This isn't telepathic mindreading, but it's a limited form of mindreading anyway. If it can detect basic thought and emotions, it can already be dangerous.
Imagine that: you're surfing the web, there's an (or more) on the page you're reading, and you think: this may be interesting. An javascript/activeX/stufflikethat detect it thanks to your Mindware system, and immediately send your email adress to the company which has put the add, an you go in the "interested by our product" table of their databases. Oh, you mean it was the page which was interesting ? Ah, sorry. You will get your spam nonetheless.
Then such a system will "better" itself, it will be able to change the form of these spam into something you won't reject. It'll search for the weak point in your mental armor that prevent you from being brainwashed. Adds will flow on TVs, computers, radios, on your cellphone/MP5player/GPS/all-in-one-watch, allways mutating to prevent you from being worried or annoyed by it. This intrusion on spam in your environment will brainwash you as easily as if there was a public write access in your mind.
And there are other applications: imagine "mind activity detector" camouflaged in your cubicle: it won't maybe read your mind but it will surely be able to detect and report thought like "I'm bored" or "I want to sleep". And when your boss pass near and you suddenly have agressive thoughts, it will be carefully notified on some files.
Next step: implantig a chip in all person to monitor their deplacement, under the cover to "ease their access" to place with restricted access. Sure, it'll be nice to have your home or lab doors open at your approach, without having to type codes.
All these things that disguise themselves as amelioration and comfort but are in fact a way for corporations to bigbrotherise you are today's world greatest threat to civilization.
> This ended Debian's argument. No, this started it. Debian's peoples don't like implicit rights. > edit the copyright notice on your GPL'd project No, I mean the one of the KDevelop version you're using. > We need a babel fish for ppl who can't write:/ <sarcasm>Mr Coward, I've read some of your post and you make far more typos and error than me.</sarcasm>
> the FSF still hasn't approved the QPL as a real OSS license? Oh, dear. The Free Software Foundation deal with Free Software. They dislike OSS as watered-down, bastardized version of Free Software. They has never approved anything as OSS, and they will never do: it's not their role. Oh, and I just look on FSF's comment about various licenses and they say: [the QPL] is a non-copyleft free software license incompatible with the GNU GPL [except if you] resolve the conflict [...] by adding a notice like this to it: As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from Qt. They say it's a Free Software license. So the dude's point is non applicable. Furthermore, saying "Qt is evil" is trolling, or flaming, or just displaying stupidity in public, but not debating.
Re:Who here is using KDevelop at work for producti
on
KDevelop 1.2 is out
·
· Score: 1
> I don't have a big problem with it as long as I can still choose to use emacs/gcc/gmake/bash/grep,
So, why flame KDevelop ? It won't prevent you to work as you like, and it will surely won't prevent you from using gcc/gmake/bash/grep 'cause it use it also. And autoconf/automake, SGMLtools, etc also. KDevelop is a front-end to all these unix tools, and manage all scriptable-task itself. 'Twas intented to allow a coder to code without messing with details of project management (Makefiles, configure scripts, CVS, etc) and use all traditionnal Unix-tools transparently. Except Emacs, but there are peoples trying to include it as the standard editor.
There is, however, an IDE using Qt and which will bring its own tools. It's codenamed Kylix and it's not from KDE-folks but from Corel-Inprise/Borland.
Uh oh. Sometimes ago, Debian's specialist is pointless arguing found out that the GPL was incompatible with Qt Free Edition License of the 1.X branch of Qt. They say that prevent them from distributing KDE, but that it prevent noone from using it. The explanation is (or was?) somewhere on Debian's site.
Aware of the problem, TrollTech's guys have decided to publish their next release under an Open Source License, which was the QPL. This was meant to suppress incompatibility problem with the GPL, for example. So the QPL must be considered compatible with the GPL, else the Trolls would have totally miss the point.
And furthermore, this so-called incompatibility is workable around by giving the permission of linking with Qt one's GPLed project. It was so obvious for KDE coders that their code is linkable against Qt that this permission was given implicitely, rather than explicitely. Thus Debian's arguing. If that really bug you to not have an explicit permission, edit the copyright notice of the program to add it. No one will hurt you to do so if it stays on your disk, and everyone will be happy.
More precisely, KOffice will use a documented XML based format. It should be a tared archive with the XML files and other data files referenced, like images and other. And if you put the link into an <a href tag>, it would have been better.
