Well, it looks like the games market has finally seen the light. Once the first few companies get involved, market pressure pushes everybody else into the ring. I'm glad to see this happen. For so many of us, Windows resided on a spare partition _just_ so we can play games. Now if Blizard would just start releasing Linux games, we'd be set. -earl
I believe I read the article last week, and it sounded like they were saying that they were using linux to hardware reset the card (since they had complete control of the OS) by bringing the voltage supplied to the card way down (simulated reboot). I haven't time to re-read it since I'm pretty busy right now, but that what they were saying AFAIK. -earl
That's all I need to hear. Now that you've hit the big time, I want a divorce. I want half of your hits, _and_ the banner ads. On top of all that, I'm gonna get custody of the server too. That's what you get for linking to all those other sites behind my back you slut!!
just kiddin, tell me when you got a billion, then I'll be impressed;-) -earl
I disagree. Monetary awards like this are often funded by private industry. The idealogy that the company follows and the idealogy that the award represents are not necessarily connected. For exapmle: Lots of people despise Exxon for the whole Valdez thing. So if Exxon donates money to say, Amnesty International, and they in turn give a cash award to someone who is being persecuted by their govt for their efforts to protect the environment from polluting corporations, does that make the recipient a sellout? I don't think so. If the recipient recieved money directly from Exxon, then you've got a case. Otherwise it's just coincidence really. If the awarding org was the Exxon foundation, then that makes sense also, but the fact is that corporations frequently make donations to charitable organizations, or even just industry related organizations. What the _independent_ organization does with the money ought not have anything to do with the corporations overall agenda. but that's just my $.02 -earl
"China's such a lucrative business opportunity that the US is willing to go against its own ideals for it." No you're wrong. The ideals of the US are to be the most powerful nation in the world. More money, more power. Sounds consistent to me. -earl
Sounds cool man. I guess if you can get the big exploits out fothe way now, playing ought to be a bit more reliable. BTW, hows that linux q3demo from yesterday? I never got a chance to dl it. -earl
I agree with you man, but consider the source. This guy is a pro-business republican in an area where a huge percentage of the population makes their $$$ off of technology. Only Silicon Valley is bigger than No. Virginia for technology jobs/companies/dollars. Politicians are motivated by money and power. It's in this guys best interest to cater to UUNet/AOL/PSI/NSI/CyberCash/Sprint/MCI and the rest of the 1000's of internet companies in his constituency. Besides, it happens to be a good idea for a change.;) -earl
I know that there are lots of lurkers, out there, but I think they lurk for the same reason I do most of the time. Why confront so much ignorance? Let them be the way they are, as long as they don't hurt anyone. I'd rather have an intelligent discussion with someone who has a clue. I've also had to deal with plenty of the crap MS puts out. I can tell you without a doubt that fdisk is my favorite ms app. But I really don't care about MS or what they do. IMHO, Linux really doesn't have anything to do with MS. -earl
Thanks! It looks like I'll be up all night reading.;-) I'll have to pass this along to some friends of mice. BTW at fist glance, it looks like this project focuses on multicast:) "Spread is a toolkit and daemon that provide multicast and group communications support to applications across local and wide area networks."
But like I said "at a glance", I'll have to dig a little deeper. -earl
Actually, you lose nothing by using multicast in a two way conference. So why develop separate tools? If you use multicast tools for 1:1 conferencing, you can then add conferencees with a linear increase in network traffic. My feeling is that the smart vendors will build tools that use multicast when it's available, and only unicast when multicast isn't available. You can really apprecicate the valueof multicast when you see it in action. At NASA HQ we sent out the NASA TV Broadcast of the John Glenn Shuttle launch with multicast tools. It's awesome to see a couple hundred people join the session, and watch a 200K+ video/audio stream without theh network ever breaking a sweat. Imagine what woulda happened with RealAudio... -earl
Ok this settles it. I've been thinking (and hearing from other./ers) about gradual decline in the average IQ of slashdot posters. I don't think I'm being out of line here when I say that Ken Thompson has done more for all of computing than Linus and Co. have done for Linux. Yes, I meant what I said. think about it.(there is a world of difference between a clone and an innovation)
None of these people are gods in my eyes, nobody is, we're all human. But to hear criticism from someone so universally respected in the industry, and to whom we owe so much; and to simply call him old, and throw other juvenile insults at him. It's really a sign of the times isn't it?
