The parent is correct; as far as I can tell, de Icaza was speaking for himself, not the industry as a whole.
I'm no fan of.Net or Mono, but I certainly don't begrudge people who want to work in those languages. If Mono becomes onerous in Gnome, I'll switch to KDE. That's what makes free software great -- options.
fundamentalismn : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
It is impossible to be both a fundamentalist and also a true scientist; science involves the questioning of ideas, while fundamentalism requires non-thinking acceptance of dogma as fact.
Certainly some fine and excellent people are also Christians -- Donald Knuth, for example, who is one of my personal heroes both as computerist and a person. My lovely and talented wife is both Roman Catholic and a geologist / archaeologist. Some sects of Christianity actually promote the attainment of wisdom via exploration of God's creation.
Mr. Bush, however, wraps himself in fundamentalist Christianity of the Pat Robertson school; he and his cronies have very closed minds, ignoring any part of God's creation that does not conform to their "literal" interpretation of scripture. And as such, he is as dangerous as any fundamentalist Islamic.
Thousands of non-combatant, innocent people have died to provide Mr. Bush with a soundbites for his political commercials; he believes in bloody revenge and personal profit from war waged on behalf of tragic victims. He dishonors the dead by treating them as campaign themes. I doubt Jesus would approve of any of those actions.
...which pretty much explains his "science" and "education" policies. Educated people and scientists ask questions; questions are the bane of fundamentalist religion.
The Hubble Space Telescope is a tool for showing the flaws in fundamentalist dogma -- and understandign what Hubble does requires thinking, an act that makes Mr. Bush's head hurt, I suspect.
If Bush and his handlers have their way, the U.S. will become a theocracy like Iran.
Sorry to be AC, I was posting from my work machine.
No problem; I understand.
Really though, you can't have it both ways. Either you can decry license fundamentalism on slashdot, or you can keep your free code out of other free software projects over licensing dogma, but doing both is pretty hypocritical.
Choosing any license is going to be controversial with someone; even releasing code into the public domain upsets some people. I'm not trying to have it both ways; while I would like to see some common ground in the FOSS world, I have to have some sort of license, and therefore can't avoid some people who want to be very partisan.
I chose the license that worked best for me, based on several criteria. I have no beef with the Apache license; in some ways, it is preferable to the GPL, and in some ways, it isn't. It is possible to have different views based on context.
I am looking for harmony; no matter which license I use, zealots from other camps jump to the attack, accusing me of heresy. Frankly, I think they're full of dung -- similar to people who pose critical Slashdot messages as anonymous cowards.;)
I've been arguing parts of this issue since late last week, when I was contacted by members of Apache Cocoon in regard to their use of my software, Jisp.
A few months back, I began migrating all of my "free" software from the libpng/zlib license to the GPL. Let's not get into the reasons why I made the change; the change is made, and I'm pleased with it.
The Cocoon people discovered my license change, and opened a dialog. In their view, my use of GPL would force them to remove Jisp from Cocoon. They requested that I either change my license or add Jisp to the Apache collective. Beyond a few miscommunications, the discussion was pleasant and educational.
My software remains under the GPL (or a commercial license, for those so inclined). I did not want to join Apache, as I have already committed myself to FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) projects that are more closely aligned with my business and personal interests. I did not want to "give" Jisp to Apache, either, given that I have several paying customers who might be uncomfortable with such a move --and my personal interest in keep Jisp a small, one-man project.
In the end, Cocoon may not even need Jisp , rendering this an intellectual debate as opposed to a practical one.
Most of Cocoon's members were quite polite; a few were quite pushy and arrogant, although some of that may be due to the crossing of language barriers. In the end, I think we've reached a point of mutual respect. People can disagree on these issues, and remain friends.
Licensing issues are rapidly approaching the contentiousness of fundamentalist religion; people are Balkanizing the FOSS world over the finer points of dogma, rather than building a common framework in which we can all thrive.
Evolution is fueled by diversity; a monoculture can not evolve, and is unlikely to survive changes in its environment.
Natural selection requires diversity. Long-term survival of our species depends on our ability to adapt to new challenges and threats. A single culture and language might be convenient in the short ruin, but it is fatal in the long term.
How do we know that free software isn't being used to violate human rights somewhere? I suspect you'll find that Linux, Apache, Sendmail, and other "free" tools have been used by drug dealers, slave merchants, religious fundamentalists, and totalitarian governments.
