If someone can't figure out how to turn off their GUI, they shouldn't be TRYING to turn off their GUI.
I don't necessarily agree, mostly because I think you miss my point a bit. I don't argue to the point of TURNING OFF a GUI, but rather choosing one that might be a little more difficult to use in exchange for better performance. If a user is coddled by the OS, then the "luser calls" that support folk get will continue. If users are educated to use more powerful systems, if a bit more difficult, we create smarter people and less headaches.
To me, the goals of Linux are in the realm of a powerful, flexible, stable, free (as in speech) OS. Additional ease-of-use isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think that it can be over-done: at which point it becomes misdirected effort.
Let the people who are good at UI do the UI thing, and the low-level systems people do theirs!
What an idea... that way stability and power will be retained, with a nice layer of easiness over it
EXACTLY! That is a very concise way of putting it! Keep easy-to-use stuff as its own layer, so that it can easily be disabled or replaced. The moment we start incorporating ease-of-use into the guts of the OS, we become MS.
the underlying assumption that ease of use eliminates power is a flawed one
I couldn't agree more. I feel I must clarify - I don't believe that ease of use necessarily decreases performance: however, I have noticed a disturbing trend towards that relationship. It would seem that when ease-of-use (especially hyper-simple interfaces [HsI]) becomes the priority, performance suffers. I think it is wise to observe a balance between performance and usability.
I simply hope that we are not so short-sighted as to give up the things that make Linux so very useful to Geeks when making it useful for the less-savvy.
The only things I can think of, beyond those mentioned in the article, that would be of any use on the Web involve searches.
Finding, for instance, data that is more related to a user's OS when seraching would be a nice feature. The problem is, for anything that demonstrated an appreciable amount of AI, you would have to go beyond simple searches. My recommendation would be to create an automatic moderation system for a weblog. I'd be curious how an AI would moderate a posts involving Natalie Portman and hot grits.:P
You'll note that I agree with you -- I don't fear that my CLI or that my lightweight GUI's like WindowMaker and AfterStep will be "taken away." As I said, anyone with reasonable computing ability can configure Linux to be anything they want or need.
My concern is that the "average users" being targeted by hyper-simple interfaces may never see the power and flexibility that makes Linux so great. To them, it will just be another OS, and the only advantage they see will be cost. Unless, of course, care is taken to design these interfaces in such a manner that they do not hog resources or cause instabilities.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want Linux to become a "MS-Windows, unless you know what you're doing" OS.
Why is there so much emphasis on "friendly" Linux? Granted, there are some ease-of-use items that need work on Linux if it is to be "the Desktop of the masses" so-to-speak. However, I'm concerned that ease-of-use will yank the power and configurability that makes Linux such an ideal OS, IMHO.
I know that users who know enough can turn off (or just not install) usability features, but my concern is for those who -don't- know enough. I am of the opinion that the fault is less in the hands of developers and more in the hands of educators. I think it would serve the community best to concentrate on educating users and providing better, clearer, easy-to-find documentation.
I guess my fear is that Linux will become -- to the non-techsavvy -- another Windows: slow, unreliable, frustrating. We've seen the ease-of-use channel explored. Let's keep our priorities straight: power and flexibility first, ease-of-use second.
That said, I must say that the work described by this article is of high quality... I just hope that it doesn't come at too much of a price.
As you are no doubt aware, the technology that drives web site design is advancing rapidly. However, there are still a lot of users who run older browsers, or prefer to use text-only browsers such as Lynx.
Obviously, one wants to reach as large an audience as possible, but not "lag behind" too far. How do you go about balancing the use of newer technology on a site without alienating users of older software, disabled users, and text-only browsers?
This Slashdot story mentioned the US Government's plan to create a corp of 'connected soldiers' using palmtops and GPS equipment (among other things).
I hope whomever is in charge of this project becomes aware of this technology - as other posters on the aforementioned story noted, EMF radiation could make these JEDI's a glowing target. Lower EMF means fewer KIA (Killed In Action, not the crappy car company) JEDI's.
Besides, the low power consumption is something that nearly every PDA user can appreciate: and in field-critical situations, could be another lifesaver.
