Redhat doesn't sell GPL software. It sells service, support, and shrink-wrapped boxes with manuals and CDs.
The more packaging, wrapping, manuals and glitz you take away from a Redhat box, the more and more the market price approaches that of a blank CD. Set up a stack of Redhat CDs, sans boxes, at the local fleamarket and see how much they're really worth.
It's a paraphrase of a dictionary definition. Here is the definition from MW:
1 a : absence of government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
My beef with the anarchyfaq is the insistence that its variety of anarchism is the only variety. It's like saying American-style corporatism is the only kind of capitalism, or soviet-style communism is the only kind of socialism.
history, at least in my mind, has much more validity than any dictionary.
The dictionary is history! According to MW, the word "anarchism" was first documented in the English language in 1642, well before the rise of capitalism. It isn't a new term devised by anarchist intelligentsia to describe their particular political views, but a very old word describing "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable".
If this particular variety of anarchism wishes to disassociate itself with all other ideologies calling themselves "anarchist", then it should use a more suitable word or term, such as "libertaire", "libertarian socialist", or "anarcho-socialist".
why do you say "true" anarchists are against government?
Because government is the quintessential hierarchical authority of mankind. A government without authority is not a government.
were the anarchists in the spanish civil war against the systems of government they set up?
Two possible answers here (since I am not a student of the Spanish Civil War). A) They felt that the lesser authortarian was preferable to the greater authortarian, and though not the ideal solution, was still closer to their goal; and B) They may have just been talking the anarchist talk without actually understanding its implications (shades of the Che Cafe).
how can one anarchist tell another s/he is idealogically invalid?
Funny, but that's exactly what the anarchyfaq does. It has a whole section on why anarcho-capitalists are ideologically invalid. Here's the link.
i have grown very wary of anyone who claims to have all the answers.
I certainly don't have all the answers. Nor do I claim to. But I suspect that should humanity ever get the chance to self-organize an politico-economic system in the absence of externally applied force, the results will be unlike either libertarian socialism or anarcho-capitalism.
"anarchy" means the absence of ruling authority. Some varieties simplify that even further by denying all authority (such as your anarchistfaq does). But however you look at it, government is an authority. Participatory democracy, like all forms of democracy, is a system of government. And progressive taxation, like all forms of taxation, is an instrument of government. Thus, true anarchists cannot advocate participatory democracy or progressive taxation.
p.s. Despite your FAQs protestations to the contrary, its brand of quasi-anarcho-socialist is not the only legitimate form of anarchy. It's just the most inconsistant. No wonder the Che Cafe is so confused.
I'm a former student of UCSD, and a former occasional patron of the Che Cafe.
The primary service provided by the Che Cafe is not sproutburgers or macrobiotic bean chili. No, the primary service provided by the Che Cafe is to be a living example of the effects of bad parenting.
You see, current and future parents, when you do not instill a minimum level of moral values in your child, then send them off to UCSD, they will fall prey to the Che Cafe. Empty heads are their fertile soil, for only in empty heads can the contradictory values of the Che Cafe thrive. They claim to be anarchists, yet named their cafe after Che Guevara, a confirmed totalitarian statist. They claim to be anarchists yet are in favor of participatory democracy and progressive taxation. They are what you get when you cross whiny brats with Bakunin.
Should UCSD force the Che Cafe to remove that particular link? Heck no! They're so much more hilarious when their antics are unfettered.
Using the same shell for a file manager and a web browser is crap usability in the first place
I don't think it matters if it's the same shell or two different applications. Consider the case of Nautilus displaying a list of files and Mozilla displaying a list of files. One is a directory on a local filesystem while the other is a ftp site. But to the user they are both displaying the same kind of information.
Well, the people on the BSD lists do take their list charters much more seriously. For example, the freebsd-newbies list is not for technical questions. It's in the charter and once a week a reminder is posted telling everyone not to post technical questions. If you ask a technical question on -newbies expect to be flamed.
p.s. Of course, if you post a technical question to a list populated by newbies, you should not be expecting any correct technical answers.