I don't see any prohibition in the GPL that prevents the use of "free" software for "immoral" purposes -- and such a clause (like many existing clauses of the GPL) would be completely unenforcable.
I dislike Microsoft for many reasons -- but this sort of posting on Slashdot smacks of sensationalism, ala Matt Drudge. Shame on you for spreading FUD.
Expect more associations between digital terrorism and Linux (as a catch-all media term for "free software"). The greatest threats to any revolution are:
Zealots who feel obligated to use violence or destruction as an end to their means.
Fools who fight the revolution because it is "fun", but who are not truly commited to the ideals.
Government (and these days, corporate) infiltrators who play the two above roles in order to destroy the revolution.
Power-hungry folk who bend the revolution to their own ends.
I strongly suggest people become more familiar with how government and industry have undermined and perverted various revolutions. Start with COINTELPRO, an FBI campaign of the 1960s and 70s. And then read a bit of the history of the Homestead strike.
From undermining the right to vote (via electronic "voting") to lying about WMDs in Iraq -- do you honestly think such people will ignore the threat posed by free software to the lucrative commercial software industry? SCO's assault on free software may only be the tip of an iceberg...
Poppycock, rubbish, balderdash and all those other silly-sounding patronizing pejoratives.
Well, at least I know your thesaurus is working!
Free software developers work on what they're interested in.
Exactly my point -- developers want to write code that scratches their itch, but they aren't very interested in other people's itches. An excellent case in point is GCC, where bugs languish while people work on exciting new developments. Lacking an economic incentive to fix bugs, bugs don't get fixed.
I can point to many excellent and reliable free softwares -- Apache, for example. However, such projects tend to be techy-oriented tools as opposed to business and office applications.
Certainly, some free software developers have an interest in users -- but in my experience, users don't really feel like they're receiving that attention. Has anyone actually gone out and *asked* non-programming office workers what they want in an office suite? Instead of cloning Windows and Office, maybe we need to consider how we might provide better tools that make people's lives easier. Why can't free sofwtare provide both easy transition and better tools?
I don't see much difference between the ivory towers inhabited by Mr. Gates and Mr. Stallman -- their stated objectives may be different, but the end result is disturbingly similar.
I suppose that I should ignore you, given your obvious need for non sequitors. But then I'm in a cranky mood, so...;)
The lack of reliability in Microsoft's products is no excuse for the lack of quality in many free softwares. Like Linus, I don't really give a hoot what Microsoft does -- I want the best possible free-as-in-liberty software, period.
How many examples would you like me to cite? Should I have mentioned the silly bug (which frustrated me this morning) in Abiword 2.0.1 that consistently screws up pasting at the end of a document, or the random crashes that Abiword seems prone to? Or the lack of consistency in something so simple as exiting an application (is it File|Close, File|Quit or File|Exit?) I can go on and on, using examples from myself and more mainstream users.
If free software wants to present itself as an alternative to Microsoft, it needs to act like an adult and provide quality software with service and attention to user needs. To say, as you do, "It's free, so live with it" is a cop-out.
We're talking apples and oranges here. I'm quite fond of Knoppix (and have hopes for Gnoppix as well); I just used it to convert my wife's Windows laptop to GNU/Linux/KDE. Price is not the issue in this debate -- attendance to user needs is.
For example, I miss the graphing abilities of Excel; OpenCalc and Gnumeric simply don't compare. The usual "free" response is to use gnuplot or some other outside package, or to modify Gnumeric myself. I'm certainly capable of doing both, but I haven't the time; I'd prefer a "we've haven't had time to do that yet" over the more typical "we don't give a damn, quit complaining."
As you point out, Microsoft is equally guilty of indifference to users, given that they are far more concerned with sales and marketing than with whether their software runs reliably or well. Sadly, users get screwed by both sides of the software spectrum, albeit for different reasons.
Which leads, of course, to a bifurcation of the "Linux" world: Those who want a geek-oriented OS will go one way, while people who want to supplant (or at the very least, complement) Windows will go in another.
There's nothing wrong with that; it's called speciation, and important part of evolution.
Linux development may indeed change, regardless of SCO. Or, to put it more accurately, "free" software development must change from
a pure technocracy if it is to wrest control of the consumer space from Microsoft. Now, I realize (and respect) Linus's lack of
concern about market share and other trappings of competition; I use Linux precisely because I like the technology associated with
it. I am also a technoscenti, which means that my needs are quite different from those of most people.
