You (the Slashdot "editors") just gave me the biggest laugh of the day. After all the hype about Blizzard's attacks on Battle.net clones, you guys come out with a fanboy, suck-up article for Warcraft III. Not unexpected, but definitely a sign that Slashdot is losing its relevance.
This article leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like a Jon Katz polemic. So much for Slashdot's "reputation" as a "defender of freedom." I wonder if Katz will write an article about how people let fanboyism get in the way of their putative idealism?
As for me: I'm donating the purchase price of a Warcraft III to the EFF, and I'll find other fine games to play. Morrowind looks terrific; Heroes of Might and Magic 4 should be fine, too.
Until now, I've bought and played heavily every game Blizzard has produced. But no more; I don't need Blizzard, and I won't support their misuse of copyright. In my book, Blizzard is no better than the Scientologists, in that both breed cults of ill-manner folk, and then get their dander up when anyone dissents.
Scientific data -- and not anecdotal stories -- does suggest a warming trend for the Earth. I'm quite convinced that "global warming" is, indeed, happening -- at least in the short term.
However: We don't know if global warming is a long-term event, or if humanity is the sole (or even most important cause) of any changes in climate. Consider, for example, ice core evidence from Greenland, which shows how the Earth's climate has undergone radical short-term changes, long before humans were a factor. NASA recently noted changes in the Sun's output. Over the last 10,000 years the global climate has significantly warmed, and I don't see how we can make absolute statements based on a few years (maybe a century) of research.
I'm not in favor of pumping our atmopshere full of chemicals and garbage, regardless of global warming. I am in favor of rational, scientific debate, as opposed to the scare-mongering going on at both ends of the political spectrum.
Jon, I'm not one of your usual critics, but it's articles of this type that have driven me away from Slahsdot in recent months...
Why do you feel this desperate need to prove the importance of the web?
Belief that the web is "creating culture" is as silly as those who accuse the web of "destroying culture". The web is part of a culture, and it is socially significant -- but in the end, the hubris that brought on the "dot bomb" boom is going to deflate those who have high aspirations for the "significance" of the web as a cultural engine.
Oh, I once believed that the web would be a force for social change, providing an outlet for all the lost voices in the wilderness, uplifting the masses, and providing the masses with information about critical issues. In truth, the web did (and does) not create culture -- it reflects the culture it is embedded in. Having a universal, uncensored forum didn't suddenly make poeple want to listen to issue they'd ignored -- they kept right on ignoring those issues, and the web accomplished little or nothing in terms of enlightenment.
The web is a powerful tool and a useful resource, but it won't remake humanity or redfine society as a whole. Such change require real human interactions...
Actually, they do have something -- a pool of people who may not be the "best", but who are willing to work cheaper and give up copyright.
Up until the late 90s, I was always able to politely ask, "Can I retain copyright, and can we strike the 'future works' clause?", and the publisher would kindly modify the contract. That has since changed.
The world is changing, and it isn't for the better...
I've published 17 books professionally, through everyone from McGraw-Hill to Microsoft to the old (and recently resurrected) M&T Books. Five years ago, I ended a successful ten-year career as a full-time write to re-enter the "regular" workforce. Draconian contracts were a major reason for my career detour.
Modern publishing is about the control of intellectual property.
Publishers want to own copyright (i.e., control), something I am unwilling to give up. I wrote the damned thing, and for better or worse, it is my intellectual property. I would rather give away my work than sell it into corporate slavery. Once, the relationship between author and publisher was one of mutual benefit; now, writers are largely treated as property by corporate publishing houses.
And, to be less idealistic, the pay rate for writing sucks. Even the magazines pay pitiful amounts for articles that take considerable effort. I was doing pretty good as a writer -- 40-60K %US in a good year -- but I doubled that going into industry. And the paychecks now arrive with some reasonable regularity. I can't begin to enumerate the ways in which corporate publishers (every one I've worked with, with the notable exception [so far] of O'Reilly) rip off authors, by twisting terms, demanding future rights, selling books through third parties, and "forgetting" things. Ugh... the "freedom" that comes without a day job was great, but at least now I know how much I'm being paid and when!
Not that I wouldn't sign with a publisher who was interested in a mutual relationship. I just haven't met one recently.
I love writing; I love sharing with my readers. Today publish through the web and other venues, where I can write what I want, when I want, about what I want, without ignorant marketers, semi-literate editors, and corporate lawyers mucking about in my product. My readers decide what they like and don't like; I can update material as necessary, and no one is telling me to change what I write for "marketting" purposes.
In the end, giving up "professional" writing has given me unexpected freedom -- and that's a Good Thing.
