The point is about respecting the user. The user is not there to serve the program; the program is there to serve the user. Users have better things to do than memorize your obscure set of commands. They want to remember things important for their particular job, not waste time memorizing C-c C-c or whatever it may be.
For power-users with particularly high needs, tools like Vi are useful -- great, in fact; likewise with Sed and Awk, and other very powerful text-editing or text-manipulation programs.
However, for programs that do things that everyone needs to do, they should -- at least if they are GUI programs -- be obvious for at least the commonly used functions. There is no reason why easy to learn should be incompatable with easy to use. That is absurd. LyX is, for example, easy to learn and easy to use, as is the Phoenix browser, and many other things.
Simply put, good software is both easy to learn immediately, and easy to use in the long run. It offers obvious road-maps for how to do certain things (probably task-based intro menus, which statistically improve useability), and fast to use in the long run. This means that there are big back, forward, home, address bar, refresh, and stop buttons on a web-browser, but that there are also keyboard shortcuts for those functions.
Finally, most importantly regarding useability on GNU/Linux is for everyone to start abiding by keyboard standards. It is very annoying for there to be different key-combinations to do the same thing in every freakin' program. If you, as a developer, feel like your so bright that your key-bindings are that much better than the standards, at least provide users with a way to choose the standards.
#9: Make users feel like you pay attention to their suggestions and act on it. No-one's going to bother submitting feedback if the developer doesn't use it.
(1) Always use the 4 corners of the screen, as well as the screen sides. Don't ever place anything that's interactive just a pixel shy of the screen-edge.
(2) Form follows function, not vica-versa. Don't focus on making an "appealing" UI. Focus on making one that works very well for the tasks at hand.
(3) Passive memory, not active. People have a huge capacity for passive memory, and can remember things passively very quickly (that is, they recognize it upon seeing it). Users already have enough stuff to memorize, so don't make them memorize bizarre key-combinations.
(5) Remember to have strong software-support. The reason I like Gentoo so much is because of the helpful and friendly message boards, as well as the excellent documentation.
(6) User testing, user testing, user testing. Grab someone and ask them if your program is easy to use. Sit them down in front of it -- without a manual -- and ask them to do something that the program was designed to do. If they can do it, then the program has good design. If not, bad design. If they can't do it, or if it took them a long time, ask them what they would expect, or where your program was confusing.
(7) Have context menu's for everything in your program with "send feedback on this". E.g., if someone right clicks on the menu-bar or a specific sub-menu, they send feedback on that. You thus instantly know what their feedback is about, and it makes it easy for them to send feedback.
(8) Actively seek out the opinions of those who download your program and use it. You can do this by creating a message board, newsgroup, etc, and specifically asking what they think about x, y, and z.
Is that as much software as possible be FOSS, particularly in the government. As a minimum standard, all government data formats should be open and easily understandable (e.g., not so obfuscated as to be uninterpretable). My point here is that you need to level the playing field against competitors that have enormous -- and probably questionable -- influence over the government.
Who ever said Britney Spears doesn't make quality music? Not saying it's the Beethoven of this century (maybe John Williams in that category), but it's good music imo.
As other's have pointed out, this does not create an advantage for FOSS. In the long run, it hurts all software development.
The reason why the playing field needs to be levelled is because proprietary companies have undue influence in governing bodies and an enormous financial advantage.
A good solution is to mandate that all government agencies use FOSS whenever possible, that if they choose not to use it they provide a justification (as they are asking the tax-payers to pay more money), and that all government information be in open standards.
Which is why Eidos keeps on making it. People keep on buying it. Lots of them. there's also a dedicated fan-base, as there is for Descent (D2X and D1X have been made to allow older versions of Descent to use OpenGL).
Simply put, he's right. There are more talented individuals in the FOSS community than in every software company in the world. Let's see, one guy creates an OS kernel by himself -- without an entire development team -- that evolves to be better than anything MS or proprietary UNIX vendors crank out. Another guy creates what is arguably the best compiler in the world. Etc.
Then, of course, just consider the sheer amount of talent. There are probably more FOSS programmers than proprietary programmers...by a long shot. That means that there is a huge amount of total talent.