Technical excellence can be attained in conjunction with meeting the needs of mundane users. "Free" software has created
its own hierarchy of haves and have nots, based on technical prowess; the lords of free software turn up their noses and snort when
confronted with needs of the commoners. Able to exist on a purely philosophical level, the technogensia fail to see
that free software has reached the edge of its current potential. Apple, Sun, and Red Hat will take "free" software to the next
level, where it accomplishes solid, practical tasks for real people.
So in a sense, Cringley is correct: free software (which he erroneously lumps under "Linux") will change, or it will be replaced in
the greater world by something more attuned to the needs of the commons.
So Mr. Bush is going to announce that he's going to the Moon? I'm very happy for him, and us. I can only hope he'll invite Ascroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others of his cabal to join him. After all, I wouldn't want him to be lonely...
Could he should take the Democratic presidential candidates with him, too? Then, maybe, someone of quality would run for office, instead of the numbnuts who greedily crawl their way into the Oval Office, like Gollum slinking his way to the ring.
Ahhhh, perchance to dream... if nothing else, maybe *I* can get a ride to the moon, where I can find a quiet place to work on my books.
I wonder when the Slashdot community will stop berating Microsoft, Debian, and whoever for security holes, and instead of heaping scorn on the real culprits: the exploiters (sounds like the title of a Matt Helm novel).
Any complex program is going to have security holes; as the software evolves, new weaknesses will appear as old ones are eliminated. The way this community acts, they throw the victim in jail instead of the criminal. Leaving my door unlocked may be stupid, but it also isn't an open invitation to burglars and vandals.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, and I run Debian -- neither should be blamed for the ill-behavior of nasty little criminals who revel in destruction and mayhem.
I never quite understood the fascination with GPS devices; unless I'm lost in a trackless wilderness or adrift at sea, I likely know where I am. (And yes, I own a GPS unit, for geocaching games.)
At least they haven't found a way to jam a compass or sextant...
All three of my Linux boxes run Debian; this latest security breach will not change that.
However, I hope this type of incident tempers the often-strident elitism of the free software camp. My faith in Debian continues because they caught this problem and openly announced it; my concern is that the lack of consequences will make people assume that this was a false alarm or unimportant incident.
Free software suffers from "victory disease" -- an assumption that, based on past success, future success is guaranteed. Because free software has proven reliable and secure, the concensus seems to be that it will always be so.
Pride comes before the fall, as they say. Attempted infiltrations of the Linux source code control system and breaches of security at Debian suggest that we need to be cautiously optimistic, not naively myopic.
Within the next few days, I'll be adding an appendix and FAQ to my article, in light of all the interesting comments I've received here and in other forums.
Here's a big "Thank You" for the intelligent feedback I've received. And as for the doubters and naysayers: This is what peer review all about! If you think hill-climbing, or a completely random serach, or some other tool might work better than my creation, then, by all means, code and post it.
Competition and diversity are the fuel of evolution, after all.
Certainly genetic algorithms have been over-hyped by some people; the same thing happens to any emerging technology.
In practical terms, genetic algorithms have proven themselves valuable in searching and optimization routines; they've been used to design optimal jet wings, traffic flows, and to find shortest paths through networks. GAs are not the ultimate programming concept -- but they are very useful for certain problems.
The skies are dry here. I've been married 21 years, and we've had daughters for 14 of those years. We've been through eight major medical proceedures, the destruction of everything we owned, and several defunct employers -- all without breaking up; I don't see the gtender of our children as a problem.
The article you cite suggests that fathers prefer male heirs; perhaps I'm just weird (I am an aging geek, after all), but I couldn't care less about the gender of my offspring.
My responsibility as a parent is to provide my daughters with guidance, not dictates. They can't learn to recognize right from wrong unless they see the alternatives.
Consider the debate over sex education: Does teaching kids about sex make them promiscuous, or does it arm them with knowledge so they can make good decisions? I tend to be in the later camp; ignorance is far more dangerous than any amount of knowledge.
...and the two oldest have unfettered access to the Internet. No censorship, no restrictions, no looking over their shoulders. How can I teach them that censorship is bad if I censor them?
Since she's sitting next to me, playing Diablo 2, I asked my 14-year-old daughter about her net access.
"I find little weird web sites, I look at them," she says. "When I close the [browser] window, it's just an automatic reaction to parents in the room, a matter of privacy."
Yes, I've caught my eldest daughter reading disturbing web sites -- CNN, Christian fundamentalists, anime, Slashdot. Lord knows, she's found some very strange online comics. She asks the most damnable questions sometimes -- and that's just fine with me.
