USA may be in decline
on
The Almighty Buck
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This is not pleasant for many people to hear, but there are signs that the USA may be in decline. The 20th Century was the American century, and what do we see in the first year of the 21st Century? September 11. The Roman Empire did not fall to a single enemy, but to successful waves of attacks from "barbarians" from east of its border (the strongest being the Huns). Strong nations decline due to being worn out by external factors.
Bin Laden will be remebered in history as a terrorist and no more, but he at least shows the existence of the "barbarians" to America. These enemies will not be able to conquer America, but they, like the barbarians, can wear America out. The USA's policy toward the Islamic world does not address the "production" of these bin Ladens, so there will be more bin Ladens to drain America's energy for a long time to come.
We already see the changes inside the USA due to September 11. This new Dept. of Homeland Security will be a massive government organ and take over many agencies who previously focus on more "peace time" tasks but now turns to security matters above everything else. The internal orientation is changing. USA will be more like a police state. There will be more overhead on productivity and creativity. The previous "free" environment is in decline.
History may not always repeat itself, and the USA does not have to follow the cycles of nations. But it needs the right policy to resolve the root causes of the productions of the external threats, and so far there are no signs the USA is addressing these anti-American feelings in the Middle East. America is trying to build the dam higher to block the water rather than to open channels to let the water flow through without harm. This does not look good.
Battle at the Pentagon? It is indeed the time the Empire is Striking Back with all its might. The fall of Microsoft does not seem to be so distant any more...
California highway signs really suck
on
Hacking the Highways
·
· Score: 2, Offtopic
California has a good highway system but the highway signage really suck. Errors, omissions, inconsistency and signs too small are common problems. For example, in the interchange of Freeway Interstate Five (Golden State Freeway) with Fourth Street right outside downtown Los Angeles, two signs show the direction to Los Angeles in opposite directions, and neither is right. (It goes like this:
If you drive on 4th Street from east of Freeway 5, driving westwards toward the freeway interchange, you first see (two arrows, one points up, the other points right):
^
|| Santa Ana
I-5
Los Angeles =>
where "Los Angeles" points to the entrance of North I-5 on the right hand side.
And then after you pass that entrance continuing on 4th Street, crossing under the freeway bridge, you see the sign for the second entrance to South I-5 on the left hand side (the arrow points left):
/
= Los Angeles
\
SOUTH I-5
So there are two signs, pointing in opposite directions and contradicting each other, all showing the way to Los Angeles! But neither is right, because the way to Los Angeles is to go straight on 4th Street. From there you don't need to enter the freeway to go to Los Angeles downtown.)
The error has been there for at least three years and no one is fixing it. No doubt people take matter into their own hands.
It is worth pointing out here that, as mentioned in the linked yahoo story (also appeaing in news.com), Microsoft's corporate vice president in charge of the innards of Windows, Rob Short, has been questioned over the CIFS license issue by the states' lawyers. It is interesting to see what kind of impact will the anti-GPL CIFS license have in the outcome of the trial.
Gates claims today Microsoft's efforts to open its APIs and protocols to developers, so they can develop programs that interoperate with Windows, are enough.
Then the nine states should question Gates over the recently publicized CIFS license incident, asking him why are GPL developers excluded?
Bill Gates puts a lot of emphasis on the protection of Microsoft's intellectual property and how the nine states' rememdies will "force" Microsoft to give its IP to competitors. Gates is using essentially the same arguments to defend itself in the trial and attacks on the GPL--the need to protect Microsoft's "innovation." Gates is projecting his own interests to be the interests of the world.
The new judge should see Bill Gates' self-centered ego, like Judge Jackson who thought Gates has a Napoleon-like mentality.
Wonder when will Microsoft begin to claim the nine states are "intellectual property destroyers" or are conspiring with Richard Stallman against Microsoft...
While you can dismiss Bill Gates' words, things are not that simple. Microsoft is, in addition to FUD, taking legal steps to attack Free Software. The recent CIFS license is an example, and more may be coming. Microsoft can attack with patents and "technical standards", and that can significantly impact Free Software. We can dismiss the FUD, but we cannot ignore Microsoft--we need to watch their every move. This is a war.
