On my linux machine, I'd much rather lose/usr/bin (which I can easily reinstall from the.debs), or/root (which has nothing of value in it anyway), than $HOME, which is where I actually do things of (questionable:P) value. Yes, I know, running as root I could just as easily lose the entire/home, but if the program has the logic you describe, I think I'd rather run it as root in my personal situation. And I don't think I'm the only one in a similar situation. When push comes to shove, on your average person's computer, their personal data files that they put hours of work into are far more valuable than programs which can just be reinstalled in a few minutes.
So when it comes to nasty programs, I don't really think the fact that emacs (or word, or whatever) still runs is much consolation to someone who's just lost their precious work (at least since their last backup).:)
> unfortunately, the FSF has mangled the meaning > of the word free
Hardly. The BSD gives more freedom than the GPL in terms of "freedom to", however the GPL gives what one might term a more wholistic freedom, in that it also gives "freedom from", that is freedom from your code being used in proprietary software.
Which is more "free" depends on the motives of the author - the FSF value the "freedom from" more than the extra "freedom to" given by a BSD license, where as the BSD folks feel the other way.
The FSF have NOT mangled the word free at all, the word free simply describes a concept which is far from black and white.
That PR and promotion are periphery activities was exactly my point - you don't need to be an uber-hacker to do them, so why not hand off the tasks to people who aren't coders and let those who write code write code?
However, I do think that talk CAN be a result in itself. It is through talk that we got mozilla. It is through talk the we got the new Qt license. It will be through talk that I'm confident apple will change their license for the better. Talk can achieve many things, and without talk we lose direction as a whole.
The whole show me the code thing PREVENTS technical superiority from winning. Instead, it becomes a battle of celebrities - Person X has written code A bud person Y has only written code B, hence person X beats person Y. This is plain wrong, no matter how much code someone has or hasn't written in the past, it does not make them right or wrong in the present. If you want technical superiority, the only way to achieve it is through talk and technical arguments, not through relying on past code written.
And without all the talk, philosphy, and other such things you clasify as not having results, one has to wonder how the GNU project would have ever gotten started.
I'm not saying code isn't important, far from it. But code is only one aspect. Other aspects such as design, licensing, promotion, project coordination, bug reporting, etc all involve large amounts of talk in order to be sucessful.
Not to say the KDE vs GNOME flamewars are particuarly useful. But don't judge all talk on that - just like you don't judge the stability of all the code in the world on the basis of one buggy program. We need code, but we need talk just as badly.
I find it interresting (but hardly surprising) that GNU have yet again stated that the GPL is THE license, and should be used in preference to other options such as the BSD licence.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in much of what GNU stands for, and I recognise the role the GPL has played in getting us to the stage we are at today. However, because of this, I think it's time to start thinking about tossing out the GPL and moving on to the next stage.
Now why would we want to do this? Have I gone crazy? Am I just trying to subvert the goals of GNU? No, I just think the time for the GPL has passed. In the past, when the GNU project was started, there was a lack of free software, and a lack of knowledge about the issue. Thus the GPL was essential in establishing the initial momentum, without having the developers be disheartened at seeing their code incorporated into commercial products that made substantial improvements over the free versions.
But times have changed. People (at least programmers) now know about free software (or open source). The general community is becoming aware of it also. Yet they are becomming increasingly less aware of GNU (as evidenced by GNU's attemps to gain publicity with the whole GNU/Linux thing), and also less aware of the true freedom aspect, rather than the free beer aspect.
I percieve the major problem here to be that the GPL does all the protecting of free software for people. Instead of having people who are aware of the benefits of free software, why it is good to have it, and why it should be preferred to closed alternatives, it is instead taken for granted by the wording of the GPL.
What I think needs to be done is to make free software an education rather than a legal issue. Don't restrict the source code from being included in proprietry applications - instead educate people on why free software is supperior, and when you have achieved that, people will use the free software over the closed alternative anyway. But the key distinction with this as opposed to the GPL situation is that the users will be taking their freedom for themselves, rather than being handed it to them via the GPL.
There's an old saying, that goes something like: "You can untie the dog, but it will still just be anather dog dragging along a chain around it's neck". It's one that makes a very good point - the only true freedom is one that is self earnt, people can not be given freedom. They wont fully appreciate it, they won't value it, and above all they wont know how to defend it.
Education is a far better solution than law, for reasons that largely should be obvious, but also for other reasons. The law and the courts are largely controlled by the rich. As we all know, in the software industry, the rich are those who have an interest in keeping their proprietry cash cows. Do you really want to trust the law to be able to stand up to them, or would you rather see an educated user base that will tell the proprietry companies where to stick it if they try peddling their closed versions of free works?
Not to mention I find one of the few areas where RMS is a hypocrit is in the area of using copyright (or copyleft). If he is so against the copyright system, then surely he shouldn't be using it against the companies, as two wrongs does not make a right. Instead, I think it is a battle that would be much better faught without resorting to the methods of the enemy.
