And this: https://thehill.com/opinion/en... Then go on about how renewable energy makes more economic sense than nuclear power.
That's an article about not reducing carbon emissions as much as expected, not about the choices not making economic sense. They also didn't build storage, because it wasn't economically workable at the time, either. Now it is.
There's a name for doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.
You mean your constantly promoting nuclear power and then being slapped down with the same arguments, or do you mean my constantly trying to appeal to your ability to reason when it appears to be vestigial at best?
If I were a homosexual, I'd be getting spit-roasted like a hog, not Slashdotting. Grindr would not only be way more fulfilling than Slashdot, but it's also a far more competently (and honestly) operated site.
Right, global warming causes snow in Arizona. Tell me something, what kind of weather or climate event would there have to be to disprove the theory of human caused global warming from burning fossil fuels?
A year-on-year decrease in global temperatures, obviously.
The climate changes, and I can't seem to find anyone to dispute that. If you want me to believe your theory then first I need to see the theory explained in a way that is falsifiable.
If you still find greenhouse gases confusing, there's really no explaining the situation to you.
I know what is holding up synthetic fuels. It is the Democrat "Green New Deal" that denies us access to nuclear power.
That's a seriously stupid thing to say on multiple levels, and this is my surprised face. First level, nuclear power is unprofitable, it would make more sense to get the power from renewables. Second level, nuclear power was unprofitable and unpopular before the "Green New Deal" was proposed, but you're blaming it anyway. That's because you're a troll.
We might someday evolve the correct biological hardware to live in harmony with portable supercomputers that satisfy our every need and connect us to infinite amounts of stimulation. But for most of us, it hasn't happened yet...
For others of us, it happened a long time ago. I grew up computing, I met my first girlfriend in a BBS chat way way back in 1993 or so, and the internets are my happy place. Maybe that's the difference?
[S]ometime last year, I crossed the invisible line into problem territory. My symptoms were all the typical ones: I found myself incapable of reading books, watching full-length movies or having long uninterrupted conversations.
I find I can still do all of those things happily, but the people around me can't manage any of them. And I'm plugged in more or less constantly.
Social media made me angry and anxious, and even the digital spaces I once found soothing (group texts, podcasts, YouTube k-holes) weren't helping...
You're using them wrong. Stop watching stuff that pisses you off.
I put a rubber band around the device, for example, and changed my lock screen to one that showed three questions to ask myself every time I unlocked my phone: âoeWhat for? Why now? What else?â
That would drive me nuts. My memory has always been craptacular, and I'd forget what I wanted to look up while I was thinking about "what else".
How about just selectively omitting the outrage porn that seems to be the big problem for most people? Drop Vice first, bunch of sensationalist wankers. Gawker used to be the big problem, but then HULKAMANIA RULED.
When you gas up your car do you think about how many people could be burned to ash if we used that fuel to bomb cities instead of use it to power the transportation sector of the world?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I think about how much devastation follows this unnecessary use of fossil fuels. We could make 100% of our transportation fuel needs from algae grown on seawater by allocating a relatively small portion of desert. Well, we could have. Now that climate change is causing feet of snow to fall on Arizona, and the like, it probably wouldn't work so well as it might have.
You have, however, misrepresented the statement Bruce Perens made. This unfortunate fact turns your work from useful to bullshit.
No, no it does not. Frankly, it wasn't clear at the time what Bruce was talking about. Lots of people were making lots of claims at the time — remember, this was a dozen years ago, before Christine Peterson claimed to have coined the term. But even if it was, that doesn't change the content or quality of the citations I and others located even slightly.
Neither Perens, nor ESR, not Stallman, nor any other person claims to have originated the term,
Christine Peterson outright claims to have "coined" the phrase. My recollection is that before that, ESR claimed to have done so, but he has since supported her story. I agree with you that Perens didn't claim to have coined the term; what he did do was claim to have established its meaning authoritatively by writing a document — which sought to retcon history by redefining a term already in common use before the OSI was even imagined.
Trying to portray it as an argument between the people who were present is disingenuous.
I portrayed it as a series of mutually contradictory claims, but I never asserted that they "argued" about it, at least not that I can recall. If you can find a place where I made such a claim, I'll happily retract it.
It would also be more interesting had they used the combined term "open source" as a noun. They used the noun phrase "source code" with the adjective "open", which may seem like a subtle difference.