...for anyone who's been an activist of any stripe. SLAPP has long been used against environmentalists, indigenous peoples, and anyone else who spoke out for the rights of people over those of corporations. Simply put: Money is power, and when corporations pass a certain milestone financially, they have the resources to squelch anyone who opposes them.
I didn't see RMS, ESR, or any of these other "freedom" luminaries rise up for environmentalists or Native Americans or the homeless or anti-pollution activists, so I have little sympathy that they're whining in their (free?) beer now about how mean, nasty corporations are picking on poor techies. Too bad, guys -- you lost the war when you failed to fight for others. Now that the fight is in your backyard, you care -- but it may be too late, because the rights were eroded long before the DMCA became reality.
Freedom of speech isn't just about the GPL and software; it's about fundamental human rights and corporate control of government.
Real magazines pay their contributors -- but somehow, I don't expect to see a check from VA Systems if one of my comments is highly rated by the moderators.;)
You might consider some sort of karma-based subscription service, where you lower prices for those who provide "good" content (as moderated). That way, people have an incentive to post quality material, and they don't feel cheated by paying Taco's web bills.;) Everybody wins (except the trolls, of course).
I also expect professional journalistic standards from a site I'm paying for. If I'm giving away content, I'm not that concerned about spelling and punctuation -- but if I'm charging people to read what I write, I have editors and such who make sure the content is clean and readable. If Slashdot wants to move beyond amateur status, it needs to act professional.
I have no problem with Slashdot trying to recoup its costs -- but I (and lots of other people) expect value for thier money. Getting rid of ads isn't enough incentive to make me pay for Slashdot.
Once again, the inanimate tool (bnetd) is being blamed for the actions of a minority of its users (software pirates). This is as stupid as laws that banned spoons and plastic baggies because of their potential use in the drug trade.
Nothing justifies pirating software (free or commercial) -- but Blizzard's action does not do anything to stop piracy. Mirrors of bnetd will pop up world wide, on public and private systems, beyond any ability of Blizzard to control. If anything, people will feel even more justified about pirating Blizzard's games because the company has proven itself to be a nasty corporation. All Blizzard has done is upset legitimate users who don't want to use Battle.net.
What's wrong with Battle.net? Cheaters, lag, trolls, lag, spewers, lag, downtime -- did I mention "lag?" I don't use Battle.net; we play over TCP/IP on the LAN. I'm not certain bnetd was absolutely necessary for playing off-Battle.net -- but I don't see how it really hurt Blizzard. And has Blizzard ever considered that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? The bnetd guys loved Blizzard games, and have been slapped in the face for it.
I own many legitimate, registered copies of Blizzard games; I have purchaed one copies of every Blizzard game since Warcraft I -- sometimes buying multiple copies because we play over the home LAN. I have *never* used bnetd; in fact, I wasn't even aware of its existence until the controversy erupted.
Blizzard is within its rights to "protect" its intellectual property -- i.e., the law lets them do something useless and stupid. I have the right to react with my money -- and I will not be buying any copies of Warcraft III if Blizzard does not amend its poor decisions.
There are plenty of fun, interesting games coming out; I think my family can survive quite happily without Warcraft III.
It still looks like...
on
GNOME 2.0 Beta
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...Windows. I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- in fact, it may be a Good Thing for moving people off the MS desktop onto Linux.
I'm just wondering what's innovative about Gnome 2 -- what makes this something special or different? And why did it need to be incompatible with apps written for previous versions? I can still run old Win 95 apps on Win 2K, for the most part.
...who doesn't understand the fascination with "themes"?
I can think of many areas of cooperation between Gnome and KDE -- and themes are pretty low on that list. This isn't a troll, but an honest question: What's so important about themes?
My computers are for programming, writing, and web browsing; why would I waste CPU time and memory on fancy wallpapers and pretty rounded corners and all this "stuff" that fascinates some people so much? If I want pretty pictures, I'll frame'm on the wall, where I can see them when the computer is off!
...and I hope it works as well for you as it has for me. I proposed twenty years ago, and am now raising three lovely geek-girls who rock the world. Best wishes to the both of you.
Sadly, most people don't want to be educated about complex issues. The reason rights erode is because the average sheeple doesn't care and doesn't want to care.
Cynical? Not really; I'm being realistic based on years of experience in activism. People only care about issues that directly affect them; it is very difficult to get people interested in anything that might inconvenience them. People watch DvDs, but don't exercise their rights to free speech -- so guess which one they care about more?
Bah! Microsoft just submitted part of the CLR to ECMA; quite a bit of the CLR library is outside the "standard", and Microsoft has made it clear that "some" features of the CLR will only be available through licenses.