Slashdot has become a victim of it's own success. I say this in the same way I do about RedHat. There was a time when if you were a newcomer to Linux _and_ Unix at the same time, RedHat was a Godsend. Also there was a time when Slashdot was quite a haven from the hype and the misinformation in the popular media, and you could expect intelligent, thought out comments to articles. It was intellectually stimulating to participate.
Now I've found that the same smart people are still putting this stuff together (Slashdot & RedHat), and they keep it mostly at the same high standard of quality, but now the flavor has gone bad. Too many uneducated reactionaries joining the party. Far to many people whose mantra is "Linus is GOD, Microsoft is the DEVIL".
The signal/noise ratio is way down, maybe even below 1, but I can't stay away since the core of the site is still top notch. All of a sudden I _completely_ understand why Rob went through all that effort to put the moderation system together. But you can't cure AIDS with a band-aid, not even emergency surgery will help. People, I regret to inform you that the Slashdot you once knew is dead... Long live Slashdot. I'm thinking maybe if the site went down for a couple weeks, unannounced, most of the losers would drift off in search of a new haven, but that's naive. A new forum is needed. Maybe it already exists, I'm on a quest to find it. But don't expect to hear about it on Slashdot. I wouldn't want to see a good thing ruined... again.
Thanks Rob, Hemos, Nate, Sengan, Jon, Cliff. It's been quite a ride. I'll still be around, but I can't say I relly enjoy it anymore. -earl
P.S. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, you just might be part of the problem.
Sure you're gonna get much more efficient bandwidth utilization with multicast. That goes without saying. If that's your goal, use vic, (r)vat, sdr and the like. Unfortunately most ISP's don't route multicast traffic, and that means you're all by your lonesome with your spiffy multicast setup. Until they get a clue, you might as well use the unicast stuff. -earl
in the wake if the colorado thing, I bet we'll see thinks like these all over in the near future. Then we can get a little bit of cancer everywhere we go. How safe!
I couldn't let this one go. Market share, or market penetration or even mindshare have no technical relevance. If you're responsible for implementing a solution and want to go with the best equiptment, you need to compare the options on a technical basis. Otherwise, you'll nearly always end up with NT.
Think about it, If you argument is "everybody's using..",or "everybody moving to....", 99% of the time your sentence will end with windows. Maybe your career too. Unless of course, you're a manager;-) -earl
Hey slashdoters, How 'bout we bet Microsoft 1 Million Dollars they can't beat our best benchmarks on the same box? We'll build a box just like the one in the test, an we'll get the Samba team, and the kernel hackers, and the apache team, and the rest to fine tune the hell out of it. If MS can build an identical NT box that can come within 90% of the speed of the Linux Box, We'll write em a check for US $1 million. Everybody puts in $40 (25,000 slashdotters? x 40 = 1,000,000) or so, and Rob coordinates the whole thing. In the end the box becomes the new slashdot. The Press will eat it up, and MS will lose for sure. Or, even better, we bet em a million, and we each have to put 500,000 in the pot. Loser takes home the cash. If we end up being too poor, we can call Larry Ellison, He'll gladly put up the dough to drag MS's name through the dirt. -earl
Your suggestion dosen't make much sense from RedHat's standpoint. Optimizing someting means you have a target in mind. You can't optimize a box so it will be ideally configured for everyone. You optimize it to suit it's particular function. My experience tells me that Linux is mostly installed on old boxes and as far as servers go, it's small departmental servers, running a few services (web, samba, ftp, mail, dns), not usually Quad Xeon 1GB RAM boxes. Usually when you spend over 20K on a box, you'd ask your vendors how to best configure the box to fit you particular needs. Not just send an e-mail to tech support.
As far as 2.2 goes, RedHat has released RPMS and mirrors source for 2.2 series kernels. They include detailed instructions on how to upgrade, and what packages should be upgraded beforehand. The point out that they do not support the 2.2 kernel because the feel it's not ready for production boxes yet. When they feel it reaches that point they'll just rev from 5.2 to 6.0 or whatever. No biggie. As a corporation putting your reputation behind their products, it makes sense to only release products that you believe are reliable, unless of course your CEO is the richest man in the world. Then you can ship dogshit;) -earl
no they are not. I am a strong advocate of GNU and the FSF, and I think the (L)GPL is an outstanding license to protect and preserve free software.