My own rant: Flash, images, Javascript, whatever are crap, but not intrinsically useless. Webmasters often use them needlessly, but it's good to have a browser capable of handling them if one day you need to. As IE5 can, most amateur webmaster will use flash, java and other crap if you need to browse their site, you'll get nothing of your surf if you stick to an imcompatible browser. Fortunately, we don't have to consult amateur site often, but it can happen. It's most a matter of web design than a matter of browser capacity (on a personnal side, I jokingly made up a Strict Code of Internet Ethics to which my home site will apply). Oh, and html means HyperText anyway: text with hyperlinks and formatting. I don't have experienced gopher, but from what I've heard it lacks links and formatting.
Re:The real diff between GNU and other software or
on
Thus Spake Stallman
·
· Score: 1
> Personally, I think that supporting the free-ing of all software everywhere is like supporting total pacifism or communism.
There is a big difference between pacifism or communism and FSism. Communism and pacifism apply to peoples. Free Software apply to software. Furthermore, RMS don't beg corpos to open their source. He just want to unite programmers to code free alternative to proprietary software. Of course a lazy way is to try to persuade societies to open the source of their products, but it's a rather uneffective and unused way. AFAIK, only the KDE guys succeed at open sourcing TrollTech's Qt, and it was because TrollTech was rather friendly to the Free Software Movement already. Most Free Software was Free Software from start. Most proprietary software are still proprietary.
> To clarify, you'll want the most vehement racist at the front of the KKK,
I want it nowhere! Or at least, far away from any position where it could spread its obnoxious ideas. I don't like racism, and see little need of vehemence.
> (poor people just can't pathom the idea that it's not the guns but the people who kill people).
OK, I digress. But I must be a poor boy then, 'cause I believe guns are tools designed to harm and to kill, other living being, including peoples. And that if weak-minded crazened peoples weren't possessing lethal weapons, there will be fewer "accidents".
Governments power have declined, but not to the hand of the individuals. That're the corpos which get it. Let me explain one or two thing about political traditions:
In the french point of view, the state is created by the nation to protect individuals and masses from third parties (and, of course, to govern). Corporations are created by individuals whose purpose is to earn money. Not to work for public good (is that a good translation of bien public ?), but to earn money to its owners and sharers.
In the angloamerican point of view, governments are intrinsically oppressive and dangerous, and corporations are here to protect the mass by limitating government's power.
You see, the role of a gov't is to be benevolent in the french paradigm. It's been elected for that. It takes its power from that. And medias are here to watch it and prevent it from forsaking its role.
Furthermore, corpos are each days proving that cash is their only driving goal. If giant food corpos were really interested by public wellfare, there wouldn't have been so much scandals recently in EU (crazy cows, dioxin, etc).
Oh, and I'd like to know how a law to enforce open sourceness will grant more power to any government. It will grant less from corpos, but enforce the right of everybody of creating compatible code. Maybe you mean compatibility give power to the government ? Or maybe you think that gov't will bigbrotherize your code by reading all its lines ? If you're so afraid of gov't benefiting from openness, join the Closed Proprietary Software Foundation !
That's not flames, I just try to understand your opinion -and I'm afraid I don't have.
And I think greedy corporations are more dangerous than democratic governments.
> France is actually an example, where they have entire political parties dedicated solely to driving all non-French people out of France.
As a french guy I think I do know what I'm talkin' about. There are no "entire political parties". There was one, which has split in two (not entire), and which are now harmless. Nearly nobody will vote for them, they've become losers. And it's happy. The "Front National" has been a pester in french political scene mainly in the late 80s. This threat is now gone.
And about racism, my country doesn't consider there are five human races like some others, but only one, homo sapiens sapiens.
We can see nowaday a big bunch of new licenses, whose purpose is to be Open Source but not Free Software. These licenses are used by companies who want to benefit from the assets of openness, but want to be able to control their product. It's sometimes needed (do you imagine what will have happened to Java if Sun wasn't able to restrict modification? Microsoft would have make the language fork, and the Microsoft-run-only-on-windows-java-dialect will became the most used).
Can the FSF design a license allowing a project to be controlled by its initiator, but with real freedom? I was thinking that perhaps a timed license could do the job, something like:
This program was published under the [something-license] on [somemonth, nth. year], and this version [version-number] can be considered as a [LGPL or GPL] sourcecode on the [between 6 months and 2 years later]...