What Mono may do is provide Microsoft with an example of how "open" they are; it's a good defense when anti-trust talk begins to circulate.
I wish Miguel success, and hope he is lucky; perhaps he can influence Microsoft, too, for the good of us all. History suggests, however, that getting into bed with the beast is a prelude to being eaten...
Microsoft has harmed me, on a very personal level, by severely damaging a piece of intellectual property I placed in thier care. I wrote a book for them that they butchered in the name of trying to control Java.
So I have no love for Microsoft, and don't trust them further than I can kick their legal department.
Who do I trust? you ask. It's hard to say, really; relatively speaking, I "trust" Linus more than Miguel, and I trust both of them more than I do Mr. Gates. My level of trust has something to do with intent: Linus never intended to change the world; even now, he's more interested in making Linux "work" than he is in "beating" Microsoft -- and that's an attitude I can trust. Miguel, on the other hand -- well, I can't put my finger on it, but his attitude just "feels" wrong. Maybe I'm splitting non-existent hairs... so I try to give Miguel the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.
As for Mr. Gates... let's just say that I've shaken his hand, and twelve years later, it still feels a bit dirty.
Note that I stressed how important it is that RMS and the community ensure the continued freedom (as in speech) of any "free" code that is involved in commercial projects (which includes work by the for-profit Ximian and its allies).
I don't wish Miguel ill, but I don't see how he's going to succeed. On that, at least, you and I agree.
Miguel de Icaza has committed two sins against the "spirit" of "free" software:
He doesn't hate Microsoft.
He wants to make money.
As I understand it, Miguel is looking at the CLR part of.NET as a productivity tool; he believes that Ximian developers will create applications faster and more reliably using a clone of Microsoft's technology. And he is very valid in pointing out that cloning.NET will follow a long tradition of "freeing" proprietary technologies. If GNU can clone C, C++, Java, Word, and what-not, why complain about cloning the.NET CLR and C#?
Miguel is not forcing anything on anyone; Gnome and GNU will not be dependent on Mono, and Mono only imposes on those who wish to use it. So long as Miguel protects existing free code from proprietary contamination, I see nothing wrong with what he's doing.
As to whether he can succeed -- well, I think he's bitten off more than Ximian can chew, in that implementing certain pieces of the.NET CLR and VM is unlikely to attract hordes of Windows-based developers, nor is it going to offer the functionality that will allow cross-platform development. Perhaps the only "evil" involved here is that Miguel's efforts may legitimize Microsoft's monopoly as a false example of the "openness" the monster of Redmond. We'll need to keep an eye on that.
In the end, Mono will sink or swim based on its merits; if developers don't like Mono, they won't develop for it, and it will go the way of the dodo. On the other hand, if Mono works, it could be a Very Good Thing by making application development easier for Linux. Time will tell.
Microsoft has not submitted the entire CLR class library to ECMA -- and the monster in Redmond has made it clear that they want to license the non-ECMA classes commercially.
Most Windows applications (even those for.NET) rely on API calls. Perhaps MonoGnome can incorporate Wine?
Microsoft does nothing that is not in its own best interests -- rather typical, really, of monopolistic entities. Miguel is likely to end up in the belly of the beast, like so many "partners" of the past.
Assuming MONO supports Visual Basic.NET, will it also include the "compability layer" required for legacy VB code?
If Miguel philosophically violates the spirit of GNU and Gnome, developers will flee his ship. One of the great glories of free software is the ability to rebel without bloodshed. If you don't like the way Miguel is running things, create a new desktop or work on a different project. Free software may not be timely, but it sure is liberating.
I'm not sure there's much here to worry about -- other than making damned sure that free code doesn't somehow become proprietary through various license follies. On that issue, people like RMS have my heartfelt thanks for their vigilance.
One aspect of freedom is choice -- in this case, a choice of applications, a choice of tools, a choice of where your money goes. And just because Linux works well for many applications -- even on the desktop -- does not mean that Windows is *never* a good choice.
I'll lay out some cases in point from my own collection of computers.
My home has more computers than people now -- and in terms of installations, Linux is running about even with Windows. Of my three machines, two are Linux boxes (including my dual-processor IBM workstation and the Toshiba laptop), while the third is a high-end Windows 2000 box. I use the Linux workstations for software development, research, newsgroups, and simulation work, with my e-mail, word processing, and gaming on the Win2K system. It works beautifully; I don't have any hassles when clients and family send me Word files or PowerPoint presentations; why go through the effort of making such things work under Linux when I can have a Windows box at hand? On the flipside, the Linux workstation has vastly improved my coding environment, giving me scientific and exploratory applications Windows can't match. As for the laptop -- well, it ended up running Linux for strange reasons, and I now find it useful to have a portable penguin system.
