They haven't asked him anything yet, have they? The article seems to say they COULD ask him about anything. I would hope that ex-wives (if any) would be off the table - trying to personally attack someone for things not related to the issue at hand would strike me as a very poor use of the time SCO has been given. How would that help their case?
Let's wait for the outcome of this. I rather doubt we need to make too much of the "they can ask ANYTHING" part of this - if we do let's wait for the actual event. Certainly SCO has done enough to anger the geek community without us needing to throw any more fuel on the fire. Only pursue them for the poor behavior they have actually demonstrated - I can't imagine why we would need anything else.
It's short term vs. long term thinking - Stallman is thinking far far down the road. Sure we might increase functionality now, but what about ten years down the road when a critical piece of closed source code gets tangled in a lawsuit or thirty years when the company goes out of business and takes the source code with it? Or 150 years down the road when all the original coders are dead? Ideals usually pay off in the long term, not the short term (and sometimes not even to one's personal benefit.) Plus, nothing is being forced on anybody - feel free to go and make your own software, under your own terms. Sell to your heart's content. You just can't use the freely given work of others to do it, and not give something back to them.
In that view open code is far more critical than short term benefits, and frankly I wish more people would think in those terms (particularly those who are making our energy policies.)
Fixing the FBI is not possible in general - without very good people there is simply no way to make a good organization. Specific issues might be addressed, however:
1) First step, IDENTIFY THE REQUIREMENTS of a new system. Create use cases. Observe what actually is done day to day for at least three to six months (this will need people with security clearance out the wazoo). Be sure to follow some issues beginning to end. Also, identify relevant policy and law that the FBI needs to observe - the system should be build to help ensure that proper steps are taken, both by making it easy to do the mundane work and hard to do things that will have a big negative impact on people (make the latter tracable to individuals in ALL cases - build accountablity into the system.) And for goodness sakes, don't throw out ideas in the old system if they are good, just because they're part of the "old way". 2) Second step, design and implement a small scale trial in one or two offices, working in parallel with the existing system. Identify and correct problems. 3) Gradually scale up, and in each new introduction have people familiar with both the FBI's old system and the workings of the new help with the transition. Be resigned to huge amounts of grunt work, figuring out where old files are, cataloging and re-entering info, etc. etc. etc. Because this is a matter of law enforcement, all old materials should be retained in case of mistakes. Budget for all this annoying, unsexy, but essential work. The framework must be strong enough to handle what will be put in it, but putting the content into it will be a huge task and that should be part of the design stage.
I personally think this is one situation where things like provably correct software are needed - law enforcement doesn't need any more problems, and lawyers don't need to get a chance to play around with "computer glitch" gotchas or problems.
Large systems are often hopelessly overweight and complex, so they should not be involved with the technical design. Such organizations ARE, however, very good at following regulations, instructions, and systems. Those traits should be utilized as much as possible.
One other design feature should be that all records, when updated, should have a printed record be automatically generated and stored somewhere (or several places). Computer data is too easy to change - the poster who mentioned tracibility is absolutely correct. A hard copy is MUCH easier to work with, and automatic organized printed records should be a part of the design from the get go.
See, for example - http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five _000313.html There are most likely microfiche archives in a number of locations (NASA, National Archives are probable starting points for hunting them up) but they are of limited utility unless you want to machine up the entire support structure required to make all of those parts again. I think most of the "the government destroyed the Saturn V blueprints" comments trace back to some claims made by John Lewis in "Mining the Sky" in 1996 - I haven't seen too many others making that claim that sound authorative.
That said, it would be one heck of a project to get ahold of them, as being buried in government archives is sometimes very much like sticking a needle in a haystack (insofar as the public is concerned, at least.) I would very much like to see the full blueprints to all parts and aspects of the Saturn rockets made available, modernized, and released to the world. In many respects the Saturn V represents a social and technological milestone the likes of which we probably still don't fully appreciate - it is an achievement unique to mankind, a tremendous triumpth of science, technology, and exploration. I think the full details of how this was achieved should be stored online and made available as widely as possible. I don't know what it takes to convert microfiche to svg or some other modern vector graphics/blueprint ready files (I'm sure it's nothing trivial) but why not make it a community project online? Scan the buggers, and gradually make them into modern blueprints. Then we can publish them far and wide, which is always the best way to preserve knowledge over long historical timespans.
You probably want something like the environment provided by the old LISP machines, but with better graphics. The McCLIM Listener is a hint of what might be accomplished, but the problem with environments like that is all the legacy software that exists today and does essential work. There is simply no way old software can be simply migrated to a new environment with a radically different paradigm without substantial work - the fundamental design decisions make it difficult.
Science has to be skeptical about anything. For example, let's take two statements:
1. Life had its origins on Earth, and is not to be found elsewhere. 2. Life started elsewhere, and is only present on Earth by virtue of some metorite hitting the right spot.
Science will accept NEITHER of these without proof. Science (good science anyway) is always testing EVERY hypothesis. Anything in science is ALWAYS open to being challenged, revisited, updated, or thrown out if contradicted. If it isn't, it's not science.
This is a very uncomfortable thing for lots of people, who want certainties in their lives. But science is what it is - certainties last only as long as the evidence supports them. F=ma could go out the window tomorrow if conclusive experimental evidence indicates it isn't true. (Now, after a certain point, things are assumed to be correct until proven otherwise, in order to make progress possible. But EVERYTHING in science is ALWAYS subject to challenge. Your challenge had better be good for F=ma though, since there is a VERY large body of evidence suggesting that relationship is a useful description of part of the natural world.)
So I'd say that instead of it being hard for people to believe there is life beyond Earth, it is important that any evidence of such life be subject to skeptical and rigorous test. This is why you have people looking for ways something could NOT be a sign of life - to make sure we don't overlook something in our hope that there IS other life out there. Good science has no favorites, and the facts will ALWAYS overrule wishful thinking (one way or the other.) If someone gets a result they want, one of the best things for them to do is sit down and think of ways this result could NOT mean what you want it to mean.