Are our webpage links, like yours to http://radiantmatrix.org/, considered part of the "comment"? I don't think so, as they are replicated over many comments, but IANAL.
That might be a little sketchy, but I would be willing to bet that since that link is only in the header of _my_ comment, I own its copyright. What worries me is that sigs like yours, which links to DeCSS, could be the source of lawsuits: not against you, but against Slashdot.
To suggest that objective ratings systems wouldn't work based on the fact that sexual content, violence and illegal drugs are discussed in both an Elton John album and a Kid Rock Album is flawed.
Granted, just saying "this has sexual content" is not enough. There would need to be a -rating- system, as I have said: "this has VERY GRAPHIC sexual content" down to "this has euphemistic sexual references."
Besides, the rating system shouldn't be the ONLY thing ever considered - just as checking the ingredients and nutrition facts on food products isn't the only qualification for determining if it is "healthy." If, for instance, all you ever bought was Milk, because it is so healthy (based on the labeling), you would not have a healthy diet - more information is thus needed.
This is indeed a well-written brief. It constantly refers to excellent precedent to support the notion that a hyperlink -- regardless of the nature of information on the target site -- is as much protected speech as saying that such information exists. There is also the powerful point of how much the plaintiffs are over-reacting to this situation: this isn't national security.
I found it very persuasive, but I sincerely hope the judge that reviews has a nice dose of Cloo(tm).
This decision could have far-reaching implications: if linking is not held to be protected speech, any of us who have a website could then be obligated to verify the legality of anything we link to. This bodes ill for publicly-managed sites. Just think of Slashdot: they could be sued over links in our sigs. (Granted, Slashdot would likely win since the commenter is clearly the copyright owner, but it would still hurt to have expensive lawsuits being served constantly)
I wouldn't let this one sleep -- we need to make an issue of this so that site linking remains free speech.
In regard to the glowing praise and lack of critiscism in reviews of filtering software, you wrote:
Have to wonder how much the censorware companies are paying the mainstream press to sing the praises of their wares to the proles...
Though I wouldn't be shocked if this were occuring, I don't think it needs to. The popular press sways toward what they presume to be the opinion most popular among their readers. Since most folks who subscribe to PC Magazine really want to believe that filtering software will "protect" their kids from the "big evil Internet", the reviews of these products will not show that they are a waste of cash.
Although, from another point of view, you are correct: the press is concerned about its advertising income too...:P
While this should not be particularly amazing to anyone with a decent technical knowledge of how these systems work, it is good to see a public source acknowledge it. Maybe this is the first step toward popular media coverage of the flaws in this type of software. Now all we need to do is use this report to make some noise, so the mainstream press will take their eyes off of the AP wire for a moment and do some real reporting!
Before the flaming starts, I want to state very clearly that I am -against- this bill. There.
That said, I hold that the basic idea behind uniform rating systems is solid - require makers of games, movies, TV shows, etc. to inform the public about the content of their product so that the consumer can make their own decision. Think of it as an "ingredients" label for entertainment products.
The problem is that there has yet to be a truly accurate rating system. Why? Because the folks that are responsible for rating things have very subjective outlooks when designing the criteria for a system. If -- and that's a big if -- a purely objective method for rating such products could be designed (and ideally subjected to consumer and peer review), I would likely support legislation requiring labeling including the rating.
However, I would not support a rating system based on "intended age" or "maturity level." Companies/Organisations/Goverments have no right to tell the public that someone must be a certain age to view some type of entertainment. That is a decision best left to parents or guardians. Simple rating systems for amounts of violence, vulgarity (I deprecate the term "mature language" as many find such language immature:), sexual content, nudity, etc. would be the only beneficial method.
In this way, consumers are not told that something is "bad" or "for mature audiences" or any such related message. They are simply told "this product depicts a lot of violence and sex" and leaves the decision wether this is morally acceptable in the individual's hands.
In short: requiring rating-related information is good, so long as it doesn't imply any subjective opinion. i.e. "This game contains violence" is ok, but "This game is too violent for anyone under 16" is not.