Companies should also not bother with the impossible burden of finding all patents that they may be infringing on. The legal bill to lawyers to interpret patents would be outrageous, and it is simply impossible -- period -- to do, due to the clear lack of organization in freely available patent databases and due to the sheer number of patents.
If we accept the false assumption that IBM did contribute SCO's code to Linux (kernel), then the IBM case won't go to the USSC. However, a case against a Linux maintainer (e.g., Linus) or a Linux company (e.g., RedHat) very well could if SCO wanted damages agaisnt those individuals. The USSC -- or any other court with the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a law [e.g., apellate, I believe] -- would rule that the burden asked of individuals is impossible to meet. Even a trial judge with no ability to challenge the constitutionality of a law would still have leeway on damages, and would realize that the burden is impossible to meet, thus damages are not appropriate.
P.S.: the fucked up US Patent System doesn't necessarily have any effect on Linux, or any other FOSS project. It only applies within the US. The US has no authority over organizations or individuals operating abroad. However, if proprietary code was found in Linux, it would probably be purged and re-written, for several reasons: (1) Proprietary code sucks; (2) Proprietary code really sucks; (3) Proprietary code is evil; (4) Proprietary code is really evil; (5) It would probably be more efficient upon a re-write; (6) The FOSS community hates proprietary code; (7) For the convenience of those distributing and developing Linux-based software in the US. In any event, none of this has any bearing on desktop use of Linux, nor any private users, nor really even any distributors (because they distribute, not maintain or check). For private users who use GNU/Linux for a desktop OS, the features SCO is talking about are completely irrelevant.
The Tomb Raider games were great, with the exception of Tomb Raider 3. Give the "originality" thing a rest. There haven't been really original games coming out anyways (gee, Wolfenstein 3D, real original). I will agree with you that Eidos has a nasty habit of releasing games -- especially Tomb Raider ones -- before they're really ready, and then never cleaning up their mess. However, the games are still fun, and some of the bugs are actually useful (like the jump-bug).
Not only is examining patents beyond Linus' capabilities, and beyond his means (due to the cost of hiring lawyers); but it is also beyond the capabilities and means of any FOSS developer and of any company.
Wrong. Due to the enormous number of patents, the total lack of clear logical organization in a freely available database, and the fact that patents are written in such vague and overbroad language that not even lawyers can understand them, to impose the burden on corporations, organization, or individuals to find out if any patent covers what they're doing would be undue and, ineed, impossible to meet. Unreasonable burdens cannot be imposed. Besides, if someone comes up with something independently on their own, why the fuck should they have to pay patent royalties just because someone else came up with it a little bit earlier? Coders, inventors, and scientists should be coding, inventing, and researching, not wasting their time looking through patent databases. If you come up with something independently, patents should have no weight over you. Patent holders who have issues shouldn't be able to go into stealth mode, and then spring royalties on the rest of the world when they've been using that patented thing for several years (see MP3). The entire modern patent-system is completely corrupt and obfuscated. The first step to rectify this is to simply refuse to grant patents for trivial things. The second step is to mandate that patents be written in a clear enough language for a professional in the field to replicate without translation from a lawyer. Finally, patents need to be revoked in areas where they are clearly hindering progress (e.g., computer science, and probably biological research).
Irrelevant of whether or not I consider it a valuable task, OpenNIC is not an alternative, so stop butchering the English language. It is a supplement.
An easier thing to do would simply be to follow some of the important domain-name resolution controversies, and contradict ICANN on them within OpenNIC's DNS, and then refer the rest of the.com,.edu,.net, etc to ICANN.
Well, prick is rather relative. He certainly seemed like a prick in that debate to me. I admit, I feel a little guilty because he did do a good thing for his students (honestly, I said that because I couldn't remember his name).
Simple. By having their root delegate.com to their own fucking nameserver, and making it differ from ICANN's when the people democratically want it to differ.
Try reading your own definition. MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE POSSIBILITIES.
OpenNIC is in no way an alternative to ICANN. It is a supplement. It does not offer alternate domain-name resolution for some of ICANN's controversial decisions (e.g., Nissan).
