Hm, no, OSS has never ignored M$. I mean, just look at all the software we write that is just like M$ software!
OK, I use KDE and I like KDE, but honestly, I think it would be advantegous to choose a different path and stop running after M$, because what they do isn't really that good.
People here seem to be missing the big point: That content distribution is easy on the Internet is not wrong, it's not a bug, it's a feature! Some big corps and their organizations want to control how, when and with whom we communicate, and now they can't.
However, the main reason why they are trying to control communication is that they haven't got a business model that work. What they should do, is figure out new business models that work instead of trying to pull us all back to the dark ages.
No. I wrote a long essay about this once, but rather than post it: Here's the thing: It is possible that Thales of Milet, generally regarded as the first scientist held that the earth wasn't round. This is controversial because his pupils certainly did say that Thales held the earth to be a sphere. After that, no scientist has seriously held the earth to be flat. Aristotles made several proofs for the spherical shape of the earth. The circumference of the earth was measured by very high accuracy by Erastotenes long before the birth of christ.
However, some "learned christians" held that the earth was flat in the early 4th century, before Augustine came around to reconcile Platos teachings with christianity. That was the end of flat earth among any "learned" men.
The claim that Colombus had to argue that the earth was spherical is absurd. The argument was on the distance to Japan, scholars argued that it was much too far to be travelled by ship. And guess what: They were right.
To recap, the proposed RFC suggests 7 stages in fixing a vulnerability: 1. Latent flaw. The flaw exists undiscovered. 2. Discovery. Somebody finds the flaw (the 'Reporter'). 3. Notification. The Reporter notifies the Vendor.
It usually works like that right up until step 5.
Not really.:-) What may happen there in point 2 and 3 is that a black-hat who discovers the flaw doesn't become "The Reporter". He keeps it to himself or may share it with other blackhats with the intent of using it for malicious purposes.
That's why Full Disclosure is a Good Thing[tm]: It ensures that the amount of time between discovery by blackhats (and knowledge only by blackhats) and knowledge to sysadmins is minimized. When sysadmins know, they may decide to shut down their systems. Giving Vendors another 30 days only gives blackhats 30 more days to exploit vulnerable systems. That's not a Good Thing[tm].
However, vendors should be given prior notice. How long this period should be, I have no idea (I posted a question to/. about this half a year ago, it was pending for months before it was rejected), but a fixed 30 days is much too long, I feel.
I think that the period should be shorter depending on how long blackhats may have had knowledge about it and how serious the flaw is.
Did I say that software is a right? No, I don't think I did. However, if any democratic government makes it difficult to participate in a democracy without some software, then that software must follow certain principles, or else will be undermining the foundations of democracy.
In your declaration you claim that it is necessary to use democratic rules in the use of IT as well and you conclude that therefore ".. it would almost be the duty of a democratic country to use free software".
I conclude from that, that a country that does not use Linux must be undemocratic or at least does not fulfill its democratic duties.
No, this is not a correct conclusion to draw.
However, for a democratic system to work, nobody must be excluded from participating in democratic processes. Nobody must be excluded from disseminating information, based on whether or not they can afford a specific piece of software, nobody should be forced to accept a specific software license to participate in a democracy.
Microsoft has historically, is an important principle in their business model, excluded those who do not accept their license from using systems developed by Microsoft. Whether or not this acceptable at all, may be an issue for the open market, but it certainly is not acceptable in the context of democracy.
Free Software is built on other principles, and therefore, it is better suited for governmental use. Linux is just one implementation of these principles. You are free to make another implementation, and you are free to make other implementations of the same systems. This freedom is essential to fulfil democratic duties. If Microsoft is unable to ensure these freedoms, then Microsoft products must be abandoned.
I'm going to finish an MSc in cosmology at the University of Oslo, tomorrow, and I had my share of SIMULA. It's a very nice language in many aspects, very easy to learn, you get the OOP concepts in very good. Once you understand anything, you understand OOP.
ESR gave a lecture here a couple of years ago, and after the lecture he got the text-book in SIMULA we've used in beginner's courses. Along with that, the story why we're not all speaking SIMULA was cited:
Donald Knuth visited the University of Oslo during a sabbatical in 1970, and after working with SIMULA, he liked it so much he wanted to bring it home with him. Nygaard et al said yes of course, but unfortunately, it wasn't theirs to give, as it was the Norwegian Research Council for Science and Humanities that owned the copyrights. And they said, "no, but you may purchase a license". Knuth said, of course "oh, too bad".
