I agree with most of what you write, but I think that you should emphasize the fact that there was a/hell/ of a lot more than "several towns" where people had decided anarchism was the best way to run their lives. In fact Catalonia and Aragon were almost exclusively anarchist and Barcelona itself was anarchist predominantly.
The other important thing that you don't emphasize is that Communists were active in trying to destroy the anarchists, there was a non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin and Uncle Joe wanted to keep Europe re-assured.,
It's also important not to forget the trotskyist POUM which was a small but active presence and also suffered from the May Day purges.
It should also be noted that the anarchists did not follow through with the logical outcome of their demands and chose to support a Popular Front government, reposing too much faith in the CNT-FAI bureaucracy (especially the CNT) leading to formation of the Friends of Durrutti who rediscovered the problems exposed by the Platformists during the Russian 1917 Revolution.
The researcher that is cited as developing the anonymizer Triangle Boy in this article is working for the company SafeWeb which is supposed to be: 1. A CIA front 2. A company that produces software that they won't bug fix and yet is supposed to ensure anonymity. Tchah! The only thing governments and their spook-agencies are good at doing is fscking things up.
the internet no longer has independent self-motivated content producers as its major players: instead big business has come in and trampled all over the commons.
Things are heading down a similar path everywhere in the so-called "democratic" countries: it turns out that the RaiseTheFist FBI raid that everyone was so concerned about was completely bogus. Bogus, in the sense that the government had no evidence against Sherman for the supposed "hacking" crimes, and the "fertilizer" that was supposed to be in his possession turned out to be potting soil. LOL! Check out the updates on this story of attempted perversion of the First Amendment.
You answer your own question here. The experiment will prove that the simulations were (or were not) correct.
Well, _what_ hypothesis? It doesn't make any sense to talk about the simulation being "correct".
Also the scientists do have a hypothesis: they think that some kind of cooperation will develop in the robots.
Ah, now that sounds closer to a hypothesis, but it should be a little more clearly defined, otherwise we get into a situation where some physical behavior is observed and on the basis of that someone constructs a hypothesis and claims that it is "proved" by the data that went to construct it.
Perhaps someone that works on this kind of thing can answer this question for me:
I can see that this might be a fun public spectacle and all but what, if any, are the advantages of building actual physical robots over doing simulations? I am confused by the presentation of this as an experiment. I expect an experiment to be designed to potentially falsify an hypothesis. Is this designed to investigate predator/prey ecologies? If so, would it not be cheaper and more effective to write simulations or use some branch of discrete mathematics to model interactions with different starting values of parameters? The only practical thing that I can see coming out of this is physical experience building robots, which is cool but is not what the aim of this "experiment" seems to be.
I think someone should throw the gauntlet down: let's see Bill Joy come up with a truly secure code for Java. And I mean some that meets the C2 standards for security, too.
Or how about a Sun Microsystems sponsored competition to see who can come up with the most destructive C# programs? There would be bonus points for getting them to do destructive things to Linux boxes running Mono!
Hmmmm. I'm not sure that you're right. It looks as though the 7000 is similar on the basis of possessing 64MB DDR, but the ATI docs seem to state that the 7200 is actually the inheritor of the mantle although it only has SDR (!)(I could be totally wrong, but I'm basing it on this): this link indicates that the Radeon7000 "has up to 64MB of DDR memory" toward the top of the document. The very bottom of the document says that the display capabilities indicated are "Maximum 3D resolution and colors supported with specified memory with double buffered setting 32-bit Z-buffer."
Whereas this indicates that the 7200 has "rapid 32-bit color 3D graphics" and "* 64MB of powerful single data rate (SDR) memory" (toward top) and the Radeon7200 FAQ says that
Q1: What's the difference between the original RADEON GPU and the 7200 GPU?
A1:
The 7200 GPU maintains the same functionality and performance as the original RADEON GPU.
Q2: Will the original RADEON product continue to be available?
A2:
The original RADEON product will transition to the new RADEON 7200 but will be available while dealers and distributors sell through their inventory. Please check with your dealer or distributor for original RADEON product availability.