No, it's not the case. Bero did not say why he used the term "crippleware", so it's all guesswork. But "crippleware" is a very strange way to describe default settings. "Crippleware" is referring to software, not some global configuration files. Methinks Bero is upset at something broken, unstable or missing in essential functionality.
The alternative would be using all KDE apps in their place.
That's not the alternative. My KDE menu shows "Mozilla". I didn't put it there, KDE put it there! You see, during installation, KDE looked for other common applications to put in its menu, and found Mozilla.
It doesn't bother me that Redhat is fiddling around with their menus. But I am suspicious that they don't know what they're doing in their fiddling of the menus. Let's suppose that a user has Konqueror, Mozilla, Galeon, Phoenix and Opera installed. They open up the Redhat root menu and see "Web Browser". Which browser does that refer to? Where are the other browsers?
so far everything points to Red Hat simply changing the default themes and icons
This is Redhat's version of things. But it's obviously not the problem, because a heck of a lot of other distros do it. There's something deeper going on. The key word in Bero's extremely short message is "crippleware".
You don't use a word like "crippleware" to describe a theme or icon set you dislike. You use it to describe software that is unstable or hindered in its functionality.
If you go check, you'll find that no KDE developer has complained about the theme or icon set Redhat is using. Their complaints are about other things.
I don't have the time right now to do an exhaustive survey of Linux reportage, so let me just submit some anecdotal evidence as to why Linux is more and more becoming the Anti-Windows instead of the Pro-Unix operating system.
1) The number of Register articles and Slashdot posts that begin with the words "If Linux is to replace Windows then..."
2) The bile expended by Linux users in attacking Microsoft. Your local cableco and telco are monopolies as well, but no one is calling for the public execution of their CEOs.
From my perspective, Linux users are obsessed with Windows. Please note that this has nothing to do with Linux the operating system. It's merely my observation of postings by Linux users and articles by the Linux press.
128MB might seem excessive now, but a year from now 64MB cards might just be obsolete.
I'm tired of this rat race. I'm tired of every six months some hardware company telling me I'm obsolete. I'm sick of companies telling me to buy, buy, buy. Buy until it hurts! Buy until your wallet implodes!
What? Is today's software suddenly going to disappear next year? Are KDE and GNOME suddenly going to decide to render everything in OpenGL? Will Mozilla just sit and stall if I only have 64Meg video? I think not...
You are indeed responding to a troll. A funny troll, to be sure, but a troll nonetheless.
The point of the troll is that a significant majority of environmentalists are proponents of the idea that nature can do no wrong and industrialized humanity can do no good.
That's only if you want to change the license. You don't need anyone's permission to hold a valid interpretation of copyright law that happens to be different from the FSF's valid interpretation of copyright law.
Until a court rules that dynamic runtime linkage through a public API does or does not constitute derivation, the matter is up in the air.
You could of course take the position that an application that dynamically links to a shared libary is not a derivative of that library. Problem solved. Even if RMS doesn't believe it, you can and place a disclaimer in your license saying so.
The BSD license is evil. It is a license to steal. Using it will only ensure that corporations will not contribute anything back to the community......What's that? Sun contributed back? Well, shit. That ruins that argument...
Slashdot Mirror
Redhat doesn't sell GPL software. It sells service, support, and shrink-wrapped boxes with manuals and CDs.
The more packaging, wrapping, manuals and glitz you take away from a Redhat box, the more and more the market price approaches that of a blank CD. Set up a stack of Redhat CDs, sans boxes, at the local fleamarket and see how much they're really worth.
It's a paraphrase of a dictionary definition. Here is the definition from MW:
My beef with the anarchyfaq is the insistence that its variety of anarchism is the only variety. It's like saying American-style corporatism is the only kind of capitalism, or soviet-style communism is the only kind of socialism.
history, at least in my mind, has much more validity than any dictionary.
