So it is with RMS. He doesn't realize that the average user simply doesn't care.
Oh, I think he does know that, very much: I'd say from his writings it's one of the things he'd most like to change--through this and other articles he spends a lot of time trying to get people to care about software freedom, which he'd hardly do if he were ignorant of their apathy.
It would be different if there was a history of software vendors flagrantly abusing their power, perhaps, but there simply isn't.
First, I would take the position that preventing one person from helping another is in fact a pretty serious abuse of power. Secondly, Microsoft is probably a bad example of a well-behaved software company, considering the many companies, users and general public which have been aggrieved by their practices (yes, to the extent of going out of business due to persecution by Microsoft)--practices all of which, by the way, would have been impossible with a corresponding piece of free software. And if you can't look at the activation features of XP, the trusted computing initiative and the future of software licensing and foresee exactly the scenario you describe, I don't think you're looking very closely.
The problem of closed source largely exists in RMS' mind; I strongly doubt he's ever personally been inconvenienced by it any more than he's inconvenienced by the manufacturer's warning that opening the TV invalidates the warranty.
Actually there is a famous story about how inconvenienced RMS was by proprietary software (the story is about halfway down the page--search for "printer")--inconvenienced enough, at least, to devote a pretty hefty portion of his life to trying to make it better for the rest of us. And the point isn't about convenience, it's about freedom.
I think this sentiment is exactly why we need to understand RMS's point in this article about the difference between the goals of popularity and preserving freedom (the core difference between the Open Source and free software movements).
The Open Source movement is completely compatible with your philosophy: they tell you that source code availability is a good thing because it produces software that's better.
On the other hand--and this is a point I think you've missed--free software is better because it's free. Preserving freedom is the goal, and the availability of the source code is only one necessary step on the way to that goal.
If you choose a piece of free software, you have important freedoms, regardless of whether you ever read the source code (these are taken from the GNU project's Free Software page):
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose - It's your damn computer, right? Don't you think you should be in charge of what you're using it for and why? Or should your software vendor? I don't want Adobe telling me I can't paint pictures of elephants because the CEO got scared by one.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor - I like to help my friends. If I want to give my friend a bite of my sandwich I don't want Safeway telling me "Sorry, your friend must buy his own sandwich from me."
And even though you yourself do not enhance the software, when you choose free software you enjoy the side benefits of others' exercising that freedom.
RMS makes the very clear point in this article, and in his other writings, that you are mistaken when you say:
So for me, you're no different than MS.
The Open Source movement would have you believe this: that Open Source software is but one competitor for popularity. But the free software movement's goal isn't popularity, it's freedom, and that is very different from Microsoft (for you and other users), because Microsoft isn't interested in preserving your freedom (which by the way doesn't make them bad guys, in my opinion, they just have a different goal).
cd/usr/src (since that's where you say your linux-2.4.23 is)
bzip2 -dc patch-2.4.24.bz2 | patch -p0
mv linux-2.4.23 linux-2.4.24
cd linux-2.4.24
Now build and install your kernel as you like it, just as you would from the virgin tarball (make depend; make however you make your kernel and modules).
So firstly its quite possibly not their fault
Secondly its quite possible they are all still on their christmas holiday
Amen. And thirdly, maybe KISS is just treating the mplayer people like they treat their own users: with hostility and inaccessibility. Considering that KISS release sources for busybox and Linux, I find it difficult to believe that they would somehow refuse to release mplayer source because they're evil. Most likely it's just an oversight that will be cleared up in time--too bad the mplayer people are so quick to pound the drum of aggrievance, but it's totally in character for them.
By the way, I like mplayer very much, the developers do a really excellent technical job; they just lack interpersonal skills--which are very necessary when trying to get a business to do what you want them to do.
It's true. But The Sword of Shannara is a much better realization of the same story than Lord of the Rings, and one of the best epic fantasy books ever written. Why? There is roguish charm in Sword and none in Rings. Seems simplistic on the face of it, but think about it. And then think about why Star Wars was so much better than Attack of the Clones.
Or, instead of thinking, I'll just tell you: roguish charm.
The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant is one of those stories that you either hate or love.
Or both. I read the first book when I was fairly young, and I was unprepared to wrap my head around what was going on with Thomas in that famous scene--but the writing was so good, and the world so great; how lovely to read a fantasy book where the tone of the world is so hostile, that I was hooked and finished it despite myself. And thanks for the reminder--I will probably go back and read Lord Foul's Bane and then finish the trilogy.