If this story is inaccurate, I trust somebody will correct it...:-)
A lesson to be learned is that if you protect your IP too vigorously, you are more likely to loose it all than gain anything.
SIMULA was replaced by Java here in 1996 (I think) in the beginner's course. That's after I took it. That was the final stronghold...:-)
BTW, I posted:
2002-02-05 15:30:44 A. M. Turing Awards For OOP (articles,news) (rejected)
But at the time of the submission, it wasn't posted anything on ACM's site, so I kind of understand it.
I'm just wondering why should we always be running after M$?
I'm all for free software and everything, and I actually think that a world without proprietary software would be a better world.
But, What Has Microsoft Done For Us? OK, they have spread computing out to the masses, but you bet that if M$ hadn't somebody else would.
If you asked billg around 1994 what he thought would have been great, he'd say "Interactive TV". Well, I for one am quite happy the little, narrow world of billg didn't become reality.
Really, what MS does is mostly ask their users "what do you want?" but when you ask a typewriter user what he wants, he says "I want a key to erase my mistakes", he doesn't say "I want a personal computer with advanced typesetting software". That user has no idea what that can be about.
OK, I guess I should give them a bit more credit, but not much...:-) OK,.NET may be better than anything we've ever seen, I have no idea.
I really don't see why we should be running after MS at all times. What they are making isn't that good. Unless we start focusing on building on our own ideas, all we will ever do for the future is saying "come over to Linux. It is just like Windows, but it is free! Yeah, it is free like in speech and in beer! Oh, you only care about the beer? Well, yeah, we haven't been able to implement all that MS has, because the bastards keep their APIs closed... But, I swear, Linux is sooo cool!"
So, yeah, it might be that MS has come up with the best thing to date, but unless we can come up with something even better, we might as well ly down and die.
Or emphasize the politics of software freedom.
Re:Perception of Scott vs. Amundsen in Norway
on
The Coldest March
·
· Score: 2
Something perhaps more heroic than good planning.
No argument there. I never intended to say that Amundsen was a hero. Going on expeditions like these are IMHO not heroic in the first place, it is something you do for your own enjoyment and experience.
That is what attracts me to start doing expedition-like treks anyway.
Actually, Amundsen experienced significantly different weather - he was not out on The Ice in March at all.
The point is (from what I've heard) that Scott consistently reported worse weather than Amundsen at the time where they were in the same area.
Re:Perception of Scott vs. Amundsen in Norway
on
The Coldest March
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, and to follow-up on myself, I did a search in the archives of Norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" and came up with a review of the same book. Though this review was written before the book was published, the article says that though Scott got some really nasty temperatures, it didn't last longer than that the two other guys could have made it to the next depot. Scott himself was beyond rescue, it says. Also, Amundsen made recordings of the same storms (and his data were significantly different). It casts doubts on the accuracy of Scotts data, it further says.
I guess I have to read the book.
Perception of Scott vs. Amundsen in Norway
on
The Coldest March
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
some modern writers have considered Scott's whole Antarctic experience closer to farce.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is pretty much what we here in Norway hear. Scott is portrayed as rather stupid, failing to heed advices from expeditionists much more experienced than himself, not testing his equipment, and had very little experience to foresee what would await him. Amundsen OTOH was a very cold-hearted man, but extremely efficient and a logistical genius.
One of the stories is that during some of the preliminary expeditions in Antartica, one of the teams got in serious trouble. The leader of the group successfully saved the life on one of members of the team, who had come to the brink of exhaustion. Amundsen did not like this act, it was his clearly stated opinion that everyone who signs up to one of his expeditions must be able to support himself and not delay the expedition in any way. If he is unable to follow, he must be prepared to be left to die. When the team leader did not follow this policy, Amundsen punished him by not allowing him to be on the party that went for the pole.
When I read foreign texts, it is interesting to note that Scott is portrayed as a great hero, who suffered the ultimate hardships. In Norwegian literature, there is nothing glorious about getting yourself killed. He failed, miserably. Besides, he made so many mistakes, for example, leaving the dog-sleds behind, there is really no wonder he failed. Another thing is Scott's spirituality. He put his faith in God's hands. When you're in Antarctica, this is a fatal mistake. There are no hands there but your own. Unless you realize that it is only what you can do that decides whether or not you'll live, you're doomed.
"Victory awaits him who has everything in order - luck, people call
it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time - this is called bad luck."
- Roald Amundsen (when hearing about Robert F. Scott's death)
In the spirit of this quote, those "in the know" among Norwegian mountaineers and expeditionists will not wish each other good luck. Luck isn't a part of it for these people. If you want to express support, you'll say something like "I am confident that you will successfully achieve your goals".
