BTW, calling MacOS 9, 'OS9' is rather confusing, as there is a real-time OS by that name from a company called Microware, and it has been around since before the Mac existed (like I knew people using it on Motorola 6809 processors back in the 1980 or 1981).
Trememdously good point, although that sort of thing is hard to avoid. The early Mac OS was called "System 6", which might sound to a *nix user like a new upgrade to SVR4.:)
IDE is a daughtercard standard or a programming environment, depending on what you are discussing.
Just goes to show that you gotta pay close attention to context.
Tell your friend that the pull-down menu in the upper right corner of their screen is a list of all open apps. Instead of hitting alt-tab over and over until you get what you want, just choose it from the menu. Those who insist on the "Windows" way can use ctrl-tab on newer versions of the OS, and use free third-party hacks if they have an older system.
As for older, cheaper hardware, yes. Those who want to use OS X will need to be running a G3 or better... because, among other reasons, the "Aqua" shell relies of vector graphics that are tweaked specifically for the cards of the newer macs.
On the other hand, I have found that old Macs still have a lot of life in them, even if you can't use the latest OS version. System 7.5.3 runs on almost all macs, is a free download, and works great. Most of the upgrades from 7.5 all the way to 9.0 have been minor tweaks, and improved support for the PowerPC hardware (which is of little importance to a Mac IIfx user).
PC's from that same era can run Linux, but I found little use for my old IBM 386sx... to slow to be a server, to weak to be a desktop system. If I needed another shell terminal in my house, I suppose it would be fine for that... but that's about it.
Mac OS 9 isn't going to run on the Macintosh II which had just come out in 1987
Ah, but MacOS version 8.x will, and the move from 8 to 9 was really a very incremental upgrade. (Check out lowendmac.com for tips on how to squeeze life out of old macs. They even have links for Mac ports of Linux and NetBSD)
Even using Mac OS 7.5.3 on really old systems, I have been able to run most modern apps. It's kind of fun browsing the web at DSL speeds using an old Powerbook Duo.
Compared to the MICROS~1 world, both Linux and Mac OS provide astonishing life-spans for the hardware they run on.
Linux can run just fine on 486's from 1991 which you can get for free.
Linux, yes. But I'm sure you would not want to run X on that old beast... and without something like KDE or Gnome, the entire comparison breaks down.
My point was that their comparison insisted that Linux could run on cheap hardware (true), while OS9 could not (totally false).
The truth of the matter is that a couple hundred bucks could get you a fully-functional Gnome box or a fully functional OS9 system. It really just comes down to what you want.
Of course, if this debate even matters to you, my reccomendation would be to buy the old Mac 6100, drop in a huge HD, and dual-boot with LinuxPPC!:)
What astonished me, even more that the silly, "rah-rah for our side" tone of the whole affair, was that each cheerleader seemed to be ignorant of the other system's features.
The Linux guy, talking about available games, actually bragged about Myth II (which comes from Bungee, one of the few "mac first" game developers - it was only recently that they started releasing simultanious Windows "ports"), while the Mac gal was beaming with pride over OS9's multiple user log-ins! How can anybody with a clue manage to avoid howling with laughter at how lost these "experts" are?
Another point that stuck in my craw a little bit was how the "judges" keeped insisting that Mac tech was superior, but far more expensive.
They not only ignored tasks that Linux is better suited for (servers, firwall services, multiple terminal/user hosting, etc.), but they also turned a blind eye to the fact that OS9 can run just fine on first-generation power macs from 1994, which you can easilly find for under $200.
The bottom line is that they will get a lot of web hits from the "religious nuts" of both operating systems, but the article offers very little useful information to a first-time computer buyer, and is even less useful to a user of one platform that wants to learn about the other.
I agree that it was a popular work in its time. My point was that it endures as a "must read" because the book's mesasge is very appealing to Lit. majors (and folks like us, who read a lot of novels).
There is a seductive quality to books like this... the author is basically saying, "you, Gentle Reader, are one of 'us', the smart ones. Now, sit back and absorb the harrowing tale of a world where the unenlightened masses make life miserable, so We Who Know Better can shake our heads at their folly."