Don't get me wrong, the GPL is vastly better than anything proprietry, but I think it's time to look towards the future, and ask ourselves what form do we want free software to take - free software because people understand why free software is the way to go, or free software because some license says it is so?
On a final note, doesn't RMS himself say in that free software song of his, "When we have enough free software, we'll kick out those dirty licenses evermore"? Well, I think we're starting to see a critical mass of free software, and it's time to start kicking out licenses. So why not start with the one we can most easily kick out, the very one GNU created, the GPL?
Although, as Supertramp told me: I better watch what I say, or they'll be calling me a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal:)
One thing that I think needs to be fixed is this little piece of scoring, where an AC post starts at 0, and a user post starts at 1. I think it seriously biases the moderation system, since just by logging in comments go up a notch. I can not think of a logical reason why the simple act of having a cookie in your web browser's cookie file makes some people's comments worth 1 more point.
If you want to give people the option to ignore AC posts, then add that as an explicit option. But I think it's unfair that AC posts automatically start 1 point lower, especially since many moderators are reluctant to raise them even when they are good.
Is it possible that this gets changed Rob, and worry about ranking comments after they actually get posted, rather than before?
Equal rights for ACs!
The future - Let the non-coders have a voice too.
on
ESR Wants to Retire
·
· Score: 3
Firstly, I'll state that I don't mean to sound negative about ESR, although I disagree with his views on a large number of issues, and also the way he often went about his "role" as "open source advocate", I'm sure he did what he thought was best, and life is nasty that one can't go back and try things differently to see whether other ways would have infact been better.
But, assuming for the moment that we do need to have someone in the "open source advocate" role, my question is why is being a top notch coder a requirement?
I realise that some of the people involved in open source may not accept a non-coder, or even someone with only average coding ability. But why not? To me it makes perfect sense.
There are hundreds of people who can't code but would like to contribute something useful. These people DO have much to offer. They're often better public speakers, or writers, or have better people skills, or are better managers, etc, than most coders. So why should we insist that they must be a top notch coder to represent the interests of open source?
I think the best way forward is to free the people who's primary interest is in writing code from the responsibilities of these sort of "advocate" positions. There are plenty of people out there who have more time, are more willing, and are just plain better qualified to do those things. By letting the people who like to code just code, then we get more code written, which can only be a good thing.
The free software/open source message affects everyone, not just those writing the code. Computers are such a big part of modern life that to suggest only the "nerds" have any interest in their future is foolish. And what better way to reach out to the vast majority of people in the world who are not coders than to have people who are in a similar position explain what open source is about to them? Seems far more sensible than to send some computer geek, as lets face it, coders don't have a reputation amoungst the general community as someone you'd want to listen to or read about.
If a celebrity wants to write a book, they usually get a ghostwriter to assist them. If I want to build a house, I get an architect to draw up the plans. So why shouldn't the "coders of the world" who are interested in open source software be happy to have someone who's more qualified to speak on their behalf? Or do we find that concept just too threatening?
I guess I'm an exception to everything I just said above though, because I'm a programmer who'd rather be spend more time in philosophical debates and discussion, and less time coding. Though I'd never want to take on the role ESR had. But I do think the discussion that goes on in the open source world is at least as important as the code itself, and hence that's where my dislike for the idea of measuring everyone by what code they've written comes from. Each opinion starts out equal, it's up to the words the speaker uses to prove or disprove it, NOT who the speaker is.
Qualifications, Smalifications. You don't have to be qualified to be right, and being qualified doesn't prove that you're right. It can help in reaching a position where you have the knowledge to be right, though.:)
So in brief, I think what we should look to is a future where ESR's sucessor doesn't need to be a "hacker" like he was. In fact, I for one am hoping they're not.
I've been doing some thinking about this whole apple thing, and I think there is a way that this can be made to work. I might be wrong though, maybe I'm just really hoping for this to work out, so if anyone knows something I don't, do tell.:)
As we all know, apple makes the majority of it's profits from hardware. I'm not sure what the exact figure is, but I've heard it's around 90%. So obviously, anything that sells more hardware for apple would be a bonus, even if it came at the expense of software.
As it stands, their current license isn't motivating me, or likely many other people, to go out and buy apple boxes. Perhaps the bugfixes may make a better OS, but the fact is the UI portion of the OS is still closed. Given this, one must question exactly how much good this will do in the long run (mind you, it will probably have some benefit, just not what it could have).
However, the obvious problem for apple is if they release all the code, then bang, someone ports it to intel, and apple is in huge trouble. I'd love to run the MacOS, and if it were fully open source, then gosh dammit, I would. But I'd do it on intel (or AMD, you know what I mean), for three reasons: a) Intel still gives better price/performance b) I already own the hardware c) It leaves my other operating system choices more open. For example, my favorite linux distro is debian, but the MacOS port isn't really finished yet.
