linux has support for more hardware than bsd as far as graphics cards, soundcards, etc.
In terms of graphic cards, *BSD has *exactly* the same hardware support (excepting a few beta SuSE drivers). That's because *BSD and Linux use exactly the same XFree86:-)
Sound card support is still kind of shoddy under FreeBSD though.
Unsubstantiated, yes, because you haven't come to my place and seen it for yourself. There are indeed some apps that run faster. But there are probably just as many that run slower on "emulation" than run faster. Most apps though will *not* show a noticable difference. That some apps run faster is not miraculous or even demonstrate any BSD superiority. It just goes to show that some parts of FreeBSD are faster/better than Linux, while some parts of Linux are faster/better than FreeBSD.
Linux-binary apps that run faster (that I have noticed): Acroread, and parts of StarOffice 5.1. I haven't run any Loki games on FreeBSD yet...
I just saw Scott walking by the Compaq booth at LWCE. I'll have to run stop him and shake his hand. Sometimes I doing development in BSD and I don't have to have to reboot to Linux to do some catching up on my Civilization.
It's open source, it's unix, so there's no reason it can't be running on every free unix platform.
"This means that there is a single cannonical version of the software- the one released by TrollTech- and anything else is only allowed to exist as patches."
This is a Good Thing(tm). If I am to believe the the collective wisdom of slashdot, Linux cannot fork because it is under the GPL. So if the GPL prevents forking, what is so wrong about the QPL restricting forking? Or to put it another way, if the forking is good, where are all the GTK forks?
As a developer, I want Open Source software that is *canonical*. I get enough grief with users complaining that they don't know how to type configure; make; make install, without having to hold their hands when their distro uses a non-standard version of a library. I would rather say "you need Qt to compile my program" than having to say "you need Sun's version of GTK to compile my program, because IBM's GTK will not work."
Re:Most people know how to cover ass
on
BSD And Politics
·
· Score: 2
Bush selected Microsoft becouse in the Republican idiolog only the wealthyest corpration in America could produce the best operating system. Free is garbage and Bill Gates is the solution.
Al Gore selected Linux becouse the Democrats basic philosophy of people. Again not an informed tech choice but an idilog that matches the realitys.
It's time someone came along and hit you upside the head with a cluestick. Where's Huey when you need him...
It makes not one whit of difference which OS their websites are running on. If you think it does you need a good stiff drink of reality. Turn off the computer, step outside, and stand in the sun. Your vitamin D level is getting low.
Re:More on the Libertarian Party Website
on
BSD And Politics
·
· Score: 2
I have yet to find any libertarian organization that has spoken out against UCITA.
Then you haven't looked very far. I seem to recall arguments against UCITA from Reason Magazine and the CATO Institute. Also check out www.libertyboard.org for a slashdot like libertarian discussion site. It has covered UCITA in several articles.
Free Software has nothing to do with Free Speech. Free speech gives me the right to create and release closed source binary-only software, or Open Source, as I prefer. Even if I release the software as public domain I am still not required to divulge the source code.
In the past there have been restrictions, regulations and prohibitions against your use of speech and the press. But no one has ever been prohibited against creating and distribution their own Free and Open Source Software. There may be some problems with patents, but that's a whole different ball of wax.
I want these political parties to be 100% in favor of freedom of people!
We already have freedom of software. There is no law against using Linux or BSD. My freedom includes the freedom to use Windows, MacOS or Solaris. Patents and copyrights might be valid political issues, but the since the time of the first vacumn tube, the right to create and distribute Free and Open Source Software was always ours.
It's absolutely stupid to judge a candidate by whether they use the software you prefer. What's next, judging them by whether they use the same aftershave as do?
...with Sun moving to adopt Gnome as the GUI for Solaris. Looks like some big names are getting interested in putting Linux on the desktop.
Last I checked, Solaris was not Linux. Digging even deeper, I made the startling discovery that neither is Gnome!