I personally still find dead tree books preferrable to any e-books that I've experienced. I think mostly it's to do with the fact that my largest monitors are only 17" and that just doesn't cut it for relaxed viewing with a full page displayed in a decent font.
I wonder if there are physiological limits to vision/comprehension that have pushed us toward the current sizes of books (apart from the fact that we can't see in infra-red and with greater acuity!). I remember reading about "saccades" which are apparently the chunks of text-lines that our brains like to take in at one go (revealed through studying people's eyeball movement: it happens in discrete jumps across the text instead of being a smooth word-to-word progression).
Also, if I'm buying an e-book I expect it to be significantly cheaper due to the fact that the distribution costs are lower and I can't use it on the bus, or at the coffee-shop (my laptop screen is even smaller and the battery goes down after 2.5 hours!)
Ah. That would certainly push things along. I wonder what on earth Sun is thinking? Also, what would happen if people that are not Sun were to try and establish a standardized version of the language? Are there copyright issues that prevent that?
OK, so demonstrate how this applies to SAMBA? What are the free research ideas from SAMBA that are being incorporated into a better and stronger Linux? Face it, SAMBA is a compatability layer that people use to shoehorn Linux into m$ networks and they are doing a great, but hard job playing catch-up.
I disagree that selling software is "software hoarding." Not giving away source code is software hoarding.
Correction conceded and accepted gratefully
Questions: Are there any lawyers in the house? If I write a computer book in French, and one of the chapters is directly translated from someone else's book written in English, am I in violation of copyright? Is it harder to prosecute?
I hope someone answers this, it's a great question.
This is a nice clarification, but it makes at least one assertion that is a little questionable: what are the advantages of C# over Java? I asked this question yesterday and no-one responded. Here Miguel claims (in the What is Mono? section):
Seasoned industry programmers will notice that the above is
very much like Java and the Java VM. They are right, the above
is just like Java.
The CIL has one feature not found in Java though: it is
byte code representation that is powerful enough to be used as a
target for many languages: from C++, C, Fortran and Eiffel to Lisp
and Haskell including things like Java, C#, JavaScript and Visual
Basic in the mix.
But this is surely misleading? It's true that this doesn't exist at present, but there's nothing in theory to stop it being implemented (isn't Java sufficiently "powerful" for this to be done?)
If Java is capable of doing it, then why not work on making compilers for those languages to Java's bytecode instead of working with a new language?
I've been thinking about that too. However, it does not seem to be possible to buy a non-VIVO Radeon. The VIVO ones are $150 typically and this compares poorly to a 7500 at $100. I note on ATI's web site that they only make the Radeon 64MB DDR available as a "Multipack" and not as Retail. Have you spotted any source to get the original under warranty?
Most sane people consider this idea absurd I'll let that self-referential statement stand on its own merits!
Look, if I spend all of my time coming up with "ideas", I have to use them as my source of income; if I can't, I have to find some other source of income, which means I'm not spending any time coming up with those ideas anymore.
Logical. No argument with that. So you can be compensated for the time that you spend doing that through an income that is tied to your production of freely re-distributable ideas. That's the academic model. You work on producing ideas and get a secure, stable life with good benefits.
Or, you could be employed by a company like RedHat. They make money from support/service and use a portion of that to give jobs to talented hackers.
Or, working as a professional software development you can give away some of your time because it increases your standing in the community, raises your profile and in turn attracts employers who wish to pay you for proprietary, non-Free work.
In other words, for decent software to be developed at anything other than a glacial pace, people have to be able to devote time to it, and they have to be compensated for that time in a way that allows them to eat, live under a roof, etc.
In other words, there are several ways in which Free Software is already being developed and in which the developers quite rightly get the food, housing, etc. that you so rightly assert they have the right to be rewarded with. So what's the argument? I would suspect that it is that you are tilting against some fantasy windmill of communist free software.
No flame intended on my side. I just think that you don't get it and that you're arguing against some pre-conceived imaginary position.
Hah. After trying to checkout it merely popped up a little window saying that the item wasn't available for delivery or pick-up and redirected me to its "Think-About-It". Bah.