That is an outright falsehood. Surely, you can do better. The Caldera press release for OpenDOS authored by Lyle Ballclearly puts all three words together, in the order which you expect, right in the headline: "CALDERA® ANNOUNCES OPEN SOURCE CODE MODEL FOR DOS". If you had actually read my citations, instead of only looking for arguments against them, you'd have known that. This post to comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 from 1993 also uses the phrase in the sense in which you describe. (To be fair, that citation was linked from my later article on this same subject, which I didn't link in the subthread to which you're replying; however, I did link it in a sibling subthread in this same conversation before you wrote the above comment — you might have taken the time to read the rest of the discussion before writing such an emphatic reply.) However, the Caldera press release was linked from my original article, which you really should have read before leaving your highly inaccurate comment here.
What a waste of your time and ours.
You can make excuses all day, or mischaracterise my efforts repeatedly, but it doesn't change the facts at all — And the most basic fact is that the phrase was being used by the community at least five years before Christine Peterson claims to have "coined" it (her word, not mine), and was used by at least one corporation two years earlier.
Further, because I was there, I personally remember the term being in broad use in conversation around the Santa Cruz geek community in the early nineties, in its current sense. That's what set me off in the first place when I read
Is that really the norm these days? I had one run-in with a US cop but that was ages ago
My experience is that the worse they think they can treat you, the worse they treat you. As a kid I got busted for vandalism twice. Actually did it once, in Santa Cruz. White kid in a white neighborhood, no ID because of my age, got treated very well. Didn't do it the second time, still white in a white neighborhood but also a poor one, Lakeport. Got cuffed and put in the front seat of a shitty little Impala (the FWD kind) with my face against the dash where I could have been killed (neck snapped) by the airbag in a collision. That cop was a SWAT team member who eventually got kicked off the force for failing to turn in drug evidence, instead giving it to underage girls and fucking them. I got the full story on him years later when I brought it up with a friend of mine, who actually knows two of the girls in question personally, but everyone knew he was crooked.
My first traffic stop, which was literally for nothing, involved two cops pointing guns in my face, with fingers on triggers. I was in a brown chevy citation so I guess they figured I couldn't afford a lawyer — which was a correct assumption. But over the years, they've harassed me less. Got pulled over at about 30 years old in a way rattier-looking 240SX with patchy paint and no bumper cover but with the bumper installed, cop tried to tell me I had no bumper. I explained to him that I did have a bumper but no cover, and he gave back my license and I drove away. More recently, a CHP stopped on the side of the road and helped me do a tire change, it was hot AF out so I was exhausted, and my shitty little Audi jack had folded up and tried to kill me. Luckily, I wasn't dumb enough to be under the car at the time. We used his jack, and he even did part of the work.
if the call comes down about armed suspects fleeing the scene and an ANPR matches the plate, you better believe that they will take similar precautions i.e. take cover and order the driver out of the car at gunpoint.
If they're behind the vehicle, and the driver doesn't appear to be fleeing, maybe they should use their twin spherical plate readers (you know, their eyes) to double-check the information before endangering citizens' lives by pointing loaded guns at them. As a gun owner, and son of a US Marine, I learned before I was even out of grade school that you don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, and you don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. And in fact, questions reflecting those facts are present on the test that Californians have to pass in order to secure permission to purchase a firearm. But somehow, the cops get it wrong again and again, with the result that they shoot innocent people again and again. Why are the cops held to a lower standard than the rest of us, when they have such a higher level of power and authority? That's ass-backwards.
You're right, and I think it'd be interesting to hear ESR and Perens' take on them.
Me too! ESR won't join any argument he doesn't think he can win, but if you want to know what Bruce thinks about this, you can google Slashdot and find the several times he and I have clashed over the subject. I used to think ESR was one of the smartest guys around, but then I followed him on Google+ for a while and that cured me of that notion.
So you tell me, who you gonna believe? The citations which prove that its use predates OSI claims by five years, provided by a person (me) who has nothing to gain by continuing this argument except the credibility which naturally comes from supporting the facts, or someone with something to gain economically from making such claims, like Christine Peterson or Bruce Perens? The only dog I've got in this fight is the truth.
Sustaining this argument over the years (literally over more than a decade) has cost me substantial credibility, but only among people who value prejudice over fact. I'm okay with that. Better to suffer for the truth than promote a pack of lies. Buying into bullshit is why we can't have nice things.