Re:Sun is a hardware vender first Unix vender seco
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 2
"Thies boxes run two operating systems.. Solarus and Linux..."
Check again. NetBSD, and the newest FreeBSD also run and Sparcs. So does LynxOS, an embedded Unix. I'm sure there's a few more, I just don't know about them.
And where does BSD fit into all of this? It is every bit as advanced as Linux. Most of what people think of as Linux isn't really Linux anyway, but stuff that runs on BSD (and Solaris) as well, stuff like KDE, GNOME, Perl, Python, Apache, etc.
If you've been paying attention, the BSD world is rapidly catching up to the Linux attention, after a half-decade of being asleep at the wheel. A mere two years ago Linux was unheard of in the enterprise. What will the situation be like in two more years? You just can't predict the future, especially with computing. Leave the crystal ball gazing and 0% prediction successes to the Gartner group.
Re:Linux rehashs 70s era OS.. wow, special.
on
A Praise To Unix
·
· Score: 2
"I think the real future of Unix looks something like MacOS X, not Linux."
Then you're saying that the future is FreeBSD. Because that's what MacOS X is. And FreeBSD ain't that much different from Linux.
The GUI is not the operating system. It's a user shell layered or plunked on top. It adds nothing to the computing power of the computer. It only facilitates the user experience. I had to dump KDE and GNOME off of my laptop due to a small screen and sparse memory. I didn't lose any power at all, only some convenience.
The computing world may be working towards Mac and Win like GUIs, but what they will end up will be far different. They will get generic and swappable operating systems, so that the user can use any OS with any GUI on any platform. To get there you will need some standards, and Unix or its derivative is going to be the standard.
I absolutely need to know which candidate is best for me! Screw the soccer moms and retirement geezers, it's time for me to get a piece of the public pie. Right now!
The last thing I want is a government for the people. I want a government for me. I don't care about police and fire salaries, or manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas. I just want my tech stocks to go back up. Who cares about Pinochet and Castro, I want to know which candidate will strap Bill into the chair.
It doesn't much matter how much the candidates kiss up to the television and print media, as long as they don't touch the internet media, I'm fine. Al and Tipper can label and ban Dr. Dre all they want, I don't care anymore, cause he's against napster, and that's all that counts.
I don't care about Russia, China, India or Pakistan. I don't care about the price of the dollar against the yen or euro. The WTO can rule the world as long as they don't rule me. Bush can execute the mentally disabled and Gore can continue skimming tobacco profits. Why should that concern me? It's not tech related. I just want to sleep in my little coccoon for the next four years. If any candidate can promise me that, they have my vote.
"While I generally agree with you, Arandir, I was a minor up until about 4 months ago (I'm now 18), and I didn't magically learn to think for myself on my birthday."
Unfortunately, the law says that you are a minor until the 18th anniversary of your birth, regardless of whether you were born premature or not:-) I remember turning 18. I had a sixteen year old girlfriend. One day prior I didn't have a care in the world. One day later and it became painfully clear to me that I could go to jail if her dad got pissed at me.
However stupid this law is, it also has the stupid corollary that parents have the legal responsibility for their minor children, no matter how mature they may be (or how immature they may be after turning 18).
"Today's cut off ages are a legal kludge, they do amount to stomping all over my freedoms, and they don't work very well, but no one has a better system in mind."
The law being what it is, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I am of the opinion that when a child decides he or she is mature, they move out of the home, get a job, and support themselves. Other societies in the past have worked this way, and from all accounts, were relatively successful at it.
"Americans are generally really prudish, and this is what is causing this debate in the first place."
Prudish? Not really. Look up the word. You'll find adjectives like "excessive" and "extreme" in reference to an attitude. Sexually uptight and/or repressed? Absolutely! America isn't perfect, but then again, neither is any nation. Other nations may not have our problems in the area of sexuality, but they have just as much or maybe more bad juju in other areas.