Amundsen was a cold-hearted man, but he had a few good points.
Well, there is still a huge difference. While it is a glacier, there are no crevasses up on the plateau, only in the glaciers arms going down valleys to the cost or the ice shelves (like Shackleton's glacier). You might want to rope up in those, but you don't up on the plateau. True, there may be exceptions, weird formations here and there, they may be dangerous in white-outs, but generally, you're pretty safe from that kind of dangers once you're up on the plateau.
(disclaimer: I'm a certified glacier guide, and I've been in lots of crevasses, but don't take this is legal advice...:-) )
The North Pole is a lot more dangerous hike than the South Pole. When you go to the North Pole, you will not have solid ground under your feet, you'll walk on ocean ice. Sometimes it breaks up, often it floats southwards, so you may well wake up one morning, finding you have drifted further away from the pole than when you went to sleep the previous evening. You must count on falling in the icy water, or you may want top walk a long way around open ocean. However, Børge Ousland, who did the first solo crossing of the ice cap (he failed to do it unsupported, though), had a suite that he used to swim across open fields between the ice flakes. Then, there are Polar Bears. You have to be on the alert, because they are probably the only species on earth that looks upon you as their natural pray. Penguins are definitately preferable, yes...:-)
Sometimes, the ice builds up to immense towers. OTOH, in Antarctica, there is colder, and the sastrugi that you may encounter can be rather vicious.
Actually, there is something about Antartica that is just very appealing to me. Not necessarily the South Pole (there are many expeditions there. If you want to do something big, though, you could try skiing there in the Winter, that would be something). But while Antarctica is appeal, the northern polar icecap seems just very, very scary. But, I guess I might change my mind about that too.
Yeah, but this statement is possibly the most important statement in the whole article. and it is the most important thing anybody can say for the acceptance of Linux in the marketplace.
The reason for that is that it takes away the reasons for the "there's nobody to blame if Linux crashes" FUD.
Great stuff! I have a few pictures, and without being a good photographer, I might as well release them.
However, you might want to look at Language Negotation. It is very useful when you develop multilingual sites. It is excellently implemented on Debian's site
I enjoyed Lego very much when I was a kid, and I think my children are going to enjoy it as well.
I haven't got any Mindstorms stuff now, however, so I really don't know how it works.
I also think this is great, but thinking about connecting to other devices, the IR builtin in RCX isn't that well suited for a robot running around without boundaries, is it?
How about Bluetooth support? If they make a Bluetooth brick that can communicate with RCX on the robot, wouldn't that be better?
Hehe, most astronomers give c in units of cm/s. Yeah. I think that is just to be annoying...:-) (OTOH, it also says a couple of things about traditionalism in astronomy)
Hehe, I have to admit that you've got a point there...:-) But most M$ users I know have at some point been unable to open a document made with M$-ware, so they may get a clue anyway...
Hm, I'm on this list that is often used to post results from races, and people keep on posting Excel files to that list, in spite of frequent complaints from more than one UNIX user.
And in spite of my frequent warnings of how easy it is to trojan a computer when you open Excel attachments. There are a few people on this list who control a lot of money, I find it hard to understand that they dare do it.
Anyway, the time will come when I'm the one to post results. I'll use Gnumeric, I think. I have been toying with the idea of actually posting a Gnumeric XML file to the list... Revenge!!!;-)
Well, I'm not going to do it just for the revenge. It has to be illustrating some point.
This got me thinking: Since Gnumeric's native file format is based on XML, it should be possible to have it sensibly parsed and displayed in a browser that does support XML, including IE, given....?
OK, so this is the question: What would it take for people to get a readable table on their browser, straight from a Gnumeric XML file?
If this would work, it would illustrate a major point: How much more flexible these products are. Those who have experienced all M$ lock-ins and unreadable documents can suddenly access a document in a format they've never heard of.
Well, I agree with most of your points, and I agree very much that software patents are Bad[tm]. But I don't think your flames towards W3C is well addressed.
Also, W3C has never pretended to be a standards body, W3C is an industry consortium. It issues Recommendations, not standards (though I admit that I usually refer to them as standards too).
Some of its Recommendations has been adopted by standards, for example, a subset of HTML 4.0 Strict has been adopted by ISO, known as ISO-HTML.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I use KDE and I like KDE, but honestly, I think it would be advantegous to choose a different path and stop running after M$, because what they do isn't really that good.
