See, the last release was "Apollo", and he was Starbuck's buddy on the Battlestar...
Oh, okay, I didn't know the last release was Apollo, so my first thought was Starbuck from Moby Dick, after whom the B.G. character was presumably named.
And while I still definitely prefer Debian as a distro, I do think Battlestar Galactica is a better source of names than "Toy Story" (Slink, Hamm, Potato...) Maybe Redhat will do a Cylon or Daggit release at some point in the future.:D
I have mixed feelings about Red Hat - I mostly like them as a company, as they've contributed a lot to the Linux community via research and coding. But at the same time, I don't like the distro, and have a hard time recommending to anyone - it just isn't as stable or well-designed as others (Debian is my own distro of choice).
And did they have to draw associations with that chain of putrid coffee shops by calling it "Starbuck"? At least they could have called it "Pippin" or "Queequeg".:D
Actually there are multiple different *kinds* of infinities - an infinite number of them, in fact - some which are vaster than others. For example, there are an infinite number of powers of 2, but the number 3 is nowhere to be found in that infinite set. Likewise, even if we postulate infinite monkeys and infinite keyboards, it does not follow that they will pound with true randomness - they might all be keyed to the same rand() seed, and therefore type infinite iterations of the same non-Shakespearean sequence.
I recommend Rudy Rucker's book "Infinity & The Mind" for a thorough and entertaining treatment of this subject.
While Tom's numbers make an interesting point, I think that hammering on the issue too heavily - from ANY side - is only going to cause more infighting among the free software community, which is ultimately counterproductive.
Yes, I think that RMS is a little off-base with his "GNU/Linux" crusade, if only because ruthless self-promotion leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But let's not forget that RMS has written MANY more lines of code than Tom, and has been far more active as an advocate of free software. And even if current Linux distributions may only have 10% (or whatever) FSF-written packages, the fact remains that Linux would not be the OS it is today if it weren't for GCC and other free, open tools. Even if everyone changed to egcs tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that the GNU tools have made a LOT of quality software possible over the past few years. Give credit to those whose shoulders you stand upon.
We all (including, I imagine, RMS himself) know that RMS can be a bit bull-headed in his fanaticism at times, but what some call stubbornness, others might call integrity - one of the things that I genuinely admire about RMS is that he consistently sticks to his guns, even when it totally flies in the face of social convention. I may not agree with everything he says, but I have a lot of respect for his motivations and ethics.
RMS may be a little headstrong (in my opinion) regarding the GNU/Linux issue, but so what? If it bothers me that much, I've still got the source code and can edit the offending terminology out of/etc/motd. Tom's proposal to castrate the GNU bits out of Linux, on the other hand, reminds me of nothing so much as a tempermental third grader on the schoolyard, rallying his classmates with taunts that "Richie's a dork! Let's nobody play with HIS stupid toys!" This does not demonstrate the cooperative spirit that, to me, is the real foundation of the free software movement. Not to mention that doing away with *all* GNU code based on the opinions of one person is a slap in the face to a *LOT* of people who have put a lot of time and effort into furthering the cause of free software. (And remember folks, the GIMP, Windowmaker, etc. are all part of the GNU bannerhead and therefore PROHIBITED by the DARK COMMANDMENT of DEMON PENGUIN).
Please consider that sometimes it is genuinely beneficial to overlook the quirks in people's personalities in order to concentrate on their actual efforts. It shows maturity, and in the long run, in most cases, people's personalities don't matter as much as what the person has actually DONE.
-hh
(BTW, I've informally started referring to my distro of choice as "Debian/GNU Linux"... gives credit to the FSF contributions and just seems more aesthetically satifying...:D)
Yes, you do have to abide by the terms of the relevant licenses when using GPL'd or other "free" software. The difference is that Open Source software like Darwin or Jikes or Mozilla is stilled owned by a single for-profit entity, while software like the Linux kernel or the GNU tools is owned equally by everyone. In one case ("Open Source") the license exists to protect the interests of the software's creators - in the other case (GPL etc.), the license exists to protect the software itself.
The danger with Open Source is that a company could decide to change the terms of the licensing at some point in the future, pulling the rug out from underneath the program's users and developers. This could NOT happen with the GPL, because GPL'd code doesn't have a single, specific owner. Richard Stallman may have written GNU Emacs, but the GPL prevents him from being able to turn around and make it into a proprietary, closed-source commercial package.