If we have first contact with a superior race (what is superior, anyway? more advanced? more peaceful?) the consequences will likely be completely unpredictable. I doubt meaningful communication would be established for a VERY long time (if it even CAN be established) - science fiction grossly underestimates that difficulty, in my opinion. And no doubt a sizable percentage of the population wouldn't be able to handle it, particularly if it/they are really different from us. We have enough trouble handling ourselves, nevermind something REALLY alien.
Agreed - hardware is expensive. However, developer time for software driver development is also expensive. I don't know if, in the long run, an onboard chip would be more or less expensive than OS driver headaches. I suppose, unfortunately, the current product offerings indicate that it's not worth the onboard hardware.
I've been watching the Open Graphics project with interest - I hope they succeed. Such a card is exactly what I would want - I don't care about being able to play games at a zillion FPS, but I do want to be able to rotate geometric plots in 3D smoothly and have an accelerated desktop.
As an AC I would normally ignore you, particularly given your tone, but since you seem to have a reasonable question hidden in there - "why don't I do it myself" - I will answer. I personally have very little interest in music - the RIAA concerns me more in terms of the havoc they are wrecking and will continue to wreck with the legal and technological scenes. A community music effort could only be successfully undertaken by one or more preferably a group of people who are passionate about music and willing to devote a lot of time and resources to forming a community. Preferably, they should also have good contacts with the music scene, particularly the existing free music scene. That is not me - I would not be sufficiently energetic or credible as a leader to make such a movement succeed.
I might be interested in the technology and techniques that would allow such a network to function robustly, but that is almost a field unto itself and would require more knowledge of social networking phenomena than I have. It might actually be an interesting research topic for a sociology Phd - what the necessary checks and balances would be to have a good web based functioning music community. There are hundereds of quasi-free and commerical sites out there, some already fairly successful, and they should first be studied to learn what they do right and wrong. Done right, it is not a trival undertaking.
I did not and do not mean to imply that such an undertaking would be simple, painless, and quick - merely that it is an obvious and entirely legitimate counter to the present RIAA activites, and one that does not seem to recieve much attention or interest. Part of the reason for that is probably that to be a solution it has to function at the level of a general social trend, and as the RIAA itself is aware the least energy solution is to continue pirating and ignore the lawsuits until people actually get one. The only way to "bootstrap" such a movement would be to have a website appear with robust infastructure and a significant song offering already in place, and then start to build word of mouth support. People telling people about the site, and then those new arrivals being impressed when they arrive. It is a job for a group skilled in both music and computers, and that is a very small group indeed.
For goodness sake stop distributing their music! Find the legitimate free music out there and start a grassroots movement!
If they don't want people illegially distributing their music, that's fine with me. That's what the law says, and changing the law is going to be tough. Is there response extreme given the crime? Of course, but you have to admit it's hard to deter people from downloading music - the odds of being caught and punished are still extremely low. We think they shouldn't be doing this, but remember from their point of view they want to stop this behavior. The only question then becomes what it will take to stop it. Secondary damage to sales (if any) doesn't seem to phase them much.
The only way we'll EVER win this is to cut the RIAA out of the picture. There are folks doing free music out there - let's get organized and promote the good ones! Just like open source software - don't pirate commercial software, do it right and create free alternatives. In the end, everyone's happier.
Admittedly, the creative/artistic community seems to function differently than the software folks - look at how many game engines there are, vs. high quality maps/data for said engines. I expect high quality free music might also be a bit unusual, but that's no reason not to try and start a new social trend.
We don't like Microsoft because of their software and business practices - all right, we're doing something about that. Not pirating Windows, but creating alternatives and using them. Let's do the same with music - if we're correct about the low quality of product being promoted by the large commercial groups (debatable - I personally don't think there are any useful univeral quality metrics that will decide what is enjoyable to all people, but I'll go with it here for the sake of argument) it shouldn't be impossible for folks with the time and hobby interest out there to put something together.
Let's establish a non-commercial Americal Idol type phenomena - people can compete for rating on the internet, and the most successful of those might be able to start playing live concerts, selling professional quality CDs with covers/etc. and other things that actually generate revenue. (I can't say I care for the way Americal Idol works, but we should pay attention to the techniques they are using to identify people that America wants to hear sing).
iRate radio has some good ideas, but I think they should utilize bittorrent technology and start building more of a community structure than just scraping free music websites. Lets do this right - don't fight the RIAA on their own turf. They can use the legal system to beat us over the head - they've got the $$ to do it. So let's not let them dictate the terms of engagement - let's take both the long term solution and the moral high ground. THAT's the way to fight, and the only real hope I see for success.
Whether it's fair or not I leave as an exercise for the reader, but I think the reason Opera doesn't get the attention or respect of Firefox is that it's closed source, pure and simple. After all, how many years did people put up with early versions of Linux simply because it was open source, rather than using more polished but closed tools?
I like Opera, and I hope they succeed, but I will never want to rely on them because in the end they are closed source, and if their company should die Opera would die with them. That's why people support open and inferior over closed and superior - the open software can be improved upon, and won't go away. There are cases (CAD is one, at least so far) where the difficulty of writing the software is such only a commerical model has produced reasonable tools, but Firefox and Konqueror are proof that web browsers are not in that category. So source code ultimately matters, and there Opera looses.
Now if we look at Opera vs. IE, there I would agree I don't understand support for IE.
The real problem here is how to do something that is different enough and desirable enough that people will pay more to buy it than the cost of making a mainstream box do it. Apple does this with an extremely well polished, well mannered software environment where everything "just works." There is a niche for that product class that won't be overtaken by Windows PCs anytime soon (or Linux PCs, for that matter.)
SGI's systems were well designed, but the problem was computing power increased to the point where the price/performance benefit of their boxes got too small to warrant serious consideration. Power became plentiful and cheap, and SGI's clients were Unix nerds so they could make other solutions work if they presented more cost effective alternatives. Even if those solutions were less elegant, they resulted in a better profit yield. In a free market that's enough to make the decision.
It's like that Dilbert cartoon segmenting customers - Smart customers are never a good bet. Of course that's exaggeration, but Apple appeals to those who want their computer to Stay Out Of The Way. That market segment is much less sensitive to hardware technology change, which is why Apple has lasted so long. Apple's customers don't WANT to be "smart" about computers, so they select a system that doesn't demand that. SGI's customers were high end power users - they were and are smart about computers. So when the technology changed, their users followed the changes.