Let me be clear here, I also really like F451, but I think it is healthy to be aware of the ways I am being manipulated, even when I choose to allow it.:)
Re:Up next -- Aristotle was a great philosopher
on
Fahrenheit 451
·
· Score: 1
Why is there a poorly written review of a classic scifi novel on Slashdot?
1:/. writers are not very good, although they mean well.
2: Writing book reviews is easy, and a good way to start a discussion.
3: Most/. geeks like classic sci-fi.
4: Maybe ThinkGeek is planning on offering it for sale soon.
The whole "the 1950s was status quo conformism" is pure hogwash, apparently spouted by a reviewer with very little historical background of the era...
Nice to know there are a few "old school" geeks around here.:)
The reason why this book continues to be venerated is because so many people consider it "important". Not for its influence on literature, but because its message that captures the attention of its audience. (Like other "great" science fiction of the 30's-60's, it uses the fictional setting to convey a warning about trends that frightened the author. Brave New World, 1984, Atlas Shrugged, etc. were all motivated by politics... The creative vision was a secondary consideration, and it shows. These books were written to make you think, not to make you dream.)
451 has an edge over these other works, in that it preaches to the choir as few works of art ever have. After all, it is a book about how important books are, so the audience (people who read novels) are more apt to be shaken up by this nightmare than the average Joe.
Bradbury claimed that once he had the idea for this book he was able to write the entire book in one sitting. Just like "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis, it is a story that almost writes itself, once the author invents the concept.
Perhaps because it was written so quickly, the narrative really flows. Reading this story makes for a great lazy summer afternoon. If you just recently finished pounding your way through the choppy prose of a William Gibson novel (say, "Virtual Light"), then F.451 is a great choice for something to clear the palate with (before moving on to "Idoru").
Jon is making (or attempting to make) a serious statement here about a serious problem.
What serious problem? That Ford employees want to surf the web, but don't want to pay for it?
For a company to include a computer as an employee benifit is a Good Idea. Just about everybody who reads/. already understands why it's a Good Idea.
When Mr. Katz chooses to pontificate endlessly on what a Good Idea it is (missing the real reason entirely, that companies can buy systems in bulk for less than the employees could on their own), we are not really seeing his best work.
Like I said, this is just self-indulgent wanking. A puff piece. Something that he probably wrote weeks ago and has been sitting on so he would have something to publish as a last resort while dealing with momentary writer's block.
Interesting point, but you left the consumer out of your equations...
Your basic argument was that open source is in trouble because:
Open source: Low cost, less support needed. / Close source: higher cost, more support needed.
It seems to me that if this is true, customers will continue to migrate towards the cheaper option. In the end, it may be impossible to build "the next Microsoft" using the open-source model, but if your analysis is right, the open-source companies will eventually be the only ones who survive. MICROS~1 & their ilk might also hang in there, but only by converting to the superior model and cutting the fat out of their companies.
OTOH, if this shift fails to happen in the next few years, it will be pretty compelling evidence that ESR was wrong.
Shoot... missed that glitch in the preview... sorry... trying again:
I was all set to post a detailed reply about how the hardware costs of net access are tiny (like, less than $100 of gear if you can find a garage-sale Mac); how these companies are doing it because it is a write-off and a cheap employee benifit, not out of the goodness of their hearts; how the situation in the developing world is really...
And then I thought, "why bother." After all, most/. readers know the difference between Katz's real articles, and the puff pieces like this which he cranks out when the mortgage is due (or something).
Jon, perhaps you could do us all the favor of self-moderating. In the headline of your article, just add "flamebait" to your rable-rousing Columbine stories, "real story" to your occational investigative works, and "self-indulgent, wanking crapfest" to articles like this.
I was all set to post a detailed reply about how the hardware costs of net access are tiny (like, And then I thought, "why bother." After all, most/. readers know the difference between Katz's real articles, and the puff pieces like this which he cranks out when the mortgage is due (or something).
