In reading a large sample of the comments so far, I've noticed an interesting phenomenon. Almost all of the responses condemning this notion are phrased in absolutes (e.g. "It is wrong to kill a baby."), whereas most of the responses supporting this idea are phrased as opinions (e.g. "I think that there are times when it's OK to kill a baby."). Why is that? Does that say something about the closed-mindedness of the people against this idea?
As for myself, I can't completely disagree with Prof. Singer. I'm not a parent, so I admit that I don't have all the evidence needed to judge the situation, but I've often thought that I would not want to raise a child with a severe disability (especially a mental handicap, moreso than a physical one), and if I were to have such a child, I'd want to give it up somehow, and start over. I don't know that euthanizing the child is necessarily the right answer, but I certainly won't say that it's the wrong one...
Jon wrote: (A telling example of the new, greedier Apple ideology is that the G4 was deliberately built so that owners of the new G3 can't upgrade to it - they have to buy a new one. Doesn't sound like very different thinking after all)
I'd like to clarify this a bit, if I may. According to information reported on MacInTouch, the block was put in place as a temporary measure because of technical issues. Apple is currently working on an update to resolve these issues, and remove the block. They can't make an official statement regarding this yet, because they can't afford a fiasco if it takes a bit longer than expected, or doesn't work right, or what not. Until it's done, they have to maintain the official position that it's not upgradeable.
Wait a little bit before you start tearing into Apple. This is not a done deal.
There's an interesting and informative reader report on MacInTouch; the guy went to the Apple and Dell online stores, comfigured similar models, and compares individual features and prices. The Mac comes out on top for some things, the PC for others, even for others. The price? The same.
In the article, he talks about how a tiny jolt will flip the polarity from up to down, or down to up, and a lesser jolt will give it a probability of being one way or the other.
Question is: How finely measured do these jolts have to be? What does it do to the computation if we accidentally end up with 49/51 probabilities instead of 50/50? Are we capable of consistently providing that exact measurement of juice? Is this going to be a limiting factor to the technology?
As other people have pointed out already, this would not make P=NP. That's a purely theoretical question, regardless of what practical applications there are.
Recall that the 'N' in NP means "non-deterministic". What we have here is a non-deterministic computing machine, almost. (See below to find out why I say almost.) Thus, this machine could compute any problem in NP in polynomial time, whereas a deterministic one can only do those in P. If NP != P, then this machine simply has a wider range of problems it can feasibly compute.
The reason I have to qualify this with an "almost" is that we don't have pure non-deterministic computing. Look at the example in the article of finding the pair (1,0) out of all four binary pairs. We non-deterministically find the answer in one or two steps. However, while the answer exists in some state now, we can't extract it, so we don't really have the answer yet. Unfortunately, we have to run through a deterministic set of steps to extract that answer. Thus, we don't have a purely non-deterministic computing machine.
The question that arises, then, is how much this additional extraction step factors into the computation. If the steps are fixed within polynomial bounds of the size of the problem, then a QC actually could compute any problem in NP in polynomial time, since the deterministic portion would be polynomial time, and the non-deterministic portion is also polynomial time. Unfortunately, I suspect that the extraction may sometimes take more than polynomial time, in which case we've lost the benefit of the non-determinism in the deterministic portion.
Suddenly the issue shifts away from how a plan like this can give to the poor, to how a plan like this can take from us.
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this argument. I'm all in favor of providing certain necessities to the poor. For American citizens, I don't mind that my tax dollars go to provide food stamps, homeless shelters, etc. For the population of the world at large, I don't mind that my money goes to stopping the slaughter of innocents, and other such humanitarian causes.
Access to the internet, however, is a luxury, not a necessity; a privelege, not a right. Internet access makes life easier in some ways, more entertaining, perhaps, but it is not vital. You don't need internet access to get by. And, despite what some forward-thinkers may say, it's not going to be a necessity in the near future.
Thus, I object to having my internet access taxed to provide access to those who can't afford it themselves. I shouldn't have to subsidize the luxuries of third-world countries and their citizenry.