Comments? Does this make sense? Any improvements? Lets start an Open Rating System!:P
disclaimer { I use Linux primarily, and happen to like it better than BSD. However, I also use FreeBSD on several boxen, and enjoy it. }
It seems that those folks who are pro-Linux and anti-BSD might be getting more competition from FreeBSD with this advent.
As mentioned, Linux already has quite a bit of corporate support - but from a corporate perspective, this might be even better. BSDI supporting FreeBSD will, IMO, be very attractive to companies interested in a free *NIX.
I just hope that the competition isn't so fierce that Linux gets shoved backwards on the acceptance ladder. I can't wait until I can walk in the door at a random company and see Linux on the desktop, BSD in the server room, and Windows in the boss' offices (we wouldn't want the PHB's to have a powerful OS, now, would we?:P)
From Webster Online:censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Since Slashdot does not do this (only volunteer moderators) at all, the site is not guilty of censorship. And since you can browse at -100 if you want, and get every post ever made, no one is enforcing any kind of censorship.
To claim that Slashdot promotes censorship is like claiming that Siskel and Ebert are censoring movies they rate as "two thumbs down" (-2?). Since no one is stopping you from seeing the film anyhow, there is no censorship.
don't see Corel as being a strictly Open Source company at all. But this is not a bad thing - personally I don't think that Linux is just about open source.
I agree with you... my statements were made with the mistaken idea that MetaCreations was something other than it was -- mistaken identity. I had thought Corel had started buying up rights to OpenSource software.
Just because it is likely that they will be selling software doesn't automatically make them into the Evil Empire.
I think you read too much into my comments. My concern isn't over closed-source software -- I currently develop a package that we keep closed because it generates more revenue. My concern was that previously open projects would be closed, causing a code fork (an open tree and a closed tree) and confusion for new users. I think we can all agree that, in general, that would be a bad thing.
And the GPL/LGPL stops Corel from closing their sources on code that adds onto existing GPL/LGPL code bases so don't panic.
This may be true, but if Corel owns the copyright, they can release all future versions under a closed license. It doesn't stop someone from forking off an open edition of the same software, but as discussed above, it causes confusion -- if Linux is to be a force on the home desktop, we need to work on eliminating (rather than creating) confusion.
Of course, this whole thing is my fault: I misread MetaCreations as something else entirely. Sorry 'bout that:P
Actually, I didn't know that MetaCreations had Linux products. This is a surprise. Please show me where I can pick up a copy of their products for Linux. Thanks.
Whoops... brain fart.:P I got MetaCreations confused with someone else who is now out of business. My mistake.
Can I have a show of hands on how many people are concerned that Corel is buying up anything Linux-related that they can get thier hands on?
I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but Corel has to make some cash somehow: I'm wondering how strong the commitment to OpenSource is. Is anyone else worried that future versions of Corel-owned Linux software are going to be closed? I wouldn't be too terribly surprised.
I applaud the intentions of the IRCnet operators. It's nice to see a group that's not corporate-owned standing up and saying "hey, we don't like malicious attacks any more than big business." Businesses who depend on the Internet for thier operation tend to have the attitude that anyone who doesn't have money riding on server uptime either doesn't care or is a malicious attacker. Actions like this send a clear message on where the community stands.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure that IRCnet has thoroughly thought this out. To echo the concerns of many other posters: isn't protesting DoS (Denial of Service, for the uninitiated) attacks by shutting down your service rather... counterproductive?
Aside from the confusing nature of the protest, IRCnet must realize that they risk annoying, perhaps even angering, a lot of thier users. Especially at risk: users who aren't aware of DDoS or the protest, and the script kiddies who perpetrate these kinds of attacks. I'm worried that this action may be inviting attacks and possible disaster on the IRCnet network.
Maybe a better way to do this would be to run a campaign like the yearly Anti-spam campaign, which asks web site operators to turn thier sites pink, and explain the protest. Things like that seem to have a greater effect than outages.
Well, in any case, I wish the folks of IRCnet the best of luck.
I've read many replies to the Copyright Office (there are too many to read them all), and from what I've seen, many good points have been made against the Act.
Being that it seems only large corporations are for the DMCA, I would hope that the Copyright Office would see the unfair limitations that enforcing the DMCA would impose. On the other hand, large corporations are the largest source of income to the Copyright Office.