Are we only allowed to spend our free time jogging while drinking 100% natural wheatgrass smoothies and chatting on our cell phones about the hot dates we have planned tonight?
Yes, that's more or less the rule now, except that's what you're supposed to do on your hot date--stop chatting on your cell phone, geek!
The issue of game balance is a tricky one. One particular thing that I dislike is the "special strategy" boss which is impossible for you to defeat unless you know the "special strategy," at which point it becomes very easy. Played TR:AoD? Remember the red ghost? Boaz Returns? The final boss? All examples of what I'm talking about.
I would like an RPG that has random encounters, where the monsters are interesting an unique, and you have to mix in traditional combat with a little thought to beat them. I'd like the run of the mill creatures to be a little tougher, and the bosses to be weaker (I don't want to have to try more than three times to beat the same thing). I'd like to be able to pick up some cool equipment, but not have to engage in tiresome equipment optimization. I'd like a great storyline that doesn't change depending on "how I play the game." I'd like some nifty puzzles too, but not too many, and don't get me stuck for more than a day. I like the way Summoner organized the party and initiated the battles, but I like the richness and storylines of Final Fantasy. I like a lot of the adventure gameplay of Tomb Raider. Combine them all into an uber-game please! Is that so hard?
I have to say, upgrading to Debian is going to be far less of a shock to Linux users than installing Windows. With Debian you will get solid Linux and free automatic software updates, for no charge. I can understand the frustration at the inconvenience of RH not having academic pricing for support, but Windows as an alternative? I don't see it.
I'm glad the Sacramento store people gave you what you needed. However, I think I'm pretty safe in saying that that is not the typical Fry's salesperson experience.
Many times I've wondered about the actual function of the large numbers of salespeople circulating on the floor at Fry's--are they for loss prevention, or what? Dubious "help" I've received from them in the past included a) not knowing where the USB cables were, b) Not knowing what SCSI and IDE were (this was a team of three salespeople in the disk drive area) and c) (this is my favorite) a salesperson who not only (apparently) did not know how to print a test page on one of their printers, but did not understand my query ("Can you print a test page?").
Fry's, in general, is not the store to visit if you think you might have to ask a question. If you just consider it like a warehouse store for electronic stuff, some music, games and appliances, it's pretty good.
Well, an MMORPG is at its heart an optimization exercise in "how much can we get out of a player without them leaving"? So making it so that rich players don't unbalance the game (too much) is just a money balancing act for Sony (or whoever) to work out.
I'm surprised that MMORPG vendors aren't already allowing players to buy power directly from the vendor. I could completely see a "premium start-up kit" which enables you to play extra character classes, or start with better weapons or whatever.
But there's the risk you mention of alienating the rank and file so much they leave the game. And I think that's what's prevented such a thing from being adopted in a widespread fashion.
The tolerance the other replier talks about I think is Sony (and others) floating the idea of pay-for-power in an atmosphere they're not required to sanction (like if they introduced it into the game). When they decide that players will continue to play even when others with dollars to spend will get the goodies, they'll clamp down on players selling stuff and start doing a pay-for-power thing themselves.
So the MUD model is pretty good, right? And a lot of what made that work was delegating building tasks to the Wizards, and from them to some other experienced players (I remember spending weeks doing MUSH code for Dune MUSH). So how about bringing player-generated content to SW:G or the other MMORPGs? It sounds like SW:G creates a market for goods and services; make a market for content and throw some bennies to the builders with popular regions.
Because as it stands, yeah, it sounds like I'd much rather play a good MUD than any of these.
I'm curious what you think is coming in Perl6 that Python already has. The exception mechanism I suppose, and mixed positional, named and optional parameters. Anything else?
and a lot of the other stuff isn't necessary because that's just not the way things work in Python.
The reason people get into flamewars over Python vs. Perl is because of this philosophy: if Python doesn't do (or doesn't do well) what you want it to do, there must be something wrong with you. I use both, and I can't tell you how many times I've pointed out something I didn't like in Python, only to be told by a Pythonista that therefore I must be doing it wrong. Can't find the block end? Your blocks must be too long! Want more than a simple statement in lambda? That's not its purpose! Want declarative syntax? You don't need it!
To be fair, Perl is letting you limit the incoming parameters via code, whereas Python limits them via philosophy ("Better to ask forgiveness")... but for all that verbiage, that's about all Perl 6 can do with parameter passing that Python can't.
Could you clarify? Because I can't grasp what you're saying here. Are you saying that the only thing you can do with parameters in Perl over Python is "everything Python doesn't want you to do"? Or what?