ATI Radeon 7500, 8500. Supported in XF86 4.2.0. Rpms available with RH Rawhide to ease installation pain (kernel-drm etc.). Also if you're considering spending $400 or so then there's the FireGL type of card.
There's is absolutely NOTHING wrong with charging for software.
That depends on what ethical and moral framework you are evaluating RIGHT/WRONG within. From some points of view withholding ideas that have zero cost for reproduction is an immoral attempt to exert power over others by software hoarding. They would further argue that this proprietary framework retards development and stifles innovation.
If you do nothing but write software for work, you have a reasonable expectation to make a living off it.
Most of the "Free" and "Open" software world has been arguing about this precise point since the success of Free Software in the form of GNU and Linux. The mantra used to be that one could make a living off service/support. That is what RH etc. are trying to do. There's a big difference between that and hoarding the actual product and charging per-seat licenses for each new version. Bitkeeper tried to find a middle way with allowing a dual-license: free,non-Free for those that surrender privacy, non-free,non-Free for commercial users that want to cloak their activities. This license is discussed here. This is an interesting idea and it is good software, but it is not Free.
The world doesn't run off charity man, nothing is free.
On the contrary, most of human activity is free. However, in this whole discussion you are missing the contentious part. Most GNU users are concerned about Freedom, not cost. This is an OLD argument!
This is not a troll or intended to be flamebait or anything: what are the crucial benefits that would be obtained by tying oneself to a completely new and untested programming framework like.NET?
Also (and this is really the same question in a different light) what is.NET and am I correct in saying that Mono is the Free implementation of.NET?
I have found one actual statement from Miguel as to why he wants to move Gnome from being based on C to being based on Mono (again this confuses me, I thought that.NET is some sort of super-duper XML based interactive protocols thingie that is actually written in C#):
http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list/2 002-February/msg00026.html
I am not asking anyone to rewrite any code. Indeed, I encourage people
not to do so. But when it comes to extend a product, Mono might be a
valuable tool. Valuable, because I believe that the major feature of.NET is reduction of development time and the reduction of the money we
spend on developing those products.
I have written a large amount of code over the years, and there is a
point in everyone's life, when you figure `dealing with memory
management is just not worth it'. I want to have a garbage collected
language, and I want to have a modern platform, and I want language
independence.
So, it seems that the main stated benefits in Miguel's mind are Garbage Collection and Language Independence. Is there no other way to acheive these goals?
I mean, the idea that RMS thinks he speaks for
the open source community
I would imagine that RMS would be pretty upset if you accused him of thinking he spoke for Open Source instead of for Free Software!!!
to the extent that he
can ask someone to explain their decisions on
matters that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with RMS
or the so-called community, and that he actually
expects and answer, seems fairly arrogant on Stallman's part
This is all becoming very silly. RMS was asked a question about this! He didn't volunteer an opinion. I think you are reacting to a/. created caricature of RMS
Maybe I've misunderstood something, but I don't believe that Miguel works for Stallman, uses any of Stallman's intellecutal or physical assets, or has any real obligation to him. So why does Stallman think Miguel owes anything to him or to anyone else?
Ummm...that GNOME thingy..what does that stand for I wonder? www.gnome.org says "GNOME is part of the GNU project and is free software [...]". Now, I wonder who started the GNU project? (This last question left as an exercise for the reader).
It's time that Linux people realize that hating MS
Ummmm, who's hating them? Sure there's a lot of posting from people on/. saying "I realize I'm in the minority that doesn't have MS" or "MS hating zealots have to realize", but I think that you'll find that anyone that actually does anything besides post to/. merely sees MS as an unreliable, irritating company that is great at making a profit. And there's the problem. It is, as is so boringly, and often pointed out on/. , a business and they exist for one purpose and one only: to make money.
Many of us prefer Free Software because it is made not to make money as a primary objective, but to perform a function. It is frequently more reliable and useful as a result of this different orientation.
is going no where and is completely unproductive
Even if "hate" were the prevalent motivating factor that you claim it hardly seems accurate to say that its supposed results are going nowhwere: I have a very functional desktop system and my servers are working just peachy thank you!
RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat
It all depends on what he actually means as opposed to the crazy, hate-filled, zealous caricature that you've made of him. If he is questioning what exactly Miguel means when he says Gnome4.0 should be based on.NET as opposed to it being based on Mono then there is nothing knee-jerk or reactionary about his query. He was delivered an incomplete and confusing quote/question and it is all being spun into a debate solely for the amusement of CmdrTaco and the/. trolls.
I mean for crying out loud the Ximian team is not even suggesting using non free code.
The class libraries are going to be released under the MIT X-11 license. Now, unless you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the situation then you mean non-Free when you write "non free".
o First, you talk about mainstream reporting being more "credible" than indymedia. This means that you have to have a clear measure of credibility, you have to have applied this metric to the two different bodies of work and then shown a statistically significant difference.
o Second, I agree that the article was painful to read, but I don't really care if it conveys its message. I would prefer that someone had edited it, but that is not an absolute essential. It will only make a difference to someone that is concerned with form over content. (Did you find it hard to comprehend the information and ideas contained by the highly unique grammar?)
o Third, you should draw a distinction between Indymedia's newswire stories and their center page stories. Speaking as an indymedia newsclerk I can tell you that editing etc. are considered to be a slippery path that we don't want to go down for fear of the danger of changing people's intended messages.
o Fourth, and finally, how come you have a (-1, insightful)? I don't see why your post would have garnered any negative moderations!
Raisethefist to be hosted by Neo-Nazis!!!
on
Raisethefist.com Raided
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I had to laugh when I saw this on indymedia: Bill White who is a constant neo-Nazi troll on indymedia has (he claims) reached a deal with Sherman to host raisethefist on his own server www.overthrow.com
I have no confirmation of this story but here is the link to his unpleasant website www.overthrow.com which focuses around anti-Zionism as an explanation for everything.
Tell me about it. If anti-globalization protesters were literate, maybe people would listen to them. Currently, they're far more amusing than credible.
Ha ha. Now that is amusing! Your use of "literate", that is! If he were literate then maybe more people would read him.
The only good Grammar Nazi is a CORRECT Grammar Nazi.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with most of what you write, but I think that you should emphasize the fact that there was a /hell/ of a lot more than "several towns" where people had decided anarchism was the best way to run their lives. In fact Catalonia and Aragon were almost exclusively anarchist and Barcelona itself was anarchist predominantly.
The other important thing that you don't emphasize is that Communists were active in trying to destroy the anarchists, there was a non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin and Uncle Joe wanted to keep Europe re-assured.,
It's also important not to forget the trotskyist POUM which was a small but active presence and also suffered from the May Day purges.
It should also be noted that the anarchists did not follow through with the logical outcome of their demands and chose to support a Popular Front government, reposing too much faith in the CNT-FAI bureaucracy (especially the CNT) leading to formation of the Friends of Durrutti who rediscovered the problems exposed by the Platformists during the Russian 1917 Revolution.
The researcher that is cited as developing the anonymizer Triangle Boy in this article is working for the company SafeWeb which is supposed to be:
1. A CIA front
2. A company that produces software that they won't bug fix and yet is supposed to ensure anonymity.
Tchah! The only thing governments and their spook-agencies are good at doing is fscking things up.
the internet no longer has independent self-motivated content producers as its major players: instead big business has come in and trampled all over the commons. Things are heading down a similar path everywhere in the so-called "democratic" countries: it turns out that the RaiseTheFist FBI raid that everyone was so concerned about was completely bogus. Bogus, in the sense that the government had no evidence against Sherman for the supposed "hacking" crimes, and the "fertilizer" that was supposed to be in his possession turned out to be potting soil. LOL! Check out the updates on this story of attempted perversion of the First Amendment.
You answer your own question here. The experiment will prove that the simulations were (or were not) correct.
Well, _what_ hypothesis? It doesn't make any sense to talk about the simulation being "correct".Also the scientists do have a hypothesis: they think that some kind of cooperation will develop in the robots.
