Possibly the most stupid idea I've heard of. And of course, as we can anticipate Gates and Co. buying the ads, everyone building for other OSes will use Award or AMI.
The movie was well done, and within the limits of what can be accomplished in two hours, presented a more even-handed view of history than I expected.
For those who have not been close to the story of small computers for the last 25 years, yes, the Altair was the first to appear, and its basic complement of memory was 256 bytes.
The casting was very good, the characterizations of Gates and Jobs were very well done, and the story, having been based on the book from Freiberger and Swain, was accurate. Weighting factors might be argued, but the movie did an excellent job of showing the men behind MS and Apple, and their egos, frailties, and abusive ways.
While Apple may have dealt honestly with Xerox for what it got, they have attempted to rewrite history very heavily in their favor. I was using an Imsai 8080 in 1975, and before either the PC or the Mac appeared, had been very active with what we all referred to as personal computers. My own machine (by then a Z80) was roughly 2-3 times as fast as my first PC.
Apple didn't invent the personal computer. Neither Apple nor Microsoft invented very much, in fact, in the era shown in the film. Apple did a good job of developing Xerox technology into viable product, and both Apple and MS cloned event driven operating systems, with varying degrees of skill and success.
What impressed me most is that I found no significant errors in the film.
As to the handling of the personal lives of Gates and Jobs, I thought the film showed just enough to make clear that neither is a socially well adjusted individual.
Kudos to Turner for a film which does not fawn over the wealthy in either of these companies, nor take license to bash either beyond the realities of their respective histories.
Because a company does not embrace Stallman's philosophy does not make it bad, nor does it mean their products are doomed to failure.
The Linux growth curve is impressive, but no one is seriously anticipating the demise of NT. It would be more likely to see Novell collapse, and no one seems to be counting the days on that one, either.
This is terrific news, from any perspective. I'm not a gamer, but can't help drooling over the G400MAX! I hope that the drivers, once they appear, will support multi-head and composite video, as well.
Your computer will generate RFI, and very little EMI. Copper mesh will work well, and is far easier to connect to than aluminum foil. If you emit significant RF energy, you will run the risk of upsetting neighbors who are ham radio operators, or perhaps will interfere with TV reception.
If you know of any nearby hams, they can help you with practical tips on how best to shield your case. A ham can also scan some of the radio bands looking for your noise, if willing.
To check for TV interference, use a TV with rabbit ears (not cable) and check the low VHF channels (2-6). Those are the most likely to be affected. If interference is present, shut down your PC to be sure whether it is the source.
Also be aware that the noise signature of a machine will vary as a function of what it is doing. Disk access operations will change the RF compared to purely CPU based operation, so do a variety of things with the machine while checking.
Also, RF, as with any field energy, decreases as the square of the distance, so move the TV within 6 feet or so for initial checking. If you can't see a problem there, chances are no one else will, either.
The US (I'm a native) is developing a most unenviable track record in the repression of technological advances by its residents.
The notion that a supercomputer (or an encryption program) is dangerous is cold war thinking. And even during the cold war, we were trading in high tech with our "enemies" in the hope that keeping them from being too far behind might make them less disposed to bomb us.
It's time to stop conducting such stupidly silly policies. Our elected representatives need to hear from us en masse in an expression of our dissatisfaction. It won't make them change, at least not quickly, but over time, they will listen, or risk not being re-elected.
When technology is outlawed, only outlaws will have technology.
Re:model-specific installation
on
Corel Linux FAQ
·
· Score: 1
One thing that hardware vendors could do to ease the installation of Linux is to provide model-specific installation procedures.
An interesting, if impractical thought. The last time I bught an off the shelf system, it was a 386/20 from ALR (and that was pretty hot stuff!)
What is needed, is to handle much better the matter of video cards and monitors in the X configuration. It is worse than silly to expect people to look up scanning frequency limits when their monitor is not listed. Further, it is unfortunate that my monitor (Viewsonic PT771), which is listed in the install, is not properly supported. The monitor is perfectly capable of 1600x1200, as is my video card, and they both do it very well under Win98, but I seem to be limited to 1280x1024 under Linux and X.