Anyone adding pipelines to code I have to subsequently maintain will be shot without trial.
I actually think Damian's article does a pretty good job of showing the opposite: sometimes, a pipeline would be much easier to read than rabid nesting.
I'm not 100% on board with all the Perl6 stuff either (in particular, I'm not sure I'm down with all the punctuation-based modifiers to the parameter list--there are a lot of them in the Apocalypse that aren't covered in the Exegesis).
X was too much graphics and minimal gameplay and the ending was terrible.
It takes all kinds. FFX was far and away my favorite entry (I liked VII plenty and enjoyed IX too--probably the most beautiful game for the PSX ever).
I just really enjoyed a slightly greater emphasis on puzzles, the tone and atmosphere of the cast and the world. With one exception (a long FMV in the middle of the game) I thought the ratio of cutscenes to play was excellent. I really liked the fact that the main thread of the game (including the final battle) was easier to complete than in previous FFs (call me a wimp if you like). There was plenty of side play to complete if you wanted a challenge.
I loved the switch to turn-based combat--I never liked feeling hurried to make a call. The backstory was incredible, and the plot was excellent. About the only thing I didn't like about it was Blernsball. Or Blitzer. Or whatever it was. But luckily you didn't have to play if you didn't want to.
You could write your game to download and self-patch every time it starts up, even cache the updates if you have a disk in your console.
Not saying it's a good idea, but it could be done.
It might be simpler to just have valid purchasers get a new disc mailed to them--surely pressing a new disc can't be that expensive. I for one would pay a nominal additional fee for a bug-fix release of AoD.
Part of the point of the article is that penmanship develops a particular flavor of hand and wrist coordination, that may be useful to you if you decide to pursue art or calligraphy. However, if you never learn even the basics of writing in a controlled way (as with cursive) then these pursuits are closed to you, so much the poorer for you and society.
As for the American thing, the article explains that cursive as it's practiced and taught here, according to the Palmer method, is American.
Yeah, I always forget if it breaks if you put a space after the \ character, and then I forget if you're supposed to indent another level or to the same level on the continued line. All of the other python programmers seem to have the same problem because all our Python code here is characterized by godawfully long lines.
Note to repliers: this isn't a question I'm looking for an answer to, and it's not a criticism of Python (well, okay, obviously it is, but I hope you won't take it personally).
Well if someone misuses the license, that's kind of a separate, case-by-case issue than whether Debian should eliminate all FDL-licensed documentation. I'm not going to argue that it hasn't happened, though I am curious as to where.
I'm not saying that every use of every possible invariant section is a great thing--I can see how it could lead to some documentation that's cumbersome, or has parts that are no longer relevant (though this can easily be called out). But it doesn't make it non-free, and it seems to me that the possible abuses of invariant sections are rare and easy to deal with, compared with the possible abuses of an author's intent.
Slashdot Mirror
What is a user-initiated popup? File -> New Window?
Oh, I think he does know that, very much: I'd say from his writings it's one of the things he'd most like to change--through this and other articles he spends a lot of time trying to get people to care about software freedom, which he'd hardly do if he were ignorant of their apathy.
First, I would take the position that preventing one person from helping another is in fact a pretty serious abuse of power. Secondly, Microsoft is probably a bad example of a well-behaved software company, considering the many companies, users and general public which have been aggrieved by their practices (yes, to the extent of going out of business due to persecution by Microsoft)--practices all of which, by the way, would have been impossible with a corresponding piece of free software. And if you can't look at the activation features of XP, the trusted computing initiative and the future of software licensing and foresee exactly the scenario you describe, I don't think you're looking very closely.
Actually there is a famous story about how inconvenienced RMS was by proprietary software (the story is about halfway down the page--search for "printer")--inconvenienced enough, at least, to devote a pretty hefty portion of his life to trying to make it better for the rest of us. And the point isn't about convenience, it's about freedom.
I think this sentiment is exactly why we need to understand RMS's point in this article about the difference between the goals of popularity and preserving freedom (the core difference between the Open Source and free software movements).
The Open Source movement is completely compatible with your philosophy: they tell you that source code availability is a good thing because it produces software that's better.
On the other hand--and this is a point I think you've missed--free software is better because it's free. Preserving freedom is the goal, and the availability of the source code is only one necessary step on the way to that goal.
If you choose a piece of free software, you have important freedoms, regardless of whether you ever read the source code (these are taken from the GNU project's Free Software page):
And even though you yourself do not enhance the software, when you choose free software you enjoy the side benefits of others' exercising that freedom.