My wife runs Windows 2K on her rather basic system. She spends her life in e-mail with organizations and companies that are Windows-only; if the Red Cross sends her a disaster plan as a Powerpoint presentation, she can just run it using... uh, Powerpoint. She also games like the rest of the family. I never was fond of emulators (including Wine) -- if you need Windows, why not just use Windows? Good lord, that's like doing all your "Linux" development under Cygwin... (no insult to Cygwin, of course; great product, but not a "real" Unix).
As for my daughters -- the 6 and 11 year-olds share a Windows 98 Pentium 133 that does nothing but play their education titles. No point to Linux there.
The eldest daughter runs a dual-boot system, playing games and learning Photoshop and 3DStudio under Windows while experimenting with Python, Gimp, and 3D rendering with Linux.
Okay, I understand and sympathize with the desire to rid the world of Windows; some days, the Microsoft monopoly makes me want to wipe Windows from all of my systems. I've howled invectives in the direction of Redmond... but then again, I taught my kids some new language this week while trying to get a damned onboard SCSI card working with the latest Linux kernels. Damned aic7xxx driver...
Nothing is perfect; nothing is absolute. Religious zealotry -- of the RMS variety -- turns me off, because I know that brains turn off when beliefs take precedence over rationality. It's not that I disagree with RMS so much as I find his attitude grating and disturbing. Free and open software is taking over my home without excessive conflict; we're doing it when and where it works, and not to win some ideological war.
Freedom is about choice -- if the Linux advocates truly believe in choice, they'll stop attacking those who choose Windows. Make Linux the best it can be, and stop worrying about what Microsoft is doing.
Shareware piracy is as old as floppy disks... I tried shareware back in the late 80s, early 90s. I had this nice environment editor utility (enved) for MS/PC-DOS. One day, some guy from JPL -- yup, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) called, needing help with enved on boxes with a new version of DOS. He told me that JPL included enved on their "standard" installation disks for many systems. I had an update, but JPL hadn't registered the program (a whole $5 per copy, $50 for an unlimited site license); he promised to pay me, and asked for an invoce. I fixed the program, sent him the invoice...
...and, of course, saw nothing. This ruined my admiration for JPL...
I've paid for several shareware packages over the years, but I know I'm in the minority. I've owned a WinZip site license since --- oh, I think version 4.1. And last year I licensed NTI CD_Maker, when I needed a Win2K program for my CD burner.
Every company I've worked at (consultant or otherwise) has used shareware without paying for it. Making an issue of this is a waste of time; I get looked at as some moralistic annoyance, because the managers and accountants see shareware authors as naive fools who "give" away stuff.
...at the reactionary attitude of supposedly intelligent people.
Who said that gcc is obsolete? What a ridiculous notion! Intel's compilers may be fast, but they are Intel specific -- gcc is a amazingly portable, cross-platform tool. Why can't the two tools be complementary instead of antagonistic? I'm building code for clusters of multiprocessor, Intel-based computers; for such work, the Intel compiler is exceptional and provides tools (OpenMP) that gcc does not have. Yet gcc is my compiler of choice for other projects where portability is paramount.
Narrow minds are limited minds.
I'm all in favor of lots and lots of tools for various platforms; competition is good. It amazes me that Open/free software advocates complain incessantly about monopolies, but then take offense when someone treads in their sacred territory. Intel, Borland, and other vendors will provide impetus for the evolution of gcc -- and that's a good thing.
Note that Intel's compilers are available free for non-commercial work. I've written reviews of the Intel compilers, and my experiences suggest that Intel does, indeed, produce faster code than does gcc -- although not to the extent claimed in the Open Magazine article.
I'm no fan of Intel per se; read my article and Intel's responses for a full story. However, I'm not going to ignore Intel's delivery of high-quality Linux compilers for C++ and Fortran.
I'm using the Intel compilers (C++ and Fortran) for development of multiprocessing application; Intel supports OpenMP and gcc does not. Overall, I'm very happy with the Intel compilers, and recommend them to any serious developer. It never hurts to have more than one compiler, no matter what platform you're working on.
Perhaps, although if you listen to the Open Source pundits, it's all about ethics, trust-busting, and freedom of speech. I suspect that your view is more realistic and honest.
Once upon a time, universities were the centers of new and indepdendent thinking; with corporate sponsorships, such academic freedom is quickly going the way of the dodo. Consider the chances of revolutionary UI being developed by a for-profit enterprise or corporate-sponsored research center...
If there is any hope that software will become "better", it is in the free world of free/open development.