I would like to see some smaller companies again push the limites of what we think of as "standard" computer designs, but as SGI has learned there is no money in such work and fabrication costs are prohibitive. The Lisp machines died out years ago, even more thoroughly. Maybe MOSIS and co will let someone get creative again, but for now the market seems to have decided, and the decision is for cheap and disposable.
Lowering prices below market value? That is _good_ for consumers because NO business can sell for a loss forever -- the minute that they raise their prices after they've wiped the competition clean, new competition will turn up the beat them down again.
Actually, there is an optimal point there that basic capitalism doesn't gravitate toward. What happens in a scenario of brutal competition is not only does the price go down, but the quality goes down too - to the bare acceptable minimum that still gets people to buy the product. If you want to stay alive in a brutal market you cut costs, and keep cutting them until you're down to bedrock. Unfortunately this means cheaper ingredients, less severe tolerances, etc. etc. etc. People are not good at identifying pre-purchase (at least at the consumer level) when a product loses quality - in most cases, they won't find out about it until they actually put the product into real use, at which point its not returnable. And since EVERYONE in the industry is doing the same thing, high quality goods will vanish from the market place. There aren't enough discerning customers (statistically speaking) to force a high quality level. PCs are a good case in point - remember those Compaq video cards a few years back? My university's IT department didn't even need to debug the problem - they just brought over a new video card when the signal failed because they knew that's what it was.
the minute that they raise their prices after they've wiped the competition clean, new competition will turn up the beat them down again.
Which is why, once the quality goes down, it is hard to get it up again. Over-engineering is considered a waste of money in an economy where durable goods are considered less desirable (from a business standpoint) than goods that last only a short time - as long as people buy more, you can make more money off of selling the same (cruddy) design over and over than selling a good product once. Of course, this assumes that our resources are infinite, and I suspect someday we will be mining our dumps for raw materials that we are today burning through at an appalling rate.
there are no natural monopolies as long as the customer is given the opportunity to make their decisions.
Actually, there are natural monopolies. Some, like the phone system, were temporary. Others, like Windows, are longer term because they are rooted in the complexity of the training required to use them effectively. Windows users spend a great deal of time learning the complex task of using a computer running Windows, and that investment is so large almost any purchase price is preferable to repeating the training. I'd call that a very natural monopoly.
Capitalism, when functioning properly, is quite efficient. The problem is, it is insufficient to guarantee quality. That's why we have an FDA, for example.
Most of the time, things work reasonably well. However, we could be using our resources FAR more efficiently than we are. Computer cases, for example - why on EARTH should we replace the case when upgrading the hardware? Just make the best form-factor case possible and make the electronics pluggable components. Most of the fans, case plastic, etc are usable for decades when done correctly. My IBM keyboard is probably 20 years old, and it works as well or better than most modern keyboards I have used. That is the standard to aspire to - use resources effectively for the long term. How to do that, I'm not quite sure - but a way needs to be found.
"Is there a distinction between faith you can't prove to yourself because it's not proveable (metaphysics), and faith you're too dumb to prove?"
Yes. The latter has a hope of being successfully challenged, and the former does not. That distinction is what distinguishes a scientific question (even if not currently testable) from a religious one (a certain state's school system's habit of redefining words nonwithstanding).
Is anyone else disturbed that idealism is something that critics are now charging people with? I thought the holding of ideals and living up to them was a virtue. Things like liberty, individual responsibility, honor? Or trying to make the nation we live in be something worth standing up for?
Governments cannot be trusted. Ever. If we must pay a price for that, so be it - the price we pay for being trusting will be larger in the long run. There is never a good reason to trust a government, unless it is unite or die as a nation. (Terrorism doesn't count - they do not fundamentally threaten the survival of a nation as a nation, at least not in the case of the US.) Ideals are NECESSARY - what else do we strive for as human beings?
Does the FSF have the power to insist on this for software they don't have copyright on (like, IIRC, the vast majority or even all of the Linux Kernel?)
If they request the source code to a GPL package, and the author ignores them, what option do they have? I imagine the original copyright holder(s) would have an action as the original author(s) but I fail to see what standing the FSF has unless they are a copyright holder.
This is an honest question - I don't know how this aspect of law (copyright law, maybe some other laws sneak in?) would actually work. What are the limits?
Of course, the linux distro that isn't chock full of GNU tools is a rare bird indeed...
Suffering the same fate as most mature ideas - being ignored because what is out there works "well enough."
Look how long it took for modern graphical interfaces to catch on? And that's an OBVIOUS benefit, one the end user can appreciate instantly. Yet it still took many years for commercial desktop developers (never mind OSS ones) to get up to speed implementing and deploying them and arguably in some areas we still aren't there yet. Why did it take/ is it taking so long? Because the pre-existing solutions were/are good enough.
If you take a step back, modern systems - whether Ubuntu/Fedora, MacOSX, or even Windows XP - have reached a state of tolerable functionality. My XP box at work seldom crashes (although to be fair it is seldom strained) and the interfaces available for any of these systems offer a reasonably friendly environment. Performance, while a bit on the embarassing side from an efficiency standpoint, is reasonable. There are even some who speculate that new versions of Windows are tuned not for efficiency but to ensure a continuing market for new, more powerful hardware. Personally I doubt this but it is a thought.
Anyway, if USER level issues resist significant changes (unifying GUI look and feel, for example - only the Mac is close to doing this properly) microkernel vs monolothic is going to do exactly nothing to generate attention or revenue. Hence, the only attention it tends to get is either special purpose applications where it is NECESSARY (e.g. QNX) or academic environments with the freedom to reasearch new ideas. And in the latter case, there is seldom funding for creating a polished, finished product - that's what commercial folks do. Once you have grasped the new ideas, the goal is to move on to new, more interesting ideas that will generate papers.