I believe most people would do the same, even the non-hacker types who just want to run the MacOS, mainly for the first two reasons.
But can this be stopped? I think it can. I see no reason why apple can't release the code under the GPL (for example), but with a clause stating that it may not be compiled for any non apple architecture (obviously with a better, more legal wording).
Although I'm sure some people would still complain, and I agree it's not the perfect world solution, it would provide the open source world with another great OS option, and no doubt sell plenty of hardware for apple, as the MacOS benefits from the open source model and becomes a more attractive option for many people. Heck, even the reduced development costs for apple might allow them to sell their boxes a little cheaper, further advancing their cause in the market.
If apple did this, I'd almost certainly make my next machine a Mac.
But is it open source? After reading the open source definition/debian free software guidelines, I fail to see why not. Taking it point by point:
1) It would be freely redistributable like the GPL 2) It would have source code 3) It would allow derived works under the same terms as the original license 4) It would allow modified binaries/source 5) It would not descriminate against persons or groups (I don't think "intel chip owners" counts under this clause, as they are free to purchase Mac hardware - I believe this clause was meant to stop people who put racists/sexist/etc license clauses in their licenses from calling their software "free" or "open source") 6) It wouldn't discriminate against "fields of endevour" 7) it would have "distribution of license" 8) The license wouldn't be specific to a software product 9) The license wouldn't contaminate other software 10) It would practically be the GPL but for a small clause.
Perhaps a few clauses in the OSD are vague enough that people could complain and try to exclude it from being labelled "open source", but I think you could do that for practically any license if you tried hard enough. I do think it would be a fair license for all concerned, be of mutual benefit to everyone (Heck, you could even use the low level drivers in linux, since they'd only ever get compiled on Mac hardware and otherwise be under the GPL).
In short, this seems such an ideal solution that I'm wondering why nobody else has suggested it?
I think that there is obviously a lot of truth in this. However, it's really only a half truth, in that while the observations may be correct, the conclusions the writers have drawn from them are less so.
For the RMS article, one has to agree that at times things do get sidetracked on to silly issues like the GNU/Linux one. However, the writer of the article fails to realise that to a lot of people, the political (ie freedom) aspects of open source/free software are just as or more important than the code itself. Thus it's neither surprising nor counter-constructive that a good proportion of discussion about such software is spent discussing these sorts of political issues.
Basically, the author looks on from the outside and percieves a problem that is only there because of his ignorance of the people and issues involved. Yes, it may look bad to him, but what would be worse is that people who don't know about free software never got the chance to hear about what the free is really supposed to mean.
Are some elements immature politically? Again, probably true, you can't expect everyone in a group as large and diverse as those who write/use/advocate open source software to all be informed or even interested in politics. In RMS's case, I believe this is true, he is politically immature in that he desperately clings on to the idea that he's a capitalist when all his writings on GNU's philosophy page are far more compatible with a socialist system. But he's not the only one guilty of this, or other contradictory political thoughts.
As for the second article, well, that is the nature of the beast that is the internet. If you speak out in a forum where there are enough people, you're bound to get flamed by at least a few. It wouldn't matter if it was Linux, MacOS, Windows, BeOS, FreeBSD, or something non computer related. He even acknowledges that he did get help, so I'm not quite sure what his problem is. He should just ignore the flames, and use the useful information, rather than taking them personally.
And it hardly takes a genius to point out that zealots of all OS religions are pretty much the same. That's why they're called zealots, dammit! If he's going to judge the usefulness of the software, or even the quality of the "community" based on the rantings of a few quick to flame zealots, then he's going to come up with the wrong answer every time.
As for his thoughts on slashdot, well, since he calls it a Linux site (It's news for nerds: stuff that matters - which is a whole lot more than just Linux), I think he shows himself to be so ill informed that it doesn't even need a response.
There are things we can take away from these articles, but nothing that wasn't already known by a lot of people - that some people in the open source/free software community are too quick to flame, and also that some of our "celebrities" aren't perfect, and don't necessarily know everything about everything.
I think the thing that shone through in this article is that Linus is one of the world's great diplomats. Although he'd probably deny it, saying he's just pragmatic, I think it's true. He's just modest, a trait that goes hand in hand with being diplomatic.
Take, for example, the way he manages to mention Windows NT several times in a less than complimentary way, without ever sounding like he was being condescending, or "Microsoft bashing".
Or the way he manages to bring home his point against microkernel architecture. He made points that coming from most people would have been flamebait, but from him seem little more than quiet assertions of the truth, due to his modest and humble manner. Then again, Linux is probably proof that this assertions are in fact truth.
I'm not saying that the article was brilliant, in fact I thought it served to highlight the difference between a great author and a great computer scientist. That is, the article, while doubtlessly interesting and informative, lacked an artist's touch (much like certain operating systems in fact). However, it did yet again highlight what makes Linus such a good kernel maintainer - his people skills are first class. It's something that unfortunately can't be said for enough CS people, which is probably why Linus stands out so much.