KDE and Gnome are going to out-compete any up-and-coming user interfaces simply because they have more applications written to work with that user-interface.
Ahh... then, since MS Windows has "more applications", Gnome and KDE have no hope, right? If all we're doing is cloning Windows, then what is the incentive to use Linux? Unfortunately, arguments about freedom and breaking monopolies don't hold much weight with the mass audience KDE and Gnome target.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is "right", or that it cannot be replaced by something better.
...is to be popular? Hmmm... I thought the goal was to produce the best, most powerful tool.
An analogy: Britney Spears may be popular, but I'd rather have my daughters grow up to be scientists, thinkers, and engineers... do we really want Linux to grow up and be just like Windows? I hope not!
I use Linux because it's powerful, flexible, and customizable, not because some people desperately want to use it against Microsoft in the popularity wars.
...when someone begins to develop a truly original interface, instead of immitating Windows. Don't get me wrong -- Gnome and KDE are monumental achievements, and I congratulate their programmers. But what about all the really new and interesting ideas out there? Isn't creativity and exploration a goal of "free" software?
Slashdot Mirror
You (the Slashdot "editors") just gave me the biggest laugh of the day. After all the hype about Blizzard's attacks on Battle.net clones, you guys come out with a fanboy, suck-up article for Warcraft III. Not unexpected, but definitely a sign that Slashdot is losing its relevance.
This article leaves a bad taste in my mouth, like a Jon Katz polemic. So much for Slashdot's "reputation" as a "defender of freedom." I wonder if Katz will write an article about how people let fanboyism get in the way of their putative idealism?
As for me: I'm donating the purchase price of a Warcraft III to the EFF, and I'll find other fine games to play. Morrowind looks terrific; Heroes of Might and Magic 4 should be fine, too.
Until now, I've bought and played heavily every game Blizzard has produced. But no more; I don't need Blizzard, and I won't support their misuse of copyright. In my book, Blizzard is no better than the Scientologists, in that both breed cults of ill-manner folk, and then get their dander up when anyone dissents.
Scientific data -- and not anecdotal stories -- does suggest a warming trend for the Earth. I'm quite convinced that "global warming" is, indeed, happening -- at least in the short term.
However: We don't know if global warming is a long-term event, or if humanity is the sole (or even most important cause) of any changes in climate. Consider, for example, ice core evidence from Greenland, which shows how the Earth's climate has undergone radical short-term changes, long before humans were a factor. NASA recently noted changes in the Sun's output. Over the last 10,000 years the global climate has significantly warmed, and I don't see how we can make absolute statements based on a few years (maybe a century) of research.
I'm not in favor of pumping our atmopshere full of chemicals and garbage, regardless of global warming. I am in favor of rational, scientific debate, as opposed to the scare-mongering going on at both ends of the political spectrum.
Jon, I'm not one of your usual critics, but it's articles of this type that have driven me away from Slahsdot in recent months...
Why do you feel this desperate need to prove the importance of the web?
Belief that the web is "creating culture" is as silly as those who accuse the web of "destroying culture". The web is part of a culture, and it is socially significant -- but in the end, the hubris that brought on the "dot bomb" boom is going to deflate those who have high aspirations for the "significance" of the web as a cultural engine.
Oh, I once believed that the web would be a force for social change, providing an outlet for all the lost voices in the wilderness, uplifting the masses, and providing the masses with information about critical issues. In truth, the web did (and does) not create culture -- it reflects the culture it is embedded in. Having a universal, uncensored forum didn't suddenly make poeple want to listen to issue they'd ignored -- they kept right on ignoring those issues, and the web accomplished little or nothing in terms of enlightenment.
The web is a powerful tool and a useful resource, but it won't remake humanity or redfine society as a whole. Such change require real human interactions...
Actually, they do have something -- a pool of people who may not be the "best", but who are willing to work cheaper and give up copyright.
Up until the late 90s, I was always able to politely ask, "Can I retain copyright, and can we strike the 'future works' clause?", and the publisher would kindly modify the contract. That has since changed.
The world is changing, and it isn't for the better...
I've published 17 books professionally, through everyone from McGraw-Hill to Microsoft to the old (and recently resurrected) M&T Books. Five years ago, I ended a successful ten-year career as a full-time write to re-enter the "regular" workforce. Draconian contracts were a major reason for my career detour.
Modern publishing is about the control of intellectual property.
Publishers want to own copyright (i.e., control), something I am unwilling to give up. I wrote the damned thing, and for better or worse, it is my intellectual property. I would rather give away my work than sell it into corporate slavery. Once, the relationship between author and publisher was one of mutual benefit; now, writers are largely treated as property by corporate publishing houses.