Oh, for fuck's sake, grow up. Someone choosing to preserve their attorney-client privilege does not mean "they don't actually believe in Openness".
In this case, it absolutely does. It's also legally relevant, and here's why. Members of the OSI have claimed publicly that it was a mistake to heed their counsel in that regard, and that they should have filed for a trademark on "Open Source", because it probably would have been granted (their words, or at least, the gist.) In fact, they made those claims here on Slashdot. However, they are the ones who hold the information about the truth of those claims. One can't go to their attorney to find out (obviously) so we depend on them to honestly and accurately share that information, or at least to make honest and accurate claims about it. The only way to prove whether they're being honest and accurate is to share the basis upon which their counsel advised them against applying for that copyright when they were applying for other copyrights.
There's also another relevant reason, which has to do with iconography. The OSI's logos at the time were designed in such a way that it made it look like they had a copyright on "Open Source" and not just "Open Source Initiative" based on where the copyright registration symbol was placed — next to the word "Source" and not the word "Initiative". That is deceptive advertising.
But at least you made it blindingly obvious that you have a huge chip on your shoulder about OSI.
I'm both personally offended by lies, and generally take exception to the OSI's ongoing assault on Free Software through their attempts to equivocate it with Open Source when the two are fundamentally different.
We don't actually know who first coined the term relating to software, but they were probably in or near the intelligence community, which was using the term to mean something else.
They're called homonyms. Open Source intel is not Open Source software.
me: they were using the term to mean something else you: they're not the same thing me: facepalm
Nonetheless, interesting little post. I do feel like it confirms the original authorship of the term as ESR. It's claimed that Perens claims ESR invented it, regardless of the disagreement on timing.
The evidence proves conclusively that nobody at the OSI invented the term. I probably should have linked that second blog post first, or instead, but my first post was frankly sufficient proof. In fact, I only ever wrote the second one because of the obstinate Open Source cheerleaders who first demanded proof of the claim that nobody at the OSI invented the term (I and others were actually using it regularly in conversation before the OSI ever existed, as well as before that meeting took place) and who refused to accept my clear citation as evidence.
The whole reason that Free Software was created was to differentiate from Open Source, because Open Source only means source code access, and source code access is not sufficient. What is needed is the freedom to actually use the code, and especially for users to be able to use the code in place of the original code. That's why the GPLv3 includes the anti-tivoisation clause. Claiming that Open Source provides these protections for users is a direct attack upon the concept of Free Software, on behalf of corporations with a vested interest in confusing the issue — because it does nothing of the sort.
BTW OSI has trademarks for various "Open Source *", terms so they *do* get to define it, legally.
No, no they do NOT. They have trademark on "Open Source Initiative" but they declined to attempt to register "Open Source" when they registered "Open Source Initiative" on the advice of their legal counsel. We don't know on what grounds their legal counsel told them not to do it, and they don't actually believe in Openness so they haven't told us. We only know that their counsel told them not to, because they told us THAT much.
A specific person probably used the term "Open Source" first,
They probably did, but we (around UCSC, MIT, etc) were already using it before it appeared in the first commercial source, a press release for Caldera OpenDOS. Background and Citations are found here.
and that person has given a definition and description of intent, and control has been placed in the hands of the OSI.
Well, no. Absolutely not. We don't actually know who first coined the term relating to software, but they were probably in or near the intelligence community, which was using the term to mean something else. What we do know is that the people in the OSI who claim to have been involved with its invention did not invent it.
Earlier this month the Open Source Initiative had reaffirmed its commitment to open source's original definition, adding "There is no trust in a world where anyone can invent their own definition for open source
Uh, bullshit. Open Source means you can see the source. That's all it means. That's why we have all these various Open Source licenses, and also why Free Software is different from Open Source. When you don't invent the term, which was provably in use before the leading lights of the OSI claimed to have coined it, you don't get to define it.
Redis IS Open Source. It is NOT Free Software. Equivocating the two is corporate whoredom.
They show no sign of giving up on the architecture over a decade after Apple dropped them and they sell multiple lines of servers using them.
Apple only ever sold one truly POWER-compatible processor, the PPC601. After that they dropped bits and pieces of the POWER ISA, numerous instructions falling by the wayside.
