QT does not have to be licenced for commercial development, provided that the result is Open Source. The GPL which Gnome is distributed under also prevents use of Gnome code in closed-source applications.
You are about 2 years out of date. The QT licence prevents you from using the free version of QT in closed-source code, the same is true of Gnome's license.
Although the mention of KDE in an article about Gnome is just asking for a [-1 troll] rating (wouldn't it be terrible to allow any real debate on Slashdot?), you really have to ask whether Sun gave KDE fair consideration in making their decision. My bet is that their decision to use Gnome has more to do with the geographical location of its core developers than the code itself.
There is much in.Net that should prove useful, particuarly with several Open Source implementations of the.Net API in the works (Microsoft even seems to be supporting these). Ultimately it will be possible to run the same software on Linux and Windows without modification - and that benefits all. The real problem is with Passport and the other efforts at centralization. Unfortunately some centralization will always be required for this type of thing, be it Visa, Microsoft, or Paypal. There may be ways to decentralize it, but it would be much more difficult and expensive to do that, which is why M$ has probably not taken that route.
Because they are not financially motivated to do so.
People should stop complaining when organisations do what they are designed to do - namely make money (in the Patent Office's case, this means granting as many patents as possible). Don't bitch about the RIAA when they push for freedom-curtailing laws - THEY DON'T CARE - their job is to protect the interests of those who pay their salaries. Don't bitch when a for-profit corporation exploits dumb laws to increase their profit margins - THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO THAT.
Instead, bitch about the stupid laws which allow and encourage them to do this, and the customers who keep them in business (of course, very few of IBM's customers are likely to take a stand on this issue - but IBM does seem to care quite a bit about its reputation among the Open Source community these days).
If you have suggestions for how XMMS could be improved - why don't you just fix them yourself?
However note that if you had issues with Winamp (such as the fact that it seems to crash once every 30 seconds on my machine) you need to rely on Nullsoft to address any problems you are having. Or what if Nullsoft decided to place spyware in their software? What could you do? Not much because you may not even know it is there. And what if Nullsoft decided to stop development of Winamp, or (more likely) decided that Linux development wasn't worth their time. What could you do about it? Absolutely nothing.
You may see these as irrational "religious" reasons to favor Open Source, however to me they seem very rational indeed.
Ah, so we shouldn't place closed source software under the same scrutiny as open source software? Rubbish.
I have a definite bias towards free software, software for which I have the right to view and modify the code. I see no reason to encourage people to produce closed source software for Linux if there is a viable open source alternative, as is the case with Winamp.
If, however, there is a task for which open source software is not available then closed source software is fine, but if closed source software has trouble competing with Open Source then that is a good thing.
The dangers of Anthrax and other bioweapons is hugely overstated. Anthrax is virtually harmless unless in powder form, and it is hugely expensive to create powdered Anthrax. It is also very difficult to deliver it, it tends to simply blow away and become so dispersed that it is harmless. Can Anthrax kill? Of course, but there are thousands of cheaper ways to kill people (letter bombs, guns, etc).
The problem with allowing the W3C to endorse "Reasonable and
Non-Discriminatory (RAND) Licensing" is that, simply put, standards
which require the payment of royalties are neither reasonable nor
non-discriminatory.
In fact, standards which require royalty payments discriminate against a
group that has been and continues to be instrumental in the creation and
growth of the Internet, and a group which powers many aspects of the
Internet today, namely the Open Source or Free Software community.
In my opinion, one of the core tests for a proposed standard should be
whether it can be implemented under an Open Source license such as the
GNU Public License. The fact that HTTP was such a standard permitted
the creation of the Apache web server which, according to a recent
Netcraft survey, provides 60% of all websites on the Internet, over
twice that of its closest rival, Microsoft (see
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/).
By endorsing "RAND" standards, the W3C is acting as little more than a
business development department for the corporation to whom royalties
must be paid - and this is completely inappropriate for an organization
whose goal is to "lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by
developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its
interoperability".
I would be very interested in your response to this viewpoint.
Ian Clarke
Coordinator - The Freenet Project
Chief Technology Officer - Uprizer Inc.