Ah, now that sounds closer to a hypothesis, but it should be a little more clearly defined, otherwise we get into a situation where some physical behavior is observed and on the basis of that someone constructs a hypothesis and claims that it is "proved" by the data that went to construct it.Perhaps someone that works on this kind of thing can answer this question for me:
I can see that this might be a fun public spectacle and all but what, if any, are the advantages of building actual physical robots over doing simulations?
I am confused by the presentation of this as an experiment. I expect an experiment to be designed to potentially falsify an hypothesis. Is this designed to investigate predator/prey ecologies? If so, would it not be cheaper and more effective to write simulations or use some branch of discrete mathematics to model interactions with different starting values of parameters?
The only practical thing that I can see coming out of this is physical experience building robots, which is cool but is not what the aim of this "experiment" seems to be.
I think someone should throw the gauntlet down: let's see Bill Joy come up with a truly secure code for Java. And I mean some that meets the C2 standards for security, too.
Or how about a Sun Microsystems sponsored competition to see who can come up with the most destructive C# programs? There would be bonus points for getting them to do destructive things to Linux boxes running Mono!
Hmmmm. I'm not sure that you're right. It looks as though the 7000 is similar on the basis of possessing 64MB DDR, but the ATI docs seem to state that the 7200 is actually the inheritor of the mantle although it only has SDR (!)(I could be totally wrong, but I'm basing it on this):
this link indicates that the Radeon7000 "has up to 64MB of DDR memory" toward the top of the document. The very bottom of the document says that the display capabilities indicated are "Maximum 3D resolution and colors supported with specified memory with double buffered setting 32-bit Z-buffer."
Whereas this indicates that the 7200 has "rapid 32-bit color 3D graphics" and "* 64MB of powerful single data rate (SDR) memory" (toward top) and the Radeon7200 FAQ says that
Q1: What's the difference between the original RADEON GPU and the 7200 GPU?
A1: The 7200 GPU maintains the same functionality and performance as the original RADEON GPU.
Q2: Will the original RADEON product continue to be available?
A2: The original RADEON product will transition to the new RADEON 7200 but will be available while dealers and distributors sell through their inventory. Please check with your dealer or distributor for original RADEON product availability.
I personally still find dead tree books preferrable to any e-books that I've experienced. I think mostly it's to do with the fact that my largest monitors are only 17" and that just doesn't cut it for relaxed viewing with a full page displayed in a decent font.
I wonder if there are physiological limits to vision/comprehension that have pushed us toward the current sizes of books (apart from the fact that we can't see in infra-red and with greater acuity!). I remember reading about "saccades" which are apparently the chunks of text-lines that our brains like to take in at one go (revealed through studying people's eyeball movement: it happens in discrete jumps across the text instead of being a smooth word-to-word progression).
Also, if I'm buying an e-book I expect it to be significantly cheaper due to the fact that the distribution costs are lower and I can't use it on the bus, or at the coffee-shop (my laptop screen is even smaller and the battery goes down after 2.5 hours!)
Ah. That would certainly push things along. I wonder what on earth Sun is thinking? Also, what would happen if people that are not Sun were to try and establish a standardized version of the language? Are there copyright issues that prevent that?
OK, so demonstrate how this applies to SAMBA? What are the free research ideas from SAMBA that are being incorporated into a better and stronger Linux?
Face it, SAMBA is a compatability layer that people use to shoehorn Linux into m$ networks and they are doing a great, but hard job playing catch-up.
I disagree that selling software is "software hoarding." Not giving away source code is software hoarding.
Correction conceded and accepted gratefully
Questions: Are there any lawyers in the house? If I write a computer book in French, and one of the chapters is directly translated from someone else's book written in English, am I in violation of copyright? Is it harder to prosecute?
I hope someone answers this, it's a great question.
Seasoned industry programmers will notice that the above is very much like Java and the Java VM. They are right, the above is just like Java.
The CIL has one feature not found in Java though: it is byte code representation that is powerful enough to be used as a target for many languages: from C++, C, Fortran and Eiffel to Lisp and Haskell including things like Java, C#, JavaScript and Visual Basic in the mix.