The official Chinese history, taught in schools, show that the Ming Dynasty's fleets did reach Southeast and South Asia, Arabia and East Africa, but that was as far as they went. There is no doubt that the Ming had the technology to go to West Africa or even "discovered" Western Europe for China, but going across an ocean like the Pacific or the Atlantic may be questionable. (Note the Ming routes were mainly along coasts known to the Chinese people)
It would be great that China discovered America, but the Chinese people do not claim something that cannot be supported. And remember, it is a Englishman, not a Chinese, who makes this claim.
What you provided only refers to that GNU wants to put emphasis on freedom, but GNU never says the practical benefits must be hidden away and not referred to. To de-emphasize something is not the same as to hide something.
One thing that has always puzzled me since the OSS-FS "divorce", was the insistence by GNU that the benefits of Free Software must be hushed up, hidden away and never referred to.
Where or when did GNU say this? Please provide proof.
In the article, Lawrence Lessig calls Richard Stallman "the philosopher of our age." Only if the majority of the community can look beyond "GNU/Linux", "GPL sucks," etc. and see the deeper issues as Professor Lessig does...
NeWS was an advanced, Postscript-based network windowing system develped at Sun that was later dropped as a product in the late 1980s. NeWS contained advanced technologies that many people still praise today. Is there any possibility that Sun will release source code of NeWS under a free software/open source license? That should be a great contribution to the community.
Well, not exactly a resource on how to design a windowing system, but it may lead you to other pages with information on the details of windowing system implementations (especially note the alternative windowing systems)
RMS may like control, but look at this case we can see Drepper is the one with a bigger ego than RMS. Let's look at the facts:
1. RMS is accused of taking over the control of a GNU project. Not mentioning that RMS probably started the glibc project and contributed code in earlier years, how has RMS tried to control glibc? Does RMS decide, say, how glibc should be written? I don't see that. Drepper is in full technical control.
2. The only place where Drepper is unhappy about seems to be the "GNU/Linux" mentioning in LGPL 2.1. Otherwise LGPL 2.1 and 2.0 are about the same. The licenses give the same rights to users. Drepper makes a big deal out of a naming issue which is not even part of the actual license requirements. And glibc being a GNU Project, switching to LGPL 2.1 seems ony natural. Just a routine step.
3. Drepper seems unhappy about the creation of a SC. He accuses the SC was an attempt to steal the project. From him. Now, who is the one wanting control here? The SC is a more democratic way to run a project than a single maintainer. At least the other contributors have more say than letting Drepper decide everything.
4. Drepper wants control, which can be seen by his handling of the gcc 3 issue. Drepper disagreed with gcc developers (many of them) on certain technical issues over gcc 3. He once declared he would never accept patches to make glibc capable of being built with gcc 3. Despite other glibc contributors' attempts to find a solution, he just says, "NO, I won't accept any patches". This issue does not involve RMS at all, and Drepper just goes against many gcc developers, who are perhaps some of the smartest compiler people in the world. It is hard to say that Drepper is right and all these gcc people are wrong.
RMS may like control, but in this story Drepper is more of a control freak and has a bigger ego.
The IBM PC-compatibles owe their dominance to the hardworking, energetic people of Taiwan, Republic of China. While Taiwan's economy took off, Taiwan also provided the actual manufacturing of low-cost machines to flood the market. While Taiwan is not known for its own brands, the majority of PC companies sold products MIT or "made in Taiwan." A small island provided the essentual foundation (common components) to enable many companies, large and small, to sell essentially the same products under different names and the competition keeps the price in check, so PC can beat the alternative architectures and be affordable for the common people.
Whether it's a good thing, that Amigas, Ataris, etc. lost out because they cannot compete with the PC clones made in Taiwan, cost wise, is a matter of debate.
Mundie describes the software world as an ecosystem. But he failes to mention that one, and only one, species, Microsoft, dominates the ecosystem. The very barrier to a healthy ecosystem, with diversty, is the monopoly position of Microsoft.