Motorola only ever really cared about embedded processors. They had to make more credible processors for Apple (which provided mostly design input and funding to the PowerPC enterprise, they didn't have a big silicon lab at the time) but most of what Motorola did with PPC was build VRTX or BREW phones, and make embedded chips for automotive equipment and the like.
The BeBox, the half backed second chance at Amiga's
The BeBox really wasn't like an Amiga at all. It was built around a PPC development board, and didn't have custom chips. It was all about the software, not the hardware — Amigas were about both. The BeBox also had stylish case design, which Amigas never did. (The A3000 desktop had a really nice form factor, but it was typically beige and ugly.) The only "special" hardware in the BeBox was the "geekport", which provided GPIO. But there turned out to be very limited interest in that, shock amazement. By that time, PC printer ports had become bidirectional, and you could make IIRC half of the output pins into input pins (maybe even all of them?), which served most needs for desktop GPIO.
The best shot PPC ever had at getting wide adoption was during the short period Apple licensed Mac clones in the mid 90's.
It never really had a shot at that, because the Macintosh has never been a market leader. Peak market share was what, 11%? Not enough people wanted to run MacOS to make PowerPC great.
Only the first PowerPC (601) implemented the full POWER instruction set, and Macs at the time didn't support POSIX like AIX does, so that doesn't seem as if it ever could have been very relevant.
The ANS runs AIX on PPC 604/e.
What's an ANS? Is that an anus that's lost its home (U)? Oh, Apple Network Server, which was not a Macintosh. (Though it was based on the Power Macintosh 9500 mainboard, it was specifically gimped so as not to be able to run MacOS.) I said "Macs", not "Apple computers". At the time, people weren't buying apple's servers (I could just stop there and the sentence would be reasonably true) to do development on. If you wanted to develop software for AIX, you bought an RS6k. The lowest-end sort-of-pizza-box ones (they were taller than a Sun pizza box, but had a similar footprint) were not horrendously expensive, though they weren't exactly cheap. Except, guess what? The Apple Network Server started at $11,000. You could actually get a RS6k desktop for less.
That at least supported POSIX, so did any remaining Macs still running A/UX from years earlier,
A/UX was on 68k macs only, they didn't port it to PPC. That's why I said "Macs at the time", besides of course that MacOS wasn't POSIX either.
but I have no idea about the included instruction sets,
If you don't know what you're talking about, why are you leaving a comment? Oh yeah, Slashdot. I must be new here.
nor if this pedantic comment has any relevance to the conversation.
You tried to be pedantic and failed because you don't know what you're talking about, now you're complaining about my being pedantic? This is literally what we're talking about.
I'm currently hoping the Pinebook Pro does very well when released later this year.
Will you be able to use all the hardware without goofy kernels? Because not being able to do that with PineA64+ hurt that platform at launch. Goddamn Allwinner.
A tablet with a keyboard isn't a notebook, it's a tablet with a keyboard. Pinebook has only 2GB of RAM, which is fine for pine64 as an embedded system or media player, but fucking worthless in a laptop. Also, because Allwinner. I have an original (old) PineA64+ 2GB and it's a pretty decently powerful little piece of hardware, but it's kind of a PITA. There's still no downloadable Linux image with a current kernel and drivers, for example. You have to install and then upgrade your way there.
Anyone who enjoys travel and visiting people across the world is inherently a nationalist,
Bollocks. People visit nations, yes, but they also visit communities. Those people are communists:p
Seriously though, bollocks. A nationalist is "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." It's not someone who likes visiting other nations.
A troll is a person who likes to get other people stirred up by seeming to adopt positions which they know to be nonsense. An idiot is a person who espouses ideas which are nonsense, but they don't know because they are stupid. Do you know what you're saying is fundamentally wrong? Because I want to figure out which you are.
Slashdot Mirror
Read this:
https://www.statesman.com/news...
Poor planning transcends energy sources.
And this:
https://thehill.com/opinion/en...
Then go on about how renewable energy makes more economic sense than nuclear power.
That's an article about not reducing carbon emissions as much as expected, not about the choices not making economic sense. They also didn't build storage, because it wasn't economically workable at the time, either. Now it is.
There's a name for doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.
You mean your constantly promoting nuclear power and then being slapped down with the same arguments, or do you mean my constantly trying to appeal to your ability to reason when it appears to be vestigial at best?
You're gay.