The perms and coms of all of the hardware possibilities are admittedly too numerous to be foreseen, and specific procedures for specific systems are too simplistic.
But the reality is that it is more than sufficient to support each element independent of the others. Most hardware vendors have done a good job in their own area, and interaction among the various elements is not the cause of much difficulty.
When I see a distro handle the full range of options for each of the elements of my system, I will be more than pleased.
Why so much vitriol? And why do so many puff up self-righteously when a company makes a decision it feels is in its own best interests?
Linux has shown itself to be a very capable platform. We who would prefer not to ride the MS bus can only benefit from the continued success of Linux. Open Source is a good thing for the OS, and is essential IMHO to its continued success. It is not, however, essential that every tool which runs on the platform be open source.
Religious fervor is best kept in religious contexts, or even dispensed with altogether.
I can understand that MetroWerks may need to limit their full testing to a single distribution, for simple economic reasons. The likelihood of their tools being compatible with other major distros remains high, as long as the library levels are compatible.
The key is that they are saying they cannot certify that it will run on more than one distro. Perhaps instead of screaming in indignation, some of the energetically agitated might wish to consider that this problem will arise again and again, and that there seems to be a need for an independent certification group to resolve the problem.
Such a group, like the developers of Linux, could be staffed with volunteers. In the case of compilers, a common test suite could be assembled; for other types of tools, the testing may not need such rigor.
If the diversity of distributions is to be fostered, I think that such a group is absolutely required.
As to whether MetroWerks should be boycotted, it seems a silly thing to do. We buy tools according to our preferences. That's the beauty of a free market.
Let's try to be constructive, folks, and proactive. And let's waste less bandwidth on mindless rants and polemics.
I have finally achieved a measure of success under Linux with RHS 6. I suffered with attempts based on Yggdrasil, Slackware, and earlier releases of RHS, and on a variety of hardware combinations (all of which contained supported elements.)
If there is one thing which stands between Linux and wide acceptance on the desktop, it is the installation. If Corel can make that smooth, and if they can remove some of the painful aspects of it, they will have brought a very large improvement.
I've been programming computers for 24 years, in assembly language, in Pascal, C, and Forth, and I have found Linux installation difficult. Most packages assume that you will answer questions correctly; worse, they are not at all shielded from incorrect responses.
BeOS, on the other hand, took me just over 5 minutes to install, first time. It offers an underlying core which draws greatly on *nix, and is arguably as good at that level. The difference is that they clearly have made good decisions about how to manage installation.
As to Corel's other products, their responses about licensed code are more than credible. Read their notices in Corel Draw: there are many commercial tools folded into theirs. To attempt to offer source would be a nightmarish tangle of contract issues, if it is possible at all. And frankly, what right do we have to insist? What role have we played in its development?
Red Hat had no existence prior to Linux. They have added value only to Linux. For them to embrace open source isn't even a choice. Without open source, they wouldn't exist. Corel was built without open source. Without rising on the shoulders of others. They have earned their position in the way that we have always applauded in non-socialist countries.
Ultimately, no one is forced to buy their distribution. One of the beauties of Linux is choice. To those who would fry Corel, I say: get a life. IF they increase support for Linux; if they increase sales for Linux; if they cause the ranks of Linux users to swell, we all win!
Here is the text of the comment I submitted to the Village Voice.
Jane Dark, writing about Jon Katz's article on the alienation of geek kids in school manages to practice the currently PC brand of discrimination through which the reality of social problems is dismissed because these kids are largely white.
It is not discrimination against blacks which is wrong, nor discrimination against Hispanics, but discrimination against any social group on the basis of any social distinction. There is only one group in society against which we discriminate in full agreement: criminals.
