I am rather cross with you for lending your verbal support to Novell/Ximian's ignoble agenda to push KDE out of its well deserved and much loved position as the default desktop of the SuSE distribution.
And he needs to care about your opinion...why, exactly?
If I was going to speculate myself about his resignation, I'd wonder whether he resigned for his own reasons, or whether seeing as Jeremy Allison resigned, he was pressured by the "community" to do the same thing.
Just a thought. I've seen the "community" do similar such things before.
You misunderstand. Slashdot's userbase cares deeply about ethics; it's just that they only care about *their* particular ethical model.
Slashdot's ethical model centres around a schizoid mix of the ideology of Karl Marx, (primarily introduced to them by their very own Communist answer to Moses, Richard Stallman) and eighteenth century atheistic libertarian philosophy. (Voltaire, John Locke, Kant, and to a lesser extent the framers of the American constitution; people like that)
According to said ethical model, there is no greater evil than capitalism. Or more specifically, there is no greater evil than someone *other* than the given poster making money. Additionally, information shall be free if and only if such information a) potentially leads to the downfall of one or more corporations, or b) enables Slashdot users to obtain something of value to them without them having to pay money for it. Information is considered a heinously and entirely evil thing if it aids the function of corporations in any way.
I am also perplexed. 1) The software in question is by microsoft, the most hated of hated. 2) Theres no real threat of anything bad ever comming of it. Definitely not a ticking time bomb ethical delima here...
Maybe you're unfamiliar with how Microsoft treats companies when they find out that said companies have been pirating Microsoft's software.
This isn't a question of the average Slashbot not hating Microsoft. If you're living in a situation with a tyrant, although you might hate his guts you'll also realise that there are times when you need to tiptoe around him because he has the ability to do some very nasty things to you if you don't. Fear is actually a primary motivation behind hatred in most instances.
What I've also seen some posters advocate is moving the company to OpenOffice, ASAP. Since I'm thankfully not in a position where I need to use office software at all, I haven't actually used OO.org; however, being able to use ANY office software that lets a company do what they need to, while eliminating both costs and the risk of a lawsuit is worth it.
Where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux?
There is a set specification which outlines what a UNIX system is. As far as admins complaining about Linux not being "standard" it often genuinely is the case with a number of binary Linux distributions that a number of the utilities outlined by that specification are not installed by default, but rather are viewed by the distribution makers as being optional extras. They do this in an attempt to increase user-friendliness or save disk space, but there are times when for some people anyway it can simply make life more difficult.
The BSDs are designed to include all of these utilities as part of the core system, so admins and other users who want them can rely on them being there; there is no uncertainty as there can be with Linux distros.
For basic desktop use, Ubuntu is fine, and has been praised for its' user-friendliness. If however there comes a time when you wish to learn more, (which may be of benefit if you wish, as you say, to gain Linux-related employment) I strongly recommend investigating the Linux From Scratch Project. They release an online book which will teach you how to assemble a Linux system yourself that is largely compliant with the abovementioned specification, at least as far as the installed utilities are concerned. If that sounds intimidating right now, I'd also recommend this which is a guide that I wrote for someone else a while back. That will give you the background knowledge you need before attempting to complete the Linux From Scratch book.
After you've done that and used Linux for a while, (months, years, whatever) I'd definitely recommend installing FreeBSD at some point, if only for the sake of contrasting the two and rounding out your knowledge. You will then be in a very good position to determine which system you wish to make your environment of choice, long term.
I notice the usual contemptible morons have come out of the woodwork with the usual trollish garbage that they routinely attach to any article here referring to the BSDs.
I have to ask, Linux users...when are you going to stop making yourselves so easy to hate?
...maybe the next thing someone could explain to me is why the countries who are on this "priority watch list," should do anything other than laugh, exactly?
America doesn't have the ability to do anything to anyone any more. In terms of conventional military, that's still tied down and in the ongoing process of being bled dry in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. (Maybe Iran soon, too, if the Chimp still has his way)
The country's economy is also screwed; it's running on credit to China, and when China presents the bill, I can't even imagine what's going to happen...other than an assumption that it won't be in any way pretty.;)
Maybe the plutocrats who are concerned about this could try and use trade embargoes/sanctions as a punitive measure, but the amusing thing about that is that ultimately, it'd end up hurting them a lot more than it would the countries being sanctioned, given what I've already observed about the state of the country's economy.
The only offensive measure that the country really has left that I can see is nuclear weapons...and I get the feeling that that's actually the whole reason why Rumsfeld and a few other people were talking about using them again at one point; because I think deep down, they knew that. Using those however wouldn't gain anything...people can't be force fed "premium content" if they're dead.
Come to think of it, it makes me wonder why sites like Prison Planet are still going so strong. I read about the UK becoming more totalitarian these days, but they seem to be the only real country that is. America can still hurt people domestically, of course...but aside from what they're still doing in the middle east, that's about as far as it goes. The more I think about it, the more it actually feels as though we're moving towards a freer scenario, at least in some respects.