I first visited Europe when I was 16. I was immediately struck by the abundance of nudity in advertising. I thought it strange, and then being in the throes of adolescent hormonal overflows, I thought it both repugnant and fascinating. But at the same time I witnessed other European behaviors that were just as repressive as this American "prudishness".
"What I said is thet you're advocating censorship due to your own prudishness."
I am not advocating censorship! Let's get our definitions in order. I do not advocate the blocking or filtering of websites on your computer, or anyone else private computer. I have in the past advocated supervision for computers publically accessible by children, but supervision of children is a far different thing than denial or blockage.
And I am not a prude. I find the "yucky" stuff like coprophilia to be indeed yucky. And I find leathers, whips and handcuffs to be strange and not at all titillating. This is not prudishness (look it up). I mentioned some types of sexual behavior because many parents would find it objectionable to expose their children to it. Perhaps these parents are indeed prudish. Perhaps they're overly protective. So what? It is not a crime to be prudish.
"it's your responsibility as a parent to set out boundaries for your youngster and teach him/her not to cross them"
No one is arguing against this...
"not my responsibility as someone who wants to provide a free Net terminal in my laundromat/restaurant/bookstore/whatever, to make sure I dumb down my Net access just for your kids."
I am not saying it is your responsibility. You can do whatever you want within your own private sphere, including your private laundromat. That's not the point. The original poster seemed to think that it might be somewhat prudent to filter the net access since *his* laundromat was so close to a school. If he does decide to restrict net access, and you don't like it, the solution is simple: don't patronize his establishment!
"Use whatever you want in private, I don't care."
Last I checked, the vast majority of Laundromats in the United States were private. I am absolutely confident that the one mentioned is private. I am belaboring this point because I am seeing exactly the same emotional outrage against this private use of filterware as I saw a few months ago when it was in reference to public libraries. The equal levels of outrage make me think that some people are unaware of the differences between public and private.
">What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent?...
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America gives me that right.
Perhaps I am parsing the English language wrong. Please excuse the following mini-rant if I misunderstood you. You may have the right to hold an opinion on the topic, express it in speech, press or other medium, and even hold public assemblies for the purpose of getting your views adopted as law, but you do not have the right to deny parentage to anyone! Certainly you have the right to advocate tyranny, because that's what you're doing.
Now that I think about, I am certain that I misparsed your previous statement simply because it is so outrageous.
"Libertarian my ass--I'm a libertarian, and you're too narrow minded to see the forest for the trees."
Libertarianism is about the non-initiation of force. Censorware and internet filtering software does not initiate force. It is not coercive. Neither does the use of it in laundromats consitute coercion. In fact, the use of filterware in public libraries does not initiate force either, only the collection of taxes to support them does.
A laundromat that installs filtering software does not infringe on your rights any more than a liquor store that decides not to carry adult magazines does.
And yes, you're obviously prudish; you lump bondage and "barely legal" in the same category as bestiality and coprophilia.
Oh gee, I don't like bondage so I'm a prude!? Get real. I lumped these items together because they are things that a lot of parents would have severe objections to their children witnessing. Bondage may be consensual, and for the most part is play-acting, but real dominance in a relationship, particularly when it is usually associated with sadism, is not normal. "Barely legal" caters to the borderline pedophile, and is the pederast's methadone.
"You pro censorship types are such blame-shifting imbeciles."
I am not pro-censorship. If you have read any of my other posts, you will know that. I am a radical libertarian, and as such I have absolutely no interest in telling you what you can or cannot do.
But as a libertarian, I greatly object that you wish to ban a class of software for use in private. Censorware may be morally objectionable to you, but for some people it isn't. It is one thing to keep censorware out of publically funded libraries, but it is quite another to keep it out of a private laundermat. There is a universe of difference between government censorship and the outright banning of pornography and parents restricting what their minor children can view.
This whole slashdot topic was about using or not using censorware in a private business. Your morality simply does not enter into it. Your comment about the ineffectuality of filtering by words was right on topic and informative. Your accusal of Americans as prudes was very off topic.