If I were a homosexual, I'd be getting spit-roasted like a hog, not Slashdotting. Grindr would not only be way more fulfilling than Slashdot, but it's also a far more competently (and honestly) operated site.
Right, global warming causes snow in Arizona. Tell me something, what kind of weather or climate event would there have to be to disprove the theory of human caused global warming from burning fossil fuels?
A year-on-year decrease in global temperatures, obviously.
The climate changes, and I can't seem to find anyone to dispute that. If you want me to believe your theory then first I need to see the theory explained in a way that is falsifiable.
If you still find greenhouse gases confusing, there's really no explaining the situation to you.
I know what is holding up synthetic fuels. It is the Democrat "Green New Deal" that denies us access to nuclear power.
That's a seriously stupid thing to say on multiple levels, and this is my surprised face. First level, nuclear power is unprofitable, it would make more sense to get the power from renewables. Second level, nuclear power was unprofitable and unpopular before the "Green New Deal" was proposed, but you're blaming it anyway. That's because you're a troll.
For others of us, it happened a long time ago. I grew up computing, I met my first girlfriend in a BBS chat way way back in 1993 or so, and the internets are my happy place. Maybe that's the difference?
I find I can still do all of those things happily, but the people around me can't manage any of them. And I'm plugged in more or less constantly.
You're using them wrong. Stop watching stuff that pisses you off.
That would drive me nuts. My memory has always been craptacular, and I'd forget what I wanted to look up while I was thinking about "what else".
How about just selectively omitting the outrage porn that seems to be the big problem for most people? Drop Vice first, bunch of sensationalist wankers. Gawker used to be the big problem, but then HULKAMANIA RULED.
Just discovered this one on Wikipedia, the oldest citation yet: Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, cited as using the term all the way back in 1985 . (Try at about 13 minutes and 50 seconds.) Thanks, NJB!
So much for the hypothesis that AGW would weaken the jet stream.
If glacial melting persists apace, the conveyor will shut down, and then the jet stream will follow. You're just off schedule.
When you gas up your car do you think about how many people could be burned to ash if we used that fuel to bomb cities instead of use it to power the transportation sector of the world?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I think about how much devastation follows this unnecessary use of fossil fuels. We could make 100% of our transportation fuel needs from algae grown on seawater by allocating a relatively small portion of desert. Well, we could have. Now that climate change is causing feet of snow to fall on Arizona, and the like, it probably wouldn't work so well as it might have.
Thanks for the link and your research.
You're welcome.
You have, however, misrepresented the statement Bruce Perens made. This unfortunate fact turns your work from useful to bullshit.
No, no it does not. Frankly, it wasn't clear at the time what Bruce was talking about. Lots of people were making lots of claims at the time — remember, this was a dozen years ago, before Christine Peterson claimed to have coined the term. But even if it was, that doesn't change the content or quality of the citations I and others located even slightly.
Neither Perens, nor ESR, not Stallman, nor any other person claims to have originated the term,
Christine Peterson outright claims to have "coined" the phrase. My recollection is that before that, ESR claimed to have done so, but he has since supported her story. I agree with you that Perens didn't claim to have coined the term; what he did do was claim to have established its meaning authoritatively by writing a document — which sought to retcon history by redefining a term already in common use before the OSI was even imagined.
Trying to portray it as an argument between the people who were present is disingenuous.
I portrayed it as a series of mutually contradictory claims, but I never asserted that they "argued" about it, at least not that I can recall. If you can find a place where I made such a claim, I'll happily retract it.
It would also be more interesting had they used the combined term "open source" as a noun. They used the noun phrase "source code" with the adjective "open", which may seem like a subtle difference.
That is an outright falsehood. Surely, you can do better. The Caldera press release for OpenDOS authored by Lyle Ball clearly puts all three words together, in the order which you expect, right in the headline: "CALDERA® ANNOUNCES OPEN SOURCE CODE MODEL FOR DOS". If you had actually read my citations, instead of only looking for arguments against them, you'd have known that. This post to comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 from 1993 also uses the phrase in the sense in which you describe. (To be fair, that citation was linked from my later article on this same subject, which I didn't link in the subthread to which you're replying; however, I did link it in a sibling subthread in this same conversation before you wrote the above comment — you might have taken the time to read the rest of the discussion before writing such an emphatic reply.) However, the Caldera press release was linked from my original article, which you really should have read before leaving your highly inaccurate comment here.