Jon, perhaps you could do us all the favor of self-moderating. In the headline of your article, just add "flamebait" to your rable-rousing Columbine stories, "real story" to your occational investigative works, and "self-indulgent, wanking crapfest" to articles like this.
Please read the thread again. I was not talking about the point of copyright, I was talkking about the point that of the renewal fee idea.
It is a perfectly simple idea... If you are making money off a product, it is worth $100 to renew the copyright. The idea could use a little tweaking (perhaps base the renewal fee on gross sales, like it has been suggested), but I really think the concept is sound.
In the article, Nintendo said "Emulator and ROM piracy is competing head-on with Nintendo's current systems and software."
If this is true, shouldn't everybody in that company be hanging their heads in shame over the fact that many of us would rather be playing Tempest or Robotron than bothering with their latest and greatest?
If they are worried about competing with 15-year-old games that we all mastered and got bored with long ago, doesn't that lead one to think that they must be doing something very, very wrong?
If you have the skills to write a GPL app that people actually want, you probably have a day job that pays well, and can easilly swing the hundred bucks per five years to keep your "prestige" project under your name... and if you don't, the FSF or some other patron would probably be willing to pick up the tab, just for the benifit of the community.
Of course, you would be out of luck if your code was redundant and/or useless and you worked at McDonalds for a living... but isn't that the idea? To preserve copy[right,left] of viable products while letting everything else fall into public domain?
I think the $100 copyright renewal requirement is a great idea.
The music concern is valid, but we can be fairly confident that the recordings of Louis Armstrong, Muddy Waters, and The Beatles will continue to make the jump from one platform to the next, and even be preserved on the original wax whenever possible.
It is equally unlikely that any of our Great-grandchildern will be interested in listening to Falco or Whitesnake. In other words, the only music that will probably be lost to history is that which deserves it.
A quick visit to the PPI web page tells you pretty much everything you need to know about them. Their page is saturated with buzz-words like "third way" and "New Democrat". This is the language of the current power structure at the top of the Democratic Party.
I may disagree often with old-school liberals like Welstone and Ted Kennedy, but at least I can respect that they stand for something. They truely believe that the little guy would be better off if America was a little more socialist.
The "New" left, on the other hand, does not give a crap if it is capitalism, communisms, big business, small business, or whatever... as long as they are in control of it. Who benifits and who is hurt is of little importance, as long as everybody is made to bow at their altar.
It is all about power to them, and they look at the Internet with the same lust that Ceaser once looked at the barbarian lands to the north. Until we, the goths, take the fight to Rome, we will continue to be bullied.
End Rant(0)
I know many of you are a little uncomfortable with the libertarian prism that many of us on/. (and elsewhere on the web) view the world through, but there comes a time to recognize that government power is (at best) a neccessary evil, and should be limited to no more power than is absolutely essential to preserving our liberty. The requirements that the PPI would like to impose go far beyond that threshold.
A big thank-you to the earlier poster who gave a link to the House member look-up page. You can be assured that Jim Ramstad (R-MN) will be hearing from me via snail-mail this week.
Apple promised to drop the suit, which they promptly did, in return for the stock investment.
More accurately, it was in return for the stock investment and and "undisclosed" sum of money. The investment was more symbolism than anything else... Apple had just spent 4 times as much to buy NeXT, and had huge piles of money sitting in the bank.
Jobs and Gates also entered an agreement which allowed MICROS~1 to purchase other OS innovations to include in future operating systems. (This had a big impact on the development of DOS98, and other products.)
I remember Wired publishing a map of the tech companies a couple years ago that showed how all of the big players (everything from AT&T to Oracle) were all linked together by "strategic partnerships" of one sort or another... I'm talking three degrees of separation at most, and usually less than that.
For most of the high-tech world, the issue of whether any given company is a rival or a buddy depends on which department you are talking to, and when.
a reverse-engineered implementation may not work 100% and could not be trusted 100%
This comment was probably not inteded as FUD, but that was the result.