So, as usual, better is not the dominant (and occasionally not even the significant) concern. I think there are only two possible motivations which could result in a shift on this level anymore:
1. Microkernels prove formally that they can be truly robust, however that is defined
2. Microkernels allow formally verified security mechanisms to be implemented (EROS was a work in this direction)
Security and reliability are the only remaining wants that simply cannot be satisfied by current software (if they don't already satisfy that is - for many applications they are in fact "good enough" already.)
First of all, I don't believe a massive collapse of civillization and loss of scientific knowledge will happen. We're unaware of anything like that happening in our past (discounting myths like Atlantis).
I would argue the Middle Ages were exactly that, just on a smaller scale. (e.g. the "Dark Ages.") We lucked out that some things got preserved in India and Asia, but if it had been up to just Europe it wouldn't have been at all pretty.
I hope they figure out some really effective way to implement DRM, so long as it doesn't exclude the option of having NON-DRM content. As long as I can install and use Linux and go online without having to prove I'm using a "DRM compliant" OS, I'm not particularly worried. If they finally get DRM to work, it will drive people to alternatives that don't use DRM. Sounds good to me.
Every time I hear more stories about DRM I keep thinking of the Star Wars line about tightening grip = more people escaping and that more general one about blood and turnips. People are reluctant to spend money and if these content providers really do succeed in cutting off all freeloaders they will find their audience and "buzz" shrinking. Which might be fine with them, and I agree they should be able to charge for it if they want to, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay for it.
What we need is a website with Napster like popularity and only free music and movies available. For music the same system could also identify scheduled live performances and locations. Then things can really take off. Actually, it sort of sounds like something Google would be good at - Google Maps + Free Music interface + information on live performances. Not too much money in it though, at least not for Google.
Good points. Maybe it could be made to work, although I'm not sure how the changes could take place - in an industry with so much $$ tied into their current methods, it could be hard to get them to risk their crown jewels on a new development methodology.
Cool! I hadn't heard of that before, but it sounds like a great idea!
I'm a bit out of it on the latest design requirements for CPUs - is the technology of these folks actually good enough to make a reasonably modern CPU?
OK, obviously by the definitions most of the Slashdot crowd will go along with, the Sun release is the "open" one.
The more interesting question is "what use is an open core?"
Open source software has obvious utility in that it can be used by millions of people for a wide variety of jobs. All you need is a computer to get started.
Open hardware, on the other hand, is useful only for education or simulations unless you happen to have a fab plant.
If education and experimentation can be served by a "non-free" license then is there really any benefit to having a "free" license? I suspect by the time off the shelf technology is available to create CPUs based on current designs, they will be centuries obsolete. Even US copyrights and patents will have expired by then (unless they change the laws again) so it's a bit of a moot point.
Now I grant this might be a bit of a narrow viewpoint - for example some of the Lisp hardware designs would be very interesting to work with - but since the hardware costs of this sort of manufacture make the information needed to do it only one component of the (EXCEEDINGLY expensive) whole, I'm not sure the marginal benefit of having "free" cores will be very interesting, at least for something like a modern CPU.
Of course, there are non-economic considerations, but I don't really see overwhelming benefits for the "free as in freedom" model as opposed to the "free except for producing your commercial product based on them" model.
Depends on how they do it. IANAL, but these are the obvious first steps that occur to me:
Step #1 should be to get a copy of the source tree from before the Windows code was leaked. Code that has stayed the same since then isn't a problem, at least not for the reasons that are worrying them now.
Step #2 assign a name to each change. Some developers will be able to assert they have never seen Windows code. Those changes are also OK.
Step #3 for developers who cannot assert they have never seen the Windows code, someone will have to check their code against the relevant Windows code, figure out what the "standard" needs to be (how exactly DOES one idenfity when code is too similar? I mean, cut and paste is obvious, but there are more subtle concerns. If the contributions are sufficiently small that they can be redone without too much trouble, that's probably the easiest scenario.
Of course, that doesn't clear ReactOS from the threats of patent infringement or even a "lawsuit without merit", but they will be on pretty much the same footing as the other free OS projects. Given the legal system in the US and the fact ReactOS has no revenue stream, they don't actually have to do anything wrong to get crushed by the legal system's price tag. But it will at least be a show of good faith.
Heh - that's EXACTLY how ANSI Common Lisp was created.
Re:What is it with those thick/thin client gyratio
on
The Future is XHTML 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's probably because there are tradeoffs with any approach:
1) thin client - low demands on end user hardware, but heavily dependant on working central server. One point of failure for many users (server) and one place to concentrate attacks - server must be very robust because it is a single, fixed, information rich target.
2) thick client - high demands on end user hardware, and a maintainance nightmare for tech support. The security situation will vary widely between individual setups. However, a failure of one machine causes only limited damage, and doesn't impair other machines. If desired (e.g. home hobby applications) a high degree of self reliance is possible.
Different situations require different solutions. There are intermediate solutions, like a client which doesn't maintain any of the software but does have its own graphics acceleration hardware, in order to avoid straining the server's resources when running something like a CAD or raytracer program. The trick, of course, is what constitutes the "best fit solution." And there is no one answer to that.
"Now, it seems his mission is to attempt to destroy anything that isn't open to all and protected in the ways he wants to define it."
I rather doubt that. I think he is trying to fight the creation of an environment where free software is either illegal to run or technically impossible to run. Both are quite possible. After all, what good is software with no hardware to run it on? Stallman is right to worry about that point.
Stallman has ALWAYS considered non-free software immoral. He is "leading by example," so to speak. The problem is the hardware side is more difficult to handle, since fab equipment for chips is not a simple or inexpensive proposition.
I don't like the GFDL because of its invariant sections (primarily) and so in that regard I disagree with the approach he and the FSF have taken, but on the whole they seem to be facing up to some very unplesant possibilities and trying to put roadblocks across their ever being implemented. I'm reminded of two Lord of the Rings quotes:
"It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two."
"Those without swords can still die upon them."
Stallman is doing exactly what he has always done - respond to the threats as they become apparent. His approach to patents is another step in the same direction.
To paraphrase a sig I saw somewhere: "it's only paranoia if they AREN'T actually out to get you." Like security, license writers should be paranoid about threats to their intent. It's just too expensive to try hashing things out in court.