However, the goal of corporations is not to give away their products and have 100 % percent market share, the goal is to make money. There are many demonstrated ways for a software company to give the software away for free, and still make money ( Netscape, RedHat, Sendmail, etc). Not every software company wants to do business this way. They have the right to operate their business in any _legal_ way they choose.
The real issue that is dividing free software supporters and commercial software companies is how to open commercial software without effectively giving away ownership. RMS chooses to give away his software in a way that grants ownership to each and every contributor. Now for free sowtware this is a "very good thing"(tm). For commercial software, it has the opposite effect. It stops the free flow of IP in its tracks.
If company A writes KillerApp(tm) and wants to make billions by selling it, the GPL is not the best license to use. What would happen is that companies B, C, and D would make minor modifications to it, and repackage it as KillerApp.b, KillerApp.c and KillerApp.c respectively. Not exactly what company A had in mind right? If there was a license that gives the community the free and open exchange of IP that the GPL does, while maintaining the "ownership protection" that a standard commercial software license does, we would see lots of commercial software companies open up their code to the community. The result would be that the original owners could profit from their own work, and the community could distribute for free the improvements that they've made. Consumers get a better program, companies can stay in business simply selling software. I don't see that there is a fundamental conflict here, and I believe that given the necessary attention and intelligent thought, this issue can be resolved, and everybody will benefit.
Now I'll get off my high horse, and get back to work;) -earl
At first glance I'm thingking that since RedHat 5.2 uses glibc6, and Debian 2.1 uses libc5... RH 5.2 includes libc5 for backward compatibility, but glibc6 stuff won't run on libc5. That has nothing to do with RedHat (if indeed that's your problem). I'd invesitagte further before I blame the distro for incompatibilities. -earl
Maybe what us free software advocates need to do is draft a shell licence for commercial software companies. If you look at their "open source" licences, they're all basically the same. We seem to have problems with the portions of thier licences that we feel funnels the benefits of the open source model to "the company" exclusively. They seem to believe that they've created an open source license that protects their IP from becoming public domain, and from the threat of cloners. Maybe we can create a license model that satisfies both requirements. Essentially, they want to maintain the ownership of their "open" code, and we want to maintain the freedom of the improvements that result from the opening of that code. I think that's the issue that ESR, and BP and the other "champions of open source";) should be working on, not trying to get a bunch of commercial software companies to dilute the free software with a bunch of "not-so-free" software. The GPL is great for new software that has no real original owner and no need for IP protection. For commercial SW companies, it not just gives away the code (a good thing), but it gives others the right to burn it to CD and sell it as is (a bad thing). -earl
well, we/.'ed the new/. I suppose we should have been a little easier on it on it's first day, but... It seems like a configuration problem since it loads pretty quickly up until a certain point. c'mon CT!! we're rooting for ya, (no pun intended) -earl
I found MS's attempts to bring BeOS into the limelight quite predictable. At this point, it server two purposes, first it allows them to claim that there is strong competition isn the OS market, and secondly it puts BeOS out for mainstream review before it's really ready. BeOS is still more of a development OS than a production OS, althought at this point it clearly outshines windows as far as reliablilty and performance are concerned. App availibility is Be's biggest problem, and if you're looking for alternatives to windows, Linux is probably the best choice right now. Be is workiong furiously to attract developers,and they're still massaging the API's to make them easier to develop for and to maintain. MS really has a great opportunity to slam Be because they don't have a strong application base, and Be knows this. Gassee say that he had an equally good opportinity to stick it to MS for anti-competitive behavior. Since MS tried to fsck them, Be fsked them back, but MUCH harder. I can't wait to see what justice does to punish MS when the trial is over. I think the 3 companies split is the best approach cuz it forces MS to compete across the board. If you divide their product lines properly, they can't "integrate" any apps into the OS without fscking one of the other baby-bills and begging for a shareholder lawsuit. Splitting them logically, financially, and physically is the only way I see to end the abuse of power that they've been practicing for over a decaade.
Hey man, I agree with you 100 percent. I find it typical of the whole flock mentality to have very strong opinions about things that you know very little about. How many of these RMS haters have ever read papers that RMS has written, or have actually read the entire L/GPL? How can you begin to comment on a document that you've only heard about, but have never taken the time to read? It's totally absurd. I personally think RMS is one of the finest individuals involved in technology today. He does have strong opinions, and he does share them freely. But he does not _force_ his opinions on anyone. That's the beauty of freedom, by definition it cannot be forced. Restrictions, on the other hand by definition are forced.