Please, please, US Copyright Office, restore my faith that the system really does benefit the "little guy!" After all, wasn't the Copyright Office designed to protect the individual?
f it was GPL'd, then they had already assigned the rights to copy, modify and redistribute to other people, and so could not legally sign this agreement.
Here is a minor point where law works aside from common sense. The GPL is the GNU General Public License. They did not "assign" any "rights" to copy, modify, and/or redistribute. What they did (as stated ad nauseum elsewhere) is grant license to do so. This does not mean you have the right to copy, etc. -- it means that you have been granted permission to do so. Under the GPL, this permission is irrevocable.
While the Geek communities around the world are a fairly large voting group, the effect of geeks voting on highly technical matters may not be enough to sway the majority.
What the newfound social status of geekdom brings with it is the ability to educate - and thus influence - the public. With the Internet (and computing in general) rapidly growing toward media dominance, geeks who author and administer a good portion of Web content have more power than ever to make political statements. Getting admins everywhere to turn the sites they run pink to cry out against spam (and providing the appropriate informational links) has done more to raise public awareness that spam need not be just accepted than any other campaign.
We have the power. Let's use it to make real progress, not waste it on KDE v. GNOME, Linux v. BSD, etc. flamewars.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't necessarily agree, mostly because I think you miss my point a bit. I don't argue to the point of TURNING OFF a GUI, but rather choosing one that might be a little more difficult to use in exchange for better performance. If a user is coddled by the OS, then the "luser calls" that support folk get will continue. If users are educated to use more powerful systems, if a bit more difficult, we create smarter people and less headaches.
To me, the goals of Linux are in the realm of a powerful, flexible, stable, free (as in speech) OS. Additional ease-of-use isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think that it can be over-done: at which point it becomes misdirected effort.
--
What an idea... that way stability and power will be retained, with a nice layer of easiness over it
EXACTLY! That is a very concise way of putting it! Keep easy-to-use stuff as its own layer, so that it can easily be disabled or replaced. The moment we start incorporating ease-of-use into the guts of the OS, we become MS.
--
I couldn't agree more. I feel I must clarify - I don't believe that ease of use necessarily decreases performance: however, I have noticed a disturbing trend towards that relationship. It would seem that when ease-of-use (especially hyper-simple interfaces [HsI]) becomes the priority, performance suffers. I think it is wise to observe a balance between performance and usability.
I simply hope that we are not so short-sighted as to give up the things that make Linux so very useful to Geeks when making it useful for the less-savvy.
--
Finding, for instance, data that is more related to a user's OS when seraching would be a nice feature. The problem is, for anything that demonstrated an appreciable amount of AI, you would have to go beyond simple searches. My recommendation would be to create an automatic moderation system for a weblog. I'd be curious how an AI would moderate a posts involving Natalie Portman and hot grits. :P
--
My concern is that the "average users" being targeted by hyper-simple interfaces may never see the power and flexibility that makes Linux so great. To them, it will just be another OS, and the only advantage they see will be cost. Unless, of course, care is taken to design these interfaces in such a manner that they do not hog resources or cause instabilities.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want Linux to become a "MS-Windows, unless you know what you're doing" OS.
--
I know that users who know enough can turn off (or just not install) usability features, but my concern is for those who -don't- know enough. I am of the opinion that the fault is less in the hands of developers and more in the hands of educators. I think it would serve the community best to concentrate on educating users and providing better, clearer, easy-to-find documentation.
I guess my fear is that Linux will become -- to the non-techsavvy -- another Windows: slow, unreliable, frustrating. We've seen the ease-of-use channel explored. Let's keep our priorities straight: power and flexibility first, ease-of-use second.
That said, I must say that the work described by this article is of high quality... I just hope that it doesn't come at too much of a price.
--
Obviously, one wants to reach as large an audience as possible, but not "lag behind" too far. How do you go about balancing the use of newer technology on a site without alienating users of older software, disabled users, and text-only browsers?
--
I hope whomever is in charge of this project becomes aware of this technology - as other posters on the aforementioned story noted, EMF radiation could make these JEDI's a glowing target. Lower EMF means fewer KIA (Killed In Action, not the crappy car company) JEDI's.