Slashdot Mirror
They haven't asked him anything yet, have they? The article seems to say they COULD ask him about anything. I would hope that ex-wives (if any) would be off the table - trying to personally attack someone for things not related to the issue at hand would strike me as a very poor use of the time SCO has been given. How would that help their case?
Let's wait for the outcome of this. I rather doubt we need to make too much of the "they can ask ANYTHING" part of this - if we do let's wait for the actual event. Certainly SCO has done enough to anger the geek community without us needing to throw any more fuel on the fire. Only pursue them for the poor behavior they have actually demonstrated - I can't imagine why we would need anything else.
It's short term vs. long term thinking - Stallman is thinking far far down the road. Sure we might increase functionality now, but what about ten years down the road when a critical piece of closed source code gets tangled in a lawsuit or thirty years when the company goes out of business and takes the source code with it? Or 150 years down the road when all the original coders are dead? Ideals usually pay off in the long term, not the short term (and sometimes not even to one's personal benefit.) Plus, nothing is being forced on anybody - feel free to go and make your own software, under your own terms. Sell to your heart's content. You just can't use the freely given work of others to do it, and not give something back to them.
In that view open code is far more critical than short term benefits, and frankly I wish more people would think in those terms (particularly those who are making our energy policies.)
Fixing the FBI is not possible in general - without very good people there is simply no way to make a good organization. Specific issues might be addressed, however:
1) First step, IDENTIFY THE REQUIREMENTS of a new system. Create use cases. Observe what actually is done day to day for at least three to six months (this will need people with security clearance out the wazoo). Be sure to follow some issues beginning to end. Also, identify relevant policy and law that the FBI needs to observe - the system should be build to help ensure that proper steps are taken, both by making it easy to do the mundane work and hard to do things that will have a big negative impact on people (make the latter tracable to individuals in ALL cases - build accountablity into the system.) And for goodness sakes, don't throw out ideas in the old system if they are good, just because they're part of the "old way".
2) Second step, design and implement a small scale trial in one or two offices, working in parallel with the existing system. Identify and correct problems.
3) Gradually scale up, and in each new introduction have people familiar with both the FBI's old system and the workings of the new help with the transition. Be resigned to huge amounts of grunt work, figuring out where old files are, cataloging and re-entering info, etc. etc. etc. Because this is a matter of law enforcement, all old materials should be retained in case of mistakes. Budget for all this annoying, unsexy, but essential work. The framework must be strong enough to handle what will be put in it, but putting the content into it will be a huge task and that should be part of the design stage.
I personally think this is one situation where things like provably correct software are needed - law enforcement doesn't need any more problems, and lawyers don't need to get a chance to play around with "computer glitch" gotchas or problems.
Large systems are often hopelessly overweight and complex, so they should not be involved with the technical design. Such organizations ARE, however, very good at following regulations, instructions, and systems. Those traits should be utilized as much as possible.
One other design feature should be that all records, when updated, should have a printed record be automatically generated and stored somewhere (or several places). Computer data is too easy to change - the poster who mentioned tracibility is absolutely correct. A hard copy is MUCH easier to work with, and automatic organized printed records should be a part of the design from the get go.
See, for example - http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five _000313.html There are most likely microfiche archives in a number of locations (NASA, National Archives are probable starting points for hunting them up) but they are of limited utility unless you want to machine up the entire support structure required to make all of those parts again. I think most of the "the government destroyed the Saturn V blueprints" comments trace back to some claims made by John Lewis in "Mining the Sky" in 1996 - I haven't seen too many others making that claim that sound authorative.
That said, it would be one heck of a project to get ahold of them, as being buried in government archives is sometimes very much like sticking a needle in a haystack (insofar as the public is concerned, at least.) I would very much like to see the full blueprints to all parts and aspects of the Saturn rockets made available, modernized, and released to the world. In many respects the Saturn V represents a social and technological milestone the likes of which we probably still don't fully appreciate - it is an achievement unique to mankind, a tremendous triumpth of science, technology, and exploration. I think the full details of how this was achieved should be stored online and made available as widely as possible. I don't know what it takes to convert microfiche to svg or some other modern vector graphics/blueprint ready files (I'm sure it's nothing trivial) but why not make it a community project online? Scan the buggers, and gradually make them into modern blueprints. Then we can publish them far and wide, which is always the best way to preserve knowledge over long historical timespans.
You probably want something like the environment provided by the old LISP machines, but with better graphics. The McCLIM Listener is a hint of what might be accomplished, but the problem with environments like that is all the legacy software that exists today and does essential work. There is simply no way old software can be simply migrated to a new environment with a radically different paradigm without substantial work - the fundamental design decisions make it difficult.
Science has to be skeptical about anything. For example, let's take two statements:
1. Life had its origins on Earth, and is not to be found elsewhere.
2. Life started elsewhere, and is only present on Earth by virtue of some metorite hitting the right spot.
Science will accept NEITHER of these without proof. Science (good science anyway) is always testing EVERY hypothesis. Anything in science is ALWAYS open to being challenged, revisited, updated, or thrown out if contradicted. If it isn't, it's not science.
This is a very uncomfortable thing for lots of people, who want certainties in their lives. But science is what it is - certainties last only as long as the evidence supports them. F=ma could go out the window tomorrow if conclusive experimental evidence indicates it isn't true. (Now, after a certain point, things are assumed to be correct until proven otherwise, in order to make progress possible. But EVERYTHING in science is ALWAYS subject to challenge. Your challenge had better be good for F=ma though, since there is a VERY large body of evidence suggesting that relationship is a useful description of part of the natural world.)
So I'd say that instead of it being hard for people to believe there is life beyond Earth, it is important that any evidence of such life be subject to skeptical and rigorous test. This is why you have people looking for ways something could NOT be a sign of life - to make sure we don't overlook something in our hope that there IS other life out there. Good science has no favorites, and the facts will ALWAYS overrule wishful thinking (one way or the other.) If someone gets a result they want, one of the best things for them to do is sit down and think of ways this result could NOT mean what you want it to mean.