Let the coders code, let the users use, and let the talkers talk. It's worked pretty well so far.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it looks like the games market has finally seen the light. Once the first few companies get involved, market pressure pushes everybody else into the ring. I'm glad to see this happen. For so many of us, Windows resided on a spare partition _just_ so we can play games. Now if Blizard would just start releasing Linux games, we'd be set.
-earl
I believe I read the article last week, and it sounded like they were saying that they were using linux to hardware reset the card (since they had complete control of the OS) by bringing the voltage supplied to the card way down (simulated reboot). I haven't time to re-read it since I'm pretty busy right now, but that what they were saying AFAIK.
-earl
just kiddin, ;-)
tell me when you got a billion, then I'll be impressed
-earl
I disagree. Monetary awards like this are often funded by private industry. The idealogy that the company follows and the idealogy that the award represents are not necessarily connected. For exapmle: Lots of people despise Exxon for the whole Valdez thing. So if Exxon donates money to say, Amnesty International, and they in turn give a cash award to someone who is being persecuted by their govt for their efforts to protect the environment from polluting corporations, does that make the recipient a sellout? I don't think so. If the recipient recieved money directly from Exxon, then you've got a case. Otherwise it's just coincidence really.
If the awarding org was the Exxon foundation, then that makes sense also, but the fact is that corporations frequently make donations to charitable organizations, or even just industry related organizations. What the _independent_ organization does with the money ought not have anything to do with the corporations overall agenda. but that's just my $.02
-earl
"China's such a lucrative business opportunity that the US is willing to go against its own ideals for it." No you're wrong. The ideals of the US are to be the most powerful nation in the world. More money, more power. Sounds consistent to me.
-earl
Sounds cool man. I guess if you can get the big exploits out fothe way now, playing ought to be a bit more reliable. BTW, hows that linux q3demo from yesterday? I never got a chance to dl it.
-earl
Happy birthday!!
-earl
I agree with you man, but consider the source. This guy is a pro-business republican in an area where a huge percentage of the population makes their $$$ off of technology. Only Silicon Valley is bigger than No. Virginia for technology jobs/companies/dollars. Politicians are motivated by money and power. It's in this guys best interest to cater to UUNet/AOL/PSI/NSI/CyberCash/Sprint/MCI and the rest of the 1000's of internet companies in his constituency. Besides, it happens to be a good idea for a change. ;)
-earl
Yeah, that's what I was talking about, but only partly. This guy was actually funny. ;) -earl
I know that there are lots of lurkers, out there, but I think they lurk for the same reason I do most of the time. Why confront so much ignorance? Let them be the way they are, as long as they don't hurt anyone. I'd rather have an intelligent discussion with someone who has a clue.
I've also had to deal with plenty of the crap MS puts out. I can tell you without a doubt that fdisk is my favorite ms app. But I really don't care about MS or what they do. IMHO, Linux really doesn't have anything to do with MS.
-earl
I'll have to pass this along to some friends of mice. BTW at fist glance, it looks like this project focuses on multicast
"Spread is a toolkit and daemon that provide multicast and group communications support to applications across local and wide area networks."
But like I said "at a glance", I'll have to dig a little deeper.
-earl
Actually, you lose nothing by using multicast in a two way conference. So why develop separate tools? If you use multicast tools for 1:1 conferencing, you can then add conferencees with a linear increase in network traffic. My feeling is that the smart vendors will build tools that use multicast when it's available, and only unicast when multicast isn't available.
You can really apprecicate the valueof multicast when you see it in action. At NASA HQ we sent out the NASA TV Broadcast of the John Glenn Shuttle launch with multicast tools. It's awesome to see a couple hundred people join the session, and watch a 200K+ video/audio stream without theh network ever breaking a sweat. Imagine what woulda happened with RealAudio... -earl
None of these people are gods in my eyes, nobody is, we're all human. But to hear criticism from someone so universally respected in the industry, and to whom we owe so much; and to simply call him old, and throw other juvenile insults at him. It's really a sign of the times isn't it?