When I buy something, I own it. I can take it apart and use its pieces to build other stuff, I can sell it to other people, I can give it to my grandchildren, whatever. Unless: unless it is a piece of software, that is.
A comparison: You buy a videotape. You're free to tear the tape out of it, yes. You can eat it if you want to, for all they care. But you can't copy that movie for other people; you can't splice scenes from it into another movie; there are restrictions on what you do with it.
Similarly, there are restrictions to what you can do with the software you buy. Consider the disks to be like the videotape, and the software to be like the movie. You can take apart the disks, you can eat them, you can make little dolls out of them. However, you can't take apart the software, you can't copy it, you can't reuse parts of it somewhere else.
Software isn't the only place this happens.
I'm not free to sell it or give it to my grandchildren when I get tired of it ("This license is for a single computer").
I think you're misreading that. The license is for that software to be used on a single computer. However, what single computer that is can change. If you completely remove it from your computer, you can put it on another. If you get a new computer, you can transfer it, for example. If you tire of it, you can delete it from your machine, and sell it to someone else, or give it to your granddaughter, or mail it to a stranger in Albuquerque.
While I personally won't ever buy Microsoft products, I understand your point; I think it's a valid point that governments, etc. shouldn't refrain from buying MS products just because they are Microsoft.
However, that's not the case here. The people signing the petition are putting forward a valid argument that there are alternatives that are not being properly considered, and that these alternatives are both (1) more stable, and (2) free. Considering that the government in question can get more for less, it seems only right that people would complain that it's squandering their taxes.
As has been argued quite effectively in a number of places, the key is requiring open standards (API/Networking/etc).
Alas, the problem with that is how to enforce it. Suppose Microsoft violates the ruling, and adds some new private behavior in for their own good? What then? First you have to figure out that something's going on, and what it is. Then you need to drag MS back into court, which'll take another year or two, and by the time it gets resolved, it's already going to be a moot point.
If there is a good way to adjudicate this so that it is a feasible solution, please let me know. I have yet to see an explanation that really covers this in any detail...
I agree with you that Red Meat is a great comic. (I happen to like UF myself, but I'm not going to get into that now.)
However, Red Meat is not a web comic. It is a print based comic that happens to also be published on the web now. It's been around for quite a long time, in "alternative" newspapers. I know people who were enjoying Red Meat from before they'd ever heard of the Web.
I think that RMS has some decent ideas here for accomplishing his stated goal. Unfortunately, I think he's looking at the wrong goal, at least from the point of view of what the DOJ should be doing.
He states (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) that his measures will "allow free software offerings to compete with Microsoft's products." The crucial part of this is that he specifies free software.
The DOJ doesn't, and shouldn't, care if free software specifically can compete. Their job, and their goal, is to enable competition. This competition can just as easily be another commercial entity as it can the FSF. To focus specifically on free software would be counter to the mandate they have; they need to find the most general solution, not one specific to any segment of the industry.
(Note that I'm not saying that free software is bad, unimportant, or that I don't want it to succeed. I'm just observing that it doesn't merit any particular special privelege in the eyes of the DOJ.)
I do not mean to say that you cannot quote personal email. Legally, you are perfectly within your rights to do so. What I'm saying is that you should not do so. If I say something to you, then I mean for you to read it, not the rest of the world. I know that I (and many, many other people) will adopt a different tone when interacting with a single individual than with an entire community.
If Eric was actually making threats against Bruce (I haven't seen the email, so I don't know the precise details), then I think that it was within reason for Bruce to go to the police; that's what they're there for. But to take a personal fight to the Open Source community is, to me, unacceptable behavior. This isn't our fight, leave us out of it. And respect Eric's privacy.
You can look at this incident in a number of ways, and you can point fingers and lay blame anywhere you want, and anyone can support any take on this just by presenting the "facts" in their own way. However, one thing remains quite clear and indisputable:
ESR sent Bruce Perens a private email, and Bruce posted that message to a public forum.