I think this is the reason why many people, myself included, have the greatest amount of respect for people like Linus. For in being a pragmatist, while the world hasn't benefitted (or suffered!) from any great ideas of his own, his contribution in helping people come from often vastly different views to meet in the middle ground has more than made up for that.
So while I respect RMS as the rightful "Saint of free software", as I respect various other "celebrities" of the free software/open source world, I think that what Linus has done is far greater. That is, in the way he has managed to bring people together (not just with code, but also with his words) rather than tear them apart over a relentless pursuit of an ideal, as some have done. Perhaps he realises, in his more balanced world view, that the end does not justify the means, nor, just as importantly, does the means justify the end.
It's probably no coincidence that Linus is generally reluctant to offer his opinion on things, and when he does he tends to be brief and to the point. Perhaps that's a hint that I've said enough!:)
I have no qualms about calling someone an ass, I don't consider it swearing or offensive.
BUT, it is clearly calling people names, which the moderation guidelines say should cause a comment to be moderated down.
I'm not saying the moderation guidelines are necessarily right, what I am saying is that guidelines are pointless if no one follows them.
It doesn't matter who gets called the ass, whether it be Bill Gates, RMS, Linus, the Pope, or my pet dog, it should be treated the same way. If people can't do that, then they should refrain from moderating at all.
This comment calls RMS a "conceited ass". Yet is has a score of 2? The moderation guidelines clearly state that posts which call people names are meant to be moderated down, not up.
Seems some moderators have been voting, rather than playing by the rules. One has to wonder if someone called Linus a "concieted ass" how quickly the post would have plunged into the negatives.
Please moderators, a little objectivity would be nice.
It's most ironic that you call your response "Software Darwinism". Mostly because free/open source software is what Darwin really wrote about at work. You see, Darwin was not a believer in what has come to be known as "Darwinism". Sure, the catch-phrase of "survival of the fittest" has become the limit to what most people know about the man's works.
But in fact Darwin's works show substantial recognition of the intra- and inter-species co-operation that occours in nature, and the importance of this in the evolutionary process. That is, maybe it is true that the fittest does survive. But the fittest is not necessarily the one who kills off everyone else, but rather can be the one who co-operates with others to the fullest extent.
That Darwinism = competition is just propaganda cooked up by "free market" capitalist appologists who seek to paint their system as the "natural" way.
Instead, it is co-operation that is the way forward, NOT competition.
Hey, I want to sit around on my arse and swill beer all day! It's not fair that nobody will pay me to do it!:)
If you want to get paid for writing free software, then get yourself hired by someone like red hat. You can get paid for writing free software. But the truth of thematter is, right now there are fewer positions availible than there are people who want those positions (much like positions for someone to sit around and swill beer).
Unfortunately, the reality of capitalism means that most people can't work in the job the want to do. Learn from it, but don't live with it, support anarchy today!:)
The thing is, KDE and GNOME are not window managers. The even better news for you is that WindowMaker supports both KDE and GNOME. So all you need to do to run KDE or GNOME applications is to install the libraries, you can keep using WindowMaker as your window manager.
So even though KDE's default window manager is kwm, and GNOME's defaul is enlightenment, neither forces you to use that particular window manager to use that desktop environment.
So having Red Hat back KDE as well as GNOME is really a win/win thing.
Why is it that so many people are so blinded by the fact IE is made by Microsoft? I'm not a Microsoft fan myself, but I can see the technical merits IE has, which are far in excess of the credit it is given on slashdot. In fact, in my experience, in terms of stability, performance, and rendering quality, it outperforms netscape.
Unfortunately, some people see fit to use the very same trick they hate when Microsoft uses it against Linux - FUD.
IE may not be original, it may not come from your favorite company in the world, it may be windows only, but don't let that cloud your vision of the actual product itself.
>Or do you just assume that Rob's little place is so fucking gay that no one can keep away?
Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm failing to see the connection between homosexuality and where comments are posted.
You refer to the low quality of comments here, yet you add a bigotted rant yourself? Maybe you should look to yourself to start improving the quality of comments here.
Either rob has gone mad ...
on
RMS vs. ESR
·
· Score: 1
or he just plain doesn't read the articles that have already been posted to slashdot.;)
We've already had the flamewars over this article, I don't really need the deja vu!
BTW, something is really weird in that if I post a top level comment, I have a login name, but in replies I'm an AC? How does that work? Or not work, as the case may be...
