Giving directions should be a lesson to coders and developers in general.
Turn left (North) on 16th street (Starbucks on the corner)
Go 1.5 miles (about three minutes) to Broadway (Shell Station) and turn left (West)....
The problem is that people tend to give directions one way, or another, but not both. Both is always better, even for those that tend to work one way better than another.
I don't mind obfuscated code, if it is well documented as to what it does. It can be more efficient way to get something done.
The some of the best coders make some of the worst documenters, because they think everyone should think like them.
source doesn't appear likely. So, if the source isn't available, we whine!
This is one of those very annoying parts of the whole Open Source Movement, the whining. Good Idea, no source = whine.
Code it yourself, and give your work away. Stop whining, please. It doesn't do the community any good when you whine.
Seriously, if the code isn't open and it isn't going to be, start your own, and stop whining. It would be so much better if we stopped whining and posting the whines to slashdot and started to code.
One of the side benefits of this (coding a good idea like this) would be that no company would dare release beta code, if it knew that the OSS version was on the way.
OLPC is useless as a computer. I'm a geek, and one of my colleague's got one, and as far as I could tell, it was mostly useless.
The problem was, assuming the person didn't know anything about computers (reasonable given the target audience), there were no way to figure out how to get anything done. Not that I could figure out, and I'm a geek.
Maybe I'm not geeky enough after 25 years in the business.
Giving someone a complex piece of technology without instructions is stupid, and useless. I suspect that these will become fancy paperweights for teachers.
Also, their "thumper" server has 48 drives in it. Would you want to pay around $1000 per drive to fill that up? Yes. If performance dictated it was necessary.
Just because you don't want to, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't want to also.
All Data is touched by Humans, so that is a specious argument.
Data that is massaged by humans to get a certain result is tainted. Which is one of the flaws of PageRank system. I didn't say PageRank was perfect, just about as good as it gets.
The point is, whenever someone learns how to game the system, it will end up like when PageRank gets exploited by irrelevant websites pointing to each other.
I prefer a system where gaming the system is less likely. The approach here is to actually game the system.
I'm pretty sure you don't know how Page Rank works.
From Wikipedia.....
PageRank is a link analysis algorithm that assigns a numerical weighting to each element of a hyperlinked set of documents The results are based on an algorithm, not human manipulation. While PageRank isn't perfect, it is still about as good as anything else out there.
as well as spotlight specific searches or even delete a site from the search results, a change which affects everyone who conducts that search in the future." Anyone else see anything wrong with this?
I want my results to be as agnostic as humanly possible, which means keep human hands out of my results.
The problem with this type of search is that those with agendas will control the results. While I may like the agenda or support it, I don't want to limit what I see to just my POV. There are too many people who can't think beyond their own little world.
I don't want Scientologists skewing results. I don't want Bush Bashers skewing the results anymore than Obama Haters. I don't want KKK results being skewed up or down because of an agenda (or two).
I want to see Huffington Posts along with Michael Savage. The moment someone starts monkeying the results, the agnostic nature of searches goes away, and the search will become useless to me.
Actually, you have it mostly right, but slightly off. RMS wanted the printer to do something it wasn't designed to do, print extra pages and send messages through the network to the users.
While RMS is fully capable of programming a printer to do this, and prove it could be useful, it also proved that the printer could be easily hacked for nefarious uses as well. If RMS could change the code on the printer, then anyone who had access to the printer could. If anyone could, someone would, and the result would be bricked printers, or printers spewing spam or whatever uncontrollably.
Would you like a printer that anyone on the network could change the code? And if not, how would you prevent nefarious hacking of the printer?
You see, if a hacker can hack it, so can a cracker. Thanks but no thanks.
so, basically you're saying "boo hoo. Its too hard. I want it handed to me on a platter"
Thanks, but no thanks. That kind of attitude is what kept OO.org on the back end for so long. That kind of attitude isn't needed in Open Source. That Kind of attitude slows down Open Source Development.
Good! Let Tivo write their own OS if they want to dictate how it may be used. Thank you for proving that it isn't about "open and free", and that GPL3 is about controlling people's use. You just made my case for me, unwittingly or on purpose.
The same is true of the GPLv3, of course. You don't have to ask anyone's "permission", you just have to abide by the terms of the license if you distribute the code - same as you did under GPLv2, except those terms are now slightly different. "slightly"? Hardly "slightly"! No longer is it about freeing the code so that it remains and all changes can be applied back to the original tree, now it is about dictating how, when and who can run the code. That is a substantial change.
As best as I understand it, you'd be perfectly correct here. The update to GPLv3 is *not* about improving the code, it is about ensuring that users can still use the code after it's been changed, i.e. guaranteeing freedom to use. Tell me, exactly what prevented anyone from running modified code distributed by Tivo? I realize that you might not be able to run the code on the Tivo, but that isn't exactly what I was asking.
Which brings me to the point you made...
effective use Who gets to define effective use. It isn't about the code any longer at that point, it is about use, which is exactly my problem with GPL3.