Besides, the low power consumption is something that nearly every PDA user can appreciate: and in field-critical situations, could be another lifesaver.
--
That might be a little sketchy, but I would be willing to bet that since that link is only in the header of _my_ comment, I own its copyright. What worries me is that sigs like yours, which links to DeCSS, could be the source of lawsuits: not against you, but against Slashdot.
--
Granted, just saying "this has sexual content" is not enough. There would need to be a -rating- system, as I have said: "this has VERY GRAPHIC sexual content" down to "this has euphemistic sexual references."
Besides, the rating system shouldn't be the ONLY thing ever considered - just as checking the ingredients and nutrition facts on food products isn't the only qualification for determining if it is "healthy." If, for instance, all you ever bought was Milk, because it is so healthy (based on the labeling), you would not have a healthy diet - more information is thus needed.
Does that make more sense?
--
I found it very persuasive, but I sincerely hope the judge that reviews has a nice dose of Cloo(tm).
This decision could have far-reaching implications: if linking is not held to be protected speech, any of us who have a website could then be obligated to verify the legality of anything we link to. This bodes ill for publicly-managed sites. Just think of Slashdot: they could be sued over links in our sigs. (Granted, Slashdot would likely win since the commenter is clearly the copyright owner, but it would still hurt to have expensive lawsuits being served constantly)
I wouldn't let this one sleep -- we need to make an issue of this so that site linking remains free speech.
--
Although, from another point of view, you are correct: the press is concerned about its advertising income too... :P
--
While this should not be particularly amazing to anyone with a decent technical knowledge of how these systems work, it is good to see a public source acknowledge it. Maybe this is the first step toward popular media coverage of the flaws in this type of software. Now all we need to do is use this report to make some noise, so the mainstream press will take their eyes off of the AP wire for a moment and do some real reporting!
--
That said, I hold that the basic idea behind uniform rating systems is solid - require makers of games, movies, TV shows, etc. to inform the public about the content of their product so that the consumer can make their own decision. Think of it as an "ingredients" label for entertainment products.
The problem is that there has yet to be a truly accurate rating system. Why? Because the folks that are responsible for rating things have very subjective outlooks when designing the criteria for a system. If -- and that's a big if -- a purely objective method for rating such products could be designed (and ideally subjected to consumer and peer review), I would likely support legislation requiring labeling including the rating.
However, I would not support a rating system based on "intended age" or "maturity level." Companies/Organisations/Goverments have no right to tell the public that someone must be a certain age to view some type of entertainment. That is a decision best left to parents or guardians. Simple rating systems for amounts of violence, vulgarity (I deprecate the term "mature language" as many find such language immature :), sexual content, nudity, etc. would be the only beneficial method.
In this way, consumers are not told that something is "bad" or "for mature audiences" or any such related message. They are simply told "this product depicts a lot of violence and sex" and leaves the decision wether this is morally acceptable in the individual's hands.
In short: requiring rating-related information is good, so long as it doesn't imply any subjective opinion. i.e. "This game contains violence" is ok, but "This game is too violent for anyone under 16" is not.
Comments? Does this make sense? Any improvements? Lets start an Open Rating System! :P
--
I use Linux primarily, and happen to like it better than BSD. However, I also use FreeBSD on several boxen, and enjoy it.
}
It seems that those folks who are pro-Linux and anti-BSD might be getting more competition from FreeBSD with this advent.
As mentioned, Linux already has quite a bit of corporate support - but from a corporate perspective, this might be even better. BSDI supporting FreeBSD will, IMO, be very attractive to companies interested in a free *NIX.
I just hope that the competition isn't so fierce that Linux gets shoved backwards on the acceptance ladder. I can't wait until I can walk in the door at a random company and see Linux on the desktop, BSD in the server room, and Windows in the boss' offices (we wouldn't want the PHB's to have a powerful OS, now, would we? :P)
Just my USD0,02
--
From Webster Online: censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Since Slashdot does not do this (only volunteer moderators) at all, the site is not guilty of censorship. And since you can browse at -100 if you want, and get every post ever made, no one is enforcing any kind of censorship.