It's also why, to be honest, I've never been able to understand the pro-FSF people on this site seeing threats and enemies under every rock; the world isn't anywhere near as fearful a place from where I'm sitting as it used to be, at all.
Just because the story of Lord of the Rings ends, doesn't mean that the virtual world has to. It isn't as if the book ended with: "Sam took Rosy on his lap and suddenly the world exploded and everyone died."
The world didn't physically end, but the third age did. I don't know specifically what time period the game is set in, but they would have given themselves a lot more breathing room if they'd started it during probably at least the beginning of the second age instead. Starting it during the first wouldn't make much sense gameplay wise, because Melkor only became a problem at the start of the second IIRC; (hence no bad guy to fight) plus it'd mean the elves would be probably the only playable race.;)
That IMHO though would be the main problem with an LOTR based MMORPG though. The book wasn't about the physical end of the world, but it was more or less about the end of it being a world where magic in particular had a tangible influence...or more specifically, where physical reality and astral space were growing too far apart for beings who were supposed to consciously exist simultaneously in both (primarily the elves) to survive. That's why you had the elves and a lot of other people leaving, and it's also what Gandalf meant when he talked about humans running the place; they were the only entirely mundane race living there, so they were the only ones who could survive.
So, yeah, if this whole "Let's call it Open, because business won't like us if we call ourselves what we are, which is Free" thing goes away, I won't be crying myself to sleep.
Really honestly...why do you think like this? Do you honestly think it sounds as though you're quoting something that's come from your own mind? Then again...maybe my mistake has been assuming that individuality is something that people around here consider important, just because I do. Maybe being drones is something that some people actually enjoy.
The thing I can't explain is that for a while, the above type of thinking seemed to be fading away...I can remember the sense of breathless anticipation that I had that it might die entirely. Then suddenly, without warning about 18 months ago it rematerialised again, and the faithful seem more fanatical and zombie-like now than ever before. I suspect that one of the main reasons is that tragically, Steve Ballmer has genuinely behaved recently in a manner which reinforces the FSF's fearmongering.
Everybody knows the "or any later version" clause is an option. If you have a copy of some GPL v2 code with the "or any later version" clause lying around, you can choose to adhere to the GPL v3 terms if you wish, but you can also choose to adhere to the v2 terms and ignore your option to use "any later version". So what's your point?
If it's only an option, why make it a prerequisite for Savannah hosting that it be mandatory there? Ever considered that the only reason why it's only an option is merely because Stallman knew that he wouldn't be able to enforce it in most instances, and therefore decided not to try? In the case of Savannah however, he can. The easy response to this (which you no doubt would try to make if I hadn't brought it up) is simply not to use Savannah. That however is dodging the issue; namely that in whatever context he can, he is trying to force the "any later version" option on people.
Version 3 of the GPL definitely meets my own definition of open source jumping the shark. Not to mention the core, vocal minority of regressive fanatics who seem to become ever more fear-based and shrill with every day that passes. I only just witnessed yet another batch of their Marxist vitriol attached to the blog of a staff member of Novell.
The way I see it, Linux basically has two options in front of it. One path involves getting rid of Stallman, the FSF, and the associated fanatics entirely, and moving increasingly closer to being something that could genuinely be called mainstream. The other path involves Stallman becoming completely ascendant where Linux is concerned, (which is what we're moving towards at the moment) the toolchain and kernel adopting GPL v3, and the OS going well and truly back down into the basement. As much as I myself might long for it, realistically I'm also aware that there's more chance of hell freezing over than the first path mentioned above being followed, as well.
Learn something from history people, please...Linux has come as far as it has *despite* the FSF, not because of it. If you have trouble believing that, you only need to look at Stallman's inability to produce a kernel himself before Linux.
I know, I know...I'm urinating into the face of an oncoming hurricane, here...what I wish for is entirely futile; it's never going to happen. If that is the case though, it makes me also wish I knew how to let go. I'm having trouble precisely because I'm also seeing what might be possible if it wasn't for this tiny group of fanatics who cause so many problems, as well as people's unwillingness to tell them to take a fucking hike.
I know there are other people here who feel the way I do; I've seen you write here before. However, I've also seen you being successfully intimidated by the fanatics. The fanatics will try and tell you that Linux needs them; it doesn't. It's actually quite the opposite; they are damaging Linux's credibility and alienating people.
I've also had people tell me that I need to simply migrate to FreeBSD. However, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not leaving; if I can do anything to arrange it, the cult is.
I am on a disability support pension, and get around $500 AUD for hardware upgrades, once every 12 months. There is a local (relatively small) computer repair place near where I live, which I go to every year. Because I went there last year, and am almost certain to go there next year, the guy there realises that although it isn't much, my money is a relatively sure thing for him. Not only that, I've managed to get him some additional business from other family members at times as well.