What a waste of your time and ours.
You can make excuses all day, or mischaracterise my efforts repeatedly, but it doesn't change the facts at all — And the most basic fact is that the phrase was being used by the community at least five years before Christine Peterson claims to have "coined" it (her word, not mine), and was used by at least one corporation two years earlier.
Further, because I was there, I personally remember the term being in broad use in conversation around the Santa Cruz geek community in the early nineties, in its current sense. That's what set me off in the first place when I read
Is that really the norm these days? I had one run-in with a US cop but that was ages ago
My experience is that the worse they think they can treat you, the worse they treat you. As a kid I got busted for vandalism twice. Actually did it once, in Santa Cruz. White kid in a white neighborhood, no ID because of my age, got treated very well. Didn't do it the second time, still white in a white neighborhood but also a poor one, Lakeport. Got cuffed and put in the front seat of a shitty little Impala (the FWD kind) with my face against the dash where I could have been killed (neck snapped) by the airbag in a collision. That cop was a SWAT team member who eventually got kicked off the force for failing to turn in drug evidence, instead giving it to underage girls and fucking them. I got the full story on him years later when I brought it up with a friend of mine, who actually knows two of the girls in question personally, but everyone knew he was crooked.
My first traffic stop, which was literally for nothing, involved two cops pointing guns in my face, with fingers on triggers. I was in a brown chevy citation so I guess they figured I couldn't afford a lawyer — which was a correct assumption. But over the years, they've harassed me less. Got pulled over at about 30 years old in a way rattier-looking 240SX with patchy paint and no bumper cover but with the bumper installed, cop tried to tell me I had no bumper. I explained to him that I did have a bumper but no cover, and he gave back my license and I drove away. More recently, a CHP stopped on the side of the road and helped me do a tire change, it was hot AF out so I was exhausted, and my shitty little Audi jack had folded up and tried to kill me. Luckily, I wasn't dumb enough to be under the car at the time. We used his jack, and he even did part of the work.
if the call comes down about armed suspects fleeing the scene and an ANPR matches the plate, you better believe that they will take similar precautions i.e. take cover and order the driver out of the car at gunpoint.
If they're behind the vehicle, and the driver doesn't appear to be fleeing, maybe they should use their twin spherical plate readers (you know, their eyes) to double-check the information before endangering citizens' lives by pointing loaded guns at them. As a gun owner, and son of a US Marine, I learned before I was even out of grade school that you don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill, and you don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to shoot. And in fact, questions reflecting those facts are present on the test that Californians have to pass in order to secure permission to purchase a firearm. But somehow, the cops get it wrong again and again, with the result that they shoot innocent people again and again. Why are the cops held to a lower standard than the rest of us, when they have such a higher level of power and authority? That's ass-backwards.
You're right, and I think it'd be interesting to hear ESR and Perens' take on them.
Me too! ESR won't join any argument he doesn't think he can win, but if you want to know what Bruce thinks about this, you can google Slashdot and find the several times he and I have clashed over the subject. I used to think ESR was one of the smartest guys around, but then I followed him on Google+ for a while and that cured me of that notion.
Given that, making an appointment for stuff you know they can't fix will just leave you without a car for possibly over 2 weeks - pointless.
Wait, they don't loan you a car while you're waiting for them to fix your car under warranty? To me, that's the biggest news here.
Stupid bleeping...I'm not sure how I wrote "probably". A specific person, ESR, definitely used it first.
First, ESR doesn't actually claim (any more) to have invented it, he claims Christine Petersen invented it. He changed his story.
Second:
1993: Jerome Schneider
1996: Caldera (Written by Lyle Ball, whom I queried on the subject)
1998: Christine Peterson (Writing in 2006, mind, and providing zero citations)
So you tell me, who you gonna believe? The citations which prove that its use predates OSI claims by five years, provided by a person (me) who has nothing to gain by continuing this argument except the credibility which naturally comes from supporting the facts, or someone with something to gain economically from making such claims, like Christine Peterson or Bruce Perens? The only dog I've got in this fight is the truth.
Sustaining this argument over the years (literally over more than a decade) has cost me substantial credibility, but only among people who value prejudice over fact. I'm okay with that. Better to suffer for the truth than promote a pack of lies. Buying into bullshit is why we can't have nice things.
