCO's claimed IPR."
SCO will never agree to this. They want to own Linux (or kill it). Their goal is to get paid anytime anyone sells or gives away any Unixlike system, including Linux. If they made it possible for the "infringing" code to be identified, even by an indirect mechanism like this, then the code could be removed/replaced and they would no longer be able to say, "all your *nix are belong to us!"
Of course their answer to this has been that they're really talking about violation of a license agreement, which purportedly governed use of the copyright- and/or patent-protected code they showed IBM, even though they may not have held those patents or copyrights themselves.
:)
Actually, it's worse than that. Some of the (all-too-skimpy) evidence suggest that what they're trying to claim is that code and ideas developed by IBM have become SCO's "intellectual property" and SCO's trade secret because IBM included that code and those ideas in IBM's own USL-derived system.
So while SCO seems to have been intentionally vague, it still helps to know there is a difference between patent and copyright.
Yes, trying to suggest that Linus's opinions on patents show any indication of his opinions on copyrights, trademarks or trade secrets is a case of intellectual dishonesty at its finest! This, of course, is why any use of the term "intellectual property" should be viewed with extreme mistrust. It conflates four very distinct things.
Saying that Linus's comments on patents reflect his view of "intellectual property" is like saying that Linus's comments on MS-Windows reflect his view of operating systems!
The GPL is not viral! If you take MS's code and stick it in your program, they can (and will) sue you for copyright violation. If you take Joe's GPL'd code and stick it in your program, Joe can (and might) sue you for copyright violation, OR you can release your work under the GPL and everything's hunky-dory. Note the "OR" there. That's a new freedom you didn't have before. It may not be the freedom you want, but it's still a damn freedom you didn't have before. And hurling insulting terms like "viral" simply because someone doesn't give you every bloody permission you might possibly ever want, when the law doesn't require them to give you ANY permissions at all, is pathetic and whiney.
When it comes to licensing, the BSD fanatics (as opposed to mere BSD fans, of which I are one) are one of the few groups in the world that can make RMS look like a moderate.
Boxen?
Boxen is traditional, with decades of use behind it. It's linguistically related to VAXen, and even has its own entry in the jargon file.
Distrii?
Yeah, unless someone wants to point me to a Latin (or English, misapplying Latin rules to English words has a long history in hackerdom) word, "Distrius" of which this is supposed to be the plural, I have to side with you here. This one is an abomination I hope to never see again.
Well, it seems pretty obvious that their definition would be self-serving to include as many people as possible into their group.
...my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis...
:)
:)
Likewise, if you don't approve of atheists, it would be in your own best interest to distort the definition to include as few people as possible, so you don't accidentally end up disapproving of people you like.
However, I still stand behind the Webster definition that requires you to deny there can be a god, which is the proper "a" to the "theist".
Two other dictionaries I have here (one a Webster's too) both say, "deny the existence of God," not "deny that there can be a God." And looking up deny, I find "refuse to accept or believe." And I refuse to accept gods, leprechauns, astrology, purple unicorns, and the healing power of crystals because I don't believe in gods, leprechauns, etc. QED, I'm an atheist, by at least three dictionaries.
But don't you see that [making a judgement call] is exactly the same thing the traditionally religious people are doing as well?
Of course. I never claimed to be any different or any better than anyone else.
>
Point well taken. Still, in taking that approach you have placed the burden of and are relying on the efforts by other people to find your own personal enlightenment.
You're assuming that I care whether or not there are gods; that this "personal enlightenment" you speak of is a goal of mine. I don't, and it isn't. I'm more interested in the question of whether or not there's a Higg's Boson. And I'm only mildly interested in that. And guess what? I'm letting other people do the work there too.
More to the point, I don't feel that my belief (or lack thereof) has any bearing on anything. I could believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and that wouldn't change the fact that it's actually made out of balsa wood, hand-painted canvas and thumbtacks (or whatever). If there is a God, my lack of belief won't make him poof out of existence, and if there is no God, my belief wouldn't make one appear out of nowhere. And please don't bring up Pascal's wager - that one is covered here.
And not everyone thinks God is a magical man in the sky, which is junk if taken literally.
We're treading dangerously close to an actual religious discussion here, which is where I will bow out. But yes, if you insist, I will admit that there are notions of gods that I would consider "entertaining whimsy", not just junk. But I'm afraid that "entertaining whimsy" is probably the best you'll get out of me.
Or are you saying you're unable formulate a way to put the universe in perspective yourself?
I'm happy with the perspective I have of the universe as a strange, amazing, awe-inspiring place. I don't need to make up fairy tales (or entertaining whimsies) to humanize the universe or reduce its awesome majesty, and make it feel like something I could comfortably fit in my back pocket. I'm perfectly satisfied to take the universe on the terms it presents itself to me. Big, odd, and quirky (not to mention quarky).
If you have tried to take a path you think is the best way to live life, isn't that an appeal to something greater; an ideal you could call God?
Nope, sorry. First, I don't believe that there is one "best" way to live life. And second, I think the fact that I'm a social animal provides a perfectly adequate explanation for why I enjoy being a good person (insofar as I do, of course).
Anyway, I'm starting to sense that you really want to turn this into a religious debate, and I really, really, really don't want to, so maybe it would be best to end this now. Not that I haven't enjoyed the discussion so far, but a couple more questions like that last one, and I'm going to end up hopping around and barking at the moon in exasperation.
cheers
Then you are not an atheist.