And, to be less idealistic, the pay rate for writing sucks. Even the magazines pay pitiful amounts for articles that take considerable effort. I was doing pretty good as a writer -- 40-60K %US in a good year -- but I doubled that going into industry. And the paychecks now arrive with some reasonable regularity. I can't begin to enumerate the ways in which corporate publishers (every one I've worked with, with the notable exception [so far] of O'Reilly) rip off authors, by twisting terms, demanding future rights, selling books through third parties, and "forgetting" things. Ugh... the "freedom" that comes without a day job was great, but at least now I know how much I'm being paid and when!
Not that I wouldn't sign with a publisher who was interested in a mutual relationship. I just haven't met one recently.
I love writing; I love sharing with my readers. Today publish through the web and other venues, where I can write what I want, when I want, about what I want, without ignorant marketers, semi-literate editors, and corporate lawyers mucking about in my product. My readers decide what they like and don't like; I can update material as necessary, and no one is telling me to change what I write for "marketting" purposes.
In the end, giving up "professional" writing has given me unexpected freedom -- and that's a Good Thing.
I didn't see RMS, ESR, or any of these other "freedom" luminaries rise up for environmentalists or Native Americans or the homeless or anti-pollution activists, so I have little sympathy that they're whining in their (free?) beer now about how mean, nasty corporations are picking on poor techies. Too bad, guys -- you lost the war when you failed to fight for others. Now that the fight is in your backyard, you care -- but it may be too late, because the rights were eroded long before the DMCA became reality.
Freedom of speech isn't just about the GPL and software; it's about fundamental human rights and corporate control of government.
Real magazines pay their contributors -- but somehow, I don't expect to see a check from VA Systems if one of my comments is highly rated by the moderators. ;)
You might consider some sort of karma-based subscription service, where you lower prices for those who provide "good" content (as moderated). That way, people have an incentive to post quality material, and they don't feel cheated by paying Taco's web bills. ;) Everybody wins (except the trolls, of course).
I also expect professional journalistic standards from a site I'm paying for. If I'm giving away content, I'm not that concerned about spelling and punctuation -- but if I'm charging people to read what I write, I have editors and such who make sure the content is clean and readable. If Slashdot wants to move beyond amateur status, it needs to act professional.
I have no problem with Slashdot trying to recoup its costs -- but I (and lots of other people) expect value for thier money. Getting rid of ads isn't enough incentive to make me pay for Slashdot.
Good luck guys.
Once again, the inanimate tool (bnetd) is being blamed for the actions of a minority of its users (software pirates). This is as stupid as laws that banned spoons and plastic baggies because of their potential use in the drug trade.
Nothing justifies pirating software (free or commercial) -- but Blizzard's action does not do anything to stop piracy. Mirrors of bnetd will pop up world wide, on public and private systems, beyond any ability of Blizzard to control. If anything, people will feel even more justified about pirating Blizzard's games because the company has proven itself to be a nasty corporation. All Blizzard has done is upset legitimate users who don't want to use Battle.net.
What's wrong with Battle.net? Cheaters, lag, trolls, lag, spewers, lag, downtime -- did I mention "lag?" I don't use Battle.net; we play over TCP/IP on the LAN. I'm not certain bnetd was absolutely necessary for playing off-Battle.net -- but I don't see how it really hurt Blizzard. And has Blizzard ever considered that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? The bnetd guys loved Blizzard games, and have been slapped in the face for it.
I own many legitimate, registered copies of Blizzard games; I have purchaed one copies of every Blizzard game since Warcraft I -- sometimes buying multiple copies because we play over the home LAN. I have *never* used bnetd; in fact, I wasn't even aware of its existence until the controversy erupted.
Blizzard is within its rights to "protect" its intellectual property -- i.e., the law lets them do something useless and stupid. I have the right to react with my money -- and I will not be buying any copies of Warcraft III if Blizzard does not amend its poor decisions.
There are plenty of fun, interesting games coming out; I think my family can survive quite happily without Warcraft III.
I'm just wondering what's innovative about Gnome 2 -- what makes this something special or different? And why did it need to be incompatible with apps written for previous versions? I can still run old Win 95 apps on Win 2K, for the most part.
I'll appreciate polite and informative answers...
I can think of many areas of cooperation between Gnome and KDE -- and themes are pretty low on that list. This isn't a troll, but an honest question: What's so important about themes?
My computers are for programming, writing, and web browsing; why would I waste CPU time and memory on fancy wallpapers and pretty rounded corners and all this "stuff" that fascinates some people so much? If I want pretty pictures, I'll frame'm on the wall, where I can see them when the computer is off!
Can someone explain theme-mania to me, please?