Her well-written and engaging polemic is all the more insidious for being presented in quiet and erudite prose. Unfortunately, language skills are no proof against bigotry, and dismissing problems which result in dead school children because the problems appear to afflict only white neighborhoods is surely bigotry.
Katz was over the top in comparing the kids to holocaust survivors; even over the top in calling the kids he heard from survivors. Dark is dismissive, to the point of contempt.
The issue of importance is: how to eliminate these occurrences, without regard to demographics.
Katz was over the top; so was Dark.
The real question is what will we do about bringing back some semblance of order to our schools. When will we pull the plug on the "experiments" in teaching methods, and revert to what worked well for my generation (I'm 50) and for my parents' generation?
And when will parents finally learn that the responsibility of parenting includes regular (daily) and deep communication with their progeny? When will they learn that a TV or a computer is not an acceptable surrogate parent?
I was a social outcast in my jock-centric high school. I got through it, and never once considered perpetrating violent acts on my classmates. I did, however, spend many hours in talks with my parents about the frustration of the school, the town, and the stultifyingly narrow view of most of the population there.
Parents and family are the answer. Having kids isn't a hobby -- it's a life commitment. Why is that so difficult for some parents to grasp?
Come on, now, did anyone expect Bill to pay? Or that our government, with a perfectly miserable grasp of business realities, would make a smart move?
The only good thing for the Fed gov to do is stop messing with business, as it has NO competence in that arena, as it hastens to prove again and again.
The MS problem will resolve itself shortly, as it collapses under the weight of terminal code bloat, and the inevitable bugginess which proliferates in their inability ever to stop legacy support.
The first MS-DOS was a poor copy of CP/M, and became top-heavy very quickly, necessitating more and more re-writes, added "features" (many stolen badly from unix concepts), and in spite of all, ne ver achieved the facility of DR-DOS, which was a more than worthy competitor.
Win 1.0 was embarrassing; Win2.0 lasted on my PC about 20 minutes. Win 3.0 stayed longer, but was only a part time replacement for DOS in my work, and 3.11 was the only one which actually felt steady. NT is now my home, and the cause of my pain and anguish, both at work and at home.
My next move? BeOS, I hope.
As to breakig up: why bother? The chinks in the Redmond armor are growing daily. Besides, if business is so all-fired happy with Windoze, they can keep merrily rebooting the versions they now run.
The tape vendors always quote capacity based on 2:1 compression. This does not apply to: zips, mp3, jpg, lha, or any other compressed format.
Further, the speed is not exciting. 2MB/S is not that quick, and again assumes compressible data. For already compressed material, the rate will be 1MB/S.
DLT is better, AIT is better, and they are both well supported.
The answer we need is a good, reliable, and quick random access rewritable medium with lots of space. Pinnacle Micro has the Apex, Castlewood has the Orb, Iomega has Jaz. All are better than tape.
Also, SCSI disk solutions of every sort mean immediate support by pretty well any OS.
It is moderately amusing to see Gibson cited as relevant to anything technical. He is a technophobe opportunist whose writings have nothing to do with reality, past, present, or future, and even less relevance to the issues surrounding Open Source.
Not being an attorney, I cannot claim competence to comment on the technicalities of law, but the case as presented is as valid and as real as any other discrimination case I have ever heard. As ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violation of that law, it would not seem necessary for a licensor to restate existing law in a license agreement.
Neither, as has been stated, is it the responsibility or right of a licensor to self-deputize for the enforcement of local law. And, folks, U.S. law is local law, in the context of the planet.
U.S. policy on encryption has already damaged U.S. business, and it cannot be demonstrated to have increased U.S. security. It's past time for the U.S. to develop an intelligent foreign policy (of which export laws are a component). Meantime, licenses should reflect the valid concerns of the licensor, and not of the home country of that licensor.
As to the ultimate bottom line: If Apple chooses to word an agreement in any particular way, that is a business decision appropriate for them to make. But if it leaves them non-compliant with the terms of the OSD, then they need to stop co-opting that jargon. And after all, it is difficult to make the case that they have written the APSL for any reason but to jump on the Open Source bandwagon.