I can't teach my daughters to respect my privacy by snooping in her activities. I trust my kids. They know their parents trust them, and that they can come to us with any question; we know what they are doing, where, and with who, not because we dictate, but because our kids want us involved in their life.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent is correct; as far as I can tell, de Icaza was speaking for himself, not the industry as a whole.
I'm no fan of .Net or Mono, but I certainly don't begrudge people who want to work in those languages. If Mono becomes onerous in Gnome, I'll switch to KDE. That's what makes free software great -- options.
There's nothign to see here, folks. Move along...
fundamentalism n : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
It is impossible to be both a fundamentalist and also a true scientist; science involves the questioning of ideas, while fundamentalism requires non-thinking acceptance of dogma as fact.
Certainly some fine and excellent people are also Christians -- Donald Knuth, for example, who is one of my personal heroes both as computerist and a person. My lovely and talented wife is both Roman Catholic and a geologist / archaeologist. Some sects of Christianity actually promote the attainment of wisdom via exploration of God's creation.
Mr. Bush, however, wraps himself in fundamentalist Christianity of the Pat Robertson school; he and his cronies have very closed minds, ignoring any part of God's creation that does not conform to their "literal" interpretation of scripture. And as such, he is as dangerous as any fundamentalist Islamic.
Thousands of non-combatant, innocent people have died to provide Mr. Bush with a soundbites for his political commercials; he believes in bloody revenge and personal profit from war waged on behalf of tragic victims. He dishonors the dead by treating them as campaign themes. I doubt Jesus would approve of any of those actions.
Your mileage may vary.
The Hubble Space Telescope is a tool for showing the flaws in fundamentalist dogma -- and understandign what Hubble does requires thinking, an act that makes Mr. Bush's head hurt, I suspect.
If Bush and his handlers have their way, the U.S. will become a theocracy like Iran.
No problem; I understand.
Choosing any license is going to be controversial with someone; even releasing code into the public domain upsets some people. I'm not trying to have it both ways; while I would like to see some common ground in the FOSS world, I have to have some sort of license, and therefore can't avoid some people who want to be very partisan.
I chose the license that worked best for me, based on several criteria. I have no beef with the Apache license; in some ways, it is preferable to the GPL, and in some ways, it isn't. It is possible to have different views based on context.
I am looking for harmony; no matter which license I use, zealots from other camps jump to the attack, accusing me of heresy. Frankly, I think they're full of dung -- similar to people who pose critical Slashdot messages as anonymous cowards. ;)
I've been arguing parts of this issue since late last week, when I was contacted by members of Apache Cocoon in regard to their use of my software, Jisp.
A few months back, I began migrating all of my "free" software from the libpng/zlib license to the GPL. Let's not get into the reasons why I made the change; the change is made, and I'm pleased with it.
The Cocoon people discovered my license change, and opened a dialog. In their view, my use of GPL would force them to remove Jisp from Cocoon. They requested that I either change my license or add Jisp to the Apache collective. Beyond a few miscommunications, the discussion was pleasant and educational.
My software remains under the GPL (or a commercial license, for those so inclined). I did not want to join Apache, as I have already committed myself to FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) projects that are more closely aligned with my business and personal interests. I did not want to "give" Jisp to Apache, either, given that I have several paying customers who might be uncomfortable with such a move --and my personal interest in keep Jisp a small, one-man project.
In the end, Cocoon may not even need Jisp , rendering this an intellectual debate as opposed to a practical one.
Most of Cocoon's members were quite polite; a few were quite pushy and arrogant, although some of that may be due to the crossing of language barriers. In the end, I think we've reached a point of mutual respect. People can disagree on these issues, and remain friends.
Licensing issues are rapidly approaching the contentiousness of fundamentalist religion; people are Balkanizing the FOSS world over the finer points of dogma, rather than building a common framework in which we can all thrive.
Yes, worry.
Evolution is fueled by diversity; a monoculture can not evolve, and is unlikely to survive changes in its environment.
Natural selection requires diversity. Long-term survival of our species depends on our ability to adapt to new challenges and threats. A single culture and language might be convenient in the short ruin, but it is fatal in the long term.
How do we know that free software isn't being used to violate human rights somewhere? I suspect you'll find that Linux, Apache, Sendmail, and other "free" tools have been used by drug dealers, slave merchants, religious fundamentalists, and totalitarian governments.
I don't see any prohibition in the GPL that prevents the use of "free" software for "immoral" purposes -- and such a clause (like many existing clauses of the GPL) would be completely unenforcable.