Sadly, most people don't want to be educated about complex issues. The reason rights erode is because the average sheeple doesn't care and doesn't want to care.
Cynical? Not really; I'm being realistic based on years of experience in activism. People only care about issues that directly affect them; it is very difficult to get people interested in anything that might inconvenience them. People watch DvDs, but don't exercise their rights to free speech -- so guess which one they care about more?
Bah! Microsoft just submitted part of the CLR to ECMA; quite a bit of the CLR library is outside the "standard", and Microsoft has made it clear that "some" features of the CLR will only be available through licenses.
What Mono may do is provide Microsoft with an example of how "open" they are; it's a good defense when anti-trust talk begins to circulate.
I wish Miguel success, and hope he is lucky; perhaps he can influence Microsoft, too, for the good of us all. History suggests, however, that getting into bed with the beast is a prelude to being eaten...
Microsoft has harmed me, on a very personal level, by severely damaging a piece of intellectual property I placed in thier care. I wrote a book for them that they butchered in the name of trying to control Java.
So I have no love for Microsoft, and don't trust them further than I can kick their legal department.
Who do I trust? you ask. It's hard to say, really; relatively speaking, I "trust" Linus more than Miguel, and I trust both of them more than I do Mr. Gates. My level of trust has something to do with intent: Linus never intended to change the world; even now, he's more interested in making Linux "work" than he is in "beating" Microsoft -- and that's an attitude I can trust. Miguel, on the other hand -- well, I can't put my finger on it, but his attitude just "feels" wrong. Maybe I'm splitting non-existent hairs... so I try to give Miguel the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word.
As for Mr. Gates... let's just say that I've shaken his hand, and twelve years later, it still feels a bit dirty.
Note that I stressed how important it is that RMS and the community ensure the continued freedom (as in speech) of any "free" code that is involved in commercial projects (which includes work by the for-profit Ximian and its allies).
I don't wish Miguel ill, but I don't see how he's going to succeed. On that, at least, you and I agree.
Miguel de Icaza has committed two sins against the "spirit" of "free" software:
As I understand it, Miguel is looking at the CLR part of .NET as a productivity tool; he believes that Ximian developers will create applications faster and more reliably using a clone of Microsoft's technology. And he is very valid in pointing out that cloning .NET will follow a long tradition of "freeing" proprietary technologies. If GNU can clone C, C++, Java, Word, and what-not, why complain about cloning the .NET CLR and C#?
Miguel is not forcing anything on anyone; Gnome and GNU will not be dependent on Mono, and Mono only imposes on those who wish to use it. So long as Miguel protects existing free code from proprietary contamination, I see nothing wrong with what he's doing.
As to whether he can succeed -- well, I think he's bitten off more than Ximian can chew, in that implementing certain pieces of the .NET CLR and VM is unlikely to attract hordes of Windows-based developers, nor is it going to offer the functionality that will allow cross-platform development. Perhaps the only "evil" involved here is that Miguel's efforts may legitimize Microsoft's monopoly as a false example of the "openness" the monster of Redmond. We'll need to keep an eye on that.
In the end, Mono will sink or swim based on its merits; if developers don't like Mono, they won't develop for it, and it will go the way of the dodo. On the other hand, if Mono works, it could be a Very Good Thing by making application development easier for Linux. Time will tell.
Consider several things...
I'm not sure there's much here to worry about -- other than making damned sure that free code doesn't somehow become proprietary through various license follies. On that issue, people like RMS have my heartfelt thanks for their vigilance.
One aspect of freedom is choice -- in this case, a choice of applications, a choice of tools, a choice of where your money goes. And just because Linux works well for many applications -- even on the desktop -- does not mean that Windows is *never* a good choice.
I'll lay out some cases in point from my own collection of computers.
My home has more computers than people now -- and in terms of installations, Linux is running about even with Windows. Of my three machines, two are Linux boxes (including my dual-processor IBM workstation and the Toshiba laptop), while the third is a high-end Windows 2000 box. I use the Linux workstations for software development, research, newsgroups, and simulation work, with my e-mail, word processing, and gaming on the Win2K system. It works beautifully; I don't have any hassles when clients and family send me Word files or PowerPoint presentations; why go through the effort of making such things work under Linux when I can have a Windows box at hand? On the flipside, the Linux workstation has vastly improved my coding environment, giving me scientific and exploratory applications Windows can't match. As for the laptop -- well, it ended up running Linux for strange reasons, and I now find it useful to have a portable penguin system.