If we have first contact with a superior race (what is superior, anyway? more advanced? more peaceful?) the consequences will likely be completely unpredictable. I doubt meaningful communication would be established for a VERY long time (if it even CAN be established) - science fiction grossly underestimates that difficulty, in my opinion. And no doubt a sizable percentage of the population wouldn't be able to handle it, particularly if it/they are really different from us. We have enough trouble handling ourselves, nevermind something REALLY alien.
Agreed - hardware is expensive. However, developer time for software driver development is also expensive. I don't know if, in the long run, an onboard chip would be more or less expensive than OS driver headaches. I suppose, unfortunately, the current product offerings indicate that it's not worth the onboard hardware.
I've been watching the Open Graphics project with interest - I hope they succeed. Such a card is exactly what I would want - I don't care about being able to play games at a zillion FPS, but I do want to be able to rotate geometric plots in 3D smoothly and have an accelerated desktop.
As an AC I would normally ignore you, particularly given your tone, but since you seem to have a reasonable question hidden in there - "why don't I do it myself" - I will answer. I personally have very little interest in music - the RIAA concerns me more in terms of the havoc they are wrecking and will continue to wreck with the legal and technological scenes. A community music effort could only be successfully undertaken by one or more preferably a group of people who are passionate about music and willing to devote a lot of time and resources to forming a community. Preferably, they should also have good contacts with the music scene, particularly the existing free music scene. That is not me - I would not be sufficiently energetic or credible as a leader to make such a movement succeed.
I might be interested in the technology and techniques that would allow such a network to function robustly, but that is almost a field unto itself and would require more knowledge of social networking phenomena than I have. It might actually be an interesting research topic for a sociology Phd - what the necessary checks and balances would be to have a good web based functioning music community. There are hundereds of quasi-free and commerical sites out there, some already fairly successful, and they should first be studied to learn what they do right and wrong. Done right, it is not a trival undertaking.
I did not and do not mean to imply that such an undertaking would be simple, painless, and quick - merely that it is an obvious and entirely legitimate counter to the present RIAA activites, and one that does not seem to recieve much attention or interest. Part of the reason for that is probably that to be a solution it has to function at the level of a general social trend, and as the RIAA itself is aware the least energy solution is to continue pirating and ignore the lawsuits until people actually get one. The only way to "bootstrap" such a movement would be to have a website appear with robust infastructure and a significant song offering already in place, and then start to build word of mouth support. People telling people about the site, and then those new arrivals being impressed when they arrive. It is a job for a group skilled in both music and computers, and that is a very small group indeed.
For goodness sake stop distributing their music! Find the legitimate free music out there and start a grassroots movement!
If they don't want people illegially distributing their music, that's fine with me. That's what the law says, and changing the law is going to be tough. Is there response extreme given the crime? Of course, but you have to admit it's hard to deter people from downloading music - the odds of being caught and punished are still extremely low. We think they shouldn't be doing this, but remember from their point of view they want to stop this behavior. The only question then becomes what it will take to stop it. Secondary damage to sales (if any) doesn't seem to phase them much.
The only way we'll EVER win this is to cut the RIAA out of the picture. There are folks doing free music out there - let's get organized and promote the good ones! Just like open source software - don't pirate commercial software, do it right and create free alternatives. In the end, everyone's happier.
Admittedly, the creative/artistic community seems to function differently than the software folks - look at how many game engines there are, vs. high quality maps/data for said engines. I expect high quality free music might also be a bit unusual, but that's no reason not to try and start a new social trend.
We don't like Microsoft because of their software and business practices - all right, we're doing something about that. Not pirating Windows, but creating alternatives and using them. Let's do the same with music - if we're correct about the low quality of product being promoted by the large commercial groups (debatable - I personally don't think there are any useful univeral quality metrics that will decide what is enjoyable to all people, but I'll go with it here for the sake of argument) it shouldn't be impossible for folks with the time and hobby interest out there to put something together.
Let's establish a non-commercial Americal Idol type phenomena - people can compete for rating on the internet, and the most successful of those might be able to start playing live concerts, selling professional quality CDs with covers/etc. and other things that actually generate revenue. (I can't say I care for the way Americal Idol works, but we should pay attention to the techniques they are using to identify people that America wants to hear sing).
iRate radio has some good ideas, but I think they should utilize bittorrent technology and start building more of a community structure than just scraping free music websites. Lets do this right - don't fight the RIAA on their own turf. They can use the legal system to beat us over the head - they've got the $$ to do it. So let's not let them dictate the terms of engagement - let's take both the long term solution and the moral high ground. THAT's the way to fight, and the only real hope I see for success.
Whether it's fair or not I leave as an exercise for the reader, but I think the reason Opera doesn't get the attention or respect of Firefox is that it's closed source, pure and simple. After all, how many years did people put up with early versions of Linux simply because it was open source, rather than using more polished but closed tools?
I like Opera, and I hope they succeed, but I will never want to rely on them because in the end they are closed source, and if their company should die Opera would die with them. That's why people support open and inferior over closed and superior - the open software can be improved upon, and won't go away. There are cases (CAD is one, at least so far) where the difficulty of writing the software is such only a commerical model has produced reasonable tools, but Firefox and Konqueror are proof that web browsers are not in that category. So source code ultimately matters, and there Opera looses.
Now if we look at Opera vs. IE, there I would agree I don't understand support for IE.
The real problem here is how to do something that is different enough and desirable enough that people will pay more to buy it than the cost of making a mainstream box do it. Apple does this with an extremely well polished, well mannered software environment where everything "just works." There is a niche for that product class that won't be overtaken by Windows PCs anytime soon (or Linux PCs, for that matter.)
SGI's systems were well designed, but the problem was computing power increased to the point where the price/performance benefit of their boxes got too small to warrant serious consideration. Power became plentiful and cheap, and SGI's clients were Unix nerds so they could make other solutions work if they presented more cost effective alternatives. Even if those solutions were less elegant, they resulted in a better profit yield. In a free market that's enough to make the decision.