The dictionary is history! According to MW, the word "anarchism" was first documented in the English language in 1642, well before the rise of capitalism. It isn't a new term devised by anarchist intelligentsia to describe their particular political views, but a very old word describing "a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable".
If this particular variety of anarchism wishes to disassociate itself with all other ideologies calling themselves "anarchist", then it should use a more suitable word or term, such as "libertaire", "libertarian socialist", or "anarcho-socialist".
why do you say "true" anarchists are against government?
Because government is the quintessential hierarchical authority of mankind. A government without authority is not a government.
were the anarchists in the spanish civil war against the systems of government they set up?
Two possible answers here (since I am not a student of the Spanish Civil War). A) They felt that the lesser authortarian was preferable to the greater authortarian, and though not the ideal solution, was still closer to their goal; and B) They may have just been talking the anarchist talk without actually understanding its implications (shades of the Che Cafe).
how can one anarchist tell another s/he is idealogically invalid?
Funny, but that's exactly what the anarchyfaq does. It has a whole section on why anarcho-capitalists are ideologically invalid. Here's the link.
i have grown very wary of anyone who claims to have all the answers.
I certainly don't have all the answers. Nor do I claim to. But I suspect that should humanity ever get the chance to self-organize an politico-economic system in the absence of externally applied force, the results will be unlike either libertarian socialism or anarcho-capitalism.
"anarchy" means the absence of ruling authority. Some varieties simplify that even further by denying all authority (such as your anarchistfaq does). But however you look at it, government is an authority. Participatory democracy, like all forms of democracy, is a system of government. And progressive taxation, like all forms of taxation, is an instrument of government. Thus, true anarchists cannot advocate participatory democracy or progressive taxation.
p.s. Despite your FAQs protestations to the contrary, its brand of quasi-anarcho-socialist is not the only legitimate form of anarchy. It's just the most inconsistant. No wonder the Che Cafe is so confused.
Mozilla shouldn't do FTP at all. Why should it?
We've gotten way off topic (single versus double clicks), but you make an awesome point.
I'm a former student of UCSD, and a former occasional patron of the Che Cafe.
The primary service provided by the Che Cafe is not sproutburgers or macrobiotic bean chili. No, the primary service provided by the Che Cafe is to be a living example of the effects of bad parenting.
You see, current and future parents, when you do not instill a minimum level of moral values in your child, then send them off to UCSD, they will fall prey to the Che Cafe. Empty heads are their fertile soil, for only in empty heads can the contradictory values of the Che Cafe thrive. They claim to be anarchists, yet named their cafe after Che Guevara, a confirmed totalitarian statist. They claim to be anarchists yet are in favor of participatory democracy and progressive taxation. They are what you get when you cross whiny brats with Bakunin.
Should UCSD force the Che Cafe to remove that particular link? Heck no! They're so much more hilarious when their antics are unfettered.
All GPL (I believe)
Wrong. Some aren't under the GPL. In fact, one isn't even Free Software!
Then he should have said why he used the word.
Why? His message was posted to kde-devel. He is a member of that mailing list. He was posting to announce his address change.
Using the same shell for a file manager and a web browser is crap usability in the first place
I don't think it matters if it's the same shell or two different applications. Consider the case of Nautilus displaying a list of files and Mozilla displaying a list of files. One is a directory on a local filesystem while the other is a ftp site. But to the user they are both displaying the same kind of information.
My impression was that folks were a bit snottier.
Well, the people on the BSD lists do take their list charters much more seriously. For example, the freebsd-newbies list is not for technical questions. It's in the charter and once a week a reminder is posted telling everyone not to post technical questions. If you ask a technical question on -newbies expect to be flamed.
p.s. Of course, if you post a technical question to a list populated by newbies, you should not be expecting any correct technical answers.
Mandrake started at version 6
Actually it started with version 5.3. And if 0.0 to 5.3 isn't version inflation, I don't know what is...