The advantage is it would allow the project initiator to closely control the project as long as he/she/it release new versions often enough and, if the project goes to a wrong direction or is no more published under an open license, free software programmers won't have a too old base to work on. This license can allow distribution of modified version under another name, and the right of the project initiator to include or no part of the modification. It must be rather liberal, allowing to link with whatever libraries the project may need, in order not to scare companies.
I think time interval lesser than 6 month or greater than 2 years should not be allowed, as they will be useless or hypocrite. The project initiator should be able to choose if the project will became GPL'ed or LGPL'ed.
> After all, it's Un-American to give something away to business.
And, of course, ONLYAmerican ways are good. All un-american idea, reasoning, philosophy, thingamajig and watchamacallit are invention of the Evil to corrupt the weak-minded. All hail America, the only source of true wisdom on Earth. No, in the whole Universe.
Joke aside, if your managers use that kind of arguments against Free Software, maybe you should replace them with more open minded and clever people.
Free Software is _NOT_ imcompatible with Commercial Software but with Proprietary Software. You can imagine a company selling programs which you can modify and redistribute, and even resell. RedHat, for example. You can also imagine another company who allow you to download freely some programs which you're not allowed to modify (eg: you can download Windows Media Player for naught on MS' site).
English lacks some words. The free-beer/free-speach thing. In other languages, their ain't such confusion.
> The most important piece of software I have running in my office is based off of MS Access. AFAIK there isn't a good substitute on Linux that runs Access databases or is there? If MS were to release Office for Linux the Migration would start tomorrow... no wait today. The moment someone does come up with a solution I would pay for it (and that doesn't include running Access in Wine).
Look for GNOME-DB or wait for Katabase, included in KDE2 (release in July -personnal estimation). There are always linux solutions!
Some people in the OS/2 world seems not to have exactly the same mind. I've seen this page where a certain Cristoph, nicknamed Birdy, report advancement of porting GNOME, E and KDE to OS/2. They currently need someone to continue the KDE/2 project. If I were them, I'd better search for someone to start the KDE2/2 project. Look also at the Everblue Project whose purpose is to create a "Presentation Manager" version of Xfree86. There is also already a port of Xfree86, named Xfree86/2, but it works full screen. They are at the 3.3.6 version right now, and I think they're working on Xfree4 now. Everblue want to integrate X applications on OS/2 desktop.
These news are interesting, because I was really thinking OS/2 was OS/dead. But if OS/2 folks successfully make it able to run cleanly both Windows and Linux apps, it could deserve some gigabytes on my hard drives. And it will if it becomes Open Source.
Hmmm. Sometimes I dream of a world were Windows would be the only proprietary OS out there... With free BeOS, OS/2 and whatever.
Even more than applications, OS should be free, just because you need an OS to use your computer. The OS and at least one editor and one compiler running on it.
> If digital cell phones hadn't come along, people would be standing around on their analog jobbies, yelling "WHAT? WHAT?". Only it would be more expensive, and there would be less of'em.
It would be nice. I may be ungeeky to dislike theses things, but I dislike wireless nonetheless. Or rather, I dislike most wireless users. Why? Because most of time they annoy me by yelling the many facts of their lives in bus, ringing their phone in cinemas, parasiting my walkman, etc.
From my point of view, such a device would be essentially useful for peoples -medics, cops, firemen- who really may need to be reached in situation where each second is important. Most talks I heard seems to be extremely vain.
Oh, maybe you didn't experience such troubles in the US. In this case, forgive me this post and think that peoples are suffering from cellular in other countries. Maybe each american wireless chat is really helpful for society, and american chatters take care not to upset other peoples. Such a wonderful country! Such wonderful folks! How lucky you are! It's hard to believe.
No, it was April 4. I look at the article page. Then again, this may be a lie. Or a late reporting. I'm extremely skeptical about this kind of stuff. There is a big neon-flashing banner with blinking lights reading: "This is an April fool, don't believe it" above the article, don't you have seen it?
Disclaimer:I havn't yet even tried to develop drivers nor BIOS ROM, so I'm not sure my idea can be concretizable. If you have more technical insight, feel free to reply.
I remember using DOS on a AMD 386DX40 PC. Inside BIOS setup, I have mouse working. Once DOS was booted, I needed a driver. Most modern BIOS can boot from a CD, meaning they don't need a OS driver to read CDs. But you need one for some OS (like MS-ones; I'm not sure for Linux; and I was not speaking about SCSI drives).