I dislike Microsoft for many reasons -- but this sort of posting on Slashdot smacks of sensationalism, ala Matt Drudge. Shame on you for spreading FUD.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. ;)
Expect more associations between digital terrorism and Linux (as a catch-all media term for "free software"). The greatest threats to any revolution are:
I strongly suggest people become more familiar with how government and industry have undermined and perverted various revolutions. Start with COINTELPRO, an FBI campaign of the 1960s and 70s. And then read a bit of the history of the Homestead strike.
From undermining the right to vote (via electronic "voting") to lying about WMDs in Iraq -- do you honestly think such people will ignore the threat posed by free software to the lucrative commercial software industry? SCO's assault on free software may only be the tip of an iceberg...
Poppycock, rubbish, balderdash and all those other silly-sounding patronizing pejoratives.
Well, at least I know your thesaurus is working!
Free software developers work on what they're interested in.
Exactly my point -- developers want to write code that scratches their itch, but they aren't very interested in other people's itches. An excellent case in point is GCC, where bugs languish while people work on exciting new developments. Lacking an economic incentive to fix bugs, bugs don't get fixed.
I can point to many excellent and reliable free softwares -- Apache, for example. However, such projects tend to be techy-oriented tools as opposed to business and office applications.
Certainly, some free software developers have an interest in users -- but in my experience, users don't really feel like they're receiving that attention. Has anyone actually gone out and *asked* non-programming office workers what they want in an office suite? Instead of cloning Windows and Office, maybe we need to consider how we might provide better tools that make people's lives easier. Why can't free sofwtare provide both easy transition and better tools?
I don't see much difference between the ivory towers inhabited by Mr. Gates and Mr. Stallman -- their stated objectives may be different, but the end result is disturbingly similar.
I suppose that I should ignore you, given your obvious need for non sequitors. But then I'm in a cranky mood, so... ;)
The lack of reliability in Microsoft's products is no excuse for the lack of quality in many free softwares. Like Linus, I don't really give a hoot what Microsoft does -- I want the best possible free-as-in-liberty software, period.
How many examples would you like me to cite? Should I have mentioned the silly bug (which frustrated me this morning) in Abiword 2.0.1 that consistently screws up pasting at the end of a document, or the random crashes that Abiword seems prone to? Or the lack of consistency in something so simple as exiting an application (is it File|Close, File|Quit or File|Exit?) I can go on and on, using examples from myself and more mainstream users.
If free software wants to present itself as an alternative to Microsoft, it needs to act like an adult and provide quality software with service and attention to user needs. To say, as you do, "It's free, so live with it" is a cop-out.
We're talking apples and oranges here. I'm quite fond of Knoppix (and have hopes for Gnoppix as well); I just used it to convert my wife's Windows laptop to GNU/Linux/KDE. Price is not the issue in this debate -- attendance to user needs is.
For example, I miss the graphing abilities of Excel; OpenCalc and Gnumeric simply don't compare. The usual "free" response is to use gnuplot or some other outside package, or to modify Gnumeric myself. I'm certainly capable of doing both, but I haven't the time; I'd prefer a "we've haven't had time to do that yet" over the more typical "we don't give a damn, quit complaining."
As you point out, Microsoft is equally guilty of indifference to users, given that they are far more concerned with sales and marketing than with whether their software runs reliably or well. Sadly, users get screwed by both sides of the software spectrum, albeit for different reasons.
Which leads, of course, to a bifurcation of the "Linux" world: Those who want a geek-oriented OS will go one way, while people who want to supplant (or at the very least, complement) Windows will go in another.
There's nothing wrong with that; it's called speciation, and important part of evolution.
Linux development may indeed change, regardless of SCO. Or, to put it more accurately, "free" software development must change from a pure technocracy if it is to wrest control of the consumer space from Microsoft. Now, I realize (and respect) Linus's lack of concern about market share and other trappings of competition; I use Linux precisely because I like the technology associated with it. I am also a technoscenti, which means that my needs are quite different from those of most people.
Technical excellence can be attained in conjunction with meeting the needs of mundane users. "Free" software has created its own hierarchy of haves and have nots, based on technical prowess; the lords of free software turn up their noses and snort when confronted with needs of the commoners. Able to exist on a purely philosophical level, the technogensia fail to see that free software has reached the edge of its current potential. Apple, Sun, and Red Hat will take "free" software to the next level, where it accomplishes solid, practical tasks for real people.