This is unacceptable behavior on the part of a theoretically responsible adult. Private correspondance should remain private. I know that I would never post an email from someone else without checking with them first, and I'd be mightily pissed if someone posted an email of mine.
So Bruce, if you've got a beef with ESR, don't take it to the people. It's between you and him, not us.
The subtext: "Think Different, don't do it the way Apple did..."
I hate to have to break it to you, but this is not the subtext. How can I be sure? Two simple reasons:
1) This letter is from ESR and others. ESR is the one who has been working with Apple on their Open Sourcing, both on the license and on other issues. He's been the one supporting Apple in their move, and hailing it as a good step, against the vocal objections of RMS, Bruce Perens, and others. So I doubt that he'd be writing a letter to Microsoft condemning Apple's approach.
2) Apple did release a runnable OS. What they didn't include was some of the higher level stuff, the GUI, etc. But you can download Darwin, compile it, and run it. You can even write your own GUI for it (as people have been talking about since it was released), and have a very nice OS. So the points he's making to Microsoft are points that were covered with Apple. I wouldn't be surprised if he's able to enumerate those points precisely because he went through them with Apple, and knows what some sticking points might be. However, he managed to get them past Apple, so that we got a good release from them.
Actually, I believe you're misreading things a bit...
1) Fact: Bruce, RMS, etc. were very quick to jump out into a public forum to attack him and the APSL. He agrees that they might have had valid points, but states that he wishes that they had come to him directly first, because it would've facilitated matters with Apple.
2) Fact: There are quite a few immature "kiddies" on/., and that's who he's dismissing. There are quite a number of intelligent people as well, and he obviously recognizes that. (At one point, he expresses a pleasant surprise that ~50% of the comments on/. were expressing support for him; he's obviously reading through a lot of this, and sorting out the immature people from the real people.) I agree with him that he should dismiss the rantings, and just pay attention to the well thought out posts. That's what I do.:-)
I'm a relative newcomer to this scene; I'm still not completely square on all the background of the Open Source movement, the Free Software Foundation, and the interactions of the various people involved. (e.g. ESR, RMS, Bruce Perens, etc.)
However, after reading these two articles by ESR, I don't understand how anyone in this community can possibly not respect him. Yes, you may disagree with some of his viewpoints; yes, you may think that his approach to some things could be improved. But none of that changes the fact that he is out there doing these things, and we all reap the benefit.
I can understand his position, because if I were there, I'd be doing the same thing he is: I'd carry on in the work that needed to get done, but I'd get mightily pissed at all the people who couldn't seem to appreciate what I was doing for them. (And yes, he does it for you, even if you didn't elect him to do so.)
If I had the wherewithall, the background, and the experience to do what Eric is doing, I'd have been one of the first to email him and tell him I'd love to help out. I realize that his efforts are vital to this community, and I think that we would all be worse off without him and his ilk. Alas, I cannot, because I have not been a part of this community long enough, I have not hacked enough code, I've never modified the Linux kernel, etc. So, for now, I can only sit on the sidelines and watch and learn, and hope that people like Eric continue to arise, and not get beaten down by the masses.
I'm afraid that the author of this article really needs to do his homework before he writes again.
First off, let's call a spade a spade; the opening paragraphs really seem to just be a lead-in to attacking the APSL. Unfortunately, several of the points that the author then goes on to make aren't really valid.
But the best of them all is the latest; Apple taking a bunch of software released under the BSD-license, re-releasing it under an all power to Apple license, and expecting us to thank them for it.
Here's where he first gets to his point. "Look!" he cries, "Apple slapped their own license on code that wasn't even theirs!" Alas, my friend, this is just not true. Yes, there is some code in there from BSD; even Apple won't deny it. But there is much more than just that; Apple has added significantly to this code base, and the source code they released is for a much-modified (and improved, IMNSHO) OS.
Many even said that it would be very unkind of us to try to make competing products to be released under true free software licenses, when these companies had been so gracious towards us.