"If your kids are raised properly, you don't need to protect them from the Big Bad Internet, they'll know which sites are good and healthy and which sites are negative and unhealthy."
It would be great if all children were raised properly. But they're not. But it's completely irrelevant. It's absolutely stupid to say to a parent "you did a bad job raising your kids so you forfeit all rights to keep pornography away from them".
"If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education."
What arrogance! What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent? You, sir, have absolutely no moral, legal or ethical right to tell someone else how they should raise their own children. How dare you! Before you start accusing us of reducing the net to our own "narrow ideology and belief and morality", take a good look at youself. We certainly do not want to impose our morality on the net. But you, on the other hand, want to impose your morality on people's lives and children.
It's time Americans just stopped beingthe most prudish...
It's not about being prudish, it's about blocking off what you don't want to see. I don't like going into adult bookstores, and when I see one I simply do not enter. Simple, huh? But that's not how it works on the internet.
Objecting to double penetration, copraphilia, bondage, sadism, 'barely legal', and even bestiality does not qualify as prudery. (yes, bestiality, I saw a bannerad for it at a swimsuit site last week) My biggest objection however is the insistance that I can't keep my children away from anything that isn't immediately fatal.
"What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
The first thing you need to do is figure out what your ideals really are. And get your definitions in order. All too often we go through life with half-baked ideals and fuzzy definitions, and when we discover that reality is rock-solid and not subject to our perceptions, then it will be us that have to bend.
I seriously doubt that your ideal on censorship is your right to expose other people's children to pornography. Ideal hits reality and reality wins again. Despite what those in the ivory towers (or slashdot pits) say, there is indeed pornography on the net and it is easy to access and parents can't watch over their children 25 hours a day. So figure out what your ideal really is.
And maybe you need to get your definition of "censorship" in order. We would all agree that government institutions have no right to censor. And we probably all agree that parents do have the right to limit their children's access to certain materials. But you need to figure out where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable censorship. If a liquor store owner can go to jail for selling Hustler to a minor, then you too have the possibility of landing in the same cell by selling a minor pornographic access.
I'm not sure what "Surfnwash" does, or how it will operate. But I think your real question is not "what happens when our ideals hit the real world?" but rather "what competent blocking software or mechanisms are available?"
Parallel ports are compiled in to every default kernel I have ever seen. Of course, I don't use Redhat. Perhaps they don't consider that their users will have printers by default.
You did not need an OS to run FS1.0. You stuck the floppy in the drive and booted off of it. But who cares. I was running PC-DOS, which even though created by MS, was purchased from IBM with no royalties to MS.
Had the KKK showed up in Philly and tried to do a protest march, you would have all been screaming for the cops to bust some heads. Had the Pro-Life crowd showed up and threatened to cause violent interruption to the proceedings, you'd want them in jail until at LEAST the next decade. Yet when it's one of YOUR guys...
Face it, these Philly protestors don't give a shit about anyone's rights but their own. They're living a double standard. It's okay to for cops to break the arms of Operation Rescue protestors, but asking for Emmett's ID is the ultimate proof that we're living in a police state.
The Sixties: place flowers in the barrels of the national guard.
The Naughts: pretend to have a backpack of 'nades and cuss at the police.
He just wants to make sure that the on-campus PIRG organizations continue to collect mandatory student fees
Aaargh! Are they still extorting students? Somehow having to pay a private political organization for the right to register at a public univiversity epitomizes everything that's wrong with modern American liberalism.
Absolutely! These guys have no clue what civil disobedience is. A friend of mine recently joined a particular environmental group. They have a plan to wear LA police uniforms and direct the real cops away from impending acts of violence during the LA demo convention. He thinks it's a lark! Claims I have no sense of humor.
No one forced them to become cops, this is the job that they chose.
And I will give them an extraordinary amount of respect just for that. They chose to put their lives between you and evil and all you can do is bitch. For you I have no respect.