Just as cheap a tactic as their claim to have invented the personal computer.... I'm old enough to know better.
A good and thoughtful article on this has been long overdue. As I recall, the first misuse of the term hacker in it's derogatory sense was by a guy who wrote a column for Popular Electronics, of all things. A self-appointed expert from outside the community who declared himself correct, and other definitions wrong.
The popular press, never much on correct usage, loved having a special term to refer to bad guys who broke security. They should instead be referred to as crackers, or perhaps jackers (thinking of two different, but equally amusing equivalents to the activities they pursue.)
Many of us have been hackers since before the birth of many in the press. Technological arenas routinely define jargon in their areas of specialization. If we choose to formalize the meaning of hacker, it would seem to be our privilege.
When a group inspires its members to attain a high sense of ownership in any sphere of activity, there is a risk of becoming arrogant, or of appearing to be arrogant.
But then, those who criticize and report on topics in which they do not themselves create often suffer from a more dangerous arrogance: that of being superior to others without yet having to prove their own skills in comparable fashion.
It is healthy to look at ourselves and recognize that we do become arrogant. It is not healthy to let the ravings of a few detached dilettantes convince us that our own views are somehow invalidated by our pride, or even our arrogance. Being arrogant is not evidence of being wrong.
RIAA have claimed to be the friends and defenders of recording artists, but of course, they are not. These are the same wonderful people who, with their battle for copy protection on DAT, succeeded in killing that technology for home use.
Oh, and btw, Canadians will soon bay a CDN$2.50 tax per blank CD (also thanks to RIAA lobbying).
I wore Roots, which were essentially the same design. Great shoes, well made, long lasting, and comfortable as hell.
Your honey may not have worn them enough to stretch her calves. When I alternated between roots and boots, my legs never ached......maybe I will try to find some now!
Slashdot Mirror
Possibly the most stupid idea I've heard of. And of course, as we can anticipate Gates and Co. buying the ads, everyone building for other OSes will use Award or AMI.
The movie was well done, and within the limits of what can be accomplished in two hours, presented a more even-handed view of history than I expected.
For those who have not been close to the story of small computers for the last 25 years, yes, the Altair was the first to appear, and its basic complement of memory was 256 bytes.
The casting was very good, the characterizations of Gates and Jobs were very well done, and the story, having been based on the book from Freiberger and Swain, was accurate. Weighting factors might be argued, but the movie did an excellent job of showing the men behind MS and Apple, and their egos, frailties, and abusive ways.
While Apple may have dealt honestly with Xerox for what it got, they have attempted to rewrite history very heavily in their favor. I was using an Imsai 8080 in 1975, and before either the PC or the Mac appeared, had been very active with what we all referred to as personal computers. My own machine (by then a Z80) was roughly 2-3 times as fast as my first PC.
Apple didn't invent the personal computer. Neither Apple nor Microsoft invented very much, in fact, in the era shown in the film. Apple did a good job of developing Xerox technology into viable product, and both Apple and MS cloned event driven operating systems, with varying degrees of skill and success.
What impressed me most is that I found no significant errors in the film.
As to the handling of the personal lives of Gates and Jobs, I thought the film showed just enough to make clear that neither is a socially well adjusted individual.
Kudos to Turner for a film which does not fawn over the wealthy in either of these companies, nor take license to bash either beyond the realities of their respective histories.
Because a company does not embrace Stallman's philosophy does not make it bad, nor does it mean their products are doomed to failure.
The Linux growth curve is impressive, but no one is seriously anticipating the demise of NT. It would be more likely to see Novell collapse, and no one seems to be counting the days on that one, either.
Save glib fervor for religious issues.
This is terrific news, from any perspective. I'm not a gamer, but can't help drooling over the G400MAX! I hope that the drivers, once they appear, will support multi-head and composite video, as well.