Oh, for fuck's sake, grow up. Someone choosing to preserve their attorney-client privilege does not mean "they don't actually believe in Openness".
In this case, it absolutely does. It's also legally relevant, and here's why. Members of the OSI have claimed publicly that it was a mistake to heed their counsel in that regard, and that they should have filed for a trademark on "Open Source", because it probably would have been granted (their words, or at least, the gist.) In fact, they made those claims here on Slashdot. However, they are the ones who hold the information about the truth of those claims. One can't go to their attorney to find out (obviously) so we depend on them to honestly and accurately share that information, or at least to make honest and accurate claims about it. The only way to prove whether they're being honest and accurate is to share the basis upon which their counsel advised them against applying for that copyright when they were applying for other copyrights.
There's also another relevant reason, which has to do with iconography. The OSI's logos at the time were designed in such a way that it made it look like they had a copyright on "Open Source" and not just "Open Source Initiative" based on where the copyright registration symbol was placed — next to the word "Source" and not the word "Initiative". That is deceptive advertising.
But at least you made it blindingly obvious that you have a huge chip on your shoulder about OSI.
I'm both personally offended by lies, and generally take exception to the OSI's ongoing assault on Free Software through their attempts to equivocate it with Open Source when the two are fundamentally different.
We don't actually know who first coined the term relating to software, but they were probably in or near the intelligence community, which was using the term to mean something else.
They're called homonyms. Open Source intel is not Open Source software.
me: they were using the term to mean something else
you: they're not the same thing
me: facepalm
Nonetheless, interesting little post. I do feel like it confirms the original authorship of the term as ESR. It's claimed that Perens claims ESR invented it, regardless of the disagreement on timing.
You think he invented it in 1997, my citation clearly shows that it was used in 1996, and I contacted the person who wrote that press release and he confirmed "my" version of events. (I also included two additional citations at the bottom of that second story).
The evidence proves conclusively that nobody at the OSI invented the term. I probably should have linked that second blog post first, or instead, but my first post was frankly sufficient proof. In fact, I only ever wrote the second one because of the obstinate Open Source cheerleaders who first demanded proof of the claim that nobody at the OSI invented the term (I and others were actually using it regularly in conversation before the OSI ever existed, as well as before that meeting took place) and who refused to accept my clear citation as evidence.
The whole reason that Free Software was created was to differentiate from Open Source, because Open Source only means source code access, and source code access is not sufficient. What is needed is the freedom to actually use the code, and especially for users to be able to use the code in place of the original code. That's why the GPLv3 includes the anti-tivoisation clause. Claiming that Open Source provides these protections for users is a direct attack upon the concept of Free Software, on behalf of corporations with a vested interest in confusing the issue — because it does nothing of the sort.
Do you have any shred of evidence whatsoever that the term was in use prior to the February 1998 meeting, or are you talking out of your butt?
Solid Evidence is located here.
BTW OSI has trademarks for various "Open Source *", terms so they *do* get to define it, legally.
No, no they do NOT. They have trademark on "Open Source Initiative" but they declined to attempt to register "Open Source" when they registered "Open Source Initiative" on the advice of their legal counsel. We don't know on what grounds their legal counsel told them not to do it, and they don't actually believe in Openness so they haven't told us. We only know that their counsel told them not to, because they told us THAT much.
A specific person probably used the term "Open Source" first,
They probably did, but we (around UCSC, MIT, etc) were already using it before it appeared in the first commercial source, a press release for Caldera OpenDOS. Background and Citations are found here.
and that person has given a definition and description of intent, and control has been placed in the hands of the OSI.
Well, no. Absolutely not. We don't actually know who first coined the term relating to software, but they were probably in or near the intelligence community, which was using the term to mean something else. What we do know is that the people in the OSI who claim to have been involved with its invention did not invent it.
Earlier this month the Open Source Initiative had reaffirmed its commitment to open source's original definition, adding "There is no trust in a world where anyone can invent their own definition for open source
Uh, bullshit. Open Source means you can see the source. That's all it means. That's why we have all these various Open Source licenses, and also why Free Software is different from Open Source. When you don't invent the term, which was provably in use before the leading lights of the OSI claimed to have coined it, you don't get to define it.
Redis IS Open Source. It is NOT Free Software. Equivocating the two is corporate whoredom.
criticizing punctuation... The final refuge of the scoundrel.
You know, sometimes I amaze even myself.