Slashdot Mirror
linux has support for more hardware than bsd as far as graphics cards, soundcards, etc.
:-)
In terms of graphic cards, *BSD has *exactly* the same hardware support (excepting a few beta SuSE drivers). That's because *BSD and Linux use exactly the same XFree86
Sound card support is still kind of shoddy under FreeBSD though.
Unsubstantiated, yes, because you haven't come to my place and seen it for yourself. There are indeed some apps that run faster. But there are probably just as many that run slower on "emulation" than run faster. Most apps though will *not* show a noticable difference. That some apps run faster is not miraculous or even demonstrate any BSD superiority. It just goes to show that some parts of FreeBSD are faster/better than Linux, while some parts of Linux are faster/better than FreeBSD.
Linux-binary apps that run faster (that I have noticed): Acroread, and parts of StarOffice 5.1. I haven't run any Loki games on FreeBSD yet...
I just saw Scott walking by the Compaq booth at LWCE. I'll have to run stop him and shake his hand. Sometimes I doing development in BSD and I don't have to have to reboot to Linux to do some catching up on my Civilization.
It's open source, it's unix, so there's no reason it can't be running on every free unix platform.
"This means that there is a single cannonical version of the software- the one released by TrollTech- and anything else is only allowed to exist as patches."
This is a Good Thing(tm). If I am to believe the the collective wisdom of slashdot, Linux cannot fork because it is under the GPL. So if the GPL prevents forking, what is so wrong about the QPL restricting forking? Or to put it another way, if the forking is good, where are all the GTK forks?
As a developer, I want Open Source software that is *canonical*. I get enough grief with users complaining that they don't know how to type configure; make; make install, without having to hold their hands when their distro uses a non-standard version of a library. I would rather say "you need Qt to compile my program" than having to say "you need Sun's version of GTK to compile my program, because IBM's GTK will not work."
Bush selected Microsoft becouse in the Republican idiolog only the wealthyest corpration in America could produce the best operating system. Free is garbage and Bill Gates is the solution.
Al Gore selected Linux becouse the Democrats basic philosophy of people. Again not an informed tech choice but an idilog that matches the realitys.
It's time someone came along and hit you upside the head with a cluestick. Where's Huey when you need him...
It makes not one whit of difference which OS their websites are running on. If you think it does you need a good stiff drink of reality. Turn off the computer, step outside, and stand in the sun. Your vitamin D level is getting low.
I have yet to find any libertarian organization that has spoken out against UCITA.
Then you haven't looked very far. I seem to recall arguments against UCITA from Reason Magazine and the CATO Institute. Also check out www.libertyboard.org for a slashdot like libertarian discussion site. It has covered UCITA in several articles.
And now for an equally stunning orignal riposte:
Free Software has nothing to do with Free Speech. Free speech gives me the right to create and release closed source binary-only software, or Open Source, as I prefer. Even if I release the software as public domain I am still not required to divulge the source code.
In the past there have been restrictions, regulations and prohibitions against your use of speech and the press. But no one has ever been prohibited against creating and distribution their own Free and Open Source Software. There may be some problems with patents, but that's a whole different ball of wax.
I want these political parties to be 100% in favor of freedom of people!
We already have freedom of software. There is no law against using Linux or BSD. My freedom includes the freedom to use Windows, MacOS or Solaris. Patents and copyrights might be valid political issues, but the since the time of the first vacumn tube, the right to create and distribute Free and Open Source Software was always ours.
It's absolutely stupid to judge a candidate by whether they use the software you prefer. What's next, judging them by whether they use the same aftershave as do?
...with Sun moving to adopt Gnome as the GUI for Solaris. Looks like some big names are getting interested in putting Linux on the desktop.
Last I checked, Solaris was not Linux. Digging even deeper, I made the startling discovery that neither is Gnome!
"Thies boxes run two operating systems.. Solarus and Linux..."
Check again. NetBSD, and the newest FreeBSD also run and Sparcs. So does LynxOS, an embedded Unix. I'm sure there's a few more, I just don't know about them.
