Too heavyweight!?! It's a standard file association using MIME types!
Here's how the scheme works as near as I can tell: somewhere on the other side of the Sacred URL is a file. Using MIME, this file is associated with an application. It's pretty simple. You can't get much simpler without dumbing it down to the Windows level of file extensions.
What about using the URL? Well, an URL still has to be resolved to something, and that something is still going to be a file. Who knows what lies at the other end of the URL? What kind of file is "ftp://ftp.fu.bar/file"?
Where did your get your binaries. They could all have trojans direct from distribution. What? You trust your distribution? Well I guess InfinityEdge trusts FreeBSD to provide him with an untainted compiler and the source to rebuild it from.
Why does KDE produce binaries for a few selected Linux distros, but not for other distros or other operating systems?
Simply because the users of those distros have demonstrated that they need their hands held to get anything done. Debian GNU/Linux doesn't need KDE to provide it with binaries. Debian makes them itself. FreeBSD doesn't need KDE to provide it with binaries. FreeBSD makes them itself. Ditto for all the other systems and distros.
So how do you get binaries for FreeBSD? Go download them from FreeBSD. Or use ports. Or pkg_add -R. Further information can be found at freebsd.kde.org
You wanted "clear simply instructions on how to have the kde call openBrowser(url) open in something other then Konq". That's what you got. Clear simple instructions on how to have the browser of your choice called in place of konqueror. No, it's not a perfect scheme, but then again, nothing in life is perfect.
But I'll let you in on a little secret just so you can sleep better at night. The file associations are used by the file manager to associate file types with applications. Something else handles URLs. And you know what that is? The file manager itself. The name of that file manager is Konqueror. And that's the reason why the file manager doesn't need to be told which URL scheme goes with which URL handler. The file manager IS the URL handler.
If I am not fully confused, Microsoft hasn't
ever criticized open source software, but
Free (as in FSF) Software
But BSD code is Free (as in FSF) Software. In fact, every single item of Open Source Software is also Free Software by the FSF's definition. Read the original definition yourself.
Yes, I do have talent when it comes to technology. But I filter that fact through my knowledge that other people don't .
I have a friend who most certainly does not have such talent. He never touched a computer until he was thirty. He is able to use the internet, email, word processors, and several image processors. He even tried out SuSE Linux and got it fully installed and working, but didn't like it so went back to Windows. He maintains his own web page and writes his own html. He even has managed to install new drives, ram and video cards.
How can he do this with absolutely no talent with computers while other people can't even find the start button? Simple, because he views the computer as a tool and not some mystical force that has power over him. (sometimes it's a toy)
In terms of education, computers can be toys, tools or mystical forces. Very rarely are they used as tools in schools. If the teacher is afraid of computers then the students will learn to be afraid as well. If there are games available then it will become a toy. The best use of computers in education is as a tool. Just that, a tool. Use it to write reports in and search for information on the internet. Having taught programming at several levels of education, my experienced opinion is that it should not be attempted until age 13 or higher. Before that it is certainly possible, but it tends to be a toy (a puzzle to figure out and not a concept to learn). I also realize that some people will never grasp the basic concepts of programming, so it should never be a required subject.
Sure, the library is important, but the computer makes using the library more productive.
Step back and think a moment. Why are these kids doing research to begin with? One major reason all the way up to high school is simply to learn how to do research. The productivity of the research is irrelevant. Learning how to find that information, how to found out how to find out that information, and how to put it all together, is much more important.
Kids can be as productive as they want when they leave school and get jobs. Until then they need to learn the basic skills that will allow them to be productive in the future.
I'm quite confident that his children will turn out fine. I place much more trust in a man that will take the time to educate his children himself than in one that can only manage to drop them off at school in the morning. The latter will probably get a decent education. The former are guaranteed to.
You missed his main point. There is a thing called "child phychology", and its basic premise is that children are not adults. They think differently than adults. In fact, they think differently at different ages.
Giving a seven year old Mathematica is ludicrous.
(I minored in child psychology, so I think I know at least one or two things on the topic)
It doesn't take 18 years to learn how to use a word processor and read email. My generation did fine without being taught.