For it to be an alternative, it would have to actively assign at least some things (besides.biz) differently from ICANN (e.g., do right what ICANN did wrong, which means never giving in to corporate interests on those domains).
OpenNIC is not an alternative. An alternative means it does something different.
True, OpenNIC operates much different than ICANN.
However, OpenNIC has decided to be consistent with ICANN (aside from.biz, where ICANN hypocritically introduced inconsistencies). If ICANN steals fuck-you-ICANN-motherfuckers.com from an ICANN-critic and gives it to an ICANN-supporter, OpenNIC will not do anything about that. They will not have that domain name assigned to it's rightful owner.
OpenNIC should disparge from ICANN when ICANN has done the wrong thing (which is almost 99% of the time, when there is a domain name dispute).
All this is interesting, but how is it particularly relevant to the merits of SCO's case?
All this shows is that Boies is a low-life scum who will defend insider-traders like Fastow, and has no morals except for the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Btw, not-with-standing, Linus still chose to release it under the GPL. As the creator of Linux, it was his decision; he wasn't forced to do it. He did it because he thought the GPL was the best license.
The executives will get out of the stocks, knowing -- from insider knowledge -- that the lawsuit is bogus. That is insider trading and criminally fraudulent. This will fuck over whatever fuckees invested in SCO.
Copyright permission is not required to use something you have. It is agreed that one does not need to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software. However, you do not have the right to distribute the software unless you do agree.
Well, according to most EULA's, you do need permission to use something you already have paid for. So, it makes good sense for us to put in such clauses in FS/OSS licenses. If corporations don't like it, they have to challenge the right of a license to impose such a restriction. If they win, then we can't legally force them to stop using FOSS if they file copyright/patent/trademark lawsuit against FOSS; however, all EULAs would then be invalid in that regard. A win-win situation for FOSS.
To terminate on fileing of a copyright filling would bne very dubious ground indeed. The liscence relies on copyright law to exist, and have any effect. If you prevent anyone else from actually claiming copyright infringment, then you are denying them any chance to use the same rights you are
Well, I'm not talking about preventing anyone else from filing copyright infringement. This doesn't even do that. It simply imposes a penalty for doing such. And only if they file a lawsuit against FOSS licensed under a license with that clause in it. They can still file such lawsuits...just they have to accept a penalty of no-longer being able to use FOSS with that license term, nor distribute it. In fact, I'd rather say we go even further, and make it like a EULA where if they want to use the software, they agree to never file a lawsuit against FOSS.
Consider a case where two different groups both release open source, and a copyright violation between them. It gets very complex, very fast, if there have been external patches included in those software packages.
In that case, they each lose the right to use the other's software, and any other FOSS with that term (though obviously not their own). This has the benefit of urging disparging groups to work out solutions out of the courts, rather than airing internal conflicts of the FOSS community before the world in the courts.
Note that the license comtains the qualifier 'essential to use'
As I said, I recommend getting rid of that qualifier.
Further more, SCO have not filed any claims that and open source softare is in copyright violation (as far as I'm aware). They claim IBM breached contract, and that's none of the things you mentioned.
I'm issuing this in anticipation that they will file lawsuits against FOSS projects.
[trademark] can be abused, granted, but on the whole, it's core intent remains a good one. I cannot say that about the majority of software patents
I agree with you on trademarks being overall good. However, they are disastrous when abused. There needs to be penalties for companies which abuse their IP, which are severe (as in, losing all of their IP). Misused, trademark is a way for the rich to carve up the English language amongst themselves.
Well, it may not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to me. These guys have demonstrated despicable behaviour so far, and the only possible profitable conclusion for them is to short-change investors on insider trading, like the execs of Global Crossings (that fucker Gary Wennig, who was voted as an "honorary member of the Jewish Philanthropy Society...right) and Enron.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is about respecting the user. The user is not there to serve the program; the program is there to serve the user. Users have better things to do than memorize your obscure set of commands. They want to remember things important for their particular job, not waste time memorizing C-c C-c or whatever it may be.