We can always reverse engineer it. But as always with the products of Microsoft, they can start revisions a step ahead of us, and what we have will always be a generation behind. We need more effective solutions. We need to take over the initiative.
GPL is the disruptive technology that is reshaping the software world. As a "social engineering technology" it breaks the traditional rules of the software industry, within which no one has been able to outdone Bill Gates.
GPL attacks the very foundation, the very nature, of Bill Gates and Microsoft: its proprietary business model.
If Microsoft is the Borg, the GPL is the virus that Microsoft cannot assimilate, or once assimilated, it will wage havoc inside the Borg to cause its eventual destruction.
Microsoft's "Shared Source" clearly is aimed at both the GPL and Sun's Java. It is time for Sun to see the best way to fight C# and to protect Java's future against this "common language runtime" is to make Java Free Software/Open Source. Then Java will have the community's support and being truly open, it can have the advantage over C# that Microsoft can never match. And people will choose Java.
Ransom Love clearly does not understand Linux. By attacking Richard Stallman, and now starting this proprietary form of licensing, Caldera is going down the path of self destruction. Ransom Love, already an unlovable person to the community, will just move closer to the image of Bill Gates, and he will never receive love nor his ransom (the price he demanded for OpenLinux, since people will prefer more open choices like Red Hat).
The "success" of proprietary software business model
Question for Mundie,
You claim that the proprietary software business model is a successful business model that creates innovation and wealth. If that's the case, how can you explain that there are no viable competitors to Microsoft in the major software categories, i.e., office suites and operating systems, that follow the same business model? How come the number one threat to Microsoft, as state by the Microsoft CEO, is Linux, a freely distributed piece of software developed by non-profit community volunteers? How can the main beneficiary of this business model be just one company, Microsoft?
Don't you think this business model imposes significant cost in society, which concentrates wealth in a few people, i.e., Bill Gates? How can this business model be successful if only few, not many, commercial enterprises enjoy its fruits?
Isn't the proprietary software business model cancerous to the well-being of our society?
Slashdot Mirror
This is not pleasant for many people to hear, but there are signs that the USA may be in decline. The 20th Century was the American century, and what do we see in the first year of the 21st Century? September 11. The Roman Empire did not fall to a single enemy, but to successful waves of attacks from "barbarians" from east of its border (the strongest being the Huns). Strong nations decline due to being worn out by external factors.
Bin Laden will be remebered in history as a terrorist and no more, but he at least shows the existence of the "barbarians" to America. These enemies will not be able to conquer America, but they, like the barbarians, can wear America out. The USA's policy toward the Islamic world does not address the "production" of these bin Ladens, so there will be more bin Ladens to drain America's energy for a long time to come.
We already see the changes inside the USA due to September 11. This new Dept. of Homeland Security will be a massive government organ and take over many agencies who previously focus on more "peace time" tasks but now turns to security matters above everything else. The internal orientation is changing. USA will be more like a police state. There will be more overhead on productivity and creativity. The previous "free" environment is in decline.
History may not always repeat itself, and the USA does not have to follow the cycles of nations. But it needs the right policy to resolve the root causes of the productions of the external threats, and so far there are no signs the USA is addressing these anti-American feelings in the Middle East. America is trying to build the dam higher to block the water rather than to open channels to let the water flow through without harm. This does not look good.
Battle at the Pentagon? It is indeed the time the Empire is Striking Back with all its might. The fall of Microsoft does not seem to be so distant any more...
If you drive on 4th Street from east of Freeway 5, driving westwards toward the freeway interchange, you first see (two arrows, one points up, the other points right):
^
|| Santa Ana
I-5
Los Angeles =>
where "Los Angeles" points to the entrance of North I-5 on the right hand side. And then after you pass that entrance continuing on 4th Street, crossing under the freeway bridge, you see the sign for the second entrance to South I-5 on the left hand side (the arrow points left):
= Los Angeles
\
SOUTH I-5
So there are two signs, pointing in opposite directions and contradicting each other, all showing the way to Los Angeles! But neither is right, because the way to Los Angeles is to go straight on 4th Street. From there you don't need to enter the freeway to go to Los Angeles downtown.) The error has been there for at least three years and no one is fixing it. No doubt people take matter into their own hands.