And where does BSD fit into all of this? It is every bit as advanced as Linux. Most of what people think of as Linux isn't really Linux anyway, but stuff that runs on BSD (and Solaris) as well, stuff like KDE, GNOME, Perl, Python, Apache, etc.
If you've been paying attention, the BSD world is rapidly catching up to the Linux attention, after a half-decade of being asleep at the wheel. A mere two years ago Linux was unheard of in the enterprise. What will the situation be like in two more years? You just can't predict the future, especially with computing. Leave the crystal ball gazing and 0% prediction successes to the Gartner group.
"I think the real future of Unix looks something like MacOS X, not Linux."
Then you're saying that the future is FreeBSD. Because that's what MacOS X is. And FreeBSD ain't that much different from Linux.
The GUI is not the operating system. It's a user shell layered or plunked on top. It adds nothing to the computing power of the computer. It only facilitates the user experience. I had to dump KDE and GNOME off of my laptop due to a small screen and sparse memory. I didn't lose any power at all, only some convenience.
The computing world may be working towards Mac and Win like GUIs, but what they will end up will be far different. They will get generic and swappable operating systems, so that the user can use any OS with any GUI on any platform. To get there you will need some standards, and Unix or its derivative is going to be the standard.
I absolutely need to know which candidate is best for me! Screw the soccer moms and retirement geezers, it's time for me to get a piece of the public pie. Right now!
The last thing I want is a government for the people. I want a government for me. I don't care about police and fire salaries, or manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas. I just want my tech stocks to go back up. Who cares about Pinochet and Castro, I want to know which candidate will strap Bill into the chair.
It doesn't much matter how much the candidates kiss up to the television and print media, as long as they don't touch the internet media, I'm fine. Al and Tipper can label and ban Dr. Dre all they want, I don't care anymore, cause he's against napster, and that's all that counts.
I don't care about Russia, China, India or Pakistan. I don't care about the price of the dollar against the yen or euro. The WTO can rule the world as long as they don't rule me. Bush can execute the mentally disabled and Gore can continue skimming tobacco profits. Why should that concern me? It's not tech related. I just want to sleep in my little coccoon for the next four years. If any candidate can promise me that, they have my vote.
"While I generally agree with you, Arandir, I was a minor up until about 4 months ago (I'm now 18), and I didn't magically learn to think for myself on my birthday."
:-) I remember turning 18. I had a sixteen year old girlfriend. One day prior I didn't have a care in the world. One day later and it became painfully clear to me that I could go to jail if her dad got pissed at me.
Unfortunately, the law says that you are a minor until the 18th anniversary of your birth, regardless of whether you were born premature or not
However stupid this law is, it also has the stupid corollary that parents have the legal responsibility for their minor children, no matter how mature they may be (or how immature they may be after turning 18).
"Today's cut off ages are a legal kludge, they do amount to stomping all over my freedoms, and they don't work very well, but no one has a better system in mind."
The law being what it is, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I am of the opinion that when a child decides he or she is mature, they move out of the home, get a job, and support themselves. Other societies in the past have worked this way, and from all accounts, were relatively successful at it.
"Americans are generally really prudish, and this is what is causing this debate in the first place."
Prudish? Not really. Look up the word. You'll find adjectives like "excessive" and "extreme" in reference to an attitude. Sexually uptight and/or repressed? Absolutely! America isn't perfect, but then again, neither is any nation. Other nations may not have our problems in the area of sexuality, but they have just as much or maybe more bad juju in other areas.
I first visited Europe when I was 16. I was immediately struck by the abundance of nudity in advertising. I thought it strange, and then being in the throes of adolescent hormonal overflows, I thought it both repugnant and fascinating. But at the same time I witnessed other European behaviors that were just as repressive as this American "prudishness".
"What I said is thet you're advocating censorship due to your own prudishness."