Except for a friend's AppleII that I sometimes played the orginal Wizardry on, I never touched a computer until college. It didn't hurt me one little bit. I know program a half million dollar embedded system for a living. I can also run rings around those who had the "advantage" of playing with computers in elementary school. If it's not exactly how they learned it in elementary, junior, or high school, they freak. We've got program managers that can't put two words together without a Powerpoint slide. I've seen a guy at an onsite programming class actually use Word to write source code. He never could figure out why nothing would compile.
Tragedy of the commons. Too bad economists don't study history more. Then they would discover that the commons they are so in love with was the property of the nobility who let other people use it in exchange for their serfdom.
I don't have a problem with taxation if it is to be used for funding the legitimate functions of the government. But I have a big problem with taxation used to fund illegitimate functions. What's a legitimate function of the government? To defend and protect the lives, liberties and properties (collectively known as 'rights') of its citizens.
Difficulty #1: Gnome is written for Linux. Since FreeBSD doesn't follow the LSB (or what Gnome thinks the LSB should be), there are of course problems. Nautilus simply couldn't build under FreeBSD for the longest time.
Difficulty #2: Gnome is written for Linux. Linuxisms abound in Gnome. To be fair, they abound in KDE as well, thus the existence of the FreeBSD KDE Project. Instead of submitting endless bug reports to Gnome, only to see them closed as "not a problem on my Debian box", I suspect the FGP will do much of this work fixing themselves, then submitting the patches to Gnome.
Difficulty #3: This is still FreeBSD, after all. Someone has to maintain these ports. Since there's quite a few of them (and more being gobbled up by the 'g' prefix every day) it only stands to reason to have a central point of portage.
"free market" (what I consider to be a political doctrine on the border of being a religious belief)
Also competing with the world's major religions is the doctrine of "godvernment." This is the belief that ordinary fallible human beings suddenly get transformed into infallible agents of the divine the moment they get elected to public office, and who are then able to run your life much better than you can run it yourself. The amazing thing is that the economy actually works despite all the tinkerers in power.
Go snipe at the people who want to outlaw this kind of freedom and open source.
Not one person or corporation anywhere in the the civilized world wants to outlaw free software. Not one. Oh there may be one or two nutbags out there, but there always are. But no one anyone would take seriously is advocating it. There are a lot of people, however, you think it's a bad idea and wouldn't recommend that other people do it. But that's a far cry from wanting to outlaw it.
Respect and honor RMS as he deserves.
And exactly how much respect and honor does he deserve? Does it go so far that we implicity believe everything he utters? Must we make him a god? There is such a thing as too much respect and honor. That point where one is not allowed to question and debate the ideas of another is way over that line.
I remember sitting at LWCE when they gave him a $10,000 check for his contributions to Linux, and all he could do in the way of thanks was bitch about the lack of respect he got since not enough people were using the term "GNU/Linux". I remember on a mailing list during a discussion of the GPL when RMS popped in from out of nowhere claiming that people were attacking him since they were looking for loopholes in the license.
Not all personal attacks are ad hominem attacks. Need I pull out the dictionary once again? The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Stallman's personal traits have a lot to do with his arguments. I have seen discussion threads where he has swerved wildly off topic merely because someone used the term "Linux". I have seen him respond to refutations by posting the *exact* text the refutation addressed.
His stubbornness and fragility make it impossible to have a rational discussion of the issues with him. You either agree with him totally, or the discussion devolves into bickering.
Microsoft software is used by 99% of the business world and having everything run linux would simply not be effective in teaching students how to use 'real world' applications.
A specious lie if I ever heard one. Has everyone lost their short term memories? Think back just a mere ten years ago. All the schools were teaching Lotus-123 and Wordperfect. I actually know someone that got a certificate in Wordperfect! Another has an AA in DOS!!! To assume that the applications of the future will be identical to the ones used today is ludicrous. Using that premise to educate students is irresponsible.
If you want to prepare students for the real world, teach them the basics. Teach them how to software engineering, not how to use Java or C++. Teach them how to create business documents, not how to use MSWord. Teach them how to communicate effectively, not how to use Powerpoint.
Non-GPL type free software doesn't scale: as it gains in importance, other interests eventually destroy the freeness.