Maybe it won't be possible with every peripherals and protocols, but I think most things'll be easier and cleaner if the BIOS were handling them instead of the OS. You won't need drivers, and it will be fast. It could even be kinda plugnplay.
Today's BIOS are reflashable, for those afraid of evolutivity. And it will be safe:
Keep unexperienced programmers away from willing code for critical stuff.
Now, I must recognize it will requires comittee debate between hardware vendors, ISO norms, and it won't result in Open Source code. Vendors won't even need to release their product's specs. But that's what they want.
> Face it, your typical Joe Sixpack doesn't give a rat's ass when he buys his computer whether the hardware has Linux drivers -- but if you can make it run Linux anyway, and better than it runs Windows, then you may have a potential convert on your hands...
Face it, your typical Joe Linguru doesn't give a rat's ass about a new potential convert, especially a Joe Sixpack one. "New converts means new newbies", they say, "and new newbies means new silly questions on my favorite IRC.".
I've seen many times how elitist, agressive and stupid Linux integrist can be (myself, I prefer to buy a book than to try to ask for help on a mailing list). Nearly as stupid as corporates:
> Smart companies would release UDI driver source (both for the "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" effect, and to allow the driver to run on as many possible platforms without needing to directly support each binary configuration) and specifications (so that the community could do most of their support work for them, reducing their support costs).
Many corporates just can't see things that way. "If we release our specs to everyone," say the typical Joe Corpobutt, "our concurrent will know how to do the same hardware, and, as they've better engineers than we have, they'll soon sell better and cheapier version of our products! No way!"
> The ported driver would be GPL, but the UDI environment could remain entirely proprietary, and it would not violate the GPL since their code changes wouldn't be a "derived work" of the GPL code."
Nice, really. But legally speaking, you won't be allowed to distribute these drivers. If you don't believe me, here's a quizz:
The KDE project is based on Qt, which isn't GPL: Yes/No.
The KDE project is under GPL: Yes/No.
As Debian pointed out, you can use KDE but not distribute it, as the GPL
forbids you to distribute your software if it requires a non-opensource component: Yes/No.
The correct answers are "Yes", "Yes" and "Yes". We'll have the same problem with UDI, which will be to the driver what Qt is to KDE.
> Given Stallman's hostility towards UDI (he seems to believe it is a plot for proprietary vendors to rip off free software developers)[...]
Is there anything non "100% pure GNU" that Stallman don't consider as an international conspiracy of proprietarist to eradicate free software?:> (evil grin)
I will never buy a winmodem. I don't like the way they ask the processor to do everything. In the first times of computing, there was the CPU and nothing else. Then videocards, soundcards, etc, began to have their own processors. Winmodem follow computer evolution in reverse, they should be baned and forsaken. Remember that a true modem don't even need driver for Linux.
Oh, and furthermore, winmodems are clearly not linmodems, so the hell with them. Let them to idiots and AOLers. That's how I see things: pseudo-computer-users surfing a pseudo-internet with pseudo-modem working under a pseudo-OS; and the real world left to us geeks:p.
Have you ever tried getting DirectX to work on MacOS or any Unix?
You hit a point, Microsoft has some "de facto" standard. The same "de facto" as Windows 98 is the "de facto" OS for PC, and Windows 2000 is the "de facto" OS for network server.
The problem with Microsoft standards is that they are standard controlled only by Microsoft, and often redundant with other preexisting standards. Redundant AND incompatible, it's something very important for them. Their equation is very simple: We provide "de facto" standard for something, we will made this thing to be compatible with a standard we just created and incompatible with other. Thus, our new standard will becoma a "de facto", and the previous one, which we weren't controlling, will be forsaken. As we are the only one to know the internal of our standard, our software can be optimized with undocumented functions, and other company's app will seem pitiful in comparison with ours.
For Linux to strive, it must not try desperatly to embrace and extend Microsoft. First, we can't. Second, it'll make Linux depand on Microsoft and, even if we wipe Windows out of desktops, Microsoft will find somehow a way to retake power.
What we must do is to provide open standards, not necessarily compatible with MS ones, largely documented and well designed. Developers will prefer to use them, and they will be port on every OS, include Windows. Sure, Microsoft can try to embrace and extend them, to include them in DirectStuff or ActiveThing. But we must force developers not to use MS specific extensions, AND WE MUST PREVENT MICROSOFT FROM DESIGNING A SUBTLY INCOMPATIBLE VERSION. I've wrotten once a Java program with MS J++ at uni. Later, I've tried to use it with Sun's JDK at home. No compile error, but the program was just not working. It was something that was processing a word to check if it was part of a given grammar, with JDK it was always returning false. I just give this as an example of Microsoft's tactics with standard: once you've learn something on their own slightly modified version, you'll be puzzled by strange bugs you weren't experiencing before when trying to port on original version.