It is worth pointing out here that, as mentioned in the linked yahoo story (also appeaing in news.com), Microsoft's corporate vice president in charge of the innards of Windows, Rob Short, has been questioned over the CIFS license issue by the states' lawyers. It is interesting to see what kind of impact will the anti-GPL CIFS license have in the outcome of the trial.
http://redhat.rsc03.net/servlet/website/ResponseFo rm?koEX-UA-TV.3dwe3LIJHlmyLn-aw
I guess the webcast is aimed at "business executives" but should be usable for most people without a law background who are interested on the GPL...
Gates claims today Microsoft's efforts to open its APIs and protocols to developers, so they can develop programs that interoperate with Windows, are enough.
Then the nine states should question Gates over the recently publicized CIFS license incident, asking him why are GPL developers excluded?
Bill Gates puts a lot of emphasis on the protection of Microsoft's intellectual property and how the nine states' rememdies will "force" Microsoft to give its IP to competitors. Gates is using essentially the same arguments to defend itself in the trial and attacks on the GPL--the need to protect Microsoft's "innovation." Gates is projecting his own interests to be the interests of the world.
The new judge should see Bill Gates' self-centered ego, like Judge Jackson who thought Gates has a Napoleon-like mentality.
Wonder when will Microsoft begin to claim the nine states are "intellectual property destroyers" or are conspiring with Richard Stallman against Microsoft...
While you can dismiss Bill Gates' words, things are not that simple. Microsoft is, in addition to FUD, taking legal steps to attack Free Software. The recent CIFS license is an example, and more may be coming. Microsoft can attack with patents and "technical standards", and that can significantly impact Free Software. We can dismiss the FUD, but we cannot ignore Microsoft--we need to watch their every move. This is a war.
Jack better comes out before Intel goes after him...
The official Chinese history, taught in schools, show that the Ming Dynasty's fleets did reach Southeast and South Asia, Arabia and East Africa, but that was as far as they went. There is no doubt that the Ming had the technology to go to West Africa or even "discovered" Western Europe for China, but going across an ocean like the Pacific or the Atlantic may be questionable. (Note the Ming routes were mainly along coasts known to the Chinese people)
See http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html (near the middle of the page) for a map of the Ming voyage based on China's historical records.
It would be great that China discovered America, but the Chinese people do not claim something that cannot be supported. And remember, it is a Englishman, not a Chinese, who makes this claim.
What you provided only refers to that GNU wants to put emphasis on freedom, but GNU never says the practical benefits must be hidden away and not referred to. To de-emphasize something is not the same as to hide something.
One thing that has always puzzled me since the OSS-FS "divorce", was the insistence by GNU that the benefits of Free Software must be hushed up, hidden away and never referred to.
Where or when did GNU say this?
Please provide proof.
In the article, Lawrence Lessig calls Richard Stallman "the philosopher of our age." Only if the majority of the community can look beyond "GNU/Linux", "GPL sucks," etc. and see the deeper issues as Professor Lessig does...
NeWS was an advanced, Postscript-based network windowing system develped at Sun that was later dropped as a product in the late 1980s. NeWS contained advanced technologies that many people still praise today. Is there any possibility that Sun will release source code of NeWS under a free software/open source license? That should be a great contribution to the community.
http://www.atai.org/guitool/
I believe VA Research was one of the former names of VA. Maybe VA shall adapt it again?
It sounds cool and VA can still sell services.
RMS may like control, but look at this case we can see Drepper is the one with a bigger ego than RMS. Let's look at the facts:
1. RMS is accused of taking over the control of a GNU project. Not mentioning that RMS probably started the glibc project and contributed code in earlier years, how has RMS tried to control glibc? Does RMS decide, say, how glibc should be written? I don't see that. Drepper is in full technical control.