Slashdot Mirror
>if (user.name == "root"){n t_to_the_system"); " );
/usr/bin (which I can easily reinstall from the .debs), or /root (which has nothing of value in it anyway), than $HOME, which is where I actually do things of (questionable :P) value. Yes, I know, running as root I could just as easily lose the entire /home, but if the program has the logic you describe, I think I'd rather run it as root in my personal situation. And I don't think I'm the only one in a similar situation. When push comes to shove, on your average person's computer, their personal data files that they put hours of work into are far more valuable than programs which can just be reinstalled in a few minutes.
:)
> program.delete("/usr/bin/something_really_importa
>}else if (user.name == "Joe Luser"){
> program.delete("/home/stuff_he_didn't_need_anyway
>}else{
> program.delete("nothing_because_it_can't_run");
>}
Well, I agree *nix is a better designed system.
However...
On my linux machine, I'd much rather lose
So when it comes to nasty programs, I don't really think the fact that emacs (or word, or whatever) still runs is much consolation to someone who's just lost their precious work (at least since their last backup).
- thandor
> unfortunately, the FSF has mangled the meaning
> of the word free
Hardly. The BSD gives more freedom than the GPL in terms of "freedom to", however the GPL gives what one might term a more wholistic freedom, in that it also gives "freedom from", that is freedom from your code being used in proprietary software.
Which is more "free" depends on the motives of the author - the FSF value the "freedom from" more than the extra "freedom to" given by a BSD license, where as the BSD folks feel the other way.
The FSF have NOT mangled the word free at all, the word free simply describes a concept which is far from black and white.
That PR and promotion are periphery activities was exactly my point - you don't need to be an uber-hacker to do them, so why not hand off the tasks to people who aren't coders and let those who write code write code?
However, I do think that talk CAN be a result in itself. It is through talk that we got mozilla. It is through talk the we got the new Qt license. It will be through talk that I'm confident apple will change their license for the better. Talk can achieve many things, and without talk we lose direction as a whole.
The whole show me the code thing PREVENTS technical superiority from winning. Instead, it becomes a battle of celebrities - Person X has written code A bud person Y has only written code B, hence person X beats person Y. This is plain wrong, no matter how much code someone has or hasn't written in the past, it does not make them right or wrong in the present. If you want technical superiority, the only way to achieve it is through talk and technical arguments, not through relying on past code written.
And without all the talk, philosphy, and other such things you clasify as not having results, one has to wonder how the GNU project would have ever gotten started.
I'm not saying code isn't important, far from it. But code is only one aspect. Other aspects such as design, licensing, promotion, project coordination, bug reporting, etc all involve large amounts of talk in order to be sucessful.
Not to say the KDE vs GNOME flamewars are particuarly useful. But don't judge all talk on that - just like you don't judge the stability of all the code in the world on the basis of one buggy program. We need code, but we need talk just as badly.
I find it interresting (but hardly surprising) that GNU have yet again
:)
stated that the GPL is THE license, and should be used in preference to
other options such as the BSD licence.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe in much of what GNU stands for, and I
recognise the role the GPL has played in getting us to the stage we are
at today. However, because of this, I think it's time to start thinking
about tossing out the GPL and moving on to the next stage.
Now why would we want to do this? Have I gone crazy? Am I just trying
to subvert the goals of GNU? No, I just think the time for the GPL has
passed. In the past, when the GNU project was started, there was a lack
of free software, and a lack of knowledge about the issue. Thus the GPL
was essential in establishing the initial momentum, without having the
developers be disheartened at seeing their code incorporated into
commercial products that made substantial improvements over the free
versions.
But times have changed. People (at least programmers) now know about
free software (or open source). The general community is becoming aware
of it also. Yet they are becomming increasingly less aware of GNU (as
evidenced by GNU's attemps to gain publicity with the whole GNU/Linux
thing), and also less aware of the true freedom aspect, rather than the
free beer aspect.
I percieve the major problem here to be that the GPL does all the
protecting of free software for people. Instead of having people who
are aware of the benefits of free software, why it is good to have it,
and why it should be preferred to closed alternatives, it is instead
taken for granted by the wording of the GPL.
What I think needs to be done is to make free software an education
rather than a legal issue. Don't restrict the source code from being
included in proprietry applications - instead educate people on why
free software is supperior, and when you have achieved that, people
will use the free software over the closed alternative anyway. But the
key distinction with this as opposed to the GPL situation is that the
users will be taking their freedom for themselves, rather than being
handed it to them via the GPL.
There's an old saying, that goes something like: "You can untie the
dog, but it will still just be anather dog dragging along a chain
around it's neck". It's one that makes a very good point - the only
true freedom is one that is self earnt, people can not be given
freedom. They wont fully appreciate it, they won't value it, and above
all they wont know how to defend it.
Education is a far better solution than law, for reasons that largely
should be obvious, but also for other reasons. The law and the courts
are largely controlled by the rich. As we all know, in the software
industry, the rich are those who have an interest in keeping their
proprietry cash cows. Do you really want to trust the law to be able to
stand up to them, or would you rather see an educated user base that
will tell the proprietry companies where to stick it if they try
peddling their closed versions of free works?