To claim that Slashdot promotes censorship is like claiming that Siskel and Ebert are censoring movies they rate as "two thumbs down" (-2?). Since no one is stopping you from seeing the film anyhow, there is no censorship.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
I agree with you... my statements were made with the mistaken idea that MetaCreations was something other than it was -- mistaken identity. I had thought Corel had started buying up rights to OpenSource software.
Just because it is likely that they will be selling software doesn't automatically make them into the Evil Empire.
I think you read too much into my comments. My concern isn't over closed-source software -- I currently develop a package that we keep closed because it generates more revenue. My concern was that previously open projects would be closed, causing a code fork (an open tree and a closed tree) and confusion for new users. I think we can all agree that, in general, that would be a bad thing.
And the GPL/LGPL stops Corel from closing their sources on code that adds onto existing GPL/LGPL code bases so don't panic.
This may be true, but if Corel owns the copyright, they can release all future versions under a closed license. It doesn't stop someone from forking off an open edition of the same software, but as discussed above, it causes confusion -- if Linux is to be a force on the home desktop, we need to work on eliminating (rather than creating) confusion.
Of course, this whole thing is my fault: I misread MetaCreations as something else entirely. Sorry 'bout that :P
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
Whoops... brain fart. :P I got MetaCreations confused with someone else who is now out of business. My mistake.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
I hate to sound like a conspiracy nut, but Corel has to make some cash somehow: I'm wondering how strong the commitment to OpenSource is. Is anyone else worried that future versions of Corel-owned Linux software are going to be closed? I wouldn't be too terribly surprised.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
- Insurance premiums are scaled on the average cost -- if everyone on your plan has health problems, your premium goes up as well. Sucks, eh?
- Seniority, especially in Union shops, is a key factor when downsizing. Often, work quality is not even a consideration. This has happened to me.
- It shouldn't work like this, but it really does a lot of the time.
Perhaps you could use better examples?--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
Maybe, just maybe, this will end up as a Supreme Court case! In any case, this will definately send a strong message on how hacks are viewed.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
On the other hand, I'm not so sure that IRCnet has thoroughly thought this out. To echo the concerns of many other posters: isn't protesting DoS (Denial of Service, for the uninitiated) attacks by shutting down your service rather... counterproductive?
Aside from the confusing nature of the protest, IRCnet must realize that they risk annoying, perhaps even angering, a lot of thier users. Especially at risk: users who aren't aware of DDoS or the protest, and the script kiddies who perpetrate these kinds of attacks. I'm worried that this action may be inviting attacks and possible disaster on the IRCnet network.
Maybe a better way to do this would be to run a campaign like the yearly Anti-spam campaign, which asks web site operators to turn thier sites pink, and explain the protest. Things like that seem to have a greater effect than outages.
Well, in any case, I wish the folks of IRCnet the best of luck.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
Being that it seems only large corporations are for the DMCA, I would hope that the Copyright Office would see the unfair limitations that enforcing the DMCA would impose. On the other hand, large corporations are the largest source of income to the Copyright Office.
Please, please, US Copyright Office, restore my faith that the system really does benefit the "little guy!" After all, wasn't the Copyright Office designed to protect the individual?
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
Here is a minor point where law works aside from common sense. The GPL is the GNU General Public License. They did not "assign" any "rights" to copy, modify, and/or redistribute. What they did (as stated ad nauseum elsewhere) is grant license to do so. This does not mean you have the right to copy, etc. -- it means that you have been granted permission to do so. Under the GPL, this permission is irrevocable.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me
What the newfound social status of geekdom brings with it is the ability to educate - and thus influence - the public. With the Internet (and computing in general) rapidly growing toward media dominance, geeks who author and administer a good portion of Web content have more power than ever to make political statements. Getting admins everywhere to turn the sites they run pink to cry out against spam (and providing the appropriate informational links) has done more to raise public awareness that spam need not be just accepted than any other campaign.
We have the power. Let's use it to make real progress, not waste it on KDE v. GNOME, Linux v. BSD, etc. flamewars.
--
: remove whitespace to e-mail me