I am not advocating censorship! Let's get our definitions in order. I do not advocate the blocking or filtering of websites on your computer, or anyone else private computer. I have in the past advocated supervision for computers publically accessible by children, but supervision of children is a far different thing than denial or blockage.
And I am not a prude. I find the "yucky" stuff like coprophilia to be indeed yucky. And I find leathers, whips and handcuffs to be strange and not at all titillating. This is not prudishness (look it up). I mentioned some types of sexual behavior because many parents would find it objectionable to expose their children to it. Perhaps these parents are indeed prudish. Perhaps they're overly protective. So what? It is not a crime to be prudish.
"it's your responsibility as a parent to set out boundaries for your youngster and teach him/her not to cross them"
No one is arguing against this...
"not my responsibility as someone who wants to provide a free Net terminal in my laundromat/restaurant/bookstore/whatever, to make sure I dumb down my Net access just for your kids."
I am not saying it is your responsibility. You can do whatever you want within your own private sphere, including your private laundromat. That's not the point. The original poster seemed to think that it might be somewhat prudent to filter the net access since *his* laundromat was so close to a school. If he does decide to restrict net access, and you don't like it, the solution is simple: don't patronize his establishment!
"Use whatever you want in private, I don't care."
Last I checked, the vast majority of Laundromats in the United States were private. I am absolutely confident that the one mentioned is private. I am belaboring this point because I am seeing exactly the same emotional outrage against this private use of filterware as I saw a few months ago when it was in reference to public libraries. The equal levels of outrage make me think that some people are unaware of the differences between public and private.
">What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent?...
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America gives me that right.
Perhaps I am parsing the English language wrong. Please excuse the following mini-rant if I misunderstood you. You may have the right to hold an opinion on the topic, express it in speech, press or other medium, and even hold public assemblies for the purpose of getting your views adopted as law, but you do not have the right to deny parentage to anyone! Certainly you have the right to advocate tyranny, because that's what you're doing.
Now that I think about, I am certain that I misparsed your previous statement simply because it is so outrageous.
"Libertarian my ass--I'm a libertarian, and you're too narrow minded to see the forest for the trees."
Libertarianism is about the non-initiation of force. Censorware and internet filtering software does not initiate force. It is not coercive. Neither does the use of it in laundromats consitute coercion. In fact, the use of filterware in public libraries does not initiate force either, only the collection of taxes to support them does.
A laundromat that installs filtering software does not infringe on your rights any more than a liquor store that decides not to carry adult magazines does.
"And that is the very definition of censorship."
Censorship is not prudishness.
And yes, you're obviously prudish; you lump bondage and "barely legal" in the same category as bestiality and coprophilia.
Oh gee, I don't like bondage so I'm a prude!? Get real. I lumped these items together because they are things that a lot of parents would have severe objections to their children witnessing. Bondage may be consensual, and for the most part is play-acting, but real dominance in a relationship, particularly when it is usually associated with sadism, is not normal. "Barely legal" caters to the borderline pedophile, and is the pederast's methadone.
"You pro censorship types are such blame-shifting imbeciles."
I am not pro-censorship. If you have read any of my other posts, you will know that. I am a radical libertarian, and as such I have absolutely no interest in telling you what you can or cannot do.
But as a libertarian, I greatly object that you wish to ban a class of software for use in private. Censorware may be morally objectionable to you, but for some people it isn't. It is one thing to keep censorware out of publically funded libraries, but it is quite another to keep it out of a private laundermat. There is a universe of difference between government censorship and the outright banning of pornography and parents restricting what their minor children can view.
This whole slashdot topic was about using or not using censorware in a private business. Your morality simply does not enter into it. Your comment about the ineffectuality of filtering by words was right on topic and informative. Your accusal of Americans as prudes was very off topic.
"If your kids are raised properly, you don't need to protect them from the Big Bad Internet, they'll know which sites are good and healthy and which sites are negative and unhealthy."
It would be great if all children were raised properly. But they're not. But it's completely irrelevant. It's absolutely stupid to say to a parent "you did a bad job raising your kids so you forfeit all rights to keep pornography away from them".