2. The only place where Drepper is unhappy about seems to be the "GNU/Linux" mentioning in LGPL 2.1. Otherwise LGPL 2.1 and 2.0 are about the same. The licenses give the same rights to users. Drepper makes a big deal out of a naming issue which is not even part of the actual license requirements. And glibc being a GNU Project, switching to LGPL 2.1 seems ony natural. Just a routine step.
3. Drepper seems unhappy about the creation of a SC. He accuses the SC was an attempt to steal the project. From him. Now, who is the one wanting control here? The SC is a more democratic way to run a project than a single maintainer. At least the other contributors have more say than letting Drepper decide everything.
4. Drepper wants control, which can be seen by his handling of the gcc 3 issue. Drepper disagreed with gcc developers (many of them) on certain technical issues over gcc 3. He once declared he would never accept patches to make glibc capable of being built with gcc 3. Despite other glibc contributors' attempts to find a solution, he just says, "NO, I won't accept any patches". This issue does not involve RMS at all, and Drepper just goes against many gcc developers, who are perhaps some of the smartest compiler people in the world. It is hard to say that Drepper is right and all these gcc people are wrong.
RMS may like control, but in this story Drepper is more of a control freak and has a bigger ego.
The IBM PC-compatibles owe their dominance to the hardworking, energetic people of Taiwan, Republic of China. While Taiwan's economy took off, Taiwan also provided the actual manufacturing of low-cost machines to flood the market. While Taiwan is not known for its own brands, the majority of PC companies sold products MIT or "made in Taiwan." A small island provided the essentual foundation (common components) to enable many companies, large and small, to sell essentially the same products under different names and the competition keeps the price in check, so PC can beat the alternative architectures and be affordable for the common people.
Whether it's a good thing, that Amigas, Ataris, etc. lost out because they cannot compete with the PC clones made in Taiwan, cost wise, is a matter of debate.
Mundie describes the software world as an ecosystem. But he failes to mention that one, and only one, species, Microsoft, dominates the ecosystem. The very barrier to a healthy ecosystem, with diversty, is the monopoly position of Microsoft.
Come on, people, don't be so hard on this! It is just a missing "t", a violation of English. It is not serious, like, say, a violation of the GPL.
Ok, seriously, sorry for the misspelling.
We can always reverse engineer it. But as always with the products of Microsoft, they can start revisions a step ahead of us, and what we have will always be a generation behind. We need more effective solutions. We need to take over the initiative.
GPL is the disruptive technology that is reshaping the software world. As a "social engineering technology" it breaks the traditional rules of the software industry, within which no one has been able to outdone Bill Gates.
GPL attacks the very foundation, the very nature, of Bill Gates and Microsoft: its proprietary business model.
If Microsoft is the Borg, the GPL is the virus that Microsoft cannot assimilate, or once assimilated, it will wage havoc inside the Borg to cause its eventual destruction.
Microsoft's "Shared Source" clearly is aimed at both the GPL and Sun's Java. It is time for Sun to see the best way to fight C# and to protect Java's future against this "common language runtime" is to make Java Free Software/Open Source. Then Java will have the community's support and being truly open, it can have the advantage over C# that Microsoft can never match. And people will choose Java.
Ransom Love clearly does not understand Linux. By attacking Richard Stallman, and now starting this proprietary form of licensing, Caldera is going down the path of self destruction. Ransom Love, already an unlovable person to the community, will just move closer to the image of Bill Gates, and he will never receive love nor his ransom (the price he demanded for OpenLinux, since people will prefer more open choices like Red Hat).
Question for Mundie,
You claim that the proprietary software business model is a successful business model that creates innovation and wealth. If that's the case, how can you explain that there are no viable competitors to Microsoft in the major software categories, i.e., office suites and operating systems, that follow the same business model? How come the number one threat to Microsoft, as state by the Microsoft CEO, is Linux, a freely distributed piece of software developed by non-profit community volunteers? How can the main beneficiary of this business model be just one company, Microsoft?
Don't you think this business model imposes significant cost in society, which concentrates wealth in a few people, i.e., Bill Gates? How can this business model be successful if only few, not many, commercial enterprises enjoy its fruits?
Isn't the proprietary software business model cancerous to the well-being of our society?