My place of work sells and repairs Dell computers; Dell is a pretty solid computer, Acer is crap, trust me on this. I suppose I can't speak for every computer ever produced by the two companies, but the only problems we tend to have are virus related or people with destructive kids. The only serious issues that ever really come up with Dell notebooks are the cords that plug into the wall.
Mac might not have as many problems, but they're a lot slower to muck around to fixing their holes. Not that I'm trying to start a war, just that I think you all ought to be less harsh.
Java is fine for plenty of applications, but there are certain situations where it simply doesn't cut it. Heavy GUI oriented applications tend to take a massive performance hit because all of the objects are dynamically generated at run time -- just load up Eclipse and see how long it takes to start. Scientific and Mathematical applications, as well, rely on high-speed languages like C/FORTRAN. That doesn't mean Java is so slow it's useless -- in many cases the aided clarity and simplicity is worth it.
There are times we use _ASM_, there are times we use C, there are times we use Java. And, like it or not, we often fall back on C/C++ for speed. Generally, the only people who bash one language or the other are fanboys. Languages are tools to be used to our advantage, each has its own strengths and weaknesses -- sometimes we use a hammer, sometimes not; as a programmer, we must know the tools at our disposal and deploy them accordingly. Just because a pipe wrench can substitute a hammer doesn't mean it should.
On third thought, screw this particular set of wording, you're being far too semantical (pot calling the kettle black much? Meh.):
I believe in FREEDOM OF INFORMATION; A company doesn't owe you source, but a company should not be allowed to prevent you from copying their binaries. In otherwords, a company is free to sell binary files, but they are not free to prevent you from sending them to your buddies.
So, on second thought, lets forget I said anything about free software; I support freedom of information. If GPL does not allow me to redistribute their crap, they don't support freedom of information; if the RIAA doesn't allow me to redistribute music files, they do not support freedom of information. In otherwords, if your "property" can be represented as a point on the real number line, you cannot place any physical or legal restrictions regarding the information.
So what's the problem with the GPL again? The government isn't doing it, I am, and you just said that it's fine for an individual to make their own rules in their home. So I'm making my own rules for my own software, so where's the difference?
I never said you shouldn't be able to use GPL, I said GPL isn't true free software (true as in my definition.)
The former seems to be logically inconsistent with the later. You're saying something like "I don't think you should be able to restrict the usage of your own work; you should give me the book you wrote with absolutely no strings attached. However I want to sell it, and forbid it from being freely copied".
No, I'm saying "Freedom means not imposing personal preferences on other people." I'm saying that GPL isn't true "freedom." Whether or not someone else is promoting software freedom is a different story. I don't believe a company "owes" us their source.
-Government- is not allowed to surpress, however any company can enforce surpression of freespeech; For example, many message boards enforce topicality, ban certain behavior, etc, under the Terms of Use. For example, under a GPL United States, it would be illegal for a preschool to prohibit shouting explicit prohanities, because the preschool would be "restricting freedom of speech."
My view is that the individual has freedoms, even the freedom to refuse services unless certain conditions are met. For example, freedom of speech means I can hold a meeting for anti-freedom neo-nazis; freedom means I can tell someone to watch their mouth when in my home; freedom means that the government does not impose rules, not that the individuals cannot impose rules.
GPL tells the individual that they cannot, ever, be opposed to free software; it is a binding contract that forces its view on the people. The government does not "force" freedom of speech, that would contradict itself.
Although yes, I agree, GPL is fine and dandy in a lot of situations. I have some internal software for printing price sheets where I work, which I wrote using GPL software. Still, I don't like the fact I "can't" resell such tools without abiding by the GPL (not that I care, I wrote the program to make my own job easier.)
They're claiming it's almost ready for production in order to draw attention; No company in their right mind would try to sell perpetual energy, in the same sense no company in their right mind would try to sell omnibenevolant hotpink bananas. Snake oil only works when the results are subtle and easily affected by other things. It's going to be hard to claim your device is putting out more energy than is put in, when, you know... it doesn't work?
I remember the golden days, when I had limited online time allowed because AOL was metering my parents dial-up connection; webpages actually loaded on dial up. Yes, you heard me, dial up could load any web page on the Internet. After broad-band came up, certain web pages started slowly taking longer and longer to load; today, dial up just doesn't cut it. I suppose we have the same problem with processing resources.