Not to mention I find one of the few areas where RMS is a hypocrit is
in the area of using copyright (or copyleft). If he is so against the
copyright system, then surely he shouldn't be using it against the
companies, as two wrongs does not make a right. Instead, I think it is
a battle that would be much better faught without resorting to the
methods of the enemy.
Don't get me wrong, the GPL is vastly better than anything proprietry,
but I think it's time to look towards the future, and ask ourselves
what form do we want free software to take - free software because
people understand why free software is the way to go, or free software
because some license says it is so?
On a final note, doesn't RMS himself say in that free software song of
his, "When we have enough free software, we'll kick out those dirty
licenses evermore"? Well, I think we're starting to see a critical mass
of free software, and it's time to start kicking out licenses. So why
not start with the one we can most easily kick out, the very one GNU created,
the GPL?
Although, as Supertramp told me: I better watch what I say, or they'll be calling me a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal
One thing that I think needs to be fixed is this little piece of scoring, where an AC post starts at 0, and a user post starts at 1. I think it seriously biases the moderation system, since just by logging in comments go up a notch. I can not think of a logical reason why the simple act of having a cookie in your web browser's cookie file makes some people's comments worth 1 more point.
If you want to give people the option to ignore AC posts, then add that as an explicit option. But I think it's unfair that AC posts automatically start 1 point lower, especially since many moderators are reluctant to raise them even when they are good.
Is it possible that this gets changed Rob, and worry about ranking comments after they actually get posted, rather than before?
Equal rights for ACs!
Firstly, I'll state that I don't mean to sound negative about ESR, although I disagree with his views on a large number of issues, and also the way he often went about his "role" as "open source advocate", I'm sure he did what he thought was best, and life is nasty that one can't go back and try things differently to see whether other ways would have infact been better.
:)
But, assuming for the moment that we do need to have someone in the "open source advocate" role, my question is why is being a top notch coder a requirement?
I realise that some of the people involved in open source may not accept a non-coder, or even someone with only average coding ability. But why not? To me it makes perfect sense.
There are hundreds of people who can't code but would like to contribute something useful. These people DO have much to offer. They're often better public speakers, or writers, or have better people skills, or are better managers, etc, than most coders. So why should we insist that they must be a top notch coder to represent the interests of open source?
I think the best way forward is to free the people who's primary interest is in writing code from the responsibilities of these sort of "advocate" positions. There are plenty of people out there who have more time, are more willing, and are just plain better qualified to do those things. By letting the people who like to code just code, then we get more code written, which can only be a good thing.
The free software/open source message affects everyone, not just those writing the code. Computers are such a big part of modern life that to suggest only the "nerds" have any interest in their future is foolish. And what better way to reach out to the vast majority of people in the world who are not coders than to have people who are in a similar position explain what open source is about to them? Seems far more sensible than to send some computer geek, as lets face it, coders don't have a reputation amoungst the general community as someone you'd want to listen to or read about.
If a celebrity wants to write a book, they usually get a ghostwriter to assist them. If I want to build a house, I get an architect to draw up the plans. So why shouldn't the "coders of the world" who are interested in open source software be happy to have someone who's more qualified to speak on their behalf? Or do we find that concept just too threatening?
I guess I'm an exception to everything I just said above though, because I'm a programmer who'd rather be spend more time in philosophical debates and discussion, and less time coding. Though I'd never want to take on the role ESR had. But I do think the discussion that goes on in the open source world is at least as important as the code itself, and hence that's where my dislike for the idea of measuring everyone by what code they've written comes from. Each opinion starts out equal, it's up to the words the speaker uses to prove or disprove it, NOT who the speaker is.
Qualifications, Smalifications. You don't have to be qualified to be right, and being qualified doesn't prove that you're right. It can help in reaching a position where you have the knowledge to be right, though.
So in brief, I think what we should look to is a future where ESR's sucessor doesn't need to be a "hacker" like he was. In fact, I for one am hoping they're not.
I've been doing some thinking about this whole apple thing, and I think there is a way that this can be made to work. I might be wrong though, maybe I'm just really hoping for this to work out, so if anyone knows something I don't, do tell. :)
As we all know, apple makes the majority of it's profits from hardware. I'm not sure what the exact figure is, but I've heard it's around 90%. So obviously, anything that sells more hardware for apple would be a bonus, even if it came at the expense of software.
As it stands, their current license isn't motivating me, or likely many other people, to go out and buy apple boxes. Perhaps the bugfixes may make a better OS, but the fact is the UI portion of the OS is still closed. Given this, one must question exactly how much good this will do in the long run (mind you, it will probably have some benefit, just not what it could have).