Linus Torvald is not stubborn, he's realistic. Allowing Microsoft to control a part of Linux, by controlling a key set of libraries, is allowing Microsoft to change Linux into another Windows.
Hum. I think the article was about themes for apps. This whole thread become off-topic.
Apache::ASP do exist and allow you to manage ASP pages written in Perl. It also give you some cool stuff not found on IIS ASP. VBscript is not supported for now, but this will change as soon as the Gnome Basic team finished their work (see http://www.gnome.org/gb. DCOM is made for MS-Office and MS-Windows. Microsoft is the only one who can try to port it on other OS, and they won't. Furthermore, with Bonobo for GNOME or DCOP for KDE, you don't even need them. Porting Direct X is the same problem, and even if it was done, it would only bloat Linux with more redundant libraries.
Linux is not, and will never be, shareware. I bet you don't even have the slightiest technical insight about what you say, or that you just love to troll and be labelled as flamebait.
If something is good for the coder, s/he will code it faster, sothe user will have the software earlier. It ought to be good also for the user, huh?
It will also mean it'll be easier to debug. It ought to be good also for the user, huh?
It will also mean, in this case, a clearer code which will take less space in RAM, and also less on the hard-drive. It ought to be good also for the user, huh?
And if the user isn't happy, s/he just have to re-code the prog to suit his/her own bidding! Real programmers only code for real programmer! Users are just clueless newbies who pollutes IRC with their stupid questions!
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't telepathic mindreading, but it's a limited form of mindreading anyway. If it can detect basic thought and emotions, it can already be dangerous.
Imagine that: you're surfing the web, there's an (or more) on the page you're reading, and you think: this may be interesting. An javascript/activeX/stufflikethat detect it thanks to your Mindware system, and immediately send your email adress to the company which has put the add, an you go in the "interested by our product" table of their databases. Oh, you mean it was the page which was interesting ? Ah, sorry. You will get your spam nonetheless.
Then such a system will "better" itself, it will be able to change the form of these spam into something you won't reject. It'll search for the weak point in your mental armor that prevent you from being brainwashed. Adds will flow on TVs, computers, radios, on your cellphone/MP5player/GPS/all-in-one-watch, allways mutating to prevent you from being worried or annoyed by it. This intrusion on spam in your environment will brainwash you as easily as if there was a public write access in your mind.And there are other applications: imagine "mind activity detector" camouflaged in your cubicle: it won't maybe read your mind but it will surely be able to detect and report thought like "I'm bored" or "I want to sleep". And when your boss pass near and you suddenly have agressive thoughts, it will be carefully notified on some files.
Next step: implantig a chip in all person to monitor their deplacement, under the cover to "ease their access" to place with restricted access. Sure, it'll be nice to have your home or lab doors open at your approach, without having to type codes.
All these things that disguise themselves as amelioration and comfort but are in fact a way for corporations to bigbrotherise you are today's world greatest threat to civilization.
> This ended Debian's argument. :/
No, this started it. Debian's peoples don't like implicit rights.
> edit the copyright notice on your GPL'd project
No, I mean the one of the KDevelop version you're using.
> We need a babel fish for ppl who can't write
<sarcasm>Mr Coward, I've read some of your post and you make far more typos and error than me.</sarcasm>
> the FSF still hasn't approved the QPL as a real OSS license? .
Oh, dear. The Free Software Foundation deal with Free Software. They dislike OSS as watered-down, bastardized version of Free Software. They has never approved anything as OSS, and they will never do: it's not their role.
Oh, and I just look on FSF's comment about various licenses and they say: [the QPL] is a non-copyleft free software license incompatible with the GNU GPL [except if you] resolve the conflict [...] by adding a notice like this to it:
As a special exception, you have permission to link this program with the Qt library and distribute executables, as long as you follow the requirements of the GNU GPL in regard to all of the software in the executable aside from Qt
They say it's a Free Software license. So the dude's point is non applicable.
Furthermore, saying "Qt is evil" is trolling, or flaming, or just displaying stupidity in public, but not debating.