Let's see now, we have Apache, Sendmail, Perl, Python, *BSD, XFree86, etc. All of which of scaled quite well, and none of which have been destroyed. The only problematic one of the bunch is XFree86, whose problems arose from a closed process and not a closed code base. Even with multiple companies forking off proprietary versions of X11, it still remains free. Last I checked, only one of those proprietary versions is still around, inextricably tied to proprietary hardware. On the other side of the spectrum you have Apache who can rightfully claim to be the poster boy of Free Software.
Only GPL-type free software can scale to where it is worth vast sums of money while preserving its information sharing fully.
I don't know of ANY Free Software that is worth vast sums of money. Some companies selling Free Software may be worth vast sums of money, but the software itself is still free as in beer. When those rumours started circulating that Redhat was being bought by AOL/TW, I checked and saw that it was still $1.99 at Cheapbytes.
---
I would really like to hear the side of those LISP hackers that joined the proprietary companies. They seem to get left out of all the stories. Did copyleft force them to give stuff back, or did they just merely stop using the MIT stuff?
Just how is the use of the word "dialectics" an ad hominen attack? From Merriam-Webster's:
Main Entry: di*a*lec*tic
Pronunciation: "dI-&-'lek-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English dialetik, from Middle French dialetique, from Latin dialectica, from Greek dialektikE, from feminine of dialektikos of conversation, from dialektos
Date: 14th century
1 : LOGIC 1a(1)
2 a : discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas
3 : the logic of fallacy
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas
6 : the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements
Using the term "dialectics" seems downright appropriate!
There are thousands of us that argue against the dialectics of RMS. Maybe you're just reading Slashdot at too low a threshold, and seeing at the ACs trying to get their jabs in.
For someone on the other side of the fence from GNU, there is great temptation to prod him. His legendary stubborness is outmatched only by the fragility of his ego. He acts as if any dispute against his ideas is a direct personal assault. He can't stand to be wrong, and will never admit it if proven.
This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen.
Bullshit. He may have invented the concept of copyleft, but he certainly did not invent the concept of free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Too heavyweight!?! It's a standard file association using MIME types!
Here's how the scheme works as near as I can tell: somewhere on the other side of the Sacred URL is a file. Using MIME, this file is associated with an application. It's pretty simple. You can't get much simpler without dumbing it down to the Windows level of file extensions.
What about using the URL? Well, an URL still has to be resolved to something, and that something is still going to be a file. Who knows what lies at the other end of the URL? What kind of file is "ftp://ftp.fu.bar/file"?
No, KDE does actually release binaries for a few selected Linux distros.
Where did you get your compiler?
Where did your get your binaries. They could all have trojans direct from distribution. What? You trust your distribution? Well I guess InfinityEdge trusts FreeBSD to provide him with an untainted compiler and the source to rebuild it from.
Why does KDE produce binaries for a few selected Linux distros, but not for other distros or other operating systems?
Simply because the users of those distros have demonstrated that they need their hands held to get anything done. Debian GNU/Linux doesn't need KDE to provide it with binaries. Debian makes them itself. FreeBSD doesn't need KDE to provide it with binaries. FreeBSD makes them itself. Ditto for all the other systems and distros.
So how do you get binaries for FreeBSD? Go download them from FreeBSD. Or use ports. Or pkg_add -R. Further information can be found at freebsd.kde.org
which ones?
You wanted "clear simply instructions on how to have the kde call openBrowser(url) open in something other then Konq". That's what you got. Clear simple instructions on how to have the browser of your choice called in place of konqueror. No, it's not a perfect scheme, but then again, nothing in life is perfect.
But I'll let you in on a little secret just so you can sleep better at night. The file associations are used by the file manager to associate file types with applications. Something else handles URLs. And you know what that is? The file manager itself. The name of that file manager is Konqueror. And that's the reason why the file manager doesn't need to be told which URL scheme goes with which URL handler. The file manager IS the URL handler.
If I am not fully confused, Microsoft hasn't
ever criticized open source software, but
Free (as in FSF) Software
But BSD code is Free (as in FSF) Software. In fact, every single item of Open Source Software is also Free Software by the FSF's definition. Read the original definition yourself.
Yes, I do have talent when it comes to technology. But I filter that fact through my knowledge that other people don't .