RMS makes the very clear point in this article, and in his other writings, that you are mistaken when you say:
The Open Source movement would have you believe this: that Open Source software is but one competitor for popularity. But the free software movement's goal isn't popularity, it's freedom, and that is very different from Microsoft (for you and other users), because Microsoft isn't interested in preserving your freedom (which by the way doesn't make them bad guys, in my opinion, they just have a different goal).
That's fine. But you should care about freedom.
Okay:
Hope that helps!
Amen. And thirdly, maybe KISS is just treating the mplayer people like they treat their own users: with hostility and inaccessibility. Considering that KISS release sources for busybox and Linux, I find it difficult to believe that they would somehow refuse to release mplayer source because they're evil. Most likely it's just an oversight that will be cleared up in time--too bad the mplayer people are so quick to pound the drum of aggrievance, but it's totally in character for them.
By the way, I like mplayer very much, the developers do a really excellent technical job; they just lack interpersonal skills--which are very necessary when trying to get a business to do what you want them to do.
It's true. But The Sword of Shannara is a much better realization of the same story than Lord of the Rings, and one of the best epic fantasy books ever written. Why? There is roguish charm in Sword and none in Rings. Seems simplistic on the face of it, but think about it. And then think about why Star Wars was so much better than Attack of the Clones.
Or, instead of thinking, I'll just tell you: roguish charm.
Or both. I read the first book when I was fairly young, and I was unprepared to wrap my head around what was going on with Thomas in that famous scene--but the writing was so good, and the world so great; how lovely to read a fantasy book where the tone of the world is so hostile, that I was hooked and finished it despite myself. And thanks for the reminder--I will probably go back and read Lord Foul's Bane and then finish the trilogy.
Oh, so true. Piers Anthony--'nuff said.
Yes, that's more or less the rule now, except that's what you're supposed to do on your hot date--stop chatting on your cell phone, geek!
The issue of game balance is a tricky one. One particular thing that I dislike is the "special strategy" boss which is impossible for you to defeat unless you know the "special strategy," at which point it becomes very easy. Played TR:AoD? Remember the red ghost? Boaz Returns? The final boss? All examples of what I'm talking about.
I would like an RPG that has random encounters, where the monsters are interesting an unique, and you have to mix in traditional combat with a little thought to beat them. I'd like the run of the mill creatures to be a little tougher, and the bosses to be weaker (I don't want to have to try more than three times to beat the same thing). I'd like to be able to pick up some cool equipment, but not have to engage in tiresome equipment optimization. I'd like a great storyline that doesn't change depending on "how I play the game." I'd like some nifty puzzles too, but not too many, and don't get me stuck for more than a day. I like the way Summoner organized the party and initiated the battles, but I like the richness and storylines of Final Fantasy. I like a lot of the adventure gameplay of Tomb Raider. Combine them all into an uber-game please! Is that so hard?
I have to say, upgrading to Debian is going to be far less of a shock to Linux users than installing Windows. With Debian you will get solid Linux and free automatic software updates, for no charge. I can understand the frustration at the inconvenience of RH not having academic pricing for support, but Windows as an alternative? I don't see it.
I'm glad the Sacramento store people gave you what you needed. However, I think I'm pretty safe in saying that that is not the typical Fry's salesperson experience.
Many times I've wondered about the actual function of the large numbers of salespeople circulating on the floor at Fry's--are they for loss prevention, or what? Dubious "help" I've received from them in the past included a) not knowing where the USB cables were, b) Not knowing what SCSI and IDE were (this was a team of three salespeople in the disk drive area) and c) (this is my favorite) a salesperson who not only (apparently) did not know how to print a test page on one of their printers, but did not understand my query ("Can you print a test page?").
Fry's, in general, is not the store to visit if you think you might have to ask a question. If you just consider it like a warehouse store for electronic stuff, some music, games and appliances, it's pretty good.
Thanks. I wonder if this pisses other players off, or if they consider the power-up users poseurs, or what?
Everyone's also cool with gambling when it's called "investing."
Well, an MMORPG is at its heart an optimization exercise in "how much can we get out of a player without them leaving"? So making it so that rich players don't unbalance the game (too much) is just a money balancing act for Sony (or whoever) to work out.
I'm surprised that MMORPG vendors aren't already allowing players to buy power directly from the vendor. I could completely see a "premium start-up kit" which enables you to play extra character classes, or start with better weapons or whatever.