Almost every Wintel PC on the market owes its existance to Compaq, who reverse-engineered the IBM chipset in the 80's. (Back in "the day", people used the term "IBM Compatable" or "clone"... In order to obfuscate the fact that most Windows boxes were reverse-engineered copies of something, MICROS~1 usurped the term "PC", and insisted that people stop mentioning IBM when talking about Wintel systems.)
Most of "GNU/Linux" (there I said it, happy RMS?) relied on reverse-engineering to get built, too... and it is pretty solid.
Reverse engineering is hard work, but when done right it can be very successful, and sometimes will even produce a product that can be "trusted" more than the original.
Well, maybe it would be possible to "lease" a room or two on active rigs, to help defray the costs of maintaining the rig.
I'm sure every inch of those rigs is currently in use, but one could perhaps build an addition without adding much weight. The equipment and manpower required for web-hosting would not really take up that much space.
Unfortunately, like most of the more creative solutions being offered here, the costs would be huge... so there would need to be some big-money demand for uncensored service before something like this would ever happen.
What I find interesting is that there isnot , and never has been, a movement of Microsoft Zealots (other than Balmer himself... and he has an obvious bias).
People who use *nix, Macintosh, Be, and even Atari & Amiga get attatched to their systems, the way some people can get attatched to a really great snowmobile or motorcycle. We find the machines become and extention of our will, which leads to thinking of them as part of our identity. This is sometimes a good thing.
Unfortunately, some people are inherently insecure. As a result their zeal ("my favorite OS is the best!") is overshodowed by platform bigotry ("you are a moron for using an OS other than my favorite").
One endearing quality of the various OS freaks, is that they are often smart people who are aware of their delusions. It was Apple users who were the first to insist that there is a "reality distortion field" surrounding Steve Jobs at all times. In spite of this awareness, they continue to dwell in their worlds because they love their systems.
So hooray for the zealots and freaks! Think Different! Penguins are our friends! Chicks dig UNIX! Viva La Be! Of course it runs NetBSD! Down with the Evil Empire! Rah Rah Rah...
Er... you misread my post. I said that they were not quite the same. Check again.
Also, the Reformation martyrs seldom had "different" texts (or churches to burn, for that matter).
Prior to the invention of the printing press, texts were too expensive for normal folks to get their hands on, and most would-be reformers had to teach everything verbally, which meant that their message did not spread very far before they were martyred. (The word "martyr" comes from Justin Martyr, who's ashes were scattered to the wind after he was slowly killed for his rabble-rousing against the Roman Church.)
Martin Luthor had the advantage of pushing for reform in a post-Gutenberg world. He wrote everything down and proliferated his writings all over Europe... so even if they killed him, they would never manage to supress his ideas.
Come to think of it, we are kind of following in Luthor's footsteps when we mirror cphack.:)
I think you miss the point. The point is that it's the message that's being ridiculed, not the messenger.
Okay, this is turning into a very pedantic argument, so I'm not going to drag it out much further, except to say this...
That post said nothing at all to "ridicule" creationism or any other unusual beliefs. Instead, it was nothing but a bigoted comment directed at a group of people. Read it again.
If you were sitting in a bar, and made a comment about how fun it is to pick on "idiot blacks" or "idiot Jews" or even "idiot gays", you'd better know how to fight, because comments like that would probably start one.
Hmmm, my third comment on the same way-off-topic thread... looks like I have been trolled.
Slashdot Mirror
Trememdously good point, although that sort of thing is hard to avoid. The early Mac OS was called "System 6", which might sound to a *nix user like a new upgrade to SVR4. :)
IDE is a daughtercard standard or a programming environment, depending on what you are discussing.
Just goes to show that you gotta pay close attention to context.
As for older, cheaper hardware, yes. Those who want to use OS X will need to be running a G3 or better... because, among other reasons, the "Aqua" shell relies of vector graphics that are tweaked specifically for the cards of the newer macs.
On the other hand, I have found that old Macs still have a lot of life in them, even if you can't use the latest OS version. System 7.5.3 runs on almost all macs, is a free download, and works great. Most of the upgrades from 7.5 all the way to 9.0 have been minor tweaks, and improved support for the PowerPC hardware (which is of little importance to a Mac IIfx user).