I have a friend who most certainly does not have such talent. He never touched a computer until he was thirty. He is able to use the internet, email, word processors, and several image processors. He even tried out SuSE Linux and got it fully installed and working, but didn't like it so went back to Windows. He maintains his own web page and writes his own html. He even has managed to install new drives, ram and video cards.
How can he do this with absolutely no talent with computers while other people can't even find the start button? Simple, because he views the computer as a tool and not some mystical force that has power over him. (sometimes it's a toy)
In terms of education, computers can be toys, tools or mystical forces. Very rarely are they used as tools in schools. If the teacher is afraid of computers then the students will learn to be afraid as well. If there are games available then it will become a toy. The best use of computers in education is as a tool. Just that, a tool. Use it to write reports in and search for information on the internet. Having taught programming at several levels of education, my experienced opinion is that it should not be attempted until age 13 or higher. Before that it is certainly possible, but it tends to be a toy (a puzzle to figure out and not a concept to learn). I also realize that some people will never grasp the basic concepts of programming, so it should never be a required subject.
Sure, the library is important, but the computer makes using the library more productive.
Step back and think a moment. Why are these kids doing research to begin with? One major reason all the way up to high school is simply to learn how to do research. The productivity of the research is irrelevant. Learning how to find that information, how to found out how to find out that information, and how to put it all together, is much more important.
Kids can be as productive as they want when they leave school and get jobs. Until then they need to learn the basic skills that will allow them to be productive in the future.
I'm quite confident that his children will turn out fine. I place much more trust in a man that will take the time to educate his children himself than in one that can only manage to drop them off at school in the morning. The latter will probably get a decent education. The former are guaranteed to.
You missed his main point. There is a thing called "child phychology", and its basic premise is that children are not adults. They think differently than adults. In fact, they think differently at different ages.
Giving a seven year old Mathematica is ludicrous.
(I minored in child psychology, so I think I know at least one or two things on the topic)
It doesn't take 18 years to learn how to use a word processor and read email. My generation did fine without being taught.
Except for a friend's AppleII that I sometimes played the orginal Wizardry on, I never touched a computer until college. It didn't hurt me one little bit. I know program a half million dollar embedded system for a living. I can also run rings around those who had the "advantage" of playing with computers in elementary school. If it's not exactly how they learned it in elementary, junior, or high school, they freak. We've got program managers that can't put two words together without a Powerpoint slide. I've seen a guy at an onsite programming class actually use Word to write source code. He never could figure out why nothing would compile.
Tragedy of the commons. Too bad economists don't study history more. Then they would discover that the commons they are so in love with was the property of the nobility who let other people use it in exchange for their serfdom.
I don't have a problem with taxation if it is to be used for funding the legitimate functions of the government. But I have a big problem with taxation used to fund illegitimate functions. What's a legitimate function of the government? To defend and protect the lives, liberties and properties (collectively known as 'rights') of its citizens.
Proof!
Difficulty #1: Gnome is written for Linux. Since FreeBSD doesn't follow the LSB (or what Gnome thinks the LSB should be), there are of course problems. Nautilus simply couldn't build under FreeBSD for the longest time.
Difficulty #2: Gnome is written for Linux. Linuxisms abound in Gnome. To be fair, they abound in KDE as well, thus the existence of the FreeBSD KDE Project. Instead of submitting endless bug reports to Gnome, only to see them closed as "not a problem on my Debian box", I suspect the FGP will do much of this work fixing themselves, then submitting the patches to Gnome.
Difficulty #3: This is still FreeBSD, after all. Someone has to maintain these ports. Since there's quite a few of them (and more being gobbled up by the 'g' prefix every day) it only stands to reason to have a central point of portage.
"free market" (what I consider to be a political doctrine on the border of being a religious belief)
Also competing with the world's major religions is the doctrine of "godvernment." This is the belief that ordinary fallible human beings suddenly get transformed into infallible agents of the divine the moment they get elected to public office, and who are then able to run your life much better than you can run it yourself. The amazing thing is that the economy actually works despite all the tinkerers in power.
Go snipe at the people who want to outlaw this kind of freedom and open source.
Not one person or corporation anywhere in the the civilized world wants to outlaw free software. Not one. Oh there may be one or two nutbags out there, but there always are. But no one anyone would take seriously is advocating it. There are a lot of people, however, you think it's a bad idea and wouldn't recommend that other people do it. But that's a far cry from wanting to outlaw it.