So, why flame KDevelop ? It won't prevent you to work as you like, and it will surely won't prevent you from using gcc/gmake/bash/grep 'cause it use it also. And autoconf/automake, SGMLtools, etc also.
KDevelop is a front-end to all these unix tools, and manage all scriptable-task itself. 'Twas intented to allow a coder to code without messing with details of project management (Makefiles, configure scripts, CVS, etc) and use all traditionnal Unix-tools transparently. Except Emacs, but there are peoples trying to include it as the standard editor.
There is, however, an IDE using Qt and which will bring its own tools. It's codenamed Kylix and it's not from KDE-folks but from Corel-Inprise/Borland.
Uh oh. Sometimes ago, Debian's specialist is pointless arguing found out that the GPL was incompatible with Qt Free Edition License of the 1.X branch of Qt. They say that prevent them from distributing KDE, but that it prevent noone from using it. The explanation is (or was?) somewhere on Debian's site.
Aware of the problem, TrollTech's guys have decided to publish their next release under an Open Source License, which was the QPL. This was meant to suppress incompatibility problem with the GPL, for example. So the QPL must be considered compatible with the GPL, else the Trolls would have totally miss the point.
And furthermore, this so-called incompatibility is workable around by giving the permission of linking with Qt one's GPLed project. It was so obvious for KDE coders that their code is linkable against Qt that this permission was given implicitely, rather than explicitely. Thus Debian's arguing. If that really bug you to not have an explicit permission, edit the copyright notice of the program to add it. No one will hurt you to do so if it stays on your disk, and everyone will be happy.
More precisely, KOffice will use a documented XML based format. It should be a tared archive with the XML files and other data files referenced, like images and other. And if you put the link into an <a href tag>, it would have been better.
My own rant: Flash, images, Javascript, whatever are crap, but not intrinsically useless. Webmasters often use them needlessly, but it's good to have a browser capable of handling them if one day you need to. As IE5 can, most amateur webmaster will use flash, java and other crap if you need to browse their site, you'll get nothing of your surf if you stick to an imcompatible browser. Fortunately, we don't have to consult amateur site often, but it can happen. It's most a matter of web design than a matter of browser capacity (on a personnal side, I jokingly made up a Strict Code of Internet Ethics to which my home site will apply).
Oh, and html means HyperText anyway: text with hyperlinks and formatting. I don't have experienced gopher, but from what I've heard it lacks links and formatting.
There is a big difference between pacifism or communism and FSism. Communism and pacifism apply to peoples. Free Software apply to software. Furthermore, RMS don't beg corpos to open their source. He just want to unite programmers to code free alternative to proprietary software. Of course a lazy way is to try to persuade societies to open the source of their products, but it's a rather uneffective and unused way. AFAIK, only the KDE guys succeed at open sourcing TrollTech's Qt, and it was because TrollTech was rather friendly to the Free Software Movement already. Most Free Software was Free Software from start. Most proprietary software are still proprietary.
> To clarify, you'll want the most vehement racist at the front of the KKK,
I want it nowhere! Or at least, far away from any position where it could spread its obnoxious ideas. I don't like racism, and see little need of vehemence.
> (poor people just can't pathom the idea that it's not the guns but the people who kill people).
OK, I digress. But I must be a poor boy then, 'cause I believe guns are tools designed to harm and to kill, other living being, including peoples. And that if weak-minded crazened peoples weren't possessing lethal weapons, there will be fewer "accidents".
In the french point of view, the state is created by the nation to protect individuals and masses from third parties (and, of course, to govern). Corporations are created by individuals whose purpose is to earn money. Not to work for public good (is that a good translation of bien public ?), but to earn money to its owners and sharers.
In the angloamerican point of view, governments are intrinsically oppressive and dangerous, and corporations are here to protect the mass by limitating government's power.
You see, the role of a gov't is to be benevolent in the french paradigm. It's been elected for that. It takes its power from that. And medias are here to watch it and prevent it from forsaking its role.
Furthermore, corpos are each days proving that cash is their only driving goal. If giant food corpos were really interested by public wellfare, there wouldn't have been so much scandals recently in EU (crazy cows, dioxin, etc).
Oh, and I'd like to know how a law to enforce open sourceness will grant more power to any government. It will grant less from corpos, but enforce the right of everybody of creating compatible code. Maybe you mean compatibility give power to the government ? Or maybe you think that gov't will bigbrotherize your code by reading all its lines ? If you're so afraid of gov't benefiting from openness, join the Closed Proprietary Software Foundation !