GPL3 is no longer about code, and making it better; it is about who, what and where one can use the code. You've just proven it.
If by "RMS doesn't like" you mean "subvert the intended goals of the GPL", then I agree with your prediction. Is that supposed to be a surprise? Tell me exactly where Tivo (good example) restricted the code's (use, distribution or modification)?
The only restriction was you couldn't do it on a Tivo. Boo Hoo. Make your own Tivo-like device, using the same software. You have the code, it shouldn't be too hard.
But noooooo, that isn't good enough. RMS and people like him think they know better than everyone else, and want to dictate their terms. Well guess what, people are going to stop using stuff if they can't use it the way they want.
The end result is that people are going to stop using GPL3 software, because they aren't going to run to RMS to ask his permission. With GPL2, the conditions were simple, and nobody needed permission to use anything. Only thing that mattered was the code.
Don't like Tivo cause you can't "hack" it? Then don't buy one. Build your own instead, using the EXACT SAME GPL software Tivo uses. How come this isn't good enough for people like RMS is beyond me.
"Here is this software I've written, you can use and modify it all you want, but if you distribute it, you need to guarantee the same level of freedom to those who receive the software that you have received". GPL2 was about the code, not who or what or how it was used. The GPL said if you make changes, and distribute the code, distribute the changes as well. It was to benefit the community by making sure that the code was being improved, would be given back to the community.
Something changed in GPL3, where code becomes almost secondary to how the code is used. It no longer cares about the code, or changes to it. It cares more about who, how, and what it is being used for.
No matter if you agree with the changes or not, you have to admit that the changes have nothing to do with improving the code, because GPL2 already handled this perfectly fine.
The changes have nothing to do with improving the code, which makes the changes philosophical, and restrictive.
Actually the GPL was about building and making available better code. Period.
It was a simple philosophy that actually created some awesome software. The changes to the GPL in v3 aren't about making the code better, but how some nanny wants to control how the code is used. And not a single restriction will build a better piece of code.
This isn't about control of software, it is about control of people. Don't be mistaken about what the GPL3 is about.
If you don't like GPL3 code, simply fork the GPL2 coded version, and use it. GPL3 certainly resticts you from using GPL3 code in certain ways, because someone has a philosophical viewpoint different than yours.
I'll personally never support GPL3 code or use it for anything I create. GPL2 code had some restrictions that was designed to build better code, and that was acceptable. Many(if not most) of the changes in the GPL3 license will not build a single line of better code, but rather are only about philosophical differences in how the code should be used (or not used).
This is clear from all the discussions leading up to the release of the GLPv3.
The GPL definitely has no problem with people using software to generate wealth. No but RMS certainly does, and it shows up in GPL3.
Many of the newer restrictions put in between GPL2 and GPL3 were due to this little factoid, namely Tivo using GPL2 software in a way that RMS didn't like, and making money off of it.
Plenty of people use GPL2 software in ways that are distasteful, however, the only ones being protested against (via GPL3) are commercial. I wonder why!
Slashdot Mirror
Giving directions should be a lesson to coders and developers in general.
....
Turn left (North) on 16th street (Starbucks on the corner)
Go 1.5 miles (about three minutes) to Broadway (Shell Station) and turn left (West)
The problem is that people tend to give directions one way, or another, but not both. Both is always better, even for those that tend to work one way better than another.
I don't mind obfuscated code, if it is well documented as to what it does. It can be more efficient way to get something done.
The some of the best coders make some of the worst documenters, because they think everyone should think like them.
This is one of those very annoying parts of the whole Open Source Movement, the whining. Good Idea, no source = whine.
Code it yourself, and give your work away. Stop whining, please. It doesn't do the community any good when you whine.
Seriously, if the code isn't open and it isn't going to be, start your own, and stop whining. It would be so much better if we stopped whining and posting the whines to slashdot and started to code.
One of the side benefits of this (coding a good idea like this) would be that no company would dare release beta code, if it knew that the OSS version was on the way.
Now, get back to coding!
I'm serious. I'm not sure what "learning" the OLPC is trying to get the kids to do?
Learning how something otherwise useless works, is
OLPC is useless as a computer. I'm a geek, and one of my colleague's got one, and as far as I could tell, it was mostly useless.
The problem was, assuming the person didn't know anything about computers (reasonable given the target audience), there were no way to figure out how to get anything done. Not that I could figure out, and I'm a geek.
Maybe I'm not geeky enough after 25 years in the business.
Giving someone a complex piece of technology without instructions is stupid, and useless. I suspect that these will become fancy paperweights for teachers.
Question Everything!
It breeds skepticism, naturally. It also makes sure that everyone's reasons for doing things are clear all the time.
Its also why three year olds are annoying!
Is it me, or does 16 TB of Ram not seem so large?
Nina Doesn't go down on anyone!
Really? They're just trying to win back some fans that have long since written them off for their hatred of their fans.
He is mistaken. This is the year of the Laptop Linux!
Desktop Linux isn't scheduled for release yet. Perhaps next year.
We already have more than two layers.