However, the main reason why they are trying to control communication is that they haven't got a business model that work. What they should do, is figure out new business models that work instead of trying to pull us all back to the dark ages.
No. I wrote a long essay about this once, but rather than post it: Here's the thing: It is possible that Thales of Milet, generally regarded as the first scientist held that the earth wasn't round. This is controversial because his pupils certainly did say that Thales held the earth to be a sphere. After that, no scientist has seriously held the earth to be flat. Aristotles made several proofs for the spherical shape of the earth. The circumference of the earth was measured by very high accuracy by Erastotenes long before the birth of christ.
However, some "learned christians" held that the earth was flat in the early 4th century, before Augustine came around to reconcile Platos teachings with christianity. That was the end of flat earth among any "learned" men.
The claim that Colombus had to argue that the earth was spherical is absurd. The argument was on the distance to Japan, scholars argued that it was much too far to be travelled by ship. And guess what: They were right.
Not really.
That's why Full Disclosure is a Good Thing[tm]: It ensures that the amount of time between discovery by blackhats (and knowledge only by blackhats) and knowledge to sysadmins is minimized. When sysadmins know, they may decide to shut down their systems. Giving Vendors another 30 days only gives blackhats 30 more days to exploit vulnerable systems. That's not a Good Thing[tm].
However, vendors should be given prior notice. How long this period should be, I have no idea (I posted a question to
I think that the period should be shorter depending on how long blackhats may have had knowledge about it and how serious the flaw is.
Congratulations! This is just so sweet!
Did I say that software is a right? No, I don't think I did. However, if any democratic government makes it difficult to participate in a democracy without some software, then that software must follow certain principles, or else will be undermining the foundations of democracy.
No, this is not a correct conclusion to draw.
However, for a democratic system to work, nobody must be excluded from participating in democratic processes. Nobody must be excluded from disseminating information, based on whether or not they can afford a specific piece of software, nobody should be forced to accept a specific software license to participate in a democracy.
Microsoft has historically, is an important principle in their business model, excluded those who do not accept their license from using systems developed by Microsoft. Whether or not this acceptable at all, may be an issue for the open market, but it certainly is not acceptable in the context of democracy.
Free Software is built on other principles, and therefore, it is better suited for governmental use. Linux is just one implementation of these principles. You are free to make another implementation, and you are free to make other implementations of the same systems. This freedom is essential to fulfil democratic duties. If Microsoft is unable to ensure these freedoms, then Microsoft products must be abandoned.
ESR gave a lecture here a couple of years ago, and after the lecture he got the text-book in SIMULA we've used in beginner's courses. Along with that, the story why we're not all speaking SIMULA was cited:
Donald Knuth visited the University of Oslo during a sabbatical in 1970, and after working with SIMULA, he liked it so much he wanted to bring it home with him. Nygaard et al said yes of course, but unfortunately, it wasn't theirs to give, as it was the Norwegian Research Council for Science and Humanities that owned the copyrights. And they said, "no, but you may purchase a license". Knuth said, of course "oh, too bad".
If this story is inaccurate, I trust somebody will correct it... :-)
A lesson to be learned is that if you protect your IP too vigorously, you are more likely to loose it all than gain anything.
SIMULA was replaced by Java here in 1996 (I think) in the beginner's course. That's after I took it. That was the final stronghold... :-)
BTW, I posted:
2002-02-05 15:30:44 A. M. Turing Awards For OOP (articles,news) (rejected)
But at the time of the submission, it wasn't posted anything on ACM's site, so I kind of understand it.
I'm all for free software and everything, and I actually think that a world without proprietary software would be a better world.
But, What Has Microsoft Done For Us? OK, they have spread computing out to the masses, but you bet that if M$ hadn't somebody else would.
If you asked billg around 1994 what he thought would have been great, he'd say "Interactive TV". Well, I for one am quite happy the little, narrow world of billg didn't become reality.
Really, what MS does is mostly ask their users "what do you want?" but when you ask a typewriter user what he wants, he says "I want a key to erase my mistakes", he doesn't say "I want a personal computer with advanced typesetting software". That user has no idea what that can be about.
OK, I guess I should give them a bit more credit, but not much... :-) OK, .NET may be better than anything we've ever seen, I have no idea.
I really don't see why we should be running after MS at all times. What they are making isn't that good. Unless we start focusing on building on our own ideas, all we will ever do for the future is saying "come over to Linux. It is just like Windows, but it is free! Yeah, it is free like in speech and in beer! Oh, you only care about the beer? Well, yeah, we haven't been able to implement all that MS has, because the bastards keep their APIs closed... But, I swear, Linux is sooo cool!"