Your computer will generate RFI, and very little EMI. Copper mesh will work well, and is far easier to connect to than aluminum foil. If you emit significant RF energy, you will run the risk of upsetting neighbors who are ham radio operators, or perhaps will interfere with TV reception.
If you know of any nearby hams, they can help you with practical tips on how best to shield your case. A ham can also scan some of the radio bands looking for your noise, if willing.
To check for TV interference, use a TV with rabbit ears (not cable) and check the low VHF channels (2-6). Those are the most likely to be affected. If interference is present, shut down your PC to be sure whether it is the source.
Also be aware that the noise signature of a machine will vary as a function of what it is doing. Disk access operations will change the RF compared to purely CPU based operation, so do a variety of things with the machine while checking.
Also, RF, as with any field energy, decreases as the square of the distance, so move the TV within 6 feet or so for initial checking. If you can't see a problem there, chances are no one else will, either.
The US (I'm a native) is developing a most unenviable track record in the repression of technological advances by its residents.
The notion that a supercomputer (or an encryption program) is dangerous is cold war thinking. And even during the cold war, we were trading in high tech with our "enemies" in the hope that keeping them from being too far behind might make them less disposed to bomb us.
It's time to stop conducting such stupidly silly policies. Our elected representatives need to hear from us en masse in an expression of our dissatisfaction. It won't make them change, at least not quickly, but over time, they will listen, or risk not being re-elected.
When technology is outlawed, only outlaws will have technology.
One thing that hardware vendors could do to ease the installation of Linux is to provide model-specific installation procedures.
An interesting, if impractical thought. The last time I bught an off the shelf system, it was a 386/20 from ALR (and that was pretty hot stuff!)
What is needed, is to handle much better the matter of video cards and monitors in the X configuration. It is worse than silly to expect people to look up scanning frequency limits when their monitor is not listed. Further, it is unfortunate that my monitor (Viewsonic PT771), which is listed in the install, is not properly supported. The monitor is perfectly capable of 1600x1200, as is my video card, and they both do it very well under Win98, but I seem to be limited to 1280x1024 under Linux and X.
The perms and coms of all of the hardware possibilities are admittedly too numerous to be foreseen, and specific procedures for specific systems are too simplistic.
But the reality is that it is more than sufficient to support each element independent of the others. Most hardware vendors have done a good job in their own area, and interaction among the various elements is not the cause of much difficulty.
When I see a distro handle the full range of options for each of the elements of my system, I will be more than pleased.
Why so much vitriol? And why do so many puff up self-righteously when a company makes a decision it feels is in its own best interests?
Linux has shown itself to be a very capable platform. We who would prefer not to ride the MS bus can only benefit from the continued success of Linux. Open Source is a good thing for the OS, and is essential IMHO to its continued success. It is not, however, essential that every tool which runs on the platform be open source.
Religious fervor is best kept in religious contexts, or even dispensed with altogether.
I can understand that MetroWerks may need to limit their full testing to a single distribution, for simple economic reasons. The likelihood of their tools being compatible with other major distros remains high, as long as the library levels are compatible.
The key is that they are saying they cannot certify that it will run on more than one distro. Perhaps instead of screaming in indignation, some of the energetically agitated might wish to consider that this problem will arise again and again, and that there seems to be a need for an independent certification group to resolve the problem.
Such a group, like the developers of Linux, could be staffed with volunteers. In the case of compilers, a common test suite could be assembled; for other types of tools, the testing may not need such rigor.
If the diversity of distributions is to be fostered, I think that such a group is absolutely required.
As to whether MetroWerks should be boycotted, it seems a silly thing to do. We buy tools according to our preferences. That's the beauty of a free market.
Let's try to be constructive, folks, and proactive. And let's waste less bandwidth on mindless rants and polemics.
I have finally achieved a measure of success under Linux with RHS 6. I suffered with attempts based on Yggdrasil, Slackware, and earlier releases of RHS, and on a variety of hardware combinations (all of which contained supported elements.)
If there is one thing which stands between Linux and wide acceptance on the desktop, it is the installation. If Corel can make that smooth, and if they can remove some of the painful aspects of it, they will have brought a very large improvement.