But this is surely misleading? It's true that this doesn't exist at present, but there's nothing in theory to stop it being implemented (isn't Java sufficiently "powerful" for this to be done?)
If Java is capable of doing it, then why not work on making compilers for those languages to Java's bytecode instead of working with a new language?
I've been thinking about that too. However, it does not seem to be possible to buy a non-VIVO Radeon. The VIVO ones are $150 typically and this compares poorly to a 7500 at $100. I note on ATI's web site that they only make the Radeon 64MB DDR available as a "Multipack" and not as Retail. Have you spotted any source to get the original under warranty?
I'll let that self-referential statement stand on its own merits!
Look, if I spend all of my time coming up with "ideas", I have to use them as my source of income; if I can't, I have to find some other source of income, which means I'm not spending any time coming up with those ideas anymore.
Logical. No argument with that. So you can be compensated for the time that you spend doing that through an income that is tied to your production of freely re-distributable ideas. That's the academic model. You work on producing ideas and get a secure, stable life with good benefits.
Or, you could be employed by a company like RedHat. They make money from support/service and use a portion of that to give jobs to talented hackers.
Or, working as a professional software development you can give away some of your time because it increases your standing in the community, raises your profile and in turn attracts employers who wish to pay you for proprietary, non-Free work.
In other words, for decent software to be developed at anything other than a glacial pace, people have to be able to devote time to it, and they have to be compensated for that time in a way that allows them to eat, live under a roof, etc.
In other words, there are several ways in which Free Software is already being developed and in which the developers quite rightly get the food, housing, etc. that you so rightly assert they have the right to be rewarded with. So what's the argument? I would suspect that it is that you are tilting against some fantasy windmill of communist free software.
No flame intended on my side. I just think that you don't get it and that you're arguing against some pre-conceived imaginary position.
Hah. After trying to checkout it merely popped up a little window saying that the item wasn't available for delivery or pick-up and redirected me to its "Think-About-It". Bah.
It's slashdotted you swine! Stop it! Go away!
ATI Radeon 7500, 8500. Supported in XF86 4.2.0. Rpms available with RH Rawhide to ease installation pain (kernel-drm etc.). Also if you're considering spending $400 or so then there's the FireGL type of card.
There's is absolutely NOTHING wrong with charging for software.
That depends on what ethical and moral framework you are evaluating RIGHT/WRONG within. From some points of view withholding ideas that have zero cost for reproduction is an immoral attempt to exert power over others by software hoarding. They would further argue that this proprietary framework retards development and stifles innovation.
If you do nothing but write software for work, you have a reasonable expectation to make a living off it.
Most of the "Free" and "Open" software world has been arguing about this precise point since the success of Free Software in the form of GNU and Linux. The mantra used to be that one could make a living off service/support. That is what RH etc. are trying to do. There's a big difference between that and hoarding the actual product and charging per-seat licenses for each new version. Bitkeeper tried to find a middle way with allowing a dual-license: free,non-Free for those that surrender privacy, non-free,non-Free for commercial users that want to cloak their activities. This license is discussed here. This is an interesting idea and it is good software, but it is not Free.
The world doesn't run off charity man, nothing is free.
On the contrary, most of human activity is free. However, in this whole discussion you are missing the contentious part. Most GNU users are concerned about Freedom, not cost. This is an OLD argument!
This is not a troll or intended to be flamebait or anything: what are the crucial benefits that would be obtained by tying oneself to a completely new and untested programming framework like .NET?
Also (and this is really the same question in a different light) what is .NET and am I correct in saying that Mono is the Free implementation of .NET?
I have found one actual statement from Miguel as to why he wants to move Gnome from being based on C to being based on Mono (again this confuses me, I thought that .NET is some sort of super-duper XML based interactive protocols thingie that is actually written in C#):2 002-February/msg00026.html
http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-devel-list/
I am not asking anyone to rewrite any code. Indeed, I encourage people not to do so. But when it comes to extend a product, Mono might be a valuable tool. Valuable, because I believe that the major feature of .NET is reduction of development time and the reduction of the money we
spend on developing those products.