Respect and honor RMS as he deserves.
And exactly how much respect and honor does he deserve? Does it go so far that we implicity believe everything he utters? Must we make him a god? There is such a thing as too much respect and honor. That point where one is not allowed to question and debate the ideas of another is way over that line.
I remember sitting at LWCE when they gave him a $10,000 check for his contributions to Linux, and all he could do in the way of thanks was bitch about the lack of respect he got since not enough people were using the term "GNU/Linux". I remember on a mailing list during a discussion of the GPL when RMS popped in from out of nowhere claiming that people were attacking him since they were looking for loopholes in the license.
Not all personal attacks are ad hominem attacks. Need I pull out the dictionary once again? The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Stallman's personal traits have a lot to do with his arguments. I have seen discussion threads where he has swerved wildly off topic merely because someone used the term "Linux". I have seen him respond to refutations by posting the *exact* text the refutation addressed.
His stubbornness and fragility make it impossible to have a rational discussion of the issues with him. You either agree with him totally, or the discussion devolves into bickering.
The term used in the previous post was "GPL-type free software".
Microsoft software is used by 99% of the business world and having everything run linux would simply not be effective in teaching students how to use 'real world' applications.
A specious lie if I ever heard one. Has everyone lost their short term memories? Think back just a mere ten years ago. All the schools were teaching Lotus-123 and Wordperfect. I actually know someone that got a certificate in Wordperfect! Another has an AA in DOS!!! To assume that the applications of the future will be identical to the ones used today is ludicrous. Using that premise to educate students is irresponsible.
If you want to prepare students for the real world, teach them the basics. Teach them how to software engineering, not how to use Java or C++. Teach them how to create business documents, not how to use MSWord. Teach them how to communicate effectively, not how to use Powerpoint.
Non-GPL type free software doesn't scale: as it gains in importance, other interests eventually destroy the freeness.
Let's see now, we have Apache, Sendmail, Perl, Python, *BSD, XFree86, etc. All of which of scaled quite well, and none of which have been destroyed. The only problematic one of the bunch is XFree86, whose problems arose from a closed process and not a closed code base. Even with multiple companies forking off proprietary versions of X11, it still remains free. Last I checked, only one of those proprietary versions is still around, inextricably tied to proprietary hardware. On the other side of the spectrum you have Apache who can rightfully claim to be the poster boy of Free Software.
Only GPL-type free software can scale to where it is worth vast sums of money while preserving its information sharing fully.
I don't know of ANY Free Software that is worth vast sums of money. Some companies selling Free Software may be worth vast sums of money, but the software itself is still free as in beer. When those rumours started circulating that Redhat was being bought by AOL/TW, I checked and saw that it was still $1.99 at Cheapbytes.
---
I would really like to hear the side of those LISP hackers that joined the proprietary companies. They seem to get left out of all the stories. Did copyleft force them to give stuff back, or did they just merely stop using the MIT stuff?
Just how is the use of the word "dialectics" an ad hominen attack? From Merriam-Webster's:
Main Entry: di*a*lec*tic
Pronunciation: "dI-&-'lek-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English dialetik, from Middle French dialetique, from Latin dialectica, from Greek dialektikE, from feminine of dialektikos of conversation, from dialektos
Date: 14th century
1 : LOGIC 1a(1)
2 a : discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas
3 : the logic of fallacy
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas
6 : the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements
Using the term "dialectics" seems downright appropriate!
There are thousands of us that argue against the dialectics of RMS. Maybe you're just reading Slashdot at too low a threshold, and seeing at the ACs trying to get their jabs in.
For someone on the other side of the fence from GNU, there is great temptation to prod him. His legendary stubborness is outmatched only by the fragility of his ego. He acts as if any dispute against his ideas is a direct personal assault. He can't stand to be wrong, and will never admit it if proven.
This is the guy who invented the whole concept, this is the man who made it happen.
Bullshit. He may have invented the concept of copyleft, but he certainly did not invent the concept of free software.
RMS has never been confrontational.
You mean like that time he tore a reporter a new asshole for using the term "Linux"?
Isn't "freedom" the word that two bit dictators use to justify the the arrest and execution of academics?