Due to the above however, I am able to get a new case, motherboard, processor, and ram from him for that $500 (maybe $580) each year. This also means that I can buy a box one year, and a monitor the next, at the rate that I can afford it.
If I went to one of the chain stores here and asked for a Dell, I wouldn't be quoted a price of much less than $2,000, and the only way I could hope to pay for that would be on credit, which being on a pension I probably wouldn't be able to get. Due to the precarious nature of my financial situation I also wouldn't want it, even if they were willing to give it to me.
Dell (and the other big OEMs) are a bad thing, in my mind. In addition to the inflexibility on price, I've known a couple of other people who've bought complete systems and been given faulty hardware; I myself got burned on that score the one time I was able to do it. Not only that, Microsoft's monopoly only really exists because of people like Michael Dell; his profit margin per unit is so small that they are able to bully him in terms of the price of Windows, and dictate that people pay such things as the "Microsoft tax," as well as making it as difficult as it is for other operating systems (such as Linux) to enter the market.
I realise that for some people, technical knowledge and other reasons prevent them from going to the little guy and buying parts; but if you can do it, I advocate it. Not only will it be cheaper in most instances, in my experience you have less chance of getting faulty hardware, and you also don't end up supporting one of the big corporate behemoths that I know people on Slashdot hate so much.;) It's a win all around.
Of course if restrictions start being attached to the code, if patent threats start adding a layer of threat and restriction to the community then things could be jepordised
Ironically, this is the very reason why I anyway have had reservations about version 3 of the GPL; because of the idea of the FSF incrementally adding more and more restrictions to how licensed software can be used over time. I thought it was particularly telling when I found out that projects hosted on Savannah are not allowed to limit themselves to one version of the GPL; they are required to accept the "or any later version," clause.
I keep on and on finding more and more proof that Richard Stallman genuinely *is* a tyrant, but people still think I'm ignorant, or a troll, or deluded, or just plain wrong. I keep wondering how openly rogue the FSF are going to have to become before people will see the truth.
When you pump cash into an open source project, the volunteers will tend to leave or their effort will diminish (why would they invest their precious time, if others are paid to do exactly the same?).
I see this continually with Linux...over and over and over again. It's never about what an individual themselves are doing. Rather, the rule is always, "I am my brother's keeper."
Here's a thought:- Instead of focusing constantly on whether everyone else is "giving back," whether everyone else is being paid for what they do, whether everyone else is saying, doing, and thinking the Stallman-approved "right" things...how about focusing on yourself?
"I begin with the young. We older ones are used up. We are rotten to the marrow. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there any finer ones in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them, I can make a new world. This is the heroic stage of youth. Out of it will come the creative man, the man-god."
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I say calmly, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community'."
In all this discussion of Big Business "Open Source" software let's tip our hats to the thousands of Debian Developers who help keep software FREE. Not just free in monetary terms, free of the stranglehold that big business can place on software development when they decide to move on to the next big thing.
What about Gentoo, Fedora, Linux From Scratch, Gobolinux, and Blag? (To name but a few other non-commercial Linux distros) Don't they count too?
Debian is *not* the only non-commercial Linux distribution in existence. Please don't give me the usual crap in response about it being the only "serious" non-commercial distro in existence either, because that's entirely subjective, emotive bullshit too. The other distros I've mentioned are perfectly serious to the people using/developing them.
I'm very tired of Debian advocates' lack of awareness of Debian's alternatives...although actually, I'm really just plain sick of Debian advocates in general.
...that makes me wonder whether it really is unhinged kids who're responsible for the other shootings that have happened. I remember the footage I saw during Bowling for Columbine; some people reckon that the government hired a mercenary to do it, and then pin it on some kids so that they could use that as justification for removing people's right to own firearms entirely. If school administration staffs are as paranoid as TFA implies, do you really believe that armed kids manage to get past them in order to commit the shootings?
If you want to call me a tinfoil-hat wearing moonbat, then guilty as charged. I believe the Bush government was responsible for 9/11, and I'm also inclined to believe that the government has been responsible for at least a good number of the school shootings that have happened, as well. It's exactly the same with the inflation of the immigration issue. They'll whip people into a frenzy about that, and then use it as justification for opening the domestic network of concentration camps which they've been in the process of building for years.
Creating a dictatorship out of an earlier democratic system isn't something that you can do overnight, and the only way you can get people to willingly accept it is to keep them in a permanent state of being terrified out of their minds. The only way aspirant despots get *that* is by generating a constant stream of threats, terrorist incidents, and other upheavals. 9/11, school shootings, global warming, bird flu; it doesn't matter what it is. The only important thing is to keep the population in a constant state of apocalyptic hysteria, because that's the only way to get them to accept the increasingly fascist things such individuals want to do.
Start the camps running, Dick and George. Take your masks off. The preliminary stuff is getting old.