Say, are you more free in a society with absolutely no laws, and so can do (in theory) anything you please, or in one where there are laws such as the ones forbidding stealing and murder?
That's an excellent point, but our disagreement is a bit more subtle than this; the difference in view is about whether or not developers should be free to modify and redistribute code under their own licensing, even if that licensing prevents others from doing the same. By nature of my views, of course I believe that is "wrong." However, I personally believe that making rules to prevent it is just as bad.
For example, I believe that lying is wrong, and supporting nazis is wrong (and, arguably, a threat to free speech) but by nature of the subject, I believe it would be wrong to silence them. Free speech (just like free software) means freedom of expression: even when we don't like it, and even when it contradicts the rules which allow it.
Freedom of speech means I am free to bad-mouth freedom of speech, if you will; freedom of software means I can use software, modify it, and redistribute it as I see fit.
I can fully understand why someone would support GPL, but I personally believe that it has hurt its own movement. Even if we draw a line between "GNU Free Software" and "Free Software" the difference is subtle enough for the philosophies of one to affect public outlook on the other. That is to say, even if they are different views, they're similar enough to be confused.
Of course, having had enough time to cool off, I think I was being a bit overkill. Lets say, I think the GPL has the right idea in mind.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with that entirely; My original point in responding to the sub-thread starter was that this is not simply a symbolic move. It is, as you suggest, a step in the right direction. As long as the government can use the power of the ring freely, they will -- the least we can do is set it in the cookie jar and close the lid. At least that way, they have to put their hand in the red to get what they want.
It only deters people that think they have to follow the law, not be above it, and in our government, we have more of the latter.
That simply isn't true. The vast majority of public officials are not blood thirsty maniacs or vigilante super-hero wannabes. Despite what the movies and media likes to portray, there is far less corruption than people would like to sensationalize about; the problem is that media isn't interested in people following the law, it only wants to focus on drama. I work in a retail-finance store that has people trying to cut town a lot, so I've had a lot of dealings with the law. You'd be amazed at how afraid most officers are to do something without a court order. Most law enforcement officials are good people.
Your point is no more logical than arguing that door-locks are useless because people just break windows anyway. Why do we even have laws if people just break them? This is far more than a symbolic move, it's a social move. Even if someone tries to spy, or break your window, they still risk being caught, which is the point. It's a deterrent, not a magical solution.
Do you have any idea how much red-tape laws create? It doesn't matter if people "can" still use these satellites to spy, what matters is that doing so will force people to walk through miles of red-tape. Right now, if the police knock on my door, I can tell them to **** off and there is jack crap they can do about it. If they really want in, they get to jump through hoops to do so. This is a huge deterrent for corruption. It's the same reason we lock our door -- just because someone "can" smash the window to unlock the door doesn't mean it doesn't "deter" people from doing it.
You're missing the goddamned point; I don't care what your license is "supposed" to do, I care that it hurts the free software movement. It doesn't matter if the GPL is supposed to force devs to stand on their head and sing yotalele, all that matters is that it hurts the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Notice that the GNU website talks about "free" (as in speech) software? If GNU doesn't care about "free" software, then it wouldn't be slammed all over their site.
To be fair, GNU has done great things for free software, but the main license still pisses me off sometimes. I'm just being extra harsh in this thread because, of all things, I'm reading an article about someone "stealing" something which should be free (as in speech) under a license which touts advocating free software. In all honesty, LGPL (and, as you mention, BSD) is far closer to what I believe constitutes free software.
I personally believe in freedom of information. I don't believe that information can be "owned" or "licensed," especially considering any "program" can be represented as a point on the real number line. Of course, I'm one of those extreme loons when it comes to copyright/etc laws.;p
The argument is old because multiple people have made it; Shouldn't that make you take it more seriously? Anyway, my take is that GPL has hurt the free software movement tremendously, simply because it scares people away. You can not give a damn all you want, that won't change the fact you hurt your own movement.
It's about free (as in speech) for anyone, so long as they support the same movement. Again, it's not free (as in speech) until anyone can use it freely. It's hypocritical self-serving hogwash, because if I (someone who knows how to write software) wants to use GPL source, I have to bow to the strict rules laid forth by the elder Gods. That's not freedom. You can tout it as such, but you only fooling yourself -- devs are people too, and you're silencing their freedom.