So, yeah, it might be that MS has come up with the best thing to date, but unless we can come up with something even better, we might as well ly down and die.
Or emphasize the politics of software freedom.
No argument there. I never intended to say that Amundsen was a hero. Going on expeditions like these are IMHO not heroic in the first place, it is something you do for your own enjoyment and experience.
That is what attracts me to start doing expedition-like treks anyway.
The point is (from what I've heard) that Scott consistently reported worse weather than Amundsen at the time where they were in the same area.
I guess I have to read the book.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is pretty much what we here in Norway hear. Scott is portrayed as rather stupid, failing to heed advices from expeditionists much more experienced than himself, not testing his equipment, and had very little experience to foresee what would await him. Amundsen OTOH was a very cold-hearted man, but extremely efficient and a logistical genius.
One of the stories is that during some of the preliminary expeditions in Antartica, one of the teams got in serious trouble. The leader of the group successfully saved the life on one of members of the team, who had come to the brink of exhaustion. Amundsen did not like this act, it was his clearly stated opinion that everyone who signs up to one of his expeditions must be able to support himself and not delay the expedition in any way. If he is unable to follow, he must be prepared to be left to die. When the team leader did not follow this policy, Amundsen punished him by not allowing him to be on the party that went for the pole.
When I read foreign texts, it is interesting to note that Scott is portrayed as a great hero, who suffered the ultimate hardships. In Norwegian literature, there is nothing glorious about getting yourself killed. He failed, miserably. Besides, he made so many mistakes, for example, leaving the dog-sleds behind, there is really no wonder he failed. Another thing is Scott's spirituality. He put his faith in God's hands. When you're in Antarctica, this is a fatal mistake. There are no hands there but your own. Unless you realize that it is only what you can do that decides whether or not you'll live, you're doomed.
In the spirit of this quote, those "in the know" among Norwegian mountaineers and expeditionists will not wish each other good luck. Luck isn't a part of it for these people. If you want to express support, you'll say something like "I am confident that you will successfully achieve your goals".
Amundsen was a cold-hearted man, but he had a few good points.
Thanks! English is not my native tongue, so sometimes things get a little messy. Yep, you're right, that's what I meant... :-)
(disclaimer: I'm a certified glacier guide, and I've been in lots of crevasses, but don't take this is legal advice... :-) )
Actually, there is something about Antartica that is just very appealing to me. Not necessarily the South Pole (there are many expeditions there. If you want to do something big, though, you could try skiing there in the Winter, that would be something). But while Antarctica is appeal, the northern polar icecap seems just very, very scary. But, I guess I might change my mind about that too.
The reason for that is that it takes away the reasons for the "there's nobody to blame if Linux crashes" FUD.
However, you might want to look at Language Negotation. It is very useful when you develop multilingual sites. It is excellently implemented on Debian's site
See also the babel site
I also think this is great, but thinking about connecting to other devices, the IR builtin in RCX isn't that well suited for a robot running around without boundaries, is it?
How about Bluetooth support? If they make a Bluetooth brick that can communicate with RCX on the robot, wouldn't that be better?
Hehe, most astronomers give c in units of cm/s. Yeah. I think that is just to be annoying... :-) (OTOH, it also says a couple of things about traditionalism in astronomy)
Great stuff! Have anybody written a suitable stylesheet? That occurs to me as a nice thing to have available for this purpose.
Hehe, I have to admit that you've got a point there... :-) But most M$ users I know have at some point been unable to open a document made with M$-ware, so they may get a clue anyway...
Anyway, the time will come when I'm the one to post results. I'll use Gnumeric, I think. I have been toying with the idea of actually posting a Gnumeric XML file to the list... Revenge!!! ;-)
Well, I'm not going to do it just for the revenge. It has to be illustrating some point.
This got me thinking: Since Gnumeric's native file format is based on XML, it should be possible to have it sensibly parsed and displayed in a browser that does support XML, including IE, given....?
OK, so this is the question: What would it take for people to get a readable table on their browser, straight from a Gnumeric XML file?
If this would work, it would illustrate a major point: How much more flexible these products are. Those who have experienced all M$ lock-ins and unreadable documents can suddenly access a document in a format they've never heard of.
Also, W3C has never pretended to be a standards body, W3C is an industry consortium. It issues Recommendations, not standards (though I admit that I usually refer to them as standards too). Some of its Recommendations has been adopted by standards, for example, a subset of HTML 4.0 Strict has been adopted by ISO, known as ISO-HTML.