Slashdot has become a victim of it's own success. I say this in the same way I do about RedHat. There was a time when if you were a newcomer to Linux _and_ Unix at the same time, RedHat was a Godsend. Also there was a time when Slashdot was quite a haven from the hype and the misinformation in the popular media, and you could expect intelligent, thought out comments to articles. It was intellectually stimulating to participate.
Now I've found that the same smart people are still putting this stuff together (Slashdot & RedHat), and they keep it mostly at the same high standard of quality, but now the flavor has gone bad. Too many uneducated reactionaries joining the party. Far to many people whose mantra is "Linus is GOD, Microsoft is the DEVIL".
The signal/noise ratio is way down, maybe even below 1, but I can't stay away since the core of the site is still top notch. All of a sudden I _completely_ understand why Rob went through all that effort to put the moderation system together. But you can't cure AIDS with a band-aid, not even emergency surgery will help. People, I regret to inform you that the Slashdot you once knew is dead... Long live Slashdot. I'm thinking maybe if the site went down for a couple weeks, unannounced, most of the losers would drift off in search of a new haven, but that's naive. A new forum is needed. Maybe it already exists, I'm on a quest to find it. But don't expect to hear about it on Slashdot. I wouldn't want to see a good thing ruined ... again.
Thanks Rob, Hemos, Nate, Sengan, Jon, Cliff. It's been quite a ride. I'll still be around, but I can't say I relly enjoy it anymore.
-earl
P.S.
If you don't understand what I'm talking about, you just might be part of the problem.
Sure you're gonna get much more efficient bandwidth utilization with multicast. That goes without saying. If that's your goal, use vic, (r)vat, sdr and the like. Unfortunately most ISP's don't route multicast traffic, and that means you're all by your lonesome with your spiffy multicast setup. Until they get a clue, you might as well use the unicast stuff.
-earl
-earl
Think about it, If you argument is "everybody's using..",or "everybody moving to....", 99% of the time your sentence will end with windows. Maybe your career too. Unless of course, you're a manager ;-)
-earl
Hey slashdoters, How 'bout we bet Microsoft 1 Million Dollars they can't beat our best benchmarks on the same box? We'll build a box just like the one in the test, an we'll get the Samba team, and the kernel hackers, and the apache team, and the rest to fine tune the hell out of it. If MS can build an identical NT box that can come within 90% of the speed of the Linux Box, We'll write em a check for US $1 million.
Everybody puts in $40 (25,000 slashdotters? x 40 = 1,000,000) or so, and Rob coordinates the whole thing. In the end the box becomes the new slashdot. The Press will eat it up, and MS will lose for sure.
Or, even better, we bet em a million, and we each have to put 500,000 in the pot. Loser takes home the cash. If we end up being too poor, we can call Larry Ellison, He'll gladly put up the dough to drag MS's name through the dirt.
-earl
Your suggestion dosen't make much sense from RedHat's standpoint. Optimizing someting means you have a target in mind. You can't optimize a box so it will be ideally configured for everyone. You optimize it to suit it's particular function. My experience tells me that Linux is mostly installed on old boxes and as far as servers go, it's small departmental servers, running a few services (web, samba, ftp, mail, dns), not usually Quad Xeon 1GB RAM boxes. Usually when you spend over 20K on a box, you'd ask your vendors how to best configure the box to fit you particular needs. Not just send an e-mail to tech support.
;)
As far as 2.2 goes, RedHat has released RPMS and mirrors source for 2.2 series kernels. They include detailed instructions on how to upgrade, and what packages should be upgraded beforehand. The point out that they do not support the 2.2 kernel because the feel it's not ready for production boxes yet. When they feel it reaches that point they'll just rev from 5.2 to 6.0 or whatever. No biggie. As a corporation putting your reputation behind their products, it makes sense to only release products that you believe are reliable, unless of course your CEO is the richest man in the world. Then you can ship dogshit
-earl
However, the goal of corporations is not to give away their products and have 100 % percent market share, the goal is to make money. There are many demonstrated ways for a software company to give the software away for free, and still make money ( Netscape, RedHat, Sendmail, etc). Not every software company wants to do business this way. They have the right to operate their business in any _legal_ way they choose.
The real issue that is dividing free software supporters and commercial software companies is how to open commercial software without effectively giving away ownership. RMS chooses to give away his software in a way that grants ownership to each and every contributor. Now for free sowtware this is a "very good thing"(tm). For commercial software, it has the opposite effect. It stops the free flow of IP in its tracks.