So in a sense, Cringley is correct: free software (which he erroneously lumps under "Linux") will change, or it will be replaced in the greater world by something more attuned to the needs of the commons.
So Mr. Bush is going to announce that he's going to the Moon? I'm very happy for him, and us. I can only hope he'll invite Ascroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and others of his cabal to join him. After all, I wouldn't want him to be lonely...
Could he should take the Democratic presidential candidates with him, too? Then, maybe, someone of quality would run for office, instead of the numbnuts who greedily crawl their way into the Oval Office, like Gollum slinking his way to the ring.
Ahhhh, perchance to dream... if nothing else, maybe *I* can get a ride to the moon, where I can find a quiet place to work on my books.
I wonder when the Slashdot community will stop berating Microsoft, Debian, and whoever for security holes, and instead of heaping scorn on the real culprits: the exploiters (sounds like the title of a Matt Helm novel).
Any complex program is going to have security holes; as the software evolves, new weaknesses will appear as old ones are eliminated. The way this community acts, they throw the victim in jail instead of the criminal. Leaving my door unlocked may be stupid, but it also isn't an open invitation to burglars and vandals.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, and I run Debian -- neither should be blamed for the ill-behavior of nasty little criminals who revel in destruction and mayhem.
I never quite understood the fascination with GPS devices; unless I'm lost in a trackless wilderness or adrift at sea, I likely know where I am. (And yes, I own a GPS unit, for geocaching games.)
At least they haven't found a way to jam a compass or sextant...
All three of my Linux boxes run Debian; this latest security breach will not change that.
However, I hope this type of incident tempers the often-strident elitism of the free software camp. My faith in Debian continues because they caught this problem and openly announced it; my concern is that the lack of consequences will make people assume that this was a false alarm or unimportant incident.
Free software suffers from "victory disease" -- an assumption that, based on past success, future success is guaranteed. Because free software has proven reliable and secure, the concensus seems to be that it will always be so.
Pride comes before the fall, as they say. Attempted infiltrations of the Linux source code control system and breaches of security at Debian suggest that we need to be cautiously optimistic, not naively myopic.
Within the next few days, I'll be adding an appendix and FAQ to my article, in light of all the interesting comments I've received here and in other forums.
Here's a big "Thank You" for the intelligent feedback I've received. And as for the doubters and naysayers: This is what peer review all about! If you think hill-climbing, or a completely random serach, or some other tool might work better than my creation, then, by all means, code and post it.
Competition and diversity are the fuel of evolution, after all.
Certainly genetic algorithms have been over-hyped by some people; the same thing happens to any emerging technology.
In practical terms, genetic algorithms have proven themselves valuable in searching and optimization routines; they've been used to design optimal jet wings, traffic flows, and to find shortest paths through networks. GAs are not the ultimate programming concept -- but they are very useful for certain problems.
I just asked my 12yo daughter what she's learned from the Internet.
"Most people who make web sites can't spell," she replied.
You may be right: They're seeing the dark side of humanity -- poor spelling, lousy grammar, inane conversations, badly-drawn online manga and comics.
The skies are dry here. I've been married 21 years, and we've had daughters for 14 of those years. We've been through eight major medical proceedures, the destruction of everything we owned, and several defunct employers -- all without breaking up; I don't see the gtender of our children as a problem.
The article you cite suggests that fathers prefer male heirs; perhaps I'm just weird (I am an aging geek, after all), but I couldn't care less about the gender of my offspring.
My responsibility as a parent is to provide my daughters with guidance, not dictates. They can't learn to recognize right from wrong unless they see the alternatives.
Consider the debate over sex education: Does teaching kids about sex make them promiscuous, or does it arm them with knowledge so they can make good decisions? I tend to be in the later camp; ignorance is far more dangerous than any amount of knowledge.
Since she's sitting next to me, playing Diablo 2, I asked my 14-year-old daughter about her net access.
"I find little weird web sites, I look at them," she says. "When I close the [browser] window, it's just an automatic reaction to parents in the room, a matter of privacy."
Yes, I've caught my eldest daughter reading disturbing web sites -- CNN, Christian fundamentalists, anime, Slashdot. Lord knows, she's found some very strange online comics. She asks the most damnable questions sometimes -- and that's just fine with me.
I can't teach my daughters to respect my privacy by snooping in her activities. I trust my kids. They know their parents trust them, and that they can come to us with any question; we know what they are doing, where, and with who, not because we dictate, but because our kids want us involved in their life.