PC's from that same era can run Linux, but I found little use for my old IBM 386sx... to slow to be a server, to weak to be a desktop system. If I needed another shell terminal in my house, I suppose it would be fine for that... but that's about it.
6) NextStep-like developer platform.
I agree that the Chooser should go away, but I could see getting used to the dock if it works as well as it looks like it will.
Ah, but MacOS version 8.x will, and the move from 8 to 9 was really a very incremental upgrade. (Check out lowendmac.com for tips on how to squeeze life out of old macs. They even have links for Mac ports of Linux and NetBSD)
Even using Mac OS 7.5.3 on really old systems, I have been able to run most modern apps. It's kind of fun browsing the web at DSL speeds using an old Powerbook Duo.
Compared to the MICROS~1 world, both Linux and Mac OS provide astonishing life-spans for the hardware they run on.
Linux, yes. But I'm sure you would not want to run X on that old beast... and without something like KDE or Gnome, the entire comparison breaks down.
My point was that their comparison insisted that Linux could run on cheap hardware (true), while OS9 could not (totally false).
The truth of the matter is that a couple hundred bucks could get you a fully-functional Gnome box or a fully functional OS9 system. It really just comes down to what you want.
Of course, if this debate even matters to you, my reccomendation would be to buy the old Mac 6100, drop in a huge HD, and dual-boot with LinuxPPC! :)
The Linux guy, talking about available games, actually bragged about Myth II (which comes from Bungee, one of the few "mac first" game developers - it was only recently that they started releasing simultanious Windows "ports"), while the Mac gal was beaming with pride over OS9's multiple user log-ins! How can anybody with a clue manage to avoid howling with laughter at how lost these "experts" are?
Another point that stuck in my craw a little bit was how the "judges" keeped insisting that Mac tech was superior, but far more expensive.
They not only ignored tasks that Linux is better suited for (servers, firwall services, multiple terminal/user hosting, etc.), but they also turned a blind eye to the fact that OS9 can run just fine on first-generation power macs from 1994, which you can easilly find for under $200.
The bottom line is that they will get a lot of web hits from the "religious nuts" of both operating systems, but the article offers very little useful information to a first-time computer buyer, and is even less useful to a user of one platform that wants to learn about the other.
There is a seductive quality to books like this... the author is basically saying, "you, Gentle Reader, are one of 'us', the smart ones. Now, sit back and absorb the harrowing tale of a world where the unenlightened masses make life miserable, so We Who Know Better can shake our heads at their folly."
Let me be clear here, I also really like F451, but I think it is healthy to be aware of the ways I am being manipulated, even when I choose to allow it. :)
1: /. writers are not very good, although they mean well.
2: Writing book reviews is easy, and a good way to start a discussion.
3: Most /. geeks like classic sci-fi.
4: Maybe ThinkGeek is planning on offering it for sale soon.
The whole "the 1950s was status quo conformism" is pure hogwash, apparently spouted by a reviewer with very little historical background of the era...
Nice to know there are a few "old school" geeks around here. :)
451 has an edge over these other works, in that it preaches to the choir as few works of art ever have. After all, it is a book about how important books are, so the audience (people who read novels) are more apt to be shaken up by this nightmare than the average Joe.
Bradbury claimed that once he had the idea for this book he was able to write the entire book in one sitting. Just like "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis, it is a story that almost writes itself, once the author invents the concept.
Perhaps because it was written so quickly, the narrative really flows. Reading this story makes for a great lazy summer afternoon. If you just recently finished pounding your way through the choppy prose of a William Gibson novel (say, "Virtual Light"), then F.451 is a great choice for something to clear the palate with (before moving on to "Idoru").
What serious problem? That Ford employees want to surf the web, but don't want to pay for it?
For a company to include a computer as an employee benifit is a Good Idea. Just about everybody who reads /. already understands why it's a Good Idea.