For power-users with particularly high needs, tools like Vi are useful -- great, in fact; likewise with Sed and Awk, and other very powerful text-editing or text-manipulation programs.
However, for programs that do things that everyone needs to do, they should -- at least if they are GUI programs -- be obvious for at least the commonly used functions. There is no reason why easy to learn should be incompatable with easy to use. That is absurd. LyX is, for example, easy to learn and easy to use, as is the Phoenix browser, and many other things.
Simply put, good software is both easy to learn immediately, and easy to use in the long run. It offers obvious road-maps for how to do certain things (probably task-based intro menus, which statistically improve useability), and fast to use in the long run. This means that there are big back, forward, home, address bar, refresh, and stop buttons on a web-browser, but that there are also keyboard shortcuts for those functions.
Finally, most importantly regarding useability on GNU/Linux is for everyone to start abiding by keyboard standards. It is very annoying for there to be different key-combinations to do the same thing in every freakin' program. If you, as a developer, feel like your so bright that your key-bindings are that much better than the standards, at least provide users with a way to choose the standards.
#9: Make users feel like you pay attention to their suggestions and act on it. No-one's going to bother submitting feedback if the developer doesn't use it.
(1) Always use the 4 corners of the screen, as well as the screen sides. Don't ever place anything that's interactive just a pixel shy of the screen-edge.
(2) Form follows function, not vica-versa. Don't focus on making an "appealing" UI. Focus on making one that works very well for the tasks at hand.
(3) Passive memory, not active. People have a huge capacity for passive memory, and can remember things passively very quickly (that is, they recognize it upon seeing it). Users already have enough stuff to memorize, so don't make them memorize bizarre key-combinations.
(4) For a guide to a desktop, see here (explanation here), and here (explanation here).
(5) Remember to have strong software-support. The reason I like Gentoo so much is because of the helpful and friendly message boards, as well as the excellent documentation.
(6) User testing, user testing, user testing. Grab someone and ask them if your program is easy to use. Sit them down in front of it -- without a manual -- and ask them to do something that the program was designed to do. If they can do it, then the program has good design. If not, bad design. If they can't do it, or if it took them a long time, ask them what they would expect, or where your program was confusing.
(7) Have context menu's for everything in your program with "send feedback on this". E.g., if someone right clicks on the menu-bar or a specific sub-menu, they send feedback on that. You thus instantly know what their feedback is about, and it makes it easy for them to send feedback.
(8) Actively seek out the opinions of those who download your program and use it. You can do this by creating a message board, newsgroup, etc, and specifically asking what they think about x, y, and z.
Is that as much software as possible be FOSS, particularly in the government. As a minimum standard, all government data formats should be open and easily understandable (e.g., not so obfuscated as to be uninterpretable). My point here is that you need to level the playing field against competitors that have enormous -- and probably questionable -- influence over the government.
Who ever said Britney Spears doesn't make quality music? Not saying it's the Beethoven of this century (maybe John Williams in that category), but it's good music imo.
Descent never had a particularly large fan-base, yet it was one of the most solid games I've ever played (still play all 3 games).
The question regarding Tomb Raider is, will it be a classic. I think it will. Don't know about all of the sequels, but they're still fun.
As other's have pointed out, this does not create an advantage for FOSS. In the long run, it hurts all software development.
The reason why the playing field needs to be levelled is because proprietary companies have undue influence in governing bodies and an enormous financial advantage.
A good solution is to mandate that all government agencies use FOSS whenever possible, that if they choose not to use it they provide a justification (as they are asking the tax-payers to pay more money), and that all government information be in open standards.
Which is why Eidos keeps on making it. People keep on buying it. Lots of them. there's also a dedicated fan-base, as there is for Descent (D2X and D1X have been made to allow older versions of Descent to use OpenGL).
Simply put, he's right. There are more talented individuals in the FOSS community than in every software company in the world. Let's see, one guy creates an OS kernel by himself -- without an entire development team -- that evolves to be better than anything MS or proprietary UNIX vendors crank out. Another guy creates what is arguably the best compiler in the world. Etc.