But there's the risk you mention of alienating the rank and file so much they leave the game. And I think that's what's prevented such a thing from being adopted in a widespread fashion.
The tolerance the other replier talks about I think is Sony (and others) floating the idea of pay-for-power in an atmosphere they're not required to sanction (like if they introduced it into the game). When they decide that players will continue to play even when others with dollars to spend will get the goodies, they'll clamp down on players selling stuff and start doing a pay-for-power thing themselves.
So the MUD model is pretty good, right? And a lot of what made that work was delegating building tasks to the Wizards, and from them to some other experienced players (I remember spending weeks doing MUSH code for Dune MUSH). So how about bringing player-generated content to SW:G or the other MMORPGs? It sounds like SW:G creates a market for goods and services; make a market for content and throw some bennies to the builders with popular regions.
Because as it stands, yeah, it sounds like I'd much rather play a good MUD than any of these.
I'm curious what you think is coming in Perl6 that Python already has. The exception mechanism I suppose, and mixed positional, named and optional parameters. Anything else?
The reason people get into flamewars over Python vs. Perl is because of this philosophy: if Python doesn't do (or doesn't do well) what you want it to do, there must be something wrong with you. I use both, and I can't tell you how many times I've pointed out something I didn't like in Python, only to be told by a Pythonista that therefore I must be doing it wrong. Can't find the block end? Your blocks must be too long! Want more than a simple statement in lambda? That's not its purpose! Want declarative syntax? You don't need it!
Could you clarify? Because I can't grasp what you're saying here. Are you saying that the only thing you can do with parameters in Perl over Python is "everything Python doesn't want you to do"? Or what?
I actually think Damian's article does a pretty good job of showing the opposite: sometimes, a pipeline would be much easier to read than rabid nesting.
I'm not 100% on board with all the Perl6 stuff either (in particular, I'm not sure I'm down with all the punctuation-based modifiers to the parameter list--there are a lot of them in the Apocalypse that aren't covered in the Exegesis).
It takes all kinds. FFX was far and away my favorite entry (I liked VII plenty and enjoyed IX too--probably the most beautiful game for the PSX ever).
I just really enjoyed a slightly greater emphasis on puzzles, the tone and atmosphere of the cast and the world. With one exception (a long FMV in the middle of the game) I thought the ratio of cutscenes to play was excellent. I really liked the fact that the main thread of the game (including the final battle) was easier to complete than in previous FFs (call me a wimp if you like). There was plenty of side play to complete if you wanted a challenge.
I loved the switch to turn-based combat--I never liked feeling hurried to make a call. The backstory was incredible, and the plot was excellent. About the only thing I didn't like about it was Blernsball. Or Blitzer. Or whatever it was. But luckily you didn't have to play if you didn't want to.
Or how about the possibility that the pyramids are not gargantuan but are merely very close up?
How come nobody every posits that theory indeed.
In other news:
Soylent Green is People! Peeeeeeeople!
You could write your game to download and self-patch every time it starts up, even cache the updates if you have a disk in your console.
Not saying it's a good idea, but it could be done.
It might be simpler to just have valid purchasers get a new disc mailed to them--surely pressing a new disc can't be that expensive. I for one would pay a nominal additional fee for a bug-fix release of AoD.
Automan! (The world's first truly automatic man)
Ah, those were some funny days.
Part of the point of the article is that penmanship develops a particular flavor of hand and wrist coordination, that may be useful to you if you decide to pursue art or calligraphy. However, if you never learn even the basics of writing in a controlled way (as with cursive) then these pursuits are closed to you, so much the poorer for you and society.
As for the American thing, the article explains that cursive as it's practiced and taught here, according to the Palmer method, is American.
Yeah, I always forget if it breaks if you put a space after the \ character, and then I forget if you're supposed to indent another level or to the same level on the continued line. All of the other python programmers seem to have the same problem because all our Python code here is characterized by godawfully long lines.
Note to repliers: this isn't a question I'm looking for an answer to, and it's not a criticism of Python (well, okay, obviously it is, but I hope you won't take it personally).
Well if someone misuses the license, that's kind of a separate, case-by-case issue than whether Debian should eliminate all FDL-licensed documentation. I'm not going to argue that it hasn't happened, though I am curious as to where.
I'm not saying that every use of every possible invariant section is a great thing--I can see how it could lead to some documentation that's cumbersome, or has parts that are no longer relevant (though this can easily be called out). But it doesn't make it non-free, and it seems to me that the possible abuses of invariant sections are rare and easy to deal with, compared with the possible abuses of an author's intent.