I hate it when Slashdot calls itself out for X crime against humanity; for christsake, it's like when the media investigates itself for corruption. If you ask me, 'ol TC is baiting.
GPL keeps software free by making it not free; brilliant! Now lets have freedom of political views and speech, so long as you don't question the government (after all, we can't let freedom threaten freedom!)
Damn straight! These folks descend from the Persians, I know they have what it takes to hold their own. If other countries step in, it will only lead to propaganda. At this point, all we can do is watch and cheer. May the force be with you, Iranians.
One of the reasons I've never been a fan of the GPL -- you can use GPL code and get in trouble over it; software isn't truly free until anyone can use it freely, without worrying about legal trouble. The forced reciprocation, IMHO, has hurt the open source movement severely. Companies actually have good reason to fear "free" GPL software, because unlike speech, GPL comes with strings attached.
As a seasoned Internet tough guy and self proclaimed Culture Warrior (see:ireadorielly--notthetechpublisher) it is my duty to tell you the truth about the ACLU; they aren't interested in your rights, they're interested in aiding the Secular Progressive to turn America into an Atheist Communist Regigm with Rush Limbaugh as as brilliant comrade autocratic leader, and where Christians will be shot on sight -- except Muslims, they can teach Islam in school.
One reason I never liked other net phone services is that you can't dial 911 and when my computer reboots, or decides to explode, my phone dies; will GVoice suffer from these problems as well? I'm not entirely sure how this is supposed to work (yes yes, I could google it, but that would be one less answer on google. You know, ever google a question only to find people pointing you to google?)
I used to get excited about all of these Mars jazz... when I was a kid; after every other Popsci mag I used to read blathered about new evidence for life/water/robots on Mars, I started getting tired of it. Years later, they're still blathering about it; frankly, I'm tired of it. Come back when you splash land a rover into a giant pool of water which is then eaten by Mars sharks, then I'll be more enthushtaotiblastic.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like this is a subspace process that forked after Balmer's time squad succeeded in stopping the GNU & Linux projects from ever being founded.
I learned to keep regular backups after...
;p
I lost some RPG data on a PS1. I applied this hard lesson to my computer life.
My place of work sells and repairs Dell computers; Dell is a pretty solid computer, Acer is crap, trust me on this. I suppose I can't speak for every computer ever produced by the two companies, but the only problems we tend to have are virus related or people with destructive kids. The only serious issues that ever really come up with Dell notebooks are the cords that plug into the wall.
Mac might not have as many problems, but they're a lot slower to muck around to fixing their holes. Not that I'm trying to start a war, just that I think you all ought to be less harsh.
Java is fine for plenty of applications, but there are certain situations where it simply doesn't cut it. Heavy GUI oriented applications tend to take a massive performance hit because all of the objects are dynamically generated at run time -- just load up Eclipse and see how long it takes to start. Scientific and Mathematical applications, as well, rely on high-speed languages like C/FORTRAN. That doesn't mean Java is so slow it's useless -- in many cases the aided clarity and simplicity is worth it.
There are times we use _ASM_, there are times we use C, there are times we use Java. And, like it or not, we often fall back on C/C++ for speed. Generally, the only people who bash one language or the other are fanboys. Languages are tools to be used to our advantage, each has its own strengths and weaknesses -- sometimes we use a hammer, sometimes not; as a programmer, we must know the tools at our disposal and deploy them accordingly. Just because a pipe wrench can substitute a hammer doesn't mean it should.
On third thought, screw this particular set of wording, you're being far too semantical (pot calling the kettle black much? Meh.):
I believe in FREEDOM OF INFORMATION; A company doesn't owe you source, but a company should not be allowed to prevent you from copying their binaries. In otherwords, a company is free to sell binary files, but they are not free to prevent you from sending them to your buddies.
So, on second thought, lets forget I said anything about free software; I support freedom of information. If GPL does not allow me to redistribute their crap, they don't support freedom of information; if the RIAA doesn't allow me to redistribute music files, they do not support freedom of information. In otherwords, if your "property" can be represented as a point on the real number line, you cannot place any physical or legal restrictions regarding the information.
So what's the problem with the GPL again? The government isn't doing it, I am, and you just said that it's fine for an individual to make their own rules in their home. So I'm making my own rules for my own software, so where's the difference?