Don't get me wrong - I still think Open Source has its benefits, and I'm happy to see Apple taking a step in this direction. While I am an enthusiastic proponent of software-without-owners (for both technical and social reasons), I also realize that Rome wasn't built in a day.:D
I'm increasingly leery of all these proprietary software manufacturers who are jumping on the "Open Source" bandwagon. I think it is a Bad Sign that you can't even get past the first page of the site without consenting to their license agreement. "Open Source" *can* result in more stable code more quickly, but it's also an excuse for companies to look like Nice Guys when all they're really doing is cutting their R&D budget by getting end users to contribute free labor to their product. I suppose I just resent the idea of channelling my time and skill into refining code, which might make Apple/IBM/Netscape richer, but won't particularly benefit me or the general public, because the terms of use are still anything but free. I think Open Source can be a good thing, but it can also be a danger if it detracts attention (and programmers) away from truly free (as in free speech) software, from which everyone can benefit equally.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, okay, I didn't know the last release was Apollo, so my first thought was Starbuck from Moby Dick, after whom the B.G. character was presumably named.
And while I still definitely prefer Debian as a distro, I do think Battlestar Galactica is a better source of names than "Toy Story" (Slink, Hamm, Potato...) Maybe Redhat will do a Cylon or Daggit release at some point in the future. :D
And did they have to draw associations with that chain of putrid coffee shops by calling it "Starbuck"? At least they could have called it "Pippin" or "Queequeg". :D
I recommend Rudy Rucker's book "Infinity & The Mind" for a thorough and entertaining treatment of this subject.
Yes, I think that RMS is a little off-base with his "GNU/Linux" crusade, if only because ruthless self-promotion leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But let's not forget that RMS has written MANY more lines of code than Tom, and has been far more active as an advocate of free software. And even if current Linux distributions may only have 10% (or whatever) FSF-written packages, the fact remains that Linux would not be the OS it is today if it weren't for GCC and other free, open tools. Even if everyone changed to egcs tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that the GNU tools have made a LOT of quality software possible over the past few years. Give credit to those whose shoulders you stand upon.
We all (including, I imagine, RMS himself) know that RMS can be a bit bull-headed in his fanaticism at times, but what some call stubbornness, others might call integrity - one of the things that I genuinely admire about RMS is that he consistently sticks to his guns, even when it totally flies in the face of social convention. I may not agree with everything he says, but I have a lot of respect for his motivations and ethics.
RMS may be a little headstrong (in my opinion) regarding the GNU/Linux issue, but so what? If it bothers me that much, I've still got the source code and can edit the offending terminology out of /etc/motd. Tom's proposal to castrate the GNU bits out of Linux, on the other hand, reminds me of nothing so much as a tempermental third grader on the schoolyard, rallying his classmates with taunts that "Richie's a dork! Let's nobody play with HIS stupid toys!" This does not demonstrate the cooperative spirit that, to me, is the real foundation of the free software movement. Not to mention that doing away with *all* GNU code based on the opinions of one person is a slap in the face to a *LOT* of people who have put a lot of time and effort into furthering the cause of free software. (And remember folks, the GIMP, Windowmaker, etc. are all part of the GNU bannerhead and therefore PROHIBITED by the DARK COMMANDMENT of DEMON PENGUIN).
Please consider that sometimes it is genuinely beneficial to overlook the quirks in people's personalities in order to concentrate on their actual efforts. It shows maturity, and in the long run, in most cases, people's personalities don't matter as much as what the person has actually DONE.
-hh
(BTW, I've informally started referring to my distro of choice as "Debian/GNU Linux"... gives credit to the FSF contributions and just seems more aesthetically satifying... :D)
The danger with Open Source is that a company could decide to change the terms of the licensing at some point in the future, pulling the rug out from underneath the program's users and developers. This could NOT happen with the GPL, because GPL'd code doesn't have a single, specific owner. Richard Stallman may have written GNU Emacs, but the GPL prevents him from being able to turn around and make it into a proprietary, closed-source commercial package.
Don't get me wrong - I still think Open Source has its benefits, and I'm happy to see Apple taking a step in this direction. While I am an enthusiastic proponent of software-without-owners (for both technical and social reasons), I also realize that Rome wasn't built in a day. :D
I'm increasingly leery of all these proprietary software manufacturers who are jumping on the "Open Source" bandwagon. I think it is a Bad Sign that you can't even get past the first page of the site without consenting to their license agreement. "Open Source" *can* result in more stable code more quickly, but it's also an excuse for companies to look like Nice Guys when all they're really doing is cutting their R&D budget by getting end users to contribute free labor to their product. I suppose I just resent the idea of channelling my time and skill into refining code, which might make Apple/IBM/Netscape richer, but won't particularly benefit me or the general public, because the terms of use are still anything but free. I think Open Source can be a good thing, but it can also be a danger if it detracts attention (and programmers) away from truly free (as in free speech) software, from which everyone can benefit equally.