If company A writes KillerApp(tm) and wants to make billions by selling it, the GPL is not the best license to use. What would happen is that companies B, C, and D would make minor modifications to it, and repackage it as KillerApp.b, KillerApp.c and KillerApp.c respectively. Not exactly what company A had in mind right? If there was a license that gives the community the free and open exchange of IP that the GPL does, while maintaining the "ownership protection" that a standard commercial software license does, we would see lots of commercial software companies open up their code to the community. The result would be that the original owners could profit from their own work, and the community could distribute for free the improvements that they've made. Consumers get a better program, companies can stay in business simply selling software. I don't see that there is a fundamental conflict here, and I believe that given the necessary attention and intelligent thought, this issue can be resolved, and everybody will benefit.
Now I'll get off my high horse, and get back to work ;)
-earl
At first glance I'm thingking that since RedHat 5.2 uses glibc6, and Debian 2.1 uses libc5... RH 5.2 includes libc5 for backward compatibility, but glibc6 stuff won't run on libc5. That has nothing to do with RedHat (if indeed that's your problem). I'd invesitagte further before I blame the distro for incompatibilities. -earl
Maybe what us free software advocates need to do is draft a shell licence for commercial software companies. If you look at their "open source" licences, they're all basically the same. We seem to have problems with the portions of thier licences that we feel funnels the benefits of the open source model to "the company" exclusively. They seem to believe that they've created an open source license that protects their IP from becoming public domain, and from the threat of cloners. Maybe we can create a license model that satisfies both requirements. ;) should be working on, not trying to get a bunch of commercial software companies to dilute the free software with a bunch of "not-so-free" software. The GPL is great for new software that has no real original owner and no need for IP protection. For commercial SW companies, it not just gives away the code (a good thing), but it gives others the right to burn it to CD and sell it as is (a bad thing). -earl
Essentially, they want to maintain the ownership of their "open" code, and we want to maintain the freedom of the improvements that result from the opening of that code. I think that's the issue that ESR, and BP and the other "champions of open source"
well, /.'ed the new /. I suppose we should have been a little easier on it on it's first day, but ...
we
It seems like a configuration problem since it loads pretty quickly up until a certain point. c'mon CT!! we're rooting for ya, (no pun intended)
-earl
Looks like all those long-haired linux bozos know a good thing when they see it. Congrats /. !!
;)
And the crowd roars
four-more-years!!
four-more-years!!
-earl
I found MS's attempts to bring BeOS into the limelight quite predictable. At this point, it server two purposes, first it allows them to claim that there is strong competition isn the OS market, and secondly it puts BeOS out for mainstream review before it's really ready. BeOS is still more of a development OS than a production OS, althought at this point it clearly outshines windows as far as reliablilty and performance are concerned.
App availibility is Be's biggest problem, and if you're looking for alternatives to windows, Linux is probably the best choice right now. Be is workiong furiously to attract developers,and they're still massaging the API's to make them easier to develop for and to maintain. MS really has a great opportunity to slam Be because they don't have a strong application base, and Be knows this. Gassee say that he had an equally good opportinity to stick it to MS for anti-competitive behavior. Since MS tried to fsck them, Be fsked them back, but MUCH harder.
I can't wait to see what justice does to punish MS when the trial is over. I think the 3 companies split is the best approach cuz it forces MS to compete across the board. If you divide their product lines properly, they can't "integrate" any apps into the OS without fscking one of the other baby-bills and begging for a shareholder lawsuit. Splitting them logically, financially, and physically is the only way I see to end the abuse of power that they've been practicing for over a decaade.
-earl
Hey man,
I agree with you 100 percent. I find it typical of the whole flock mentality to have very strong opinions about things that you know very little about. How many of these RMS haters have ever read papers that RMS has written, or have actually read the entire L/GPL? How can you begin to comment on a document that you've only heard about, but have never taken the time to read? It's totally absurd.
I personally think RMS is one of the finest individuals involved in technology today. He does have strong opinions, and he does share them freely. But he does not _force_ his opinions on anyone. That's the beauty of freedom, by definition it cannot be forced. Restrictions, on the other hand by definition are forced.
Let the coders code, let the users use, and let the talkers talk. It's worked pretty well so far.
-earl