Registers, on chip cache, off chip cache, Ram, Flash, HD, LongTerm Low Volatility (tape, CD/DVD etc)
Just because you don't want to, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't want to also.
All Data is touched by Humans, so that is a specious argument.
Data that is massaged by humans to get a certain result is tainted. Which is one of the flaws of PageRank system. I didn't say PageRank was perfect, just about as good as it gets.
The point is, whenever someone learns how to game the system, it will end up like when PageRank gets exploited by irrelevant websites pointing to each other.
I prefer a system where gaming the system is less likely. The approach here is to actually game the system.
From Wikipedia
I want my results to be as agnostic as humanly possible, which means keep human hands out of my results.
The problem with this type of search is that those with agendas will control the results. While I may like the agenda or support it, I don't want to limit what I see to just my POV. There are too many people who can't think beyond their own little world.
I don't want Scientologists skewing results. I don't want Bush Bashers skewing the results anymore than Obama Haters. I don't want KKK results being skewed up or down because of an agenda (or two).
I want to see Huffington Posts along with Michael Savage. The moment someone starts monkeying the results, the agnostic nature of searches goes away, and the search will become useless to me.
Actually, you have it mostly right, but slightly off. RMS wanted the printer to do something it wasn't designed to do, print extra pages and send messages through the network to the users.
While RMS is fully capable of programming a printer to do this, and prove it could be useful, it also proved that the printer could be easily hacked for nefarious uses as well. If RMS could change the code on the printer, then anyone who had access to the printer could. If anyone could, someone would, and the result would be bricked printers, or printers spewing spam or whatever uncontrollably.
Would you like a printer that anyone on the network could change the code? And if not, how would you prevent nefarious hacking of the printer?
You see, if a hacker can hack it, so can a cracker. Thanks but no thanks.
Thanks, but no thanks. That kind of attitude is what kept OO.org on the back end for so long. That kind of attitude isn't needed in Open Source. That Kind of attitude slows down Open Source Development. Good! Let Tivo write their own OS if they want to dictate how it may be used. Thank you for proving that it isn't about "open and free", and that GPL3 is about controlling people's use. You just made my case for me, unwittingly or on purpose. The same is true of the GPLv3, of course. You don't have to ask anyone's "permission", you just have to abide by the terms of the license if you distribute the code - same as you did under GPLv2, except those terms are now slightly different. "slightly"? Hardly "slightly"! No longer is it about freeing the code so that it remains and all changes can be applied back to the original tree, now it is about dictating how, when and who can run the code. That is a substantial change.
Thanks for making my day!
GPL License restricts the freedom of those who restrict freedom: Thus would apply to itself, restricting itself, and nullifying itself in the process.
(There is geek humor in there somewhere)
Which brings me to the point you made
GPL3 is no longer about code, and making it better; it is about who, what and where one can use the code. You've just proven it.
The only restriction was you couldn't do it on a Tivo. Boo Hoo. Make your own Tivo-like device, using the same software. You have the code, it shouldn't be too hard.
But noooooo, that isn't good enough. RMS and people like him think they know better than everyone else, and want to dictate their terms. Well guess what, people are going to stop using stuff if they can't use it the way they want.
The end result is that people are going to stop using GPL3 software, because they aren't going to run to RMS to ask his permission. With GPL2, the conditions were simple, and nobody needed permission to use anything. Only thing that mattered was the code.
Don't like Tivo cause you can't "hack" it? Then don't buy one. Build your own instead, using the EXACT SAME GPL software Tivo uses. How come this isn't good enough for people like RMS is beyond me.
Don't tell me the code isn't free. It is.
Something changed in GPL3, where code becomes almost secondary to how the code is used. It no longer cares about the code, or changes to it. It cares more about who, how, and what it is being used for.
No matter if you agree with the changes or not, you have to admit that the changes have nothing to do with improving the code, because GPL2 already handled this perfectly fine.
The changes have nothing to do with improving the code, which makes the changes philosophical, and restrictive.
Actually the GPL was about building and making available better code. Period.
It was a simple philosophy that actually created some awesome software. The changes to the GPL in v3 aren't about making the code better, but how some nanny wants to control how the code is used. And not a single restriction will build a better piece of code.
This isn't about control of software, it is about control of people. Don't be mistaken about what the GPL3 is about.
If you don't like GPL3 code, simply fork the GPL2 coded version, and use it. GPL3 certainly resticts you from using GPL3 code in certain ways, because someone has a philosophical viewpoint different than yours.
I'll personally never support GPL3 code or use it for anything I create. GPL2 code had some restrictions that was designed to build better code, and that was acceptable. Many(if not most) of the changes in the GPL3 license will not build a single line of better code, but rather are only about philosophical differences in how the code should be used (or not used).
This is clear from all the discussions leading up to the release of the GLPv3.
Many of the newer restrictions put in between GPL2 and GPL3 were due to this little factoid, namely Tivo using GPL2 software in a way that RMS didn't like, and making money off of it.
Plenty of people use GPL2 software in ways that are distasteful, however, the only ones being protested against (via GPL3) are commercial. I wonder why!