I never said you shouldn't be able to use GPL, I said GPL isn't true free software (true as in my definition.)
The former seems to be logically inconsistent with the later. You're saying something like "I don't think you should be able to restrict the usage of your own work; you should give me the book you wrote with absolutely no strings attached. However I want to sell it, and forbid it from being freely copied".
No, I'm saying "Freedom means not imposing personal preferences on other people." I'm saying that GPL isn't true "freedom." Whether or not someone else is promoting software freedom is a different story. I don't believe a company "owes" us their source.
-Government- is not allowed to surpress, however any company can enforce surpression of freespeech; For example, many message boards enforce topicality, ban certain behavior, etc, under the Terms of Use. For example, under a GPL United States, it would be illegal for a preschool to prohibit shouting explicit prohanities, because the preschool would be "restricting freedom of speech."
My view is that the individual has freedoms, even the freedom to refuse services unless certain conditions are met. For example, freedom of speech means I can hold a meeting for anti-freedom neo-nazis; freedom means I can tell someone to watch their mouth when in my home; freedom means that the government does not impose rules, not that the individuals cannot impose rules.
GPL tells the individual that they cannot, ever, be opposed to free software; it is a binding contract that forces its view on the people. The government does not "force" freedom of speech, that would contradict itself.
Although yes, I agree, GPL is fine and dandy in a lot of situations. I have some internal software for printing price sheets where I work, which I wrote using GPL software. Still, I don't like the fact I "can't" resell such tools without abiding by the GPL (not that I care, I wrote the program to make my own job easier.)
They're claiming it's almost ready for production in order to draw attention; No company in their right mind would try to sell perpetual energy, in the same sense no company in their right mind would try to sell omnibenevolant hotpink bananas. Snake oil only works when the results are subtle and easily affected by other things. It's going to be hard to claim your device is putting out more energy than is put in, when, you know... it doesn't work?
I remember the golden days, when I had limited online time allowed because AOL was metering my parents dial-up connection; webpages actually loaded on dial up. Yes, you heard me, dial up could load any web page on the Internet. After broad-band came up, certain web pages started slowly taking longer and longer to load; today, dial up just doesn't cut it. I suppose we have the same problem with processing resources.
Say, are you more free in a society with absolutely no laws, and so can do (in theory) anything you please, or in one where there are laws such as the ones forbidding stealing and murder?
That's an excellent point, but our disagreement is a bit more subtle than this; the difference in view is about whether or not developers should be free to modify and redistribute code under their own licensing, even if that licensing prevents others from doing the same. By nature of my views, of course I believe that is "wrong." However, I personally believe that making rules to prevent it is just as bad.
For example, I believe that lying is wrong, and supporting nazis is wrong (and, arguably, a threat to free speech) but by nature of the subject, I believe it would be wrong to silence them. Free speech (just like free software) means freedom of expression: even when we don't like it, and even when it contradicts the rules which allow it.
Freedom of speech means I am free to bad-mouth freedom of speech, if you will; freedom of software means I can use software, modify it, and redistribute it as I see fit.
I can fully understand why someone would support GPL, but I personally believe that it has hurt its own movement. Even if we draw a line between "GNU Free Software" and "Free Software" the difference is subtle enough for the philosophies of one to affect public outlook on the other. That is to say, even if they are different views, they're similar enough to be confused.
Of course, having had enough time to cool off, I think I was being a bit overkill. Lets say, I think the GPL has the right idea in mind.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with that entirely; My original point in responding to the sub-thread starter was that this is not simply a symbolic move. It is, as you suggest, a step in the right direction. As long as the government can use the power of the ring freely, they will -- the least we can do is set it in the cookie jar and close the lid. At least that way, they have to put their hand in the red to get what they want.
It only deters people that think they have to follow the law, not be above it, and in our government, we have more of the latter.
That simply isn't true. The vast majority of public officials are not blood thirsty maniacs or vigilante super-hero wannabes. Despite what the movies and media likes to portray, there is far less corruption than people would like to sensationalize about; the problem is that media isn't interested in people following the law, it only wants to focus on drama. I work in a retail-finance store that has people trying to cut town a lot, so I've had a lot of dealings with the law. You'd be amazed at how afraid most officers are to do something without a court order. Most law enforcement officials are good people.