Well, Farscape was always too "muppets" for me, but in the unlikely event that anyone cares, here is what interests me on TV these days:-
Stargate SG1
Perhaps it is just a throw-back to those days in my youth watching McGyver, but this is a good show, scientifically plausable, interesting plot, and compelling characters.
Earth - Final Conflict
Not actually on any more, but recent enough to be interesting. Amazing special effects, and an interesting plot where you never really know whether the aliens are good guys, bad guys, or somewhere in between (the reality being the latter). In that sense, it mirrors the complexity of real life.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
While the last season got somewhat depressing in places, the people behind "The Onion" have consistently provided a tongue-in-cheek, very funny dialog which, until recently didn't take itself too seriously. Also, new season just starting, can't talk long.
BBC World News
One of the few ways to watch TV News which actually talks about that insignificant part of the world outside the US.
Law and Order
There is just something about the consistent style, interesting plots, and slightly sick humor that makes this the best Cop show since "The Bill" (it's a Brit thing - Yanks need not worry).
I often ask myself how we will communicate with our technology in the future. People usually assume that it will be voice, however this is inappropriate in many circumstances, English has so much fluff that is unnescessary when communicating with a machine - "Hello Computer, please open my email client and show me new emails for today" might be fun the first time, but doing it every day would rapidly grow tiresome.
The strange thing is that in keyboards and WIMP user interfaces, we seem to have reached a point where it is far from obvious where we can progress next. There hasn't been significant progress in user interfaces since the 1970s when Xerox Parc developed the mouse based interfaces which we all use today - oh sure, we have colour, and that paper clip, and skinability, but none of these are anything other than incremental enhancements.
Many people are betting on 3D user interfaces, but I remain unconvinced that these will actually be useful, or that a 2D representation of objects in 3D would be better than the 2D representation of objects in 2D which we have now.
Most new input devices are also variations on the mouse theme, be they light-pens (hardly new, I remember them in the mid-80s), touch screens, or these gloves.
So the question is, have we reached a global optimum in user interface design, or is there some other approach that I haven't even considered that we will all be using in 30 years?
I don't see why you consider MacOSX to be worthy of our support. Apple has historically demonstrated a willingness to lock people in to proprietary hardware and software that makes Microsoft look positively reserved. Just because they have largely failed in this regard, should not earn them any respect. Yes, they have built OSX on-top of an Open Source platform, but OSX remains closed-source.
I don't think "not being Microsoft" is a sufficient criteria for the support of the Open Source community.
...that Zimmermann said that he had been "overwhelmed with feelings of guilt", it is as bad as him conceeding that the availability of encryption technology contributed to the terrorist attack.
Firstly, the reality is that Bin Laden apparently avoids technology wherever possible, sending people to deliver messages rather than bits (encrypted or not).
But even if it were to emerge that that the terrorists used PGP or similar software, and secure encryption was made illegal, can someone seriously suggest that terrorists bent on destruction would worry about complying with US encryption laws? Either they would go ahead and use secure encryption, or they would choose another form of communication.
In reality, the only people who the FBI would end up monitoring are the innocent, and the stupid (and Bin Laden's crew are definitely not stupid).
This is in addition to the not inconsiderable point that enforcement of these laws would be almost impossible.
Freenet - dodging the issue
on
Taming the Web
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
He goes to great lengths to point out why Napster and Gnutella are easy to shut down (duh, they weren't really designed for that kind of attack), but then glibly dismisses Freenet because only pornographers are using it, and it doesn't support "searching". Clearly he hasn't read the FAQ.
Even if you believed that Freenet has *no* userbase, and that it is still so incomplete that nobody can use it, the simple fact that it exists and he doesn't (can't?) present a way to shut it down, refutes his argument.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if ISPs placed restrictions on usable ports, Freenet can easily be persuaded to tunnel over other ports.
Of course, you should never let the facts get in the way of a good story...
for searching to work without broadcast you need either sorting or (centralized) indexing - arbitrary queries are neither sortable nor indexable
I don't think this is nescessarily true. The minimum requirement for being about to do a Freenet-style best-first search for something is that you can define an equality operator, and a closeness operator (ie. "A is closer to B than C is").