It's like that Dilbert cartoon segmenting customers - Smart customers are never a good bet. Of course that's exaggeration, but Apple appeals to those who want their computer to Stay Out Of The Way. That market segment is much less sensitive to hardware technology change, which is why Apple has lasted so long. Apple's customers don't WANT to be "smart" about computers, so they select a system that doesn't demand that. SGI's customers were high end power users - they were and are smart about computers. So when the technology changed, their users followed the changes.
I would like to see some smaller companies again push the limites of what we think of as "standard" computer designs, but as SGI has learned there is no money in such work and fabrication costs are prohibitive. The Lisp machines died out years ago, even more thoroughly. Maybe MOSIS and co will let someone get creative again, but for now the market seems to have decided, and the decision is for cheap and disposable.
Lowering prices below market value? That is _good_ for consumers because NO business can sell for a loss forever -- the minute that they raise their prices after they've wiped the competition clean, new competition will turn up the beat them down again.
Actually, there is an optimal point there that basic capitalism doesn't gravitate toward. What happens in a scenario of brutal competition is not only does the price go down, but the quality goes down too - to the bare acceptable minimum that still gets people to buy the product. If you want to stay alive in a brutal market you cut costs, and keep cutting them until you're down to bedrock. Unfortunately this means cheaper ingredients, less severe tolerances, etc. etc. etc. People are not good at identifying pre-purchase (at least at the consumer level) when a product loses quality - in most cases, they won't find out about it until they actually put the product into real use, at which point its not returnable. And since EVERYONE in the industry is doing the same thing, high quality goods will vanish from the market place. There aren't enough discerning customers (statistically speaking) to force a high quality level. PCs are a good case in point - remember those Compaq video cards a few years back? My university's IT department didn't even need to debug the problem - they just brought over a new video card when the signal failed because they knew that's what it was.
the minute that they raise their prices after they've wiped the competition clean, new competition will turn up the beat them down again.
Which is why, once the quality goes down, it is hard to get it up again. Over-engineering is considered a waste of money in an economy where durable goods are considered less desirable (from a business standpoint) than goods that last only a short time - as long as people buy more, you can make more money off of selling the same (cruddy) design over and over than selling a good product once. Of course, this assumes that our resources are infinite, and I suspect someday we will be mining our dumps for raw materials that we are today burning through at an appalling rate.
there are no natural monopolies as long as the customer is given the opportunity to make their decisions.
Actually, there are natural monopolies. Some, like the phone system, were temporary. Others, like Windows, are longer term because they are rooted in the complexity of the training required to use them effectively. Windows users spend a great deal of time learning the complex task of using a computer running Windows, and that investment is so large almost any purchase price is preferable to repeating the training. I'd call that a very natural monopoly.
Capitalism, when functioning properly, is quite efficient. The problem is, it is insufficient to guarantee quality. That's why we have an FDA, for example.
Most of the time, things work reasonably well. However, we could be using our resources FAR more efficiently than we are. Computer cases, for example - why on EARTH should we replace the case when upgrading the hardware? Just make the best form-factor case possible and make the electronics pluggable components. Most of the fans, case plastic, etc are usable for decades when done correctly. My IBM keyboard is probably 20 years old, and it works as well or better than most modern keyboards I have used. That is the standard to aspire to - use resources effectively for the long term. How to do that, I'm not quite sure - but a way needs to be found.
"Is there a distinction between faith you can't prove to yourself because it's not proveable (metaphysics), and faith you're too dumb to prove?"
Yes. The latter has a hope of being successfully challenged, and the former does not. That distinction is what distinguishes a scientific question (even if not currently testable) from a religious one (a certain state's school system's habit of redefining words nonwithstanding).
Is anyone else disturbed that idealism is something that critics are now charging people with? I thought the holding of ideals and living up to them was a virtue. Things like liberty, individual responsibility, honor? Or trying to make the nation we live in be something worth standing up for?
Governments cannot be trusted. Ever. If we must pay a price for that, so be it - the price we pay for being trusting will be larger in the long run. There is never a good reason to trust a government, unless it is unite or die as a nation. (Terrorism doesn't count - they do not fundamentally threaten the survival of a nation as a nation, at least not in the case of the US.) Ideals are NECESSARY - what else do we strive for as human beings?
Does the FSF have the power to insist on this for software they don't have copyright on (like, IIRC, the vast majority or even all of the Linux Kernel?)
If they request the source code to a GPL package, and the author ignores them, what option do they have? I imagine the original copyright holder(s) would have an action as the original author(s) but I fail to see what standing the FSF has unless they are a copyright holder.
This is an honest question - I don't know how this aspect of law (copyright law, maybe some other laws sneak in?) would actually work. What are the limits?
Of course, the linux distro that isn't chock full of GNU tools is a rare bird indeed...
"If microkernels are so great, where are they? "
Suffering the same fate as most mature ideas - being ignored because what is out there works "well enough."
Look how long it took for modern graphical interfaces to catch on? And that's an OBVIOUS benefit, one the end user can appreciate instantly. Yet it still took many years for commercial desktop developers (never mind OSS ones) to get up to speed implementing and deploying them and arguably in some areas we still aren't there yet. Why did it take/ is it taking so long? Because the pre-existing solutions were/are good enough.
If you take a step back, modern systems - whether Ubuntu/Fedora, MacOSX, or even Windows XP - have reached a state of tolerable functionality. My XP box at work seldom crashes (although to be fair it is seldom strained) and the interfaces available for any of these systems offer a reasonably friendly environment. Performance, while a bit on the embarassing side from an efficiency standpoint, is reasonable. There are even some who speculate that new versions of Windows are tuned not for efficiency but to ensure a continuing market for new, more powerful hardware. Personally I doubt this but it is a thought.
Anyway, if USER level issues resist significant changes (unifying GUI look and feel, for example - only the Mac is close to doing this properly) microkernel vs monolothic is going to do exactly nothing to generate attention or revenue. Hence, the only attention it tends to get is either special purpose applications where it is NECESSARY (e.g. QNX) or academic environments with the freedom to reasearch new ideas. And in the latter case, there is seldom funding for creating a polished, finished product - that's what commercial folks do. Once you have grasped the new ideas, the goal is to move on to new, more interesting ideas that will generate papers.