When Mr. Katz chooses to pontificate endlessly on what a Good Idea it is (missing the real reason entirely, that companies can buy systems in bulk for less than the employees could on their own), we are not really seeing his best work.
Like I said, this is just self-indulgent wanking. A puff piece. Something that he probably wrote weeks ago and has been sitting on so he would have something to publish as a last resort while dealing with momentary writer's block.
Your basic argument was that open source is in trouble because:
Open source: Low cost, less support needed. / Close source: higher cost, more support needed.
It seems to me that if this is true, customers will continue to migrate towards the cheaper option. In the end, it may be impossible to build "the next Microsoft" using the open-source model, but if your analysis is right, the open-source companies will eventually be the only ones who survive. MICROS~1 & their ilk might also hang in there, but only by converting to the superior model and cutting the fat out of their companies.
OTOH, if this shift fails to happen in the next few years, it will be pretty compelling evidence that ESR was wrong.
I was all set to post a detailed reply about how the hardware costs of net access are tiny (like, less than $100 of gear if you can find a garage-sale Mac); how these companies are doing it because it is a write-off and a cheap employee benifit, not out of the goodness of their hearts; how the situation in the developing world is really...
And then I thought, "why bother." After all, most /. readers know the difference between Katz's real articles, and the puff pieces like this which he cranks out when the mortgage is due (or something).
Jon, perhaps you could do us all the favor of self-moderating. In the headline of your article, just add "flamebait" to your rable-rousing Columbine stories, "real story" to your occational investigative works, and "self-indulgent, wanking crapfest" to articles like this.
Sound fair?
Jon, perhaps you could do us all the favor of self-moderating. In the headline of your article, just add "flamebait" to your rable-rousing Columbine stories, "real story" to your occational investigative works, and "self-indulgent, wanking crapfest" to articles like this.
Sound fair?
Please read the thread again. I was not talking about the point of copyright, I was talkking about the point that of the renewal fee idea.
It is a perfectly simple idea... If you are making money off a product, it is worth $100 to renew the copyright. The idea could use a little tweaking (perhaps base the renewal fee on gross sales, like it has been suggested), but I really think the concept is sound.
If this is true, shouldn't everybody in that company be hanging their heads in shame over the fact that many of us would rather be playing Tempest or Robotron than bothering with their latest and greatest?
If they are worried about competing with 15-year-old games that we all mastered and got bored with long ago, doesn't that lead one to think that they must be doing something very, very wrong?
Yes.
If you have the skills to write a GPL app that people actually want, you probably have a day job that pays well, and can easilly swing the hundred bucks per five years to keep your "prestige" project under your name... and if you don't, the FSF or some other patron would probably be willing to pick up the tab, just for the benifit of the community.
Of course, you would be out of luck if your code was redundant and/or useless and you worked at McDonalds for a living... but isn't that the idea? To preserve copy[right,left] of viable products while letting everything else fall into public domain?
I think the $100 copyright renewal requirement is a great idea.
It is equally unlikely that any of our Great-grandchildern will be interested in listening to Falco or Whitesnake. In other words, the only music that will probably be lost to history is that which deserves it.
A quick visit to the PPI web page tells you pretty much everything you need to know about them. Their page is saturated with buzz-words like "third way" and "New Democrat". This is the language of the current power structure at the top of the Democratic Party.
I may disagree often with old-school liberals like Welstone and Ted Kennedy, but at least I can respect that they stand for something. They truely believe that the little guy would be better off if America was a little more socialist.
The "New" left, on the other hand, does not give a crap if it is capitalism, communisms, big business, small business, or whatever... as long as they are in control of it. Who benifits and who is hurt is of little importance, as long as everybody is made to bow at their altar.
It is all about power to them, and they look at the Internet with the same lust that Ceaser once looked at the barbarian lands to the north. Until we, the goths, take the fight to Rome, we will continue to be bullied.
End Rant(0)
I know many of you are a little uncomfortable with the libertarian prism that many of us on /. (and elsewhere on the web) view the world through, but there comes a time to recognize that government power is (at best) a neccessary evil, and should be limited to no more power than is absolutely essential to preserving our liberty. The requirements that the PPI would like to impose go far beyond that threshold.
