Note that Rob has recommended that moderators adjust their threshold to -1 or so so that the situation you describe doesn't occur, and posts can be "redeemed".
I think it's kind of sad that people spend so much of their time with a computer game, but I've seen it before. I used to have a roommate that was definitely a MUD addict. Eventually, he got a job and later kicked the habit. He wound up trading one of the item he acquired for a couple of 32 MB SIMMs!
ZDNN is carrying a version of the article. This version allows you to add comments. I've got the second one up there, and there's a comment from Alan Cox (supposedly), too. I'd encourage some of you to write respectable comments to this version of the article.
Should we really be getting excited about a 1 GHz P3? The article I read said it was probably being cooled by liquid nitrogen, which _probably_ means it won't be shipping anytime soon. In fact, I think the article said AMD was likely to have a 1 GHz chip before Intel, plus the hype (which may be unreliable, granted) is that the K7 will be faster than the P3 at similar clock speeds. Intel watch out!
To the editor, Mr. Jack Fegreus, and Mr. Franco Vitaliano,
I am shocked at some of the inacccuracies and logic errors in a couple of you more recent columns. In particular, I am referring to columns regarding Linux and Java: "Free the Open Source", by Mr. Fegreus and "'.con-ning' of us all" by Mr. Vitaliano.
First, allow me to point out what appears to be a lack of research or understanding in both articles. It may seem "nit-pickey", but why is "Linux" continually capitalized? "Unix" is sometimes capitalized, but I have never seen someone knowledgeable about Linux capitalized "Linux". This seemingly trivial issue nonetheless represents a basic lack of understanding and connection to the Linux and "open source" community.
Also, Mr. Fegreus is blatantly wrong when he calls Linux "another OS built on top of the same kernel". Linux _is_ the kernel. The rest of what Mr. Fegreus seems to be referring to as the OS is a collection of utilities, mostly GNU utilities. Linux itself is the kernel, and shares no code in common with any other commercial Unix distribution. It may have a similar API, but that is _vastly_ different from having "the same kernel". Mr. Fegreus's statement shows a lack of research and technical understanding on his behalf.
In Mr. Vitaliano's article, he shows a basic misunderstanding of the open source model. Allowing free distribution of an open source product, but requesting royalties if it will be sold comercially, is not a new concept to the open source community. Rather, it is simply one model that open source software can follow. In fact, this is the same model that the Norwegian company Troll Tech previously used in its Qt toolkit, about which Mr. Fegreus expressed his lack of understanding to the objections against it. Most other models offer similar "trade-offs". For instance, in the popular GNU public license, the code is normally free, but if the company chooses to distribute its own changes to it, it must also release its modified source code. The common thread here is that the open source community typically does not object to the "you can have this for free, as long you don't try to make money off of my work" approach.
There are also many other things that I could comment on -- Mr. Fegreus' referral to Linux's manual, which would only apply to one book about Linux or one distribution of Linux; Mr. Fegreus' misunderstanding on why Troll Tech's Qt software package used in KDE was viewed as a potential problem until recently; Mr. Vitaliano's implications to the role and Linus and distributors in Linux -- but I believe my point has been made. When writing about something with which you may be unfamiliar (such as Linux and open source development), please be sure to do proper research to gain a full understanding of all the matters involved. Thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this post will probably get demoted, but it really is just cost, not costed.
As I read this article, it has actually jumped up to 4.
Note that Rob has recommended that moderators adjust their threshold to -1 or so so that the situation you describe doesn't occur, and posts can be "redeemed".
I think it's kind of sad that people spend so much of their time with a computer game, but I've seen it before. I used to have a roommate that was definitely a MUD addict. Eventually, he got a job and later kicked the habit. He wound up trading one of the item he acquired for a couple of 32 MB SIMMs!
ZDNN is carrying a version of the article. This version allows you to add comments. I've got the second one up there, and there's a comment from Alan Cox (supposedly), too. I'd encourage some of you to write respectable comments to this version of the article.
Should we really be getting excited about a 1 GHz P3? The article I read said it was probably being cooled by liquid nitrogen, which _probably_ means it won't be shipping anytime soon. In fact, I think the article said AMD was likely to have a 1 GHz chip before Intel, plus the hype (which may be unreliable, granted) is that the K7 will be faster than the P3 at similar clock speeds. Intel watch out!
To the editor, Mr. Jack Fegreus, and Mr. Franco Vitaliano,
I am shocked at some of the inacccuracies and logic errors in a couple of you more recent columns. In particular, I am referring to columns regarding Linux and Java: "Free the Open Source", by Mr. Fegreus and "'.con-ning' of us all" by Mr. Vitaliano.
First, allow me to point out what appears to be a lack of research or understanding in both articles. It may seem "nit-pickey", but why is "Linux" continually capitalized? "Unix" is sometimes capitalized, but I have never seen someone knowledgeable about Linux capitalized "Linux". This seemingly trivial issue nonetheless represents a basic lack of understanding and connection to the Linux and "open source" community.
Also, Mr. Fegreus is blatantly wrong when he calls Linux "another OS built on top of the same kernel". Linux _is_ the kernel. The rest of what Mr. Fegreus seems to be referring to as the OS is a collection of utilities, mostly GNU utilities. Linux itself is the kernel, and shares no code in common with any other commercial Unix distribution. It may have a similar API, but that is _vastly_ different from having "the same kernel". Mr. Fegreus's statement shows a lack of research and technical understanding on his behalf.
In Mr. Vitaliano's article, he shows a basic misunderstanding of the open source model. Allowing free distribution of an open source product, but requesting royalties if it will be sold comercially, is not a new concept to the open source community. Rather, it is simply one model that open source software can follow. In fact, this is the same model that the Norwegian company Troll Tech previously used in its Qt toolkit, about which Mr. Fegreus expressed his lack of understanding to the objections against it. Most other models offer similar "trade-offs". For instance, in the popular GNU public license, the code is normally free, but if the company chooses to distribute its own changes to it, it must also release its modified source code. The common thread here is that the open source community typically does not object to the "you can have this for free, as long you don't try to make money off of my work" approach.
There are also many other things that I could comment on -- Mr. Fegreus' referral to Linux's manual, which would only apply to one book about Linux or one distribution of Linux; Mr. Fegreus' misunderstanding on why Troll Tech's Qt software package used in KDE was viewed as a potential problem until recently; Mr. Vitaliano's implications to the role and Linus and distributors in Linux -- but I believe my point has been made. When writing about something with which you may be unfamiliar (such as Linux and open source development), please be sure to do proper research to gain a full understanding of all the matters involved. Thank you.
Amazing picture. I'm mirroring a copy at http://www.css.tayloru.edu/~bbell/fan tasy.jpg.