However, the obvious problem for apple is if they release all the code, then bang, someone ports it to intel, and apple is in huge trouble. I'd love to run the MacOS, and if it were fully open source, then gosh dammit, I would. But I'd do it on intel (or AMD, you know what I mean), for three reasons:
a) Intel still gives better price/performance
b) I already own the hardware
c) It leaves my other operating system choices more open. For example, my favorite linux distro is debian, but the MacOS port isn't really finished yet.
I believe most people would do the same, even the non-hacker types who just want to run the MacOS, mainly for the first two reasons.
But can this be stopped? I think it can. I see no reason why apple can't release the code under the GPL (for example), but with a clause stating that it may not be compiled for any non apple architecture (obviously with a better, more legal wording).
Although I'm sure some people would still complain, and I agree it's not the perfect world solution, it would provide the open source world with another great OS option, and no doubt sell plenty of hardware for apple, as the MacOS benefits from the open source model and becomes a more attractive option for many people. Heck, even the reduced development costs for apple might allow them to sell their boxes a little cheaper, further advancing their cause in the market.
If apple did this, I'd almost certainly make my next machine a Mac.
But is it open source? After reading the open source definition/debian free software guidelines, I fail to see why not. Taking it point by point:
1) It would be freely redistributable like the GPL
2) It would have source code
3) It would allow derived works under the same terms as the original license
4) It would allow modified binaries/source
5) It would not descriminate against persons or groups (I don't think "intel chip owners" counts under this clause, as they are free to purchase Mac hardware - I believe this clause was meant to stop people who put racists/sexist/etc license clauses in their licenses from calling their software "free" or "open source")
6) It wouldn't discriminate against "fields of endevour"
7) it would have "distribution of license"
8) The license wouldn't be specific to a software product
9) The license wouldn't contaminate other software
10) It would practically be the GPL but for a small clause.
Perhaps a few clauses in the OSD are vague enough that people could complain and try to exclude it from being labelled "open source", but I think you could do that for practically any license if you tried hard enough. I do think it would be a fair license for all concerned, be of mutual benefit to everyone (Heck, you could even use the low level drivers in linux, since they'd only ever get compiled on Mac hardware and otherwise be under the GPL).
In short, this seems such an ideal solution that I'm wondering why nobody else has suggested it?
I think that there is obviously a lot of truth in this. However, it's really only a half truth, in that while the observations may be correct, the conclusions the writers have drawn from them are less so.
For the RMS article, one has to agree that at times things do get sidetracked on to silly issues like the GNU/Linux one. However, the writer of the article fails to realise that to a lot of people, the political (ie freedom) aspects of open source/free software are just as or more important than the code itself. Thus it's neither surprising nor counter-constructive that a good proportion of discussion about such software is spent discussing these sorts of political issues.
Basically, the author looks on from the outside and percieves a problem that is only there because of his ignorance of the people and issues involved. Yes, it may look bad to him, but what would be worse is that people who don't know about free software never got the chance to hear about what the free is really supposed to mean.
Are some elements immature politically? Again, probably true, you can't expect everyone in a group as large and diverse as those who write/use/advocate open source software to all be informed or even interested in politics. In RMS's case, I believe this is true, he is politically immature in that he desperately clings on to the idea that he's a capitalist when all his writings on GNU's philosophy page are far more compatible with a socialist system. But he's not the only one guilty of this, or other contradictory political thoughts.
As for the second article, well, that is the nature of the beast that is the internet. If you speak out in a forum where there are enough people, you're bound to get flamed by at least a few. It wouldn't matter if it was Linux, MacOS, Windows, BeOS, FreeBSD, or something non computer related. He even acknowledges that he did get help, so I'm not quite sure what his problem is. He should just ignore the flames, and use the useful information, rather than taking them personally.
And it hardly takes a genius to point out that zealots of all OS religions are pretty much the same. That's why they're called zealots, dammit! If he's going to judge the usefulness of the software, or even the quality of the "community" based on the rantings of a few quick to flame zealots, then he's going to come up with the wrong answer every time.
As for his thoughts on slashdot, well, since he calls it a Linux site (It's news for nerds: stuff that matters - which is a whole lot more than just Linux), I think he shows himself to be so ill informed that it doesn't even need a response.
There are things we can take away from these articles, but nothing that wasn't already known by a lot of people - that some people in the open source/free software community are too quick to flame, and also that some of our "celebrities" aren't perfect, and don't necessarily know everything about everything.
I think the thing that shone through in this article is that Linus is one of the world's great diplomats. Although he'd probably deny it, saying he's just pragmatic, I think it's true. He's just modest, a trait that goes hand in hand with being diplomatic.
:)
Take, for example, the way he manages to mention Windows NT several times in a less than complimentary way, without ever sounding like he was being condescending, or "Microsoft bashing".
Or the way he manages to bring home his point against microkernel architecture. He made points that coming from most people would have been flamebait, but from him seem little more than quiet assertions of the truth, due to his modest and humble manner. Then again, Linux is probably proof that this assertions are in fact truth.