I have written a large amount of code over the years, and there is a point in everyone's life, when you figure `dealing with memory management is just not worth it'. I want to have a garbage collected language, and I want to have a modern platform, and I want language independence.
So, it seems that the main stated benefits in Miguel's mind are Garbage Collection and Language Independence. Is there no other way to acheive these goals?
I mean, the idea that RMS thinks he speaks for the open source community
I would imagine that RMS would be pretty upset if you accused him of thinking he spoke for Open Source instead of for Free Software!!!
to the extent that he can ask someone to explain their decisions on matters that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with RMS or the so-called community, and that he actually expects and answer, seems fairly arrogant on Stallman's part
This is all becoming very silly. RMS was asked a question about this! He didn't volunteer an opinion. I think you are reacting to a /. created caricature of RMS
Maybe I've misunderstood something, but I don't believe that Miguel works for Stallman, uses any of Stallman's intellecutal or physical assets, or has any real obligation to him. So why does Stallman think Miguel owes anything to him or to anyone else?
Ummm...that GNOME thingy..what does that stand for I wonder? www.gnome.org says "GNOME is part of the GNU project and is free software [...]". Now, I wonder who started the GNU project? (This last question left as an exercise for the reader).
It's time that Linux people realize that hating MS
/. saying "I realize I'm in the minority that doesn't have MS" or "MS hating zealots have to realize", but I think that you'll find that anyone that actually does anything besides post to /. merely sees MS as an unreliable, irritating company that is great at making a profit. And there's the problem. It is, as is so boringly, and often pointed out on /. , a business and they exist for one purpose and one only: to make money.
.NET as opposed to it being based on Mono then there is nothing knee-jerk or reactionary about his query. He was delivered an incomplete and confusing quote/question and it is all being spun into a debate solely for the amusement of CmdrTaco and the /. trolls.
Ummmm, who's hating them? Sure there's a lot of posting from people on
Many of us prefer Free Software because it is made not to make money as a primary objective, but to perform a function. It is frequently more reliable and useful as a result of this different orientation.
is going no where and is completely unproductive
Even if "hate" were the prevalent motivating factor that you claim it hardly seems accurate to say that its supposed results are going nowhwere: I have a very functional desktop system and my servers are working just peachy thank you!
RMS needs to be hit with a cluebat
It all depends on what he actually means as opposed to the crazy, hate-filled, zealous caricature that you've made of him. If he is questioning what exactly Miguel means when he says Gnome4.0 should be based on
I mean for crying out loud the Ximian team is not even suggesting using non free code.
The class libraries are going to be released under the MIT X-11 license. Now, unless you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the situation then you mean non-Free when you write "non free".
o First, you talk about mainstream reporting being more "credible" than indymedia. This means that you have to have a clear measure of credibility, you have to have applied this metric to the two different bodies of work and then shown a statistically significant difference.
o Second, I agree that the article was painful to read, but I don't really care if it conveys its message. I would prefer that someone had edited it, but that is not an absolute essential. It will only make a difference to someone that is concerned with form over content. (Did you find it hard to comprehend the information and ideas contained by the highly unique grammar?)
o Third, you should draw a distinction between Indymedia's newswire stories and their center page stories. Speaking as an indymedia newsclerk I can tell you that editing etc. are considered to be a slippery path that we don't want to go down for fear of the danger of changing people's intended messages.
o Fourth, and finally, how come you have a (-1, insightful)? I don't see why your post would have garnered any negative moderations!
I had to laugh when I saw this on indymedia: Bill White who is a constant neo-Nazi troll on indymedia has (he claims) reached a deal with Sherman to host raisethefist on his own server www.overthrow.com
I have no confirmation of this story but here is the link to his unpleasant website www.overthrow.com which focuses around anti-Zionism as an explanation for everything.
Tell me about it. If anti-globalization protesters were literate, maybe people would listen to them. Currently, they're far more amusing than credible.
Ha ha. Now that is amusing! Your use of "literate", that is! If he were literate then maybe more people would read him.
The only good Grammar Nazi is a CORRECT Grammar Nazi.