The closeness operator sounds a bit like sorting, and anything that can be sorted can also have a closeness operator, however not everything that can have a closeness operator can be sorted. There is no reason why a more general query couldn't conform to these requirements. Generally speaking it would probably require some form of "fuzzy matching" of metadata to an SQL-style query. Of course this would require some constraints on the nature of the query, but it could still be much more flexible than Freenet's current lexographic search.
Remember the fuss that was created when Ximian paid Google to show adverts for their software whenever anyone did a search for KDE? Of course they rapidly backed down when their scheme was exposed ("oops, it was an accident, honest guv, we fired the intern in question").
In retrospect, it was one of the first examples I can recall of Gatoring, and like so many other things, we saw it first in the Linux world!
My machine has received over 250 hits in the last few hours. I have tried to telnet to them (prot 25) but most are connection refused. Which port are you supposed to telnet to, and what do you say?
Slashdot Mirror
QT does not have to be licenced for commercial development, provided that the result is Open Source. The GPL which Gnome is distributed under also prevents use of Gnome code in closed-source applications.
You are about 2 years out of date. The QT licence prevents you from using the free version of QT in closed-source code, the same is true of Gnome's license.
Although the mention of KDE in an article about Gnome is just asking for a [-1 troll] rating (wouldn't it be terrible to allow any real debate on Slashdot?), you really have to ask whether Sun gave KDE fair consideration in making their decision. My bet is that their decision to use Gnome has more to do with the geographical location of its core developers than the code itself.
There is much in .Net that should prove useful, particuarly with several Open Source implementations of the .Net API in the works (Microsoft even seems to be supporting these). Ultimately it will be possible to run the same software on Linux and Windows without modification - and that benefits all. The real problem is with Passport and the other efforts at centralization. Unfortunately some centralization will always be required for this type of thing, be it Visa, Microsoft, or Paypal. There may be ways to decentralize it, but it would be much more difficult and expensive to do that, which is why M$ has probably not taken that route.
People should stop complaining when organisations do what they are designed to do - namely make money (in the Patent Office's case, this means granting as many patents as possible). Don't bitch about the RIAA when they push for freedom-curtailing laws - THEY DON'T CARE - their job is to protect the interests of those who pay their salaries. Don't bitch when a for-profit corporation exploits dumb laws to increase their profit margins - THEY ARE DESIGNED TO DO THAT.
Instead, bitch about the stupid laws which allow and encourage them to do this, and the customers who keep them in business (of course, very few of IBM's customers are likely to take a stand on this issue - but IBM does seem to care quite a bit about its reputation among the Open Source community these days).
Welcome back to the shitlist!
However note that if you had issues with Winamp (such as the fact that it seems to crash once every 30 seconds on my machine) you need to rely on Nullsoft to address any problems you are having. Or what if Nullsoft decided to place spyware in their software? What could you do? Not much because you may not even know it is there. And what if Nullsoft decided to stop development of Winamp, or (more likely) decided that Linux development wasn't worth their time. What could you do about it? Absolutely nothing.
You may see these as irrational "religious" reasons to favor Open Source, however to me they seem very rational indeed.
I have a definite bias towards free software, software for which I have the right to view and modify the code. I see no reason to encourage people to produce closed source software for Linux if there is a viable open source alternative, as is the case with Winamp.
If, however, there is a task for which open source software is not available then closed source software is fine, but if closed source software has trouble competing with Open Source then that is a good thing.
The dangers of Anthrax and other bioweapons is hugely overstated. Anthrax is virtually harmless unless in powder form, and it is hugely expensive to create powdered Anthrax. It is also very difficult to deliver it, it tends to simply blow away and become so dispersed that it is harmless. Can Anthrax kill? Of course, but there are thousands of cheaper ways to kill people (letter bombs, guns, etc).
In fact, standards which require royalty payments discriminate against a group that has been and continues to be instrumental in the creation and growth of the Internet, and a group which powers many aspects of the Internet today, namely the Open Source or Free Software community.
In my opinion, one of the core tests for a proposed standard should be whether it can be implemented under an Open Source license such as the GNU Public License. The fact that HTTP was such a standard permitted the creation of the Apache web server which, according to a recent Netcraft survey, provides 60% of all websites on the Internet, over twice that of its closest rival, Microsoft (see http://www.netcraft.com/survey/).