Then, of course, just consider the sheer amount of talent. There are probably more FOSS programmers than proprietary programmers...by a long shot. That means that there is a huge amount of total talent.
Companies should also not bother with the impossible burden of finding all patents that they may be infringing on. The legal bill to lawyers to interpret patents would be outrageous, and it is simply impossible -- period -- to do, due to the clear lack of organization in freely available patent databases and due to the sheer number of patents.
If we accept the false assumption that IBM did contribute SCO's code to Linux (kernel), then the IBM case won't go to the USSC. However, a case against a Linux maintainer (e.g., Linus) or a Linux company (e.g., RedHat) very well could if SCO wanted damages agaisnt those individuals. The USSC -- or any other court with the ability to rule on the constitutionality of a law [e.g., apellate, I believe] -- would rule that the burden asked of individuals is impossible to meet. Even a trial judge with no ability to challenge the constitutionality of a law would still have leeway on damages, and would realize that the burden is impossible to meet, thus damages are not appropriate.
P.S.: the fucked up US Patent System doesn't necessarily have any effect on Linux, or any other FOSS project. It only applies within the US. The US has no authority over organizations or individuals operating abroad. However, if proprietary code was found in Linux, it would probably be purged and re-written, for several reasons: (1) Proprietary code sucks; (2) Proprietary code really sucks; (3) Proprietary code is evil; (4) Proprietary code is really evil; (5) It would probably be more efficient upon a re-write; (6) The FOSS community hates proprietary code; (7) For the convenience of those distributing and developing Linux-based software in the US. In any event, none of this has any bearing on desktop use of Linux, nor any private users, nor really even any distributors (because they distribute, not maintain or check). For private users who use GNU/Linux for a desktop OS, the features SCO is talking about are completely irrelevant.
The Tomb Raider games were great, with the exception of Tomb Raider 3. Give the "originality" thing a rest. There haven't been really original games coming out anyways (gee, Wolfenstein 3D, real original). I will agree with you that Eidos has a nasty habit of releasing games -- especially Tomb Raider ones -- before they're really ready, and then never cleaning up their mess. However, the games are still fun, and some of the bugs are actually useful (like the jump-bug).
Not only is examining patents beyond Linus' capabilities, and beyond his means (due to the cost of hiring lawyers); but it is also beyond the capabilities and means of any FOSS developer and of any company.
Wrong. Due to the enormous number of patents, the total lack of clear logical organization in a freely available database, and the fact that patents are written in such vague and overbroad language that not even lawyers can understand them, to impose the burden on corporations, organization, or individuals to find out if any patent covers what they're doing would be undue and, ineed, impossible to meet. Unreasonable burdens cannot be imposed. Besides, if someone comes up with something independently on their own, why the fuck should they have to pay patent royalties just because someone else came up with it a little bit earlier? Coders, inventors, and scientists should be coding, inventing, and researching, not wasting their time looking through patent databases. If you come up with something independently, patents should have no weight over you. Patent holders who have issues shouldn't be able to go into stealth mode, and then spring royalties on the rest of the world when they've been using that patented thing for several years (see MP3). The entire modern patent-system is completely corrupt and obfuscated. The first step to rectify this is to simply refuse to grant patents for trivial things. The second step is to mandate that patents be written in a clear enough language for a professional in the field to replicate without translation from a lawyer. Finally, patents need to be revoked in areas where they are clearly hindering progress (e.g., computer science, and probably biological research).
Irrelevant of whether or not I consider it a valuable task, OpenNIC is not an alternative, so stop butchering the English language. It is a supplement.
.com, .edu, .net, etc to ICANN.
An easier thing to do would simply be to follow some of the important domain-name resolution controversies, and contradict ICANN on them within OpenNIC's DNS, and then refer the rest of the
Well, prick is rather relative. He certainly seemed like a prick in that debate to me. I admit, I feel a little guilty because he did do a good thing for his students (honestly, I said that because I couldn't remember his name).
Simple. By having their root delegate .com to their own fucking nameserver, and making it differ from ICANN's when the people democratically want it to differ.
Try reading your own definition. MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE POSSIBILITIES.