That's not flames, I just try to understand your opinion -and I'm afraid I don't have.
And I think greedy corporations are more dangerous than democratic governments.
As a french guy I think I do know what I'm talkin' about. There are no "entire political parties". There was one, which has split in two (not entire), and which are now harmless. Nearly nobody will vote for them, they've become losers. And it's happy. The "Front National" has been a pester in french political scene mainly in the late 80s. This threat is now gone.
And about racism, my country doesn't consider there are five human races like some others, but only one, homo sapiens sapiens.
Can the FSF design a license allowing a project to be controlled by its initiator, but with real freedom? I was thinking that perhaps a timed license could do the job, something like:
This program was published under the [something-license] on [somemonth, nth. year], and this version [version-number] can be considered as a [LGPL or GPL] sourcecode on the [between 6 months and 2 years later]...
The advantage is it would allow the project initiator to closely control the project as long as he/she/it release new versions often enough and, if the project goes to a wrong direction or is no more published under an open license, free software programmers won't have a too old base to work on. This license can allow distribution of modified version under another name, and the right of the project initiator to include or no part of the modification. It must be rather liberal, allowing to link with whatever libraries the project may need, in order not to scare companies.
I think time interval lesser than 6 month or greater than 2 years should not be allowed, as they will be useless or hypocrite. The project initiator should be able to choose if the project will became GPL'ed or LGPL'ed.
And, of course, ONLY American ways are good. All un-american idea, reasoning, philosophy, thingamajig and watchamacallit are invention of the Evil to corrupt the weak-minded. All hail America, the only source of true wisdom on Earth. No, in the whole Universe.
Joke aside, if your managers use that kind of arguments against Free Software, maybe you should replace them with more open minded and clever people.
> They say it cannot be supported or trusted.
English lacks some words. The free-beer/free-speach thing. In other languages, their ain't such confusion.
I was believing RISC stood for Reduced Instruction Set Chipset, not Computer. Oh, dear.
Look for GNOME-DB or wait for Katabase, included in KDE2 (release in July -personnal estimation). There are always linux solutions!
These news are interesting, because I was really thinking OS/2 was OS/dead. But if OS/2 folks successfully make it able to run cleanly both Windows and Linux apps, it could deserve some gigabytes on my hard drives. And it will if it becomes Open Source.
Hmmm. Sometimes I dream of a world were Windows would be the only proprietary OS out there... With free BeOS, OS/2 and whatever.
Even more than applications, OS should be free, just because you need an OS to use your computer. The OS and at least one editor and one compiler running on it.
It would be nice. I may be ungeeky to dislike theses things, but I dislike wireless nonetheless. Or rather, I dislike most wireless users. Why? Because most of time they annoy me by yelling the many facts of their lives in bus, ringing their phone in cinemas, parasiting my walkman, etc.
From my point of view, such a device would be essentially useful for peoples -medics, cops, firemen- who really may need to be reached in situation where each second is important. Most talks I heard seems to be extremely vain.
Oh, maybe you didn't experience such troubles in the US. In this case, forgive me this post and think that peoples are suffering from cellular in other countries. Maybe each american wireless chat is really helpful for society, and american chatters take care not to upset other peoples. Such a wonderful country! Such wonderful folks! How lucky you are! It's hard to believe.
No, it was April 4. I look at the article page. Then again, this may be a lie. Or a late reporting. I'm extremely skeptical about this kind of stuff. There is a big neon-flashing banner with blinking lights reading: "This is an April fool, don't believe it" above the article, don't you have seen it?
I remember using DOS on a AMD 386DX40 PC. Inside BIOS setup, I have mouse working. Once DOS was booted, I needed a driver. Most modern BIOS can boot from a CD, meaning they don't need a OS driver to read CDs. But you need one for some OS (like MS-ones; I'm not sure for Linux; and I was not speaking about SCSI drives).
Maybe it won't be possible with every peripherals and protocols, but I think most things'll be easier and cleaner if the BIOS were handling them instead of the OS. You won't need drivers, and it will be fast. It could even be kinda plugnplay.
Today's BIOS are reflashable, for those afraid of evolutivity. And it will be safe:
Now, I must recognize it will requires comittee debate between hardware vendors, ISO norms, and it won't result in Open Source code. Vendors won't even need to release their product's specs. But that's what they want.
