Do you have any actual logical or ethical position for why a university should not be able to block any ports/clients/whatever that it feels like? If I want to drive my car over their lawns should I be able to sue to force them to let me do that, too?
Isn't that exactly what this is? Why the spin to make it sound like something else? This isn't a case of the Stupid Mass Media and Public At Large conspiring to misunderstand the Linux Phenomena. It means exactly that: there is a lack of interest in this project. There is no question about how "some people" see this.
If there was enough interest in the book, people would have bought it and Coriolis wouldn't have said no to paying for a second one. If there was enough interest in writing one for free, it would have been done. Free speech works best when it's combined with free beer. Most open source programmers don't seem hugely interested in (or capable of, honestly) writing good documentation and most writers don't seem willing to donate the massive amount of effort required to write a book and then give it away for free. After all, not a lot of writers can sell support contracts for their books and Red Hat, SuSe, Mandrake, et al seem more interested in creating yet another graphical install tool rather than creating good documentation.
The problem is that government has violated the trust given them.
So have individuals, yet trust is extended to them. There is no monolithic "government". It is made up of people. The "government" didn't commit Watergate. A few people within it did. Just like a few people within society commit crimes. Yet I'm sure you would agree that we shouldn't revoke our trust of all people on the basis of the violations of a few.
so long as there is reciprocal transparency so that I know the same details about every person who accesses mine.
Government violates privacy precisely because they expect to labor under secrecy. If they didn't have that "expectation of privacy" that you talk about then they wouldn't trample all over the innocent.
Actually, my car does alarm itself automatically without me having to think. 30 seconds after I remove the key from the ignition the alarm will arm itself without me having to think.
my dictionary says that means "exclusively owned". No one other than the FSF owns the copyrights on the code for GCC. That is why they are allowed to redistribute the code under non-GPL licenses like they did for Motorola.
If the FSF releases the code into the public domain it would cease to be proprietary and become public. But the FSF hasn't done that.
Closed and proprietary are different things. When you submit a patch for GCC you have to assign copyright to the Free Software Foundation; it becomes proprietary. Then it is up to the FSF to decide whether or not it will be open or closed.
Toshiba claims that the power consumption of the Transmeta chips is understated and that "this can be done with Intel chips". I don't understand how you pulled "sour grapes" based on performance out of that article.
Usually what I see with debian is the opposite. Someone packages foo and CLAIMS that it "requires" libBar 1.23 or greater when in fact any libBar greater than 1.0 works just fine. But the maintainer of foo has libBar 1.23 installed and was too lazy to do any real dependency analysis. So users are forced to upgrade half the packages on their system to satisfy the alleged dependencies of a single piece of software they want to install.
You can create black boxes in C just fine. Take a look at the FILE pseudo-object. It's completely opaque; a total black box. The only thing known about it is it's public interface.
It all depends on who you talk to, but many people would disagree about your four "requirements".
The people over at Open Implementation would probably disagree with your statement that a "black box" is necessary to be object oriented (or even that it is desirable at all).
Delegation based languages like Self don't have inheritance but achieve reuse all the same.
Typeless languages don't need polymorphism.
I don't think multi-dispatch would be called "messaging", as there is no "recipient" like there is in single-dispatched languages like C++.
Maybe it's just me, but your four points seem very C++ biased. If you want a different bias of what is "required" to be object oriented take a look at what Eiffelites might say:
should have the notion of class as the central concept
must have assertions to check preconditions, postconditions, and invariants and produce documentation from them as well as check them at runtime
classes should be the only modules (i.e. no "namespaces" a la C++)
every type should be based on a class (so long C++ and Java)
it should be possible to specify which clients can access which features (i.e. finer granularity than "public", "private", and "protected")
the genericity mechanism should support constrained genericity (i.e. only classes with the method "sort")
This list is no more or less biased than your own.
not just microsoft, GNU does it too
on
Is UNIX An OS?
·
· Score: 1
GNU talks about a compiler and a window manager being part of the OS.
In the real world the strongest person can beat the shit out of you and take back what they just sold you and do what they want with it; there is no such thing as "natural property rights". On top of the real world we have a bunch of socially constructed artificial laws. Copyright just happens to be one of those socially constructed artificial laws. That doesn't make it worse than the artificial property rights that you base the other half of your argument on.
What's the point of saying "MySQL does a great job at what it's intended for" while simultaneously saying it is getting to be on par with other databases?
If MySQL's niche doesn't include those other features why are they being added? And if the users needed those features in the first place, why did they go with MySQL?
So maybe all the libertarians on slashdot can lobby government to pass a law requiring people to not abuse META tags and other such things, because it is fucking with their freedom.
Given the number of people who drive drunk versus the number of fatalities they cause, I don't see why libertarians would outlaw drunk driving before they'd outlaw gun ownership.
Why do you think you are entitled to view their web page without agreeing to the conditions they place on it? If I walk into someone's house and they ask me to take off my shoes, where do I derive my moral authority to claim that my feet's right to privacy outweighs their ownership and host rights?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any actual logical or ethical position for why a university should not be able to block any ports/clients/whatever that it feels like? If I want to drive my car over their lawns should I be able to sue to force them to let me do that, too?
Isn't that exactly what this is? Why the spin to make it sound like something else? This isn't a case of the Stupid Mass Media and Public At Large conspiring to misunderstand the Linux Phenomena. It means exactly that: there is a lack of interest in this project. There is no question about how "some people" see this.