Who said that? We shouldn't make free software, just because some companies are charging for it? Then what about Linux distributions? Should we stop giving away any free distributions just because Red Hat is charging money for their version? I'm afraid this argument doesn't hold water.
Some might claim that the release of all this software will lead to something good, that all the best ideas and best code will end up being melded into one great piece of software.
Again, I ask, who? I don't think that anyone thinks that MacOS X, Linux, and *BSD are going to merge into one UberOS. But the open source code means that we can learn from it, and we can fix it where needed, and we can improve it if we have ideas that they haven't had at Apple. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 2 good OSes that grew from a larger unified community than 2 lesser OSes that grew out of a fragmented developer community.
Software needs to be free, not just open.
I'm afraid I have to laugh at this sentiment. Software does not need to be free; you want it to be free. I believe (as do many) that a person should be rewarded for good work, if he will accept a reward. You're welcome to give away your own code for free, but I will continue to happily pay for the MacOS, because it is an excellent product, and my payment rewards those who made it. (Yes, I actually pay for my OS, and I'm happy about it, because it's worth the money!)
> If the community will present well reasoned, politely phrased objections...
Aye, there's the rub. Unfortunately, as/. clearly demonstrates, a large number of the users/developers that object to the APSL will be anything but civil about it. If we really want to make a reasonable impact on Apple, we need to treat them with the same courtesy that we would want from them.
I'd also like to salute Bruce, ESR, RMS, and Apple for maintaining that level of courtesy. I'm not entirely familiar with the machinations and past history behind the various open source organizations (OSI, SPI, FSF...), but I know that they have handled themselves well during this incident. If there has been any vitriol behind any of their statements, it has, for the most part, been well contained, allowing for a reasonable discussion of the issues. I have high hopes that this issue will be worked out by just such rational people.
In the mean time, I fully intend to toy with the code. Even if I turn out to have no rights at all, it'll be fascinating, and I will enjoy it, whether or not I'm actually ever able to make a significant contribution.
Yeah, so Linus says that Linux isn't Unix. That doesn't make it so. (Yes, I know that he made it, so he can call it whatever he wants, but remember, "A rose by any other name would still smell just as sweet." It's close enough to Unix that for practical purposes, it is Unix.)
Maybe they should drop the 'x', and call it LINU: Linu Is Not Unix.:-)
Absolutely, unquestionably, Newt is right: If we want our government to make informed decisions regarding the rapidly developing tech fields, they need to be informed. As the "priveleged class" of the internet, we should, at the very least, consider what we, the informed can do to help facilitate that.
To that end, we would need someone to represent the technologically capable to the government. But who? Look around at the leaders of the technology revolution! Over there in the corner, ESR and RMS are fighting again! There's Scott McNealy, ragging on Bill Gates! Steve Jobs has brought great new flavor to the world of computers!
And so on. I'm not ragging on these people; I think that Steve Jobs is a stunningly brilliant man, and ESR and RMS have both done great things to advance the cause not just of free software, but of software in general. But would you want to have these people representing you to the government? I know I wouldn't.
So where can we find a political liaison to help guide our government into the 21st century?
Yes, it's very nice that the Palm V is actually upgradeable... It makes me feel a little less bad about the fact that I'm still waiting for mine to ship...
But the question that comes to my mind is, how much does that extra memory chip cost? Also, I don't think I'd trust myself to crack open my new Palm V myself, and try to solder things to the board... Am I going to be able to find someone who will do it for me, and how much more will that cost?
Is it worth the extra cost to get the extra memory? Or will I be just fine with 2MB?
(And yes, I think that the Palm V is worth it, for the extra carrying convenience and the rechargeable battery... I'm buying it, aren't I?)
Last time I checked, there was a difference between opening your source and declaring your product to be Free Software. Apple is not making any claims to Free Software, because it's planning on charging for the OS in the future (as well it should), with any modifications included. It is merely saying that it is opening its source, which it most certainly has done. The source is there. I can see it. You can see it.