No, it's not the case. Bero did not say why he used the term "crippleware", so it's all guesswork. But "crippleware" is a very strange way to describe default settings. "Crippleware" is referring to software, not some global configuration files. Methinks Bero is upset at something broken, unstable or missing in essential functionality.
The alternative would be using all KDE apps in their place.
That's not the alternative. My KDE menu shows "Mozilla". I didn't put it there, KDE put it there! You see, during installation, KDE looked for other common applications to put in its menu, and found Mozilla.
It doesn't bother me that Redhat is fiddling around with their menus. But I am suspicious that they don't know what they're doing in their fiddling of the menus. Let's suppose that a user has Konqueror, Mozilla, Galeon, Phoenix and Opera installed. They open up the Redhat root menu and see "Web Browser". Which browser does that refer to? Where are the other browsers?
so far everything points to Red Hat simply changing the default themes and icons
This is Redhat's version of things. But it's obviously not the problem, because a heck of a lot of other distros do it. There's something deeper going on. The key word in Bero's extremely short message is "crippleware".
You don't use a word like "crippleware" to describe a theme or icon set you dislike. You use it to describe software that is unstable or hindered in its functionality.
If you go check, you'll find that no KDE developer has complained about the theme or icon set Redhat is using. Their complaints are about other things.
I'm a self-proclaimed single-click hater. That's my NUMBER ONE gripe about Konqueror.
Konqueror is not just a file manager. It's also a web browser. Are you advocating that double-click shoudl be the standard for accessing HTML links?
Think long and hard before you answer. Think about Konqueror the file manager and Konqueror the browser both displaying the very same FTP directory.
Point is, don't let some loudmouth advocates skew your view of Linux users as a whole.
It wouldn't be a problem if the quiet people stood up and shouted now and then...
I don't have the time right now to do an exhaustive survey of Linux reportage, so let me just submit some anecdotal evidence as to why Linux is more and more becoming the Anti-Windows instead of the Pro-Unix operating system.
1) The number of Register articles and Slashdot posts that begin with the words "If Linux is to replace Windows then..."
2) The bile expended by Linux users in attacking Microsoft. Your local cableco and telco are monopolies as well, but no one is calling for the public execution of their CEOs.
From my perspective, Linux users are obsessed with Windows. Please note that this has nothing to do with Linux the operating system. It's merely my observation of postings by Linux users and articles by the Linux press.
Everytime I see that statement, the more true it has become.
128MB might seem excessive now, but a year from now 64MB cards might just be obsolete.
I'm tired of this rat race. I'm tired of every six months some hardware company telling me I'm obsolete. I'm sick of companies telling me to buy, buy, buy. Buy until it hurts! Buy until your wallet implodes!
What? Is today's software suddenly going to disappear next year? Are KDE and GNOME suddenly going to decide to render everything in OpenGL? Will Mozilla just sit and stall if I only have 64Meg video? I think not...
You are indeed responding to a troll. A funny troll, to be sure, but a troll nonetheless.
The point of the troll is that a significant majority of environmentalists are proponents of the idea that nature can do no wrong and industrialized humanity can do no good.
That's only if you want to change the license. You don't need anyone's permission to hold a valid interpretation of copyright law that happens to be different from the FSF's valid interpretation of copyright law.
Until a court rules that dynamic runtime linkage through a public API does or does not constitute derivation, the matter is up in the air.
Sigh. Sun can contribute to Open Source without having to contribute to Linux.
You could of course take the position that an application that dynamically links to a shared libary is not a derivative of that library. Problem solved. Even if RMS doesn't believe it, you can and place a disclaimer in your license saying so.
Open Source != Linux
Not to mention one of the real unixes as open source would be neat.
...
FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Darwin,
Yes, they're reall unices. They may not be able to use the trade mark, but they're a lot more UNIX than many an official UNIX.
The BSD license is evil. It is a license to steal. Using it will only ensure that corporations will not contribute anything back to the community... ...What's that? Sun contributed back? Well, shit. That ruins that argument...