A big thank-you to the earlier poster who gave a link to the House member look-up page. You can be assured that Jim Ramstad (R-MN) will be hearing from me via snail-mail this week.
More accurately, it was in return for the stock investment and and "undisclosed" sum of money. The investment was more symbolism than anything else... Apple had just spent 4 times as much to buy NeXT, and had huge piles of money sitting in the bank.
Jobs and Gates also entered an agreement which allowed MICROS~1 to purchase other OS innovations to include in future operating systems. (This had a big impact on the development of DOS98, and other products.)
I remember Wired publishing a map of the tech companies a couple years ago that showed how all of the big players (everything from AT&T to Oracle) were all linked together by "strategic partnerships" of one sort or another... I'm talking three degrees of separation at most, and usually less than that.
For most of the high-tech world, the issue of whether any given company is a rival or a buddy depends on which department you are talking to, and when.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
This comment was probably not inteded as FUD, but that was the result.
Almost every Wintel PC on the market owes its existance to Compaq, who reverse-engineered the IBM chipset in the 80's. (Back in "the day", people used the term "IBM Compatable" or "clone"... In order to obfuscate the fact that most Windows boxes were reverse-engineered copies of something, MICROS~1 usurped the term "PC", and insisted that people stop mentioning IBM when talking about Wintel systems.)
Most of "GNU/Linux" (there I said it, happy RMS?) relied on reverse-engineering to get built, too... and it is pretty solid.
Reverse engineering is hard work, but when done right it can be very successful, and sometimes will even produce a product that can be "trusted" more than the original.
I'm sure every inch of those rigs is currently in use, but one could perhaps build an addition without adding much weight. The equipment and manpower required for web-hosting would not really take up that much space.
Unfortunately, like most of the more creative solutions being offered here, the costs would be huge... so there would need to be some big-money demand for uncensored service before something like this would ever happen.
People who use *nix, Macintosh, Be, and even Atari & Amiga get attatched to their systems, the way some people can get attatched to a really great snowmobile or motorcycle. We find the machines become and extention of our will, which leads to thinking of them as part of our identity. This is sometimes a good thing.
Unfortunately, some people are inherently insecure. As a result their zeal ("my favorite OS is the best!") is overshodowed by platform bigotry ("you are a moron for using an OS other than my favorite").
One endearing quality of the various OS freaks, is that they are often smart people who are aware of their delusions. It was Apple users who were the first to insist that there is a "reality distortion field" surrounding Steve Jobs at all times. In spite of this awareness, they continue to dwell in their worlds because they love their systems.
So hooray for the zealots and freaks! Think Different! Penguins are our friends! Chicks dig UNIX! Viva La Be! Of course it runs NetBSD! Down with the Evil Empire! Rah Rah Rah...
Also, the Reformation martyrs seldom had "different" texts (or churches to burn, for that matter).
Prior to the invention of the printing press, texts were too expensive for normal folks to get their hands on, and most would-be reformers had to teach everything verbally, which meant that their message did not spread very far before they were martyred. (The word "martyr" comes from Justin Martyr, who's ashes were scattered to the wind after he was slowly killed for his rabble-rousing against the Roman Church.)
Martin Luthor had the advantage of pushing for reform in a post-Gutenberg world. He wrote everything down and proliferated his writings all over Europe... so even if they killed him, they would never manage to supress his ideas.
Come to think of it, we are kind of following in Luthor's footsteps when we mirror cphack. :)
Okay, this is turning into a very pedantic argument, so I'm not going to drag it out much further, except to say this...
That post said nothing at all to "ridicule" creationism or any other unusual beliefs. Instead, it was nothing but a bigoted comment directed at a group of people. Read it again.
If you were sitting in a bar, and made a comment about how fun it is to pick on "idiot blacks" or "idiot Jews" or even "idiot gays", you'd better know how to fight, because comments like that would probably start one.
Hmmm, my third comment on the same way-off-topic thread... looks like I have been trolled.
Oh well.