If there was enough interest in the book, people would have bought it and Coriolis wouldn't have said no to paying for a second one. If there was enough interest in writing one for free, it would have been done. Free speech works best when it's combined with free beer. Most open source programmers don't seem hugely interested in (or capable of, honestly) writing good documentation and most writers don't seem willing to donate the massive amount of effort required to write a book and then give it away for free. After all, not a lot of writers can sell support contracts for their books and Red Hat, SuSe, Mandrake, et al seem more interested in creating yet another graphical install tool rather than creating good documentation.
The problem is that government has violated the trust given them.
So have individuals, yet trust is extended to them. There is no monolithic "government". It is made up of people. The "government" didn't commit Watergate. A few people within it did. Just like a few people within society commit crimes. Yet I'm sure you would agree that we shouldn't revoke our trust of all people on the basis of the violations of a few.
so long as there is reciprocal transparency so that I know the same details about every person who accesses mine.
Government violates privacy precisely because they expect to labor under secrecy. If they didn't have that "expectation of privacy" that you talk about then they wouldn't trample all over the innocent.
Most people don't need email access at work. Just like most people don't need access to letterhead or a company credit card.
You'd still be letting them access their personal email from work -- so it's not THAT draconian.
And they can still communicate via email internally.
Actually, my car does alarm itself automatically without me having to think. 30 seconds after I remove the key from the ignition the alarm will arm itself without me having to think.
I dunno, I've never had a problem with my Microsoft Hardware. And I've never seen any of the WinCE-based Dreamcast games crash.
On the other hand, my roommate did have Final Fantasy 7 hang on him on his Playstation, forcing him to go back to his previous save.
Why are you surfing the web rather than calling Sun?
my dictionary says that means "exclusively owned". No one other than the FSF owns the copyrights on the code for GCC. That is why they are allowed to redistribute the code under non-GPL licenses like they did for Motorola.
If the FSF releases the code into the public domain it would cease to be proprietary and become public. But the FSF hasn't done that.
Proprietary and closed are orthogonal.
Closed and proprietary are different things. When you submit a patch for GCC you have to assign copyright to the Free Software Foundation; it becomes proprietary. Then it is up to the FSF to decide whether or not it will be open or closed.
Toshiba claims that the power consumption of the Transmeta chips is understated and that "this can be done with Intel chips". I don't understand how you pulled "sour grapes" based on performance out of that article.
In foo.h you have:
struct black_box;
typedef struct black_box BLACKBOX;
then in foo.c you have:
struct black_box {
int stuff;
};
Usually what I see with debian is the opposite. Someone packages foo and CLAIMS that it "requires" libBar 1.23 or greater when in fact any libBar greater than 1.0 works just fine. But the maintainer of foo has libBar 1.23 installed and was too lazy to do any real dependency analysis. So users are forced to upgrade half the packages on their system to satisfy the alleged dependencies of a single piece of software they want to install.
You can create black boxes in C just fine. Take a look at the FILE pseudo-object. It's completely opaque; a total black box. The only thing known about it is it's public interface.
The people over at Open Implementation would probably disagree with your statement that a "black box" is necessary to be object oriented (or even that it is desirable at all).
Delegation based languages like Self don't have inheritance but achieve reuse all the same.
Typeless languages don't need polymorphism.
I don't think multi-dispatch would be called "messaging", as there is no "recipient" like there is in single-dispatched languages like C++.
Maybe it's just me, but your four points seem very C++ biased. If you want a different bias of what is "required" to be object oriented take a look at what Eiffelites might say:
- should have the notion of class as the central concept
- must have assertions to check preconditions, postconditions, and invariants and produce documentation from them as well as check them at runtime
- classes should be the only modules (i.e. no "namespaces" a la C++)
- every type should be based on a class (so long C++ and Java)
- it should be possible to specify which clients can access which features (i.e. finer granularity than "public", "private", and "protected")
- the genericity mechanism should support constrained genericity (i.e. only classes with the method "sort")
This list is no more or less biased than your own.GNU talks about a compiler and a window manager being part of the OS.
Since RT-Linux runs linux as a process, does that mean linux isn't really an OS?
In the real world the strongest person can beat the shit out of you and take back what they just sold you and do what they want with it; there is no such thing as "natural property rights". On top of the real world we have a bunch of socially constructed artificial laws. Copyright just happens to be one of those socially constructed artificial laws. That doesn't make it worse than the artificial property rights that you base the other half of your argument on.
What's the point of saying "MySQL does a great job at what it's intended for" while simultaneously saying it is getting to be on par with other databases?
If MySQL's niche doesn't include those other features why are they being added? And if the users needed those features in the first place, why did they go with MySQL?
So maybe all the libertarians on slashdot can lobby government to pass a law requiring people to not abuse META tags and other such things, because it is fucking with their freedom.
Given the number of people who drive drunk versus the number of fatalities they cause, I don't see why libertarians would outlaw drunk driving before they'd outlaw gun ownership.
The Great Libertarian Racket
Why would you want to be affiliated with this party?
the "10,000 known, documented bugs" that you talk about are, for the most part, vastly different from the kinds of things listed on bugtraq.
A marginally better comparison would be a list of reported bugs in gnome:
http://bugs.gnome.org/db/ix/full.html
At the very least compare apples to apples.
This current exploit has nothing to do with flexibility. I bet if 95% of the world used Eudora, you'd be hearing more about it's buffer overflows.
Why do you think you are entitled to view their web page without agreeing to the conditions they place on it? If I walk into someone's house and they ask me to take off my shoes, where do I derive my moral authority to claim that my feet's right to privacy outweighs their ownership and host rights?