I'm not saying that the article was brilliant, in fact I thought it served to highlight the difference between a great author and a great computer scientist. That is, the article, while doubtlessly interesting and informative, lacked an artist's touch (much like certain operating systems in fact). However, it did yet again highlight what makes Linus such a good kernel maintainer - his people skills are first class. It's something that unfortunately can't be said for enough CS people, which is probably why Linus stands out so much.
I think this is the reason why many people, myself included, have the greatest amount of respect for people like Linus. For in being a pragmatist, while the world hasn't benefitted (or suffered!) from any great ideas of his own, his contribution in helping people come from often vastly different views to meet in the middle ground has more than made up for that.
So while I respect RMS as the rightful "Saint of free software", as I respect various other "celebrities" of the free software/open source world, I think that what Linus has done is far greater. That is, in the way he has managed to bring people together (not just with code, but also with his words) rather than tear them apart over a relentless pursuit of an ideal, as some have done. Perhaps he realises, in his more balanced world view, that the end does not justify the means, nor, just as importantly, does the means justify the end.
It's probably no coincidence that Linus is generally reluctant to offer his opinion on things, and when he does he tends to be brief and to the point. Perhaps that's a hint that I've said enough!
I have no qualms about calling someone an ass, I don't consider it swearing or offensive.
BUT, it is clearly calling people names, which the moderation guidelines say should cause a comment to be moderated down.
I'm not saying the moderation guidelines are necessarily right, what I am saying is that guidelines are pointless if no one follows them.
It doesn't matter who gets called the ass, whether it be Bill Gates, RMS, Linus, the Pope, or my pet dog, it should be treated the same way. If people can't do that, then they should refrain from moderating at all.
This comment calls RMS a "conceited ass". Yet is has a score of 2? The moderation guidelines clearly state that posts which call people names are meant to be moderated down, not up.
Seems some moderators have been voting, rather than playing by the rules. One has to wonder if someone called Linus a "concieted ass" how quickly the post would have plunged into the negatives.
Please moderators, a little objectivity would be nice.
It's most ironic that you call your response "Software Darwinism". Mostly because free/open source software is what Darwin really wrote about at work. You see, Darwin was not a believer in what has come to be known as "Darwinism". Sure, the catch-phrase of "survival of the fittest" has become the limit to what most people know about the man's works.
But in fact Darwin's works show substantial recognition of the intra- and inter-species co-operation that occours in nature, and the importance of this in the evolutionary process. That is, maybe it is true that the fittest does survive. But the fittest is not necessarily the one who kills off everyone else, but rather can be the one who co-operates with others to the fullest extent.
That Darwinism = competition is just propaganda cooked up by "free market" capitalist appologists who seek to paint their system as the "natural" way.
Instead, it is co-operation that is the way forward, NOT competition.
Hey, I want to sit around on my arse and swill beer all day! It's not fair that nobody will pay me to do it! :)
:)
If you want to get paid for writing free software, then get yourself hired by someone like red hat. You can get paid for writing free software. But the truth of thematter is, right now there are fewer positions availible than there are people who want those positions (much like positions for someone to sit around and swill beer).
Unfortunately, the reality of capitalism means that most people can't work in the job the want to do. Learn from it, but don't live with it, support anarchy today!
I believe the code to support kde was introduced from 0.50 onwards. If you update, you shold have no problems.
The thing is, KDE and GNOME are not window managers. The even better news for you is that WindowMaker supports both KDE and GNOME. So all you need to do to run KDE or GNOME applications is to install the libraries, you can keep using WindowMaker as your window manager.
So even though KDE's default window manager is kwm, and GNOME's defaul is enlightenment, neither forces you to use that particular window manager to use that desktop environment.
So having Red Hat back KDE as well as GNOME is really a win/win thing.
Why is it that so many people are so blinded by the fact IE is made by Microsoft? I'm not a Microsoft fan myself, but I can see the technical merits IE has, which are far in excess of the credit it is given on slashdot. In fact, in my experience, in terms of stability, performance, and rendering quality, it outperforms netscape.
Unfortunately, some people see fit to use the very same trick they hate when Microsoft uses it against Linux - FUD.
IE may not be original, it may not come from your favorite company in the world, it may be windows only, but don't let that cloud your vision of the actual product itself.
> The Windoze version has ALOT worse performance than the Linux version.
It is, however, far more stable, at least in my experience.
>Or do you just assume that Rob's little place is so fucking gay that no one can keep away?
Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm failing to see the connection between homosexuality and where comments are posted.
You refer to the low quality of comments here, yet you add a bigotted rant yourself? Maybe you should look to yourself to start improving the quality of comments here.
or he just plain doesn't read the articles that have already been posted to slashdot. ;)
...
We've already had the flamewars over this article, I don't really need the deja vu!
BTW, something is really weird in that if I post a top level comment, I have a login name, but in replies I'm an AC? How does that work? Or not work, as the case may be