My wife runs Windows 2K on her rather basic system. She spends her life in e-mail with organizations and companies that are Windows-only; if the Red Cross sends her a disaster plan as a Powerpoint presentation, she can just run it using... uh, Powerpoint. She also games like the rest of the family. I never was fond of emulators (including Wine) -- if you need Windows, why not just use Windows? Good lord, that's like doing all your "Linux" development under Cygwin... (no insult to Cygwin, of course; great product, but not a "real" Unix).
As for my daughters -- the 6 and 11 year-olds share a Windows 98 Pentium 133 that does nothing but play their education titles. No point to Linux there.
The eldest daughter runs a dual-boot system, playing games and learning Photoshop and 3DStudio under Windows while experimenting with Python, Gimp, and 3D rendering with Linux.
Okay, I understand and sympathize with the desire to rid the world of Windows; some days, the Microsoft monopoly makes me want to wipe Windows from all of my systems. I've howled invectives in the direction of Redmond... but then again, I taught my kids some new language this week while trying to get a damned onboard SCSI card working with the latest Linux kernels. Damned aic7xxx driver...
Nothing is perfect; nothing is absolute. Religious zealotry -- of the RMS variety -- turns me off, because I know that brains turn off when beliefs take precedence over rationality. It's not that I disagree with RMS so much as I find his attitude grating and disturbing. Free and open software is taking over my home without excessive conflict; we're doing it when and where it works, and not to win some ideological war.
Freedom is about choice -- if the Linux advocates truly believe in choice, they'll stop attacking those who choose Windows. Make Linux the best it can be, and stop worrying about what Microsoft is doing.
I've paid for several shareware packages over the years, but I know I'm in the minority. I've owned a WinZip site license since --- oh, I think version 4.1. And last year I licensed NTI CD_Maker, when I needed a Win2K program for my CD burner.
Every company I've worked at (consultant or otherwise) has used shareware without paying for it. Making an issue of this is a waste of time; I get looked at as some moralistic annoyance, because the managers and accountants see shareware authors as naive fools who "give" away stuff.
Who said that gcc is obsolete? What a ridiculous notion! Intel's compilers may be fast, but they are Intel specific -- gcc is a amazingly portable, cross-platform tool. Why can't the two tools be complementary instead of antagonistic? I'm building code for clusters of multiprocessor, Intel-based computers; for such work, the Intel compiler is exceptional and provides tools (OpenMP) that gcc does not have. Yet gcc is my compiler of choice for other projects where portability is paramount.
Narrow minds are limited minds.
I'm all in favor of lots and lots of tools for various platforms; competition is good. It amazes me that Open/free software advocates complain incessantly about monopolies, but then take offense when someone treads in their sacred territory. Intel, Borland, and other vendors will provide impetus for the evolution of gcc -- and that's a good thing.
Note that Intel's compilers are available free for non-commercial work. I've written reviews of the Intel compilers, and my experiences suggest that Intel does, indeed, produce faster code than does gcc -- although not to the extent claimed in the Open Magazine article.
I'm no fan of Intel per se; read my article and Intel's responses for a full story. However, I'm not going to ignore Intel's delivery of high-quality Linux compilers for C++ and Fortran.
I'm using the Intel compilers (C++ and Fortran) for development of multiprocessing application; Intel supports OpenMP and gcc does not. Overall, I'm very happy with the Intel compilers, and recommend them to any serious developer. It never hurts to have more than one compiler, no matter what platform you're working on.
I've tried Enlightenment; I may use it as the GUI on a new workstation.
In the open-source world, popularity==survival.
Perhaps, although if you listen to the Open Source pundits, it's all about ethics, trust-busting, and freedom of speech. I suspect that your view is more realistic and honest.
Once upon a time, universities were the centers of new and indepdendent thinking; with corporate sponsorships, such academic freedom is quickly going the way of the dodo. Consider the chances of revolutionary UI being developed by a for-profit enterprise or corporate-sponsored research center...
If there is any hope that software will become "better", it is in the free world of free/open development.
KDE and Gnome are going to out-compete any up-and-coming user interfaces simply because they have more applications written to work with that user-interface.
Ahh... then, since MS Windows has "more applications", Gnome and KDE have no hope, right? If all we're doing is cloning Windows, then what is the incentive to use Linux? Unfortunately, arguments about freedom and breaking monopolies don't hold much weight with the mass audience KDE and Gnome target.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is "right", or that it cannot be replaced by something better.
An analogy: Britney Spears may be popular, but I'd rather have my daughters grow up to be scientists, thinkers, and engineers... do we really want Linux to grow up and be just like Windows? I hope not!
I use Linux because it's powerful, flexible, and customizable, not because some people desperately want to use it against Microsoft in the popularity wars.
How about:
While chasing Microsoft, let's not forget to stop and smell the alternative roses...