By endorsing "RAND" standards, the W3C is acting as little more than a business development department for the corporation to whom royalties must be paid - and this is completely inappropriate for an organization whose goal is to "lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing common protocols that promote its evolution and ensure its interoperability".
I would be very interested in your response to this viewpoint.
Ian Clarke
Coordinator - The Freenet Project
Chief Technology Officer - Uprizer Inc.
Thanks, I have programmed my Tivo accordingly
Perhaps it is just a throw-back to those days in my youth watching McGyver, but this is a good show, scientifically plausable, interesting plot, and compelling characters.
Not actually on any more, but recent enough to be interesting. Amazing special effects, and an interesting plot where you never really know whether the aliens are good guys, bad guys, or somewhere in between (the reality being the latter). In that sense, it mirrors the complexity of real life.
While the last season got somewhat depressing in places, the people behind "The Onion" have consistently provided a tongue-in-cheek, very funny dialog which, until recently didn't take itself too seriously. Also, new season just starting, can't talk long.
One of the few ways to watch TV News which actually talks about that insignificant part of the world outside the US.
There is just something about the consistent style, interesting plots, and slightly sick humor that makes this the best Cop show since "The Bill" (it's a Brit thing - Yanks need not worry).
The strange thing is that in keyboards and WIMP user interfaces, we seem to have reached a point where it is far from obvious where we can progress next. There hasn't been significant progress in user interfaces since the 1970s when Xerox Parc developed the mouse based interfaces which we all use today - oh sure, we have colour, and that paper clip, and skinability, but none of these are anything other than incremental enhancements.
Many people are betting on 3D user interfaces, but I remain unconvinced that these will actually be useful, or that a 2D representation of objects in 3D would be better than the 2D representation of objects in 2D which we have now.
Most new input devices are also variations on the mouse theme, be they light-pens (hardly new, I remember them in the mid-80s), touch screens, or these gloves.
So the question is, have we reached a global optimum in user interface design, or is there some other approach that I haven't even considered that we will all be using in 30 years?
I don't think "not being Microsoft" is a sufficient criteria for the support of the Open Source community.
Firstly, the reality is that Bin Laden apparently avoids technology wherever possible, sending people to deliver messages rather than bits (encrypted or not).
But even if it were to emerge that that the terrorists used PGP or similar software, and secure encryption was made illegal, can someone seriously suggest that terrorists bent on destruction would worry about complying with US encryption laws? Either they would go ahead and use secure encryption, or they would choose another form of communication.
In reality, the only people who the FBI would end up monitoring are the innocent, and the stupid (and Bin Laden's crew are definitely not stupid).
This is in addition to the not inconsiderable point that enforcement of these laws would be almost impossible.
Yes, it's Christopher Tomas!
Even if you believed that Freenet has *no* userbase, and that it is still so incomplete that nobody can use it, the simple fact that it exists and he doesn't (can't?) present a way to shut it down, refutes his argument. As has been pointed out elsewhere, even if ISPs placed restrictions on usable ports, Freenet can easily be persuaded to tunnel over other ports.
Of course, you should never let the facts get in the way of a good story...
The closeness operator sounds a bit like sorting, and anything that can be sorted can also have a closeness operator, however not everything that can have a closeness operator can be sorted. There is no reason why a more general query couldn't conform to these requirements. Generally speaking it would probably require some form of "fuzzy matching" of metadata to an SQL-style query. Of course this would require some constraints on the nature of the query, but it could still be much more flexible than Freenet's current lexographic search.
In The Trouble with JXTA Adam Langley, a Freenet developer, gives his not so rose-tinted view of JXTA.
In retrospect, it was one of the first examples I can recall of Gatoring, and like so many other things, we saw it first in the Linux world!
My machine has received over 250 hits in the last few hours. I have tried to telnet to them (prot 25) but most are connection refused. Which port are you supposed to telnet to, and what do you say?
I do hope that you filed a bug for this, otherwise i am afraid you are the weakest link... goodbye!
I assume the GPS information was transmitted with other telemetry, the GPS mechanism itself does not involve transmitting data - but who cares.
GPS works by receiving signals from the GPS sats, not by transmitting signals to them.