I don't mean this as flame bait (despite what my handle implies), but I did find a url to an interview with RMS which pretty much advocates piracy (although he doesn't really call it that).
Just FYI, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here.
I was searching on google the other day... and one of the handier features that I noticed when I was trying to extract some information from a dead site was the fact that they store a cache for most of the sites that they list, and they make that available to the searchers.
Now I noticed that they said that they remove cached pages for people who request, but I get the general feeling that they didn't (and probably couldn't have) asked for permission before posting on their webpage from the cache. So if they can do that without violating copyright laws (which for all I know, they may very well be) why can't slashdot? I don't really see the distinction.
I don't know, I'm still not overly fond of the idea of having sites that could easily fall in to more than one catagory.
Maybe an alternative would be to have two levels (I know, I know, we wanted this simple, but it still doesn't carry as much useless information as the current country/state/city crap we have in the us). You would have your catch alls as top levels. Then the more the specific things as one level down. Finally people would register domains at the second level. It keeps more information in the site/url (but not too much), gets rid of a number of different conflicts, and doesn't tie your company to a geographic location.
The problem with the catagories that you suggest in addition to the existing top level domains is that there is something of an overlap between the two. I would argue that your.art in most cases would fall under commercial, and in most cases so would your.log... I'd say that the vast majority of news sites are most definately comercial in nature. Frankly I don't think.act differs substatially enough from.org to warrent the distinction... and to be honest, its unlikely that even if there were very distinct groups, its unlikely that you'ld run into much name conflict there.
In reality what you are proposing is some sort of combination between the classifying by the nature of the organization (I wanna make money, I wanna change the world) and the specific thing that they produce (I sell cars, I want to save the whales). This is going to cause a lot of overlaps. Probably what you were heading more towards is classifying things by the topic (ie. news, activism) which would also elimate the.coms and.orgs. This actually looks more like a step back to orginal news hierarchy.
I agree with you completely that IE should and would be the first thing that MS ports to linux... hell, they already ported it to solaris so I'm sure the jump from a different unix wouldn't be anywhere near as rough as the jump from windows.
What I disagree with is the assertion that they would be forced to give away Office to compete with Star Office. First of all, in my brief encounters with Star Office, I've been totally unimpressed, IMHO word is a much better product, that could change, but I don't have all that much faith in sun to get SO up to snuff. One should really be comparing it to the WordPerfect suite that is out for linux, which still costs money for comercial use (where most of the money MS makes off of Office sales).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean this as flame bait (despite what my handle implies), but I did find a url to an interview with RMS which pretty much advocates piracy (although he doesn't really call it that).
Just FYI, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here.
--
I was searching on google the other day... and one of the handier features that I noticed when I was trying to extract some information from a dead site was the fact that they store a cache for most of the sites that they list, and they make that available to the searchers.
Now I noticed that they said that they remove cached pages for people who request, but I get the general feeling that they didn't (and probably couldn't have) asked for permission before posting on their webpage from the cache. So if they can do that without violating copyright laws (which for all I know, they may very well be) why can't slashdot? I don't really see the distinction.
--
Actually thats not quite what I meant. I was thinking something more on the lines of:
Whoa... now that I actually type that out, I don't really like that idea at all ;)
--
I don't know, I'm still not overly fond of the idea of having sites that could easily fall in to more than one catagory.
Maybe an alternative would be to have two levels (I know, I know, we wanted this simple, but it still doesn't carry as much useless information as the current country/state/city crap we have in the us). You would have your catch alls as top levels. Then the more the specific things as one level down. Finally people would register domains at the second level. It keeps more information in the site/url (but not too much), gets rid of a number of different conflicts, and doesn't tie your company to a geographic location.
Just a thought.
--
you posted this just to raise your slashdot purity score... didn't you... ;)
--
The problem with the catagories that you suggest in addition to the existing top level domains is that there is something of an overlap between the two. I would argue that your .art in most cases would fall under commercial, and in most cases so would your .log... I'd say that the vast majority of news sites are most definately comercial in nature. Frankly I don't think .act differs substatially enough from .org to warrent the distinction... and to be honest, its unlikely that even if there were very distinct groups, its unlikely that you'ld run into much name conflict there.
In reality what you are proposing is some sort of combination between the classifying by the nature of the organization (I wanna make money, I wanna change the world) and the specific thing that they produce (I sell cars, I want to save the whales). This is going to cause a lot of overlaps. Probably what you were heading more towards is classifying things by the topic (ie. news, activism) which would also elimate the .coms and .orgs. This actually looks more like a step back to orginal news hierarchy.
--
I agree with you completely that IE should and would be the first thing that MS ports to linux... hell, they already ported it to solaris so I'm sure the jump from a different unix wouldn't be anywhere near as rough as the jump from windows.
What I disagree with is the assertion that they would be forced to give away Office to compete with Star Office. First of all, in my brief encounters with Star Office, I've been totally unimpressed, IMHO word is a much better product, that could change, but I don't have all that much faith in sun to get SO up to snuff. One should really be comparing it to the WordPerfect suite that is out for linux, which still costs money for comercial use (where most of the money MS makes off of Office sales).
--