I've been programming computers for 24 years, in assembly language, in Pascal, C, and Forth, and I have found Linux installation difficult. Most packages assume that you will answer questions correctly; worse, they are not at all shielded from incorrect responses.
BeOS, on the other hand, took me just over 5 minutes to install, first time. It offers an underlying core which draws greatly on *nix, and is arguably as good at that level. The difference is that they clearly have made good decisions about how to manage installation.
As to Corel's other products, their responses about licensed code are more than credible. Read their notices in Corel Draw: there are many commercial tools folded into theirs. To attempt to offer source would be a nightmarish tangle of contract issues, if it is possible at all. And frankly, what right do we have to insist? What role have we played in its development?
Red Hat had no existence prior to Linux. They have added value only to Linux. For them to embrace open source isn't even a choice. Without open source, they wouldn't exist. Corel was built without open source. Without rising on the shoulders of others. They have earned their position in the way that we have always applauded in non-socialist countries.
Ultimately, no one is forced to buy their distribution. One of the beauties of Linux is choice. To those who would fry Corel, I say: get a life. IF they increase support for Linux; if they increase sales for Linux; if they cause the ranks of Linux users to swell, we all win!
Here is the text of the comment I submitted to the Village Voice.
Jane Dark, writing about Jon Katz's article on the alienation of geek kids in school manages to practice the currently PC brand of discrimination through which the reality of social problems is dismissed because these kids are largely white.
It is not discrimination against blacks which is wrong, nor discrimination against Hispanics, but discrimination against any social group on the basis of any social distinction. There is only one group in society against which we discriminate in full agreement: criminals.
Her well-written and engaging polemic is all the more insidious for being presented in quiet and erudite prose. Unfortunately, language skills are no proof against bigotry, and dismissing problems which result in dead school children because the problems appear to afflict only white neighborhoods is surely bigotry.
Katz was over the top in comparing the kids to holocaust survivors; even over the top in calling the kids he heard from survivors. Dark is dismissive, to the point of contempt.
The issue of importance is: how to eliminate these occurrences, without regard to demographics.
Katz was over the top; so was Dark.
The real question is what will we do about bringing back some semblance of order to our schools. When will we pull the plug on the "experiments" in teaching methods, and revert to what worked well for my generation (I'm 50) and for my parents' generation?
And when will parents finally learn that the responsibility of parenting includes regular (daily) and deep communication with their progeny? When will they learn that a TV or a computer is not an acceptable surrogate parent?
I was a social outcast in my jock-centric high school. I got through it, and never once considered perpetrating violent acts on my classmates. I did, however, spend many hours in talks with my parents about the frustration of the school, the town, and the stultifyingly narrow view of most of the population there.
Parents and family are the answer. Having kids isn't a hobby -- it's a life commitment. Why is that so difficult for some parents to grasp?
Come on, now, did anyone expect Bill to pay? Or that our government, with a perfectly miserable grasp of business realities, would make a smart move?
The only good thing for the Fed gov to do is stop messing with business, as it has NO competence in that arena, as it hastens to prove again and again.
The MS problem will resolve itself shortly, as it collapses under the weight of terminal code bloat, and the inevitable bugginess which proliferates in their inability ever to stop legacy support.
The first MS-DOS was a poor copy of CP/M, and became top-heavy very quickly, necessitating more and more re-writes, added "features" (many stolen badly from unix concepts), and in spite of all, ne ver achieved the facility of DR-DOS, which was a more than worthy competitor.
Win 1.0 was embarrassing; Win2.0 lasted on my PC about 20 minutes. Win 3.0 stayed longer, but was only a part time replacement for DOS in my work, and 3.11 was the only one which actually felt steady. NT is now my home, and the cause of my pain and anguish, both at work and at home.
My next move? BeOS, I hope.
As to breakig up: why bother? The chinks in the Redmond armor are growing daily. Besides, if business is so all-fired happy with Windoze, they can keep merrily rebooting the versions they now run.