Too sad I just can't order them to do that ;)
Face it, your typical Joe Linguru doesn't give a rat's ass about a new potential convert, especially a Joe Sixpack one. "New converts means new newbies", they say, "and new newbies means new silly questions on my favorite IRC.".
I've seen many times how elitist, agressive and stupid Linux integrist can be (myself, I prefer to buy a book than to try to ask for help on a mailing list). Nearly as stupid as corporates:
> Smart companies would release UDI driver source (both for the "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" effect, and to allow the driver to run on as many possible platforms without needing to directly support each binary configuration) and specifications (so that the community could do most of their support work for them, reducing their support costs).
Many corporates just can't see things that way. "If we release our specs to everyone," say the typical Joe Corpobutt, "our concurrent will know how to do the same hardware, and, as they've better engineers than we have, they'll soon sell better and cheapier version of our products! No way!"
> The ported driver would be GPL, but the UDI environment could remain entirely proprietary, and it would not violate the GPL since their code changes wouldn't be a "derived work" of the GPL code."
Nice, really. But legally speaking, you won't be allowed to distribute these drivers. If you don't believe me, here's a quizz:
- As Debian pointed out, you can use KDE but not distribute it, as the GPL
- forbids you to distribute your software if it requires a non-opensource component: Yes/No.
The correct answers are "Yes", "Yes" and "Yes". We'll have the same problem with UDI, which will be to the driver what Qt is to KDE.> Given Stallman's hostility towards UDI (he seems to believe it is a plot for proprietary vendors to rip off free software developers)[...]
Is there anything non "100% pure GNU" that Stallman don't consider as an international conspiracy of proprietarist to eradicate free software? :> (evil grin)
Oh, and furthermore, winmodems are clearly not linmodems, so the hell with them. Let them to idiots and AOLers. That's how I see things: pseudo-computer-users surfing a pseudo-internet with pseudo-modem working under a pseudo-OS; and the real world left to us geeks :p.
You hit a point, Microsoft has some "de facto" standard. The same "de facto" as Windows 98 is the "de facto" OS for PC, and Windows 2000 is the "de facto" OS for network server.
The problem with Microsoft standards is that they are standard controlled only by Microsoft, and often redundant with other preexisting standards. Redundant AND incompatible, it's something very important for them. Their equation is very simple: We provide "de facto" standard for something, we will made this thing to be compatible with a standard we just created and incompatible with other. Thus, our new standard will becoma a "de facto", and the previous one, which we weren't controlling, will be forsaken. As we are the only one to know the internal of our standard, our software can be optimized with undocumented functions, and other company's app will seem pitiful in comparison with ours.
For Linux to strive, it must not try desperatly to embrace and extend Microsoft. First, we can't. Second, it'll make Linux depand on Microsoft and, even if we wipe Windows out of desktops, Microsoft will find somehow a way to retake power.
What we must do is to provide open standards, not necessarily compatible with MS ones, largely documented and well designed. Developers will prefer to use them, and they will be port on every OS, include Windows. Sure, Microsoft can try to embrace and extend them, to include them in DirectStuff or ActiveThing. But we must force developers not to use MS specific extensions, AND WE MUST PREVENT MICROSOFT FROM DESIGNING A SUBTLY INCOMPATIBLE VERSION. I've wrotten once a Java program with MS J++ at uni. Later, I've tried to use it with Sun's JDK at home. No compile error, but the program was just not working. It was something that was processing a word to check if it was part of a given grammar, with JDK it was always returning false. I just give this as an example of Microsoft's tactics with standard: once you've learn something on their own slightly modified version, you'll be puzzled by strange bugs you weren't experiencing before when trying to port on original version.
Linus Torvald is not stubborn, he's realistic. Allowing Microsoft to control a part of Linux, by controlling a key set of libraries, is allowing Microsoft to change Linux into another Windows.
Hum. I think the article was about themes for apps. This whole thread become off-topic.
Linux is not, and will never be, shareware. I bet you don't even have the slightiest technical insight about what you say, or that you just love to troll and be labelled as flamebait.
It will also mean it'll be easier to debug. It ought to be good also for the user, huh?
It will also mean, in this case, a clearer code which will take less space in RAM, and also less on the hard-drive. It ought to be good also for the user, huh?
And if the user isn't happy, s/he just have to re-code the prog to suit his/her own bidding! Real programmers only code for real programmer! Users are just clueless newbies who pollutes IRC with their stupid questions!
Don't worry, it's a joke.