"If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education."
What arrogance! What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent? You, sir, have absolutely no moral, legal or ethical right to tell someone else how they should raise their own children. How dare you! Before you start accusing us of reducing the net to our own "narrow ideology and belief and morality", take a good look at youself. We certainly do not want to impose our morality on the net. But you, on the other hand, want to impose your morality on people's lives and children.
"why dyou think BSD lost to AT&T ?"
A) The BSD license does not allow the license to be changed.
B) The BSD/AT&T case was settled out of court. No one won. No one lost. AT&T forgave Berkeley's infringment, and Berkeley forgave AT&T's infringement.
It's time Americans just stopped beingthe most prudish...
It's not about being prudish, it's about blocking off what you don't want to see. I don't like going into adult bookstores, and when I see one I simply do not enter. Simple, huh? But that's not how it works on the internet.
Objecting to double penetration, copraphilia, bondage, sadism, 'barely legal', and even bestiality does not qualify as prudery. (yes, bestiality, I saw a bannerad for it at a swimsuit site last week) My biggest objection however is the insistance that I can't keep my children away from anything that isn't immediately fatal.
"What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
The first thing you need to do is figure out what your ideals really are. And get your definitions in order. All too often we go through life with half-baked ideals and fuzzy definitions, and when we discover that reality is rock-solid and not subject to our perceptions, then it will be us that have to bend.
I seriously doubt that your ideal on censorship is your right to expose other people's children to pornography. Ideal hits reality and reality wins again. Despite what those in the ivory towers (or slashdot pits) say, there is indeed pornography on the net and it is easy to access and parents can't watch over their children 25 hours a day. So figure out what your ideal really is.
And maybe you need to get your definition of "censorship" in order. We would all agree that government institutions have no right to censor. And we probably all agree that parents do have the right to limit their children's access to certain materials. But you need to figure out where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable censorship. If a liquor store owner can go to jail for selling Hustler to a minor, then you too have the possibility of landing in the same cell by selling a minor pornographic access.
I'm not sure what "Surfnwash" does, or how it will operate. But I think your real question is not "what happens when our ideals hit the real world?" but rather "what competent blocking software or mechanisms are available?"
Parallel ports are compiled in to every default kernel I have ever seen. Of course, I don't use Redhat. Perhaps they don't consider that their users will have printers by default.
You did not need an OS to run FS1.0. You stuck the floppy in the drive and booted off of it. But who cares. I was running PC-DOS, which even though created by MS, was purchased from IBM with no royalties to MS.
Had the KKK showed up in Philly and tried to do a protest march, you would have all been screaming for the cops to bust some heads. Had the Pro-Life crowd showed up and threatened to cause violent interruption to the proceedings, you'd want them in jail until at LEAST the next decade. Yet when it's one of YOUR guys...
Face it, these Philly protestors don't give a shit about anyone's rights but their own. They're living a double standard. It's okay to for cops to break the arms of Operation Rescue protestors, but asking for Emmett's ID is the ultimate proof that we're living in a police state.
The Sixties: place flowers in the barrels of the national guard.
The Naughts: pretend to have a backpack of 'nades and cuss at the police.
He just wants to make sure that the on-campus PIRG organizations continue to collect mandatory student fees
Aaargh! Are they still extorting students? Somehow having to pay a private political organization for the right to register at a public univiversity epitomizes everything that's wrong with modern American liberalism.
Today "civil disobedience" has become a charade.
Absolutely! These guys have no clue what civil disobedience is. A friend of mine recently joined a particular environmental group. They have a plan to wear LA police uniforms and direct the real cops away from impending acts of violence during the LA demo convention. He thinks it's a lark! Claims I have no sense of humor.
No one forced them to become cops, this is the job that they chose.
And I will give them an extraordinary amount of respect just for that. They chose to put their lives between you and evil and all you can do is bitch. For you I have no respect.