:)
:)
If I'm not an atheist, them I'm a non-atheist who subscribes to atheism (see my dictionary def'n of atheism earlier). Also, I'm definitely an atheist according to the alt.atheism FAQ. Although I meet only their definition of "weak atheist", while what you're talking about fits their definition of "strong atheist".
Note that the strict historical definition of "agnostic" is one who believes that it's not possible to know whether gods exist or not. So, if we're going to get technical, I'm clearly not an agnostic.
However the language evolves. Most people would say that if you had a poll: "Do you believe in God? A) yes, B) no, C) maybe, D) don't know," anyone who chose A is a theist, anyone who chose B is an atheist, and anyone who chose C or D is an agnostic. Since I'd choose B, I think most people (including myself) would consider me an atheist.
You're failing to disassociate yourself from the example.
As a relativist, I feel that doing anything else would be a mistake.
You show no reasoning process that is any better than those who believe in some form of deity because it is consistent with their world view and their witnesses. That is, your belief in the iPod is as sound as most people's belief in God.
I didn't show my reasoning at all! I simply said that I have reasoned from the evidence available to me, and formed certain conclusions. If by "sound", you mean, "based on incontrovertible evidence", then yes, I agree with you. The evidence for the iPod is not incontrovertible. However, as an intelligent human being, able to form personal opinions, I have weighed the evidence available to me and formed certain conclusions. That's one thing humans are good at - reasoning from incomplete evidence. Sometimes (frequently) we make mistakes, but on the whole it has proved to be a highly useful trait. And my personal judgement, made with my very human brain, is that the evidence for the iPod, incomplete though it may be, is vastly superior to the evidence for gods.
> Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods.
This, of course, completely contradicts your earlier statement of reasoning "based on the information available to me". By ignoring new information, you further damage your ability to reach sound conclusions.
You really are into this weasel-worded, pure-aristotelian logic junk, aren't you?
No, it doesn't completely contradict my earlier statement, because in the actual, messy, complicated, REAL world, things aren't pure black and white. 99.999999% of the discussions I've seen on this topic involved people with closed minds (yes, usually on both sides) rehashing tired old topics over and over. I haven't got the time to winnow through all that chaff for the possible (but improbable) kernel of wisdom. However, I rest comfortably, knowing that if anyone ever does come up with new information on the topic, it will attract enough attention and media publicity that I'll end up hearing about it, probably whether I want to or not. In other words, my decision to ignore these debates is the result of a minimax strategy analysis, not some sort of absolute and unwavering rule.
Maybe being agnostic is a form of cop-out, but it is the limit of a reasonable response.
Yes, it is. I rib agnostics, but I still respect them. Heck, I used to be one, or at least that's what I told myself. But as I've gotten older, I've come to grips with the fact that I really never did believe in gods. At most, I paid lip service to uncertainty, but in my heart, I've never believed any of this junk even for a second. (Well, ignoring that time at a Pink Floyd concert back in the early seventies, but I wasn
There is a difference between not believing something exists and believing something does not exist.
There can be. An agnostic might say, "I don't believe in gods, but I don't disbelieve in them either." But that's not what I said. I don't believe gods exist, period. And yes, that does mean that I believe gods don't exist. It's still just my belief; I'm still not trying to claim that it's a cold, hard fact. But I'm sorry, no matter how you to try to slice it or weasel-word it, the fact remains that I am an atheist.
What does seem significant is that you are willing to re-weigh new evidence and change your mind. If you were an atheist, I would instead expect you to recast the evidence to fit within the framework of your belief.
And what I'm trying to tell you is that your expectations of atheists are wrong! Recasting evidence to fit within the framework of your belief is a sign of dogmatism, and I'm not a dogmatist. I deny the existence of gods and purple unicorns and many other things that I find silly, based on the information available to me, but I'm not dogmatic about it. Its a value judgement. My belief in iPods (which I've never seen) is also a value judgement. The existence of iPods is consistent with the worldview I've formed over the course of my life, and I find the witnesses credible. The same cannot be said for gods or purple unicorns.
Dogma isn't the factor I take issue with
Actually, I think dogma is exactly the factor you take issue with. Which is reasonable, I'm not a fan of dogmatism either. Which is why I find your attempt to paint atheists as dogmatists to be offensive. Most atheists, in my experience, don't care about the whole subject matter, and will simply ignore discussions about the existence of gods. I further suspect that most self-professed agnostics are really atheists who know they can't prove that there's no gods, and would rather claim to reserve judgement than get sucked into tedious and pointless debate. I've been known to use this cop-out myself.
(Note that we're discussing the nature of atheists here. If we were discussing the existence of gods, I would be gone so fast it would make your head spin. I. Don't. Care.)
An individual should feel free to deny the existence of anything they like, but they should do so with the foundation of their person not a the whim of what that represents.
I deny the existence of purple unicorns, but I don't think I do so with the "foundation of my person," whatever that means.
For what ever reason they might say there is no god, they should also say there is no iPod (or whatever).
So you're saying that I can't examine two different sets of incomplete evidence and form two different conclusions? I think you're wrong. There's a little thing called "judgement" that comes into play here.
I can sort of understand it used in hotels, where you may not want to waste room space...But why would anyone want a monitor in their mirror at home?
Uh, because you may not want to waste room space? Could be really handy in some of the ultra-dense urban areas (Tokyo, Manhattan, etc.), where even the tiniest studio apts are insanely expensive (and thus inhabited by people who can afford one of these).