Your point is no more logical than arguing that door-locks are useless because people just break windows anyway. Why do we even have laws if people just break them? This is far more than a symbolic move, it's a social move. Even if someone tries to spy, or break your window, they still risk being caught, which is the point. It's a deterrent, not a magical solution.
Do you have any idea how much red-tape laws create? It doesn't matter if people "can" still use these satellites to spy, what matters is that doing so will force people to walk through miles of red-tape. Right now, if the police knock on my door, I can tell them to **** off and there is jack crap they can do about it. If they really want in, they get to jump through hoops to do so. This is a huge deterrent for corruption. It's the same reason we lock our door -- just because someone "can" smash the window to unlock the door doesn't mean it doesn't "deter" people from doing it.
You're missing the goddamned point; I don't care what your license is "supposed" to do, I care that it hurts the free software movement. It doesn't matter if the GPL is supposed to force devs to stand on their head and sing yotalele, all that matters is that it hurts the free software movement. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Notice that the GNU website talks about "free" (as in speech) software? If GNU doesn't care about "free" software, then it wouldn't be slammed all over their site.
;p
To be fair, GNU has done great things for free software, but the main license still pisses me off sometimes. I'm just being extra harsh in this thread because, of all things, I'm reading an article about someone "stealing" something which should be free (as in speech) under a license which touts advocating free software. In all honesty, LGPL (and, as you mention, BSD) is far closer to what I believe constitutes free software.
I personally believe in freedom of information. I don't believe that information can be "owned" or "licensed," especially considering any "program" can be represented as a point on the real number line. Of course, I'm one of those extreme loons when it comes to copyright/etc laws.
The argument is old because multiple people have made it; Shouldn't that make you take it more seriously? Anyway, my take is that GPL has hurt the free software movement tremendously, simply because it scares people away. You can not give a damn all you want, that won't change the fact you hurt your own movement.
It's about free (as in speech) for anyone, so long as they support the same movement. Again, it's not free (as in speech) until anyone can use it freely. It's hypocritical self-serving hogwash, because if I (someone who knows how to write software) wants to use GPL source, I have to bow to the strict rules laid forth by the elder Gods. That's not freedom. You can tout it as such, but you only fooling yourself -- devs are people too, and you're silencing their freedom.
I hate it when Slashdot calls itself out for X crime against humanity; for christsake, it's like when the media investigates itself for corruption. If you ask me, 'ol TC is baiting.
GPL keeps software free by making it not free; brilliant! Now lets have freedom of political views and speech, so long as you don't question the government (after all, we can't let freedom threaten freedom!)
Damn straight! These folks descend from the Persians, I know they have what it takes to hold their own. If other countries step in, it will only lead to propaganda. At this point, all we can do is watch and cheer. May the force be with you, Iranians.
One of the reasons I've never been a fan of the GPL -- you can use GPL code and get in trouble over it; software isn't truly free until anyone can use it freely, without worrying about legal trouble. The forced reciprocation, IMHO, has hurt the open source movement severely. Companies actually have good reason to fear "free" GPL software, because unlike speech, GPL comes with strings attached.
As a seasoned Internet tough guy and self proclaimed Culture Warrior (see:ireadorielly--notthetechpublisher) it is my duty to tell you the truth about the ACLU; they aren't interested in your rights, they're interested in aiding the Secular Progressive to turn America into an Atheist Communist Regigm with Rush Limbaugh as as brilliant comrade autocratic leader, and where Christians will be shot on sight -- except Muslims, they can teach Islam in school.
^ Quickly comrades, mod him down so on one will know the secret truth!
One reason I never liked other net phone services is that you can't dial 911 and when my computer reboots, or decides to explode, my phone dies; will GVoice suffer from these problems as well? I'm not entirely sure how this is supposed to work (yes yes, I could google it, but that would be one less answer on google. You know, ever google a question only to find people pointing you to google?)
I used to get excited about all of these Mars jazz... when I was a kid; after every other Popsci mag I used to read blathered about new evidence for life/water/robots on Mars, I started getting tired of it. Years later, they're still blathering about it; frankly, I'm tired of it. Come back when you splash land a rover into a giant pool of water which is then eaten by Mars sharks, then I'll be more enthushtaotiblastic.