I wouldn't have made a whole post for that, but I felt a need to throw it in there. No doubt it's a personal failing :)
Oh they do. Nazi Germany's tourism boomed. First they went in with tanks, then came the KdF tours.
When the boys on top gear suggested Germans come to the UK on holiday "but not all at once" I about lost my shit.
They show no sign of giving up on the architecture over a decade after Apple dropped them and they sell multiple lines of servers using them.
Apple only ever sold one truly POWER-compatible processor, the PPC601. After that they dropped bits and pieces of the POWER ISA, numerous instructions falling by the wayside.
Motorola only ever really cared about embedded processors. They had to make more credible processors for Apple (which provided mostly design input and funding to the PowerPC enterprise, they didn't have a big silicon lab at the time) but most of what Motorola did with PPC was build VRTX or BREW phones, and make embedded chips for automotive equipment and the like.
The BeBox, the half backed second chance at Amiga's
The BeBox really wasn't like an Amiga at all. It was built around a PPC development board, and didn't have custom chips. It was all about the software, not the hardware — Amigas were about both. The BeBox also had stylish case design, which Amigas never did. (The A3000 desktop had a really nice form factor, but it was typically beige and ugly.) The only "special" hardware in the BeBox was the "geekport", which provided GPIO. But there turned out to be very limited interest in that, shock amazement. By that time, PC printer ports had become bidirectional, and you could make IIRC half of the output pins into input pins (maybe even all of them?), which served most needs for desktop GPIO.
The best shot PPC ever had at getting wide adoption was during the short period Apple licensed Mac clones in the mid 90's.
It never really had a shot at that, because the Macintosh has never been a market leader. Peak market share was what, 11%? Not enough people wanted to run MacOS to make PowerPC great.
Only the first PowerPC (601) implemented the full POWER instruction set, and Macs at the time didn't support POSIX like AIX does, so that doesn't seem as if it ever could have been very relevant.
The ANS runs AIX on PPC 604/e.
What's an ANS? Is that an anus that's lost its home (U)? Oh, Apple Network Server, which was not a Macintosh. (Though it was based on the Power Macintosh 9500 mainboard, it was specifically gimped so as not to be able to run MacOS.) I said "Macs", not "Apple computers". At the time, people weren't buying apple's servers (I could just stop there and the sentence would be reasonably true) to do development on. If you wanted to develop software for AIX, you bought an RS6k. The lowest-end sort-of-pizza-box ones (they were taller than a Sun pizza box, but had a similar footprint) were not horrendously expensive, though they weren't exactly cheap. Except, guess what? The Apple Network Server started at $11,000. You could actually get a RS6k desktop for less.
That at least supported POSIX, so did any remaining Macs still running A/UX from years earlier,
A/UX was on 68k macs only, they didn't port it to PPC. That's why I said "Macs at the time", besides of course that MacOS wasn't POSIX either.
but I have no idea about the included instruction sets,
If you don't know what you're talking about, why are you leaving a comment? Oh yeah, Slashdot. I must be new here.
nor if this pedantic comment has any relevance to the conversation.
You tried to be pedantic and failed because you don't know what you're talking about, now you're complaining about my being pedantic? This is literally what we're talking about.
I'm currently hoping the Pinebook Pro does very well when released later this year.
Will you be able to use all the hardware without goofy kernels? Because not being able to do that with PineA64+ hurt that platform at launch. Goddamn Allwinner.
A tablet with a keyboard isn't a notebook, it's a tablet with a keyboard. Pinebook has only 2GB of RAM, which is fine for pine64 as an embedded system or media player, but fucking worthless in a laptop. Also, because Allwinner. I have an original (old) PineA64+ 2GB and it's a pretty decently powerful little piece of hardware, but it's kind of a PITA. There's still no downloadable Linux image with a current kernel and drivers, for example. You have to install and then upgrade your way there.
Anyone who enjoys travel and visiting people across the world is inherently a nationalist,
Bollocks. People visit nations, yes, but they also visit communities. Those people are communists :p
Seriously though, bollocks. A nationalist is "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." It's not someone who likes visiting other nations.
A troll is a person who likes to get other people stirred up by seeming to adopt positions which they know to be nonsense. An idiot is a person who espouses ideas which are nonsense, but they don't know because they are stupid. Do you know what you're saying is fundamentally wrong? Because I want to figure out which you are.