So, as usual, better is not the dominant (and occasionally not even the significant) concern. I think there are only two possible motivations which could result in a shift on this level anymore:
1. Microkernels prove formally that they can be truly robust, however that is defined
2. Microkernels allow formally verified security mechanisms to be implemented (EROS was a work in this direction)
Security and reliability are the only remaining wants that simply cannot be satisfied by current software (if they don't already satisfy that is - for many applications they are in fact "good enough" already.)
First of all, I don't believe a massive collapse of civillization and loss of scientific knowledge will happen. We're unaware of anything like that happening in our past (discounting myths like Atlantis).
I would argue the Middle Ages were exactly that, just on a smaller scale. (e.g. the "Dark Ages.") We lucked out that some things got preserved in India and Asia, but if it had been up to just Europe it wouldn't have been at all pretty.
I hope they figure out some really effective way to implement DRM, so long as it doesn't exclude the option of having NON-DRM content. As long as I can install and use Linux and go online without having to prove I'm using a "DRM compliant" OS, I'm not particularly worried. If they finally get DRM to work, it will drive people to alternatives that don't use DRM. Sounds good to me.
Every time I hear more stories about DRM I keep thinking of the Star Wars line about tightening grip = more people escaping and that more general one about blood and turnips. People are reluctant to spend money and if these content providers really do succeed in cutting off all freeloaders they will find their audience and "buzz" shrinking. Which might be fine with them, and I agree they should be able to charge for it if they want to, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay for it.
What we need is a website with Napster like popularity and only free music and movies available. For music the same system could also identify scheduled live performances and locations. Then things can really take off. Actually, it sort of sounds like something Google would be good at - Google Maps + Free Music interface + information on live performances. Not too much money in it though, at least not for Google.
Good points. Maybe it could be made to work, although I'm not sure how the changes could take place - in an industry with so much $$ tied into their current methods, it could be hard to get them to risk their crown jewels on a new development methodology.
Cool! I hadn't heard of that before, but it sounds like a great idea!
I'm a bit out of it on the latest design requirements for CPUs - is the technology of these folks actually good enough to make a reasonably modern CPU?
OK, obviously by the definitions most of the Slashdot crowd will go along with, the Sun release is the "open" one.
The more interesting question is "what use is an open core?"
Open source software has obvious utility in that it can be used by millions of people for a wide variety of jobs. All you need is a computer to get started.
Open hardware, on the other hand, is useful only for education or simulations unless you happen to have a fab plant.
If education and experimentation can be served by a "non-free" license then is there really any benefit to having a "free" license? I suspect by the time off the shelf technology is available to create CPUs based on current designs, they will be centuries obsolete. Even US copyrights and patents will have expired by then (unless they change the laws again) so it's a bit of a moot point.
Now I grant this might be a bit of a narrow viewpoint - for example some of the Lisp hardware designs would be very interesting to work with - but since the hardware costs of this sort of manufacture make the information needed to do it only one component of the (EXCEEDINGLY expensive) whole, I'm not sure the marginal benefit of having "free" cores will be very interesting, at least for something like a modern CPU.
Of course, there are non-economic considerations, but I don't really see overwhelming benefits for the "free as in freedom" model as opposed to the "free except for producing your commercial product based on them" model.
Depends on how they do it. IANAL, but these are the obvious first steps that occur to me:
Step #1 should be to get a copy of the source tree from before the Windows code was leaked. Code that has stayed the same since then isn't a problem, at least not for the reasons that are worrying them now.
Step #2 assign a name to each change. Some developers will be able to assert they have never seen Windows code. Those changes are also OK.
Step #3 for developers who cannot assert they have never seen the Windows code, someone will have to check their code against the relevant Windows code, figure out what the "standard" needs to be (how exactly DOES one idenfity when code is too similar? I mean, cut and paste is obvious, but there are more subtle concerns. If the contributions are sufficiently small that they can be redone without too much trouble, that's probably the easiest scenario.
Of course, that doesn't clear ReactOS from the threats of patent infringement or even a "lawsuit without merit", but they will be on pretty much the same footing as the other free OS projects. Given the legal system in the US and the fact ReactOS has no revenue stream, they don't actually have to do anything wrong to get crushed by the legal system's price tag. But it will at least be a show of good faith.
Heh - that's EXACTLY how ANSI Common Lisp was created.
It's probably because there are tradeoffs with any approach:
1) thin client - low demands on end user hardware, but heavily dependant on working central server. One point of failure for many users (server) and one place to concentrate attacks - server must be very robust because it is a single, fixed, information rich target.
2) thick client - high demands on end user hardware, and a maintainance nightmare for tech support. The security situation will vary widely between individual setups. However, a failure of one machine causes only limited damage, and doesn't impair other machines. If desired (e.g. home hobby applications) a high degree of self reliance is possible.
Different situations require different solutions. There are intermediate solutions, like a client which doesn't maintain any of the software but does have its own graphics acceleration hardware, in order to avoid straining the server's resources when running something like a CAD or raytracer program. The trick, of course, is what constitutes the "best fit solution." And there is no one answer to that.
"Now, it seems his mission is to attempt to destroy anything that isn't open to all and protected in the ways he wants to define it."
I rather doubt that. I think he is trying to fight the creation of an environment where free software is either illegal to run or technically impossible to run. Both are quite possible. After all, what good is software with no hardware to run it on? Stallman is right to worry about that point.
Stallman has ALWAYS considered non-free software immoral. He is "leading by example," so to speak. The problem is the hardware side is more difficult to handle, since fab equipment for chips is not a simple or inexpensive proposition.
I don't like the GFDL because of its invariant sections (primarily) and so in that regard I disagree with the approach he and the FSF have taken, but on the whole they seem to be facing up to some very unplesant possibilities and trying to put roadblocks across their ever being implemented. I'm reminded of two Lord of the Rings quotes:
"It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two."
"Those without swords can still die upon them."
Stallman is doing exactly what he has always done - respond to the threats as they become apparent. His approach to patents is another step in the same direction.
To paraphrase a sig I saw somewhere: "it's only paranoia if they AREN'T actually out to get you." Like security, license writers should be paranoid about threats to their intent. It's just too expensive to try hashing things out in court.