Unreliability of Pinnacle Micro product is unknown to me: after trying for over two years to obtain an engineering sample for eval, I gave up.
The tape vendors always quote capacity based on 2:1 compression. This does not apply to: zips, mp3, jpg, lha, or any other compressed format.
Further, the speed is not exciting. 2MB/S is not that quick, and again assumes compressible data. For already compressed material, the rate will be 1MB/S.
DLT is better, AIT is better, and they are both well supported.
The answer we need is a good, reliable, and quick random access rewritable medium with lots of space. Pinnacle Micro has the Apex, Castlewood has the Orb, Iomega has Jaz. All are better than tape.
Also, SCSI disk solutions of every sort mean immediate support by pretty well any OS.
Shakespeare didn't make an opportunistic living writing of things about which he was ignorant.
It is moderately amusing to see Gibson cited as relevant to anything technical. He is a technophobe opportunist whose writings have nothing to do with reality, past, present, or future, and even less relevance to the issues surrounding Open Source.
Not being an attorney, I cannot claim competence to comment on the technicalities of law, but the case as presented is as valid and as real as any other discrimination case I have ever heard. As ignorance of the law is not an excuse for violation of that law, it would not seem necessary for a licensor to restate existing law in a license agreement.
Neither, as has been stated, is it the responsibility or right of a licensor to self-deputize for the enforcement of local law. And, folks, U.S. law is local law, in the context of the planet.
U.S. policy on encryption has already damaged U.S. business, and it cannot be demonstrated to have increased U.S. security. It's past time for the U.S. to develop an intelligent foreign policy (of which export laws are a component). Meantime, licenses should reflect the valid concerns of the licensor, and not of the home country of that licensor.
As to the ultimate bottom line: If Apple chooses to word an agreement in any particular way, that is a business decision appropriate for them to make. But if it leaves them non-compliant with the terms of the OSD, then they need to stop co-opting that jargon. And after all, it is difficult to make the case that they have written the APSL for any reason but to jump on the Open Source bandwagon.
Just as cheap a tactic as their claim to have invented the personal computer.... I'm old enough to know better.
A good and thoughtful article on this has been long overdue. As I recall, the first misuse of the term hacker in it's derogatory sense was by a guy who wrote a column for Popular Electronics, of all things. A self-appointed expert from outside the community who declared himself correct, and other definitions wrong.
The popular press, never much on correct usage, loved having a special term to refer to bad guys who broke security. They should instead be referred to as crackers, or perhaps jackers (thinking of two different, but equally amusing equivalents to the activities they pursue.)
Many of us have been hackers since before the birth of many in the press. Technological arenas routinely define jargon in their areas of specialization. If we choose to formalize the meaning of hacker, it would seem to be our privilege.
...and then there is the risk of forgetting the slash when you want to end the italics....
sorry, all
When a group inspires its members to attain a high sense of ownership in any sphere of activity, there is a risk of becoming arrogant, or of appearing to be arrogant.
But then, those who criticize and report on topics in which they do not themselves create often suffer from a more dangerous arrogance: that of being superior to others without yet having to prove their own skills in comparable fashion.
It is healthy to look at ourselves and recognize that we do become arrogant. It is not healthy to let the ravings of a few detached dilettantes convince us that our own views are somehow invalidated by our pride, or even our arrogance. Being arrogant is not evidence of being wrong.
RIAA have claimed to be the friends and defenders of recording artists, but of course, they are not. These are the same wonderful people who, with their battle for copy protection on DAT, succeeded in killing that technology for home use.
Oh, and btw, Canadians will soon bay a CDN$2.50 tax per blank CD (also thanks to RIAA lobbying).
I wore Roots, which were essentially the same design. Great shoes, well made, long lasting, and comfortable as hell.
.....maybe I will try to find some now!
Your honey may not have worn them enough to stretch her calves. When I alternated between roots and boots, my legs never ached.