.biz) differently from ICANN (e.g., do right what ICANN did wrong, which means never giving in to corporate interests on those domains).
OpenNIC is in no way an alternative to ICANN. It is a supplement. It does not offer alternate domain-name resolution for some of ICANN's controversial decisions (e.g., Nissan).
For it to be an alternative, it would have to actively assign at least some things (besides
OpenNIC is not an alternative. An alternative means it does something different.
.biz, where ICANN hypocritically introduced inconsistencies). If ICANN steals fuck-you-ICANN-motherfuckers.com from an ICANN-critic and gives it to an ICANN-supporter, OpenNIC will not do anything about that. They will not have that domain name assigned to it's rightful owner.
True, OpenNIC operates much different than ICANN.
However, OpenNIC has decided to be consistent with ICANN (aside from
OpenNIC should disparge from ICANN when ICANN has done the wrong thing (which is almost 99% of the time, when there is a domain name dispute).
All this is interesting, but how is it particularly relevant to the merits of SCO's case?
All this shows is that Boies is a low-life scum who will defend insider-traders like Fastow, and has no morals except for the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
thank you for the correction and reference.
Any documentation on that?
Btw, not-with-standing, Linus still chose to release it under the GPL. As the creator of Linux, it was his decision; he wasn't forced to do it. He did it because he thought the GPL was the best license.
The executives will get out of the stocks, knowing -- from insider knowledge -- that the lawsuit is bogus. That is insider trading and criminally fraudulent. This will fuck over whatever fuckees invested in SCO.
Copyright permission is not required to use something you have. It is agreed that one does not need to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software. However, you do not have the right to distribute the software unless you do agree.
Well, according to most EULA's, you do need permission to use something you already have paid for. So, it makes good sense for us to put in such clauses in FS/OSS licenses. If corporations don't like it, they have to challenge the right of a license to impose such a restriction. If they win, then we can't legally force them to stop using FOSS if they file copyright/patent/trademark lawsuit against FOSS; however, all EULAs would then be invalid in that regard. A win-win situation for FOSS.
To terminate on fileing of a copyright filling would bne very dubious ground indeed. The liscence relies on copyright law to exist, and have any effect. If you prevent anyone else from actually claiming copyright infringment, then you are denying them any chance to use the same rights you are
Well, I'm not talking about preventing anyone else from filing copyright infringement. This doesn't even do that. It simply imposes a penalty for doing such. And only if they file a lawsuit against FOSS licensed under a license with that clause in it. They can still file such lawsuits...just they have to accept a penalty of no-longer being able to use FOSS with that license term, nor distribute it. In fact, I'd rather say we go even further, and make it like a EULA where if they want to use the software, they agree to never file a lawsuit against FOSS.
Consider a case where two different groups both release open source, and a copyright violation between them. It gets very complex, very fast, if there have been external patches included in those software packages.
In that case, they each lose the right to use the other's software, and any other FOSS with that term (though obviously not their own). This has the benefit of urging disparging groups to work out solutions out of the courts, rather than airing internal conflicts of the FOSS community before the world in the courts.
Note that the license comtains the qualifier 'essential to use'
As I said, I recommend getting rid of that qualifier.
Further more, SCO have not filed any claims that and open source softare is in copyright violation (as far as I'm aware). They claim IBM breached contract, and that's none of the things you mentioned.
I'm issuing this in anticipation that they will file lawsuits against FOSS projects.
[trademark] can be abused, granted, but on the whole, it's core intent remains a good one. I cannot say that about the majority of software patents
I agree with you on trademarks being overall good. However, they are disastrous when abused. There needs to be penalties for companies which abuse their IP, which are severe (as in, losing all of their IP). Misused, trademark is a way for the rich to carve up the English language amongst themselves.
My point wasn't that they are as significant as Enron, only that they will fuck shareholders over just like Enron execs did.
Well, it may not be obvious to you, but it is obvious to me. These guys have demonstrated despicable behaviour so far, and the only possible profitable conclusion for them is to short-change investors on insider trading, like the execs of Global Crossings (that fucker Gary Wennig, who was voted as an "honorary member of the Jewish Philanthropy Society...right) and Enron.