So to all the commenters I see claiming that Apple hasn't embraced the principles of Free Software, you're right! But if you claim that it hasn't opened its source, then it's not hard to prove you wrong...
Slashdot Mirror
In reading a large sample of the comments so far, I've noticed an interesting phenomenon. Almost all of the responses condemning this notion are phrased in absolutes (e.g. "It is wrong to kill a baby."), whereas most of the responses supporting this idea are phrased as opinions (e.g. "I think that there are times when it's OK to kill a baby."). Why is that? Does that say something about the closed-mindedness of the people against this idea?
As for myself, I can't completely disagree with Prof. Singer. I'm not a parent, so I admit that I don't have all the evidence needed to judge the situation, but I've often thought that I would not want to raise a child with a severe disability (especially a mental handicap, moreso than a physical one), and if I were to have such a child, I'd want to give it up somehow, and start over. I don't know that euthanizing the child is necessarily the right answer, but I certainly won't say that it's the wrong one...
(A telling example of the new, greedier Apple ideology is that the G4 was deliberately built so that owners of the new G3 can't upgrade to it - they have to buy a new one. Doesn't sound like very different thinking after all)
I'd like to clarify this a bit, if I may. According to information reported on MacInTouch, the block was put in place as a temporary measure because of technical issues. Apple is currently working on an update to resolve these issues, and remove the block. They can't make an official statement regarding this yet, because they can't afford a fiasco if it takes a bit longer than expected, or doesn't work right, or what not. Until it's done, they have to maintain the official position that it's not upgradeable.
Wait a little bit before you start tearing into Apple. This is not a done deal.
-Snibor Eoj
Read the report at http://www.macintouch.com/g4reader. html#compete.
-Snibor Eoj
Another thought has caught my mind...
In the article, he talks about how a tiny jolt will flip the polarity from up to down, or down to up, and a lesser jolt will give it a probability of being one way or the other.
Question is: How finely measured do these jolts have to be? What does it do to the computation if we accidentally end up with 49/51 probabilities instead of 50/50? Are we capable of consistently providing that exact measurement of juice? Is this going to be a limiting factor to the technology?
Anyone know any of this stuff?
-Snibor Eoj
As other people have pointed out already, this would not make P=NP. That's a purely theoretical question, regardless of what practical applications there are.
Recall that the 'N' in NP means "non-deterministic". What we have here is a non-deterministic computing machine, almost. (See below to find out why I say almost.) Thus, this machine could compute any problem in NP in polynomial time, whereas a deterministic one can only do those in P. If NP != P, then this machine simply has a wider range of problems it can feasibly compute.
The reason I have to qualify this with an "almost" is that we don't have pure non-deterministic computing. Look at the example in the article of finding the pair (1,0) out of all four binary pairs. We non-deterministically find the answer in one or two steps. However, while the answer exists in some state now, we can't extract it, so we don't really have the answer yet. Unfortunately, we have to run through a deterministic set of steps to extract that answer. Thus, we don't have a purely non-deterministic computing machine.
The question that arises, then, is how much this additional extraction step factors into the computation. If the steps are fixed within polynomial bounds of the size of the problem, then a QC actually could compute any problem in NP in polynomial time, since the deterministic portion would be polynomial time, and the non-deterministic portion is also polynomial time. Unfortunately, I suspect that the extraction may sometimes take more than polynomial time, in which case we've lost the benefit of the non-determinism in the deterministic portion.
-Snibor Eoj
You are missing something:
Not only do they want people to come and watch their ads, they want to get paid for it at the same time by having those people load their banner ads.
-Snibor Eoj
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this argument. I'm all in favor of providing certain necessities to the poor. For American citizens, I don't mind that my tax dollars go to provide food stamps, homeless shelters, etc. For the population of the world at large, I don't mind that my money goes to stopping the slaughter of innocents, and other such humanitarian causes.
Access to the internet, however, is a luxury, not a necessity; a privelege, not a right. Internet access makes life easier in some ways, more entertaining, perhaps, but it is not vital. You don't need internet access to get by. And, despite what some forward-thinkers may say, it's not going to be a necessity in the near future.
Thus, I object to having my internet access taxed to provide access to those who can't afford it themselves. I shouldn't have to subsidize the luxuries of third-world countries and their citizenry.
-Snibor Eoj
Unless: unless it is a piece of software, that is.
A comparison: You buy a videotape. You're free to tear the tape out of it, yes. You can eat it if you want to, for all they care. But you can't copy that movie for other people; you can't splice scenes from it into another movie; there are restrictions on what you do with it.
Similarly, there are restrictions to what you can do with the software you buy. Consider the disks to be like the videotape, and the software to be like the movie. You can take apart the disks, you can eat them, you can make little dolls out of them. However, you can't take apart the software, you can't copy it, you can't reuse parts of it somewhere else.
Software isn't the only place this happens.
I'm not free to sell it or give it to my grandchildren when I get tired of it ("This license is for a single computer").
I think you're misreading that. The license is for that software to be used on a single computer. However, what single computer that is can change. If you completely remove it from your computer, you can put it on another. If you get a new computer, you can transfer it, for example. If you tire of it, you can delete it from your machine, and sell it to someone else, or give it to your granddaughter, or mail it to a stranger in Albuquerque.
-Snibor Eoj
While I personally won't ever buy Microsoft products, I understand your point; I think it's a valid point that governments, etc. shouldn't refrain from buying MS products just because they are Microsoft.
However, that's not the case here. The people signing the petition are putting forward a valid argument that there are alternatives that are not being properly considered, and that these alternatives are both (1) more stable, and (2) free. Considering that the government in question can get more for less, it seems only right that people would complain that it's squandering their taxes.
-Snibor Eoj
Alas, the problem with that is how to enforce it. Suppose Microsoft violates the ruling, and adds some new private behavior in for their own good? What then? First you have to figure out that something's going on, and what it is. Then you need to drag MS back into court, which'll take another year or two, and by the time it gets resolved, it's already going to be a moot point.
If there is a good way to adjudicate this so that it is a feasible solution, please let me know. I have yet to see an explanation that really covers this in any detail...
-Snibor Eoj
I agree with you that Red Meat is a great comic. (I happen to like UF myself, but I'm not going to get into that now.)
However, Red Meat is not a web comic. It is a print based comic that happens to also be published on the web now. It's been around for quite a long time, in "alternative" newspapers. I know people who were enjoying Red Meat from before they'd ever heard of the Web.
-Snibor Eoj
If the Dust Puppy's going to be on the cover, I can't wait to see what the colophon has to say! :-)
-Snibor Eoj
He states (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) that his measures will "allow free software offerings to compete with Microsoft's products." The crucial part of this is that he specifies free software.
The DOJ doesn't, and shouldn't, care if free software specifically can compete. Their job, and their goal, is to enable competition. This competition can just as easily be another commercial entity as it can the FSF. To focus specifically on free software would be counter to the mandate they have; they need to find the most general solution, not one specific to any segment of the industry.
(Note that I'm not saying that free software is bad, unimportant, or that I don't want it to succeed. I'm just observing that it doesn't merit any particular special privelege in the eyes of the DOJ.)
-Snibor Eoj
If Eric was actually making threats against Bruce (I haven't seen the email, so I don't know the precise details), then I think that it was within reason for Bruce to go to the police; that's what they're there for. But to take a personal fight to the Open Source community is, to me, unacceptable behavior. This isn't our fight, leave us out of it. And respect Eric's privacy.
-Snibor Eoj
You can look at this incident in a number of ways, and you can point fingers and lay blame anywhere you want, and anyone can support any take on this just by presenting the "facts" in their own way. However, one thing remains quite clear and indisputable:
ESR sent Bruce Perens a private email, and Bruce posted that message to a public forum.
This is unacceptable behavior on the part of a theoretically responsible adult. Private correspondance should remain private. I know that I would never post an email from someone else without checking with them first, and I'd be mightily pissed if someone posted an email of mine.
So Bruce, if you've got a beef with ESR, don't take it to the people. It's between you and him, not us.
-Snibor Eoj
I hate to have to break it to you, but this is not the subtext. How can I be sure? Two simple reasons:
1) This letter is from ESR and others. ESR is the one who has been working with Apple on their Open Sourcing, both on the license and on other issues. He's been the one supporting Apple in their move, and hailing it as a good step, against the vocal objections of RMS, Bruce Perens, and others. So I doubt that he'd be writing a letter to Microsoft condemning Apple's approach.
2) Apple did release a runnable OS. What they didn't include was some of the higher level stuff, the GUI, etc. But you can download Darwin, compile it, and run it. You can even write your own GUI for it (as people have been talking about since it was released), and have a very nice OS. So the points he's making to Microsoft are points that were covered with Apple. I wouldn't be surprised if he's able to enumerate those points precisely because he went through them with Apple, and knows what some sticking points might be. However, he managed to get them past Apple, so that we got a good release from them.
-Snibor Eoj
Actually, I believe you're misreading things a bit...
/., and that's who he's dismissing. There are quite a number of intelligent people as well, and he obviously recognizes that. (At one point, he expresses a pleasant surprise that ~50% of the comments on /. were expressing support for him; he's obviously reading through a lot of this, and sorting out the immature people from the real people.) I agree with him that he should dismiss the rantings, and just pay attention to the well thought out posts. That's what I do. :-)
1) Fact: Bruce, RMS, etc. were very quick to jump out into a public forum to attack him and the APSL. He agrees that they might have had valid points, but states that he wishes that they had come to him directly first, because it would've facilitated matters with Apple.
2) Fact: There are quite a few immature "kiddies" on
-Snibor Eoj
However, after reading these two articles by ESR, I don't understand how anyone in this community can possibly not respect him. Yes, you may disagree with some of his viewpoints; yes, you may think that his approach to some things could be improved. But none of that changes the fact that he is out there doing these things, and we all reap the benefit.
I can understand his position, because if I were there, I'd be doing the same thing he is: I'd carry on in the work that needed to get done, but I'd get mightily pissed at all the people who couldn't seem to appreciate what I was doing for them. (And yes, he does it for you, even if you didn't elect him to do so.)
If I had the wherewithall, the background, and the experience to do what Eric is doing, I'd have been one of the first to email him and tell him I'd love to help out. I realize that his efforts are vital to this community, and I think that we would all be worse off without him and his ilk. Alas, I cannot, because I have not been a part of this community long enough, I have not hacked enough code, I've never modified the Linux kernel, etc. So, for now, I can only sit on the sidelines and watch and learn, and hope that people like Eric continue to arise, and not get beaten down by the masses.
-Snibor Eoj
First off, let's call a spade a spade; the opening paragraphs really seem to just be a lead-in to attacking the APSL. Unfortunately, several of the points that the author then goes on to make aren't really valid.
But the best of them all is the latest; Apple taking a bunch of software released under the BSD-license, re-releasing it under an all power to Apple license, and expecting us to thank them for it.
Here's where he first gets to his point. "Look!" he cries, "Apple slapped their own license on code that wasn't even theirs!" Alas, my friend, this is just not true. Yes, there is some code in there from BSD; even Apple won't deny it. But there is much more than just that; Apple has added significantly to this code base, and the source code they released is for a much-modified (and improved, IMNSHO) OS.
Many even said that it would be very unkind of us to try to make competing products to be released under true free software licenses, when these companies had been so gracious towards us.
Who said that? We shouldn't make free software, just because some companies are charging for it? Then what about Linux distributions? Should we stop giving away any free distributions just because Red Hat is charging money for their version? I'm afraid this argument doesn't hold water.
Some might claim that the release of all this software will lead to something good, that all the best ideas and best code will end up being melded into one great piece of software.
Again, I ask, who? I don't think that anyone thinks that MacOS X, Linux, and *BSD are going to merge into one UberOS. But the open source code means that we can learn from it, and we can fix it where needed, and we can improve it if we have ideas that they haven't had at Apple. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 2 good OSes that grew from a larger unified community than 2 lesser OSes that grew out of a fragmented developer community.
Software needs to be free, not just open.
I'm afraid I have to laugh at this sentiment. Software does not need to be free; you want it to be free. I believe (as do many) that a person should be rewarded for good work, if he will accept a reward. You're welcome to give away your own code for free, but I will continue to happily pay for the MacOS, because it is an excellent product, and my payment rewards those who made it. (Yes, I actually pay for my OS, and I'm happy about it, because it's worth the money!)
-Snibor Eoj
Aye, there's the rub. Unfortunately, as /. clearly demonstrates, a large number of the users/developers that object to the APSL will be anything but civil about it. If we really want to make a reasonable impact on Apple, we need to treat them with the same courtesy that we would want from them.
I'd also like to salute Bruce, ESR, RMS, and Apple for maintaining that level of courtesy. I'm not entirely familiar with the machinations and past history behind the various open source organizations (OSI, SPI, FSF...), but I know that they have handled themselves well during this incident. If there has been any vitriol behind any of their statements, it has, for the most part, been well contained, allowing for a reasonable discussion of the issues. I have high hopes that this issue will be worked out by just such rational people.
In the mean time, I fully intend to toy with the code. Even if I turn out to have no rights at all, it'll be fascinating, and I will enjoy it, whether or not I'm actually ever able to make a significant contribution.
-Snibor Eoj
Yeah, so Linus says that Linux isn't Unix. That doesn't make it so. (Yes, I know that he made it, so he can call it whatever he wants, but remember, "A rose by any other name would still smell just as sweet." It's close enough to Unix that for practical purposes, it is Unix.)
:-)
Maybe they should drop the 'x', and call it LINU: Linu Is Not Unix.
-Snibor Eoj
Absolutely, unquestionably, Newt is right: If we want our government to make informed decisions regarding the rapidly developing tech fields, they need to be informed. As the "priveleged class" of the internet, we should, at the very least, consider what we, the informed can do to help facilitate that.
/dev/null?
To that end, we would need someone to represent the technologically capable to the government. But who? Look around at the leaders of the technology revolution! Over there in the corner, ESR and RMS are fighting again! There's Scott McNealy, ragging on Bill Gates! Steve Jobs has brought great new flavor to the world of computers!
And so on. I'm not ragging on these people; I think that Steve Jobs is a stunningly brilliant man, and ESR and RMS have both done great things to advance the cause not just of free software, but of software in general. But would you want to have these people representing you to the government? I know I wouldn't.
So where can we find a political liaison to help guide our government into the 21st century?
Thoughts? Suggestions? Flames to
Yes, it's very nice that the Palm V is actually upgradeable... It makes me feel a little less bad about the fact that I'm still waiting for mine to ship...
But the question that comes to my mind is, how much does that extra memory chip cost? Also, I don't think I'd trust myself to crack open my new Palm V myself, and try to solder things to the board... Am I going to be able to find someone who will do it for me, and how much more will that cost?
Is it worth the extra cost to get the extra memory? Or will I be just fine with 2MB?
(And yes, I think that the Palm V is worth it, for the extra carrying convenience and the rechargeable battery... I'm buying it, aren't I?)
-Snibor Eoj
> Who TF can even afford the Sun machine they tested on???
:-)
The people who regularly need to make queries to multi-terabyte databases can afford those machines.
-Snibor Eoj
Last time I checked, there was a difference between opening your source and declaring your product to be Free Software. Apple is not making any claims to Free Software, because it's planning on charging for the OS in the future (as well it should), with any modifications included. It is merely saying that it is opening its source, which it most certainly has done. The source is there. I can see it. You can see it.
So to all the commenters I see claiming that Apple hasn't embraced the principles of Free Software, you're right! But if you claim that it hasn't opened its source, then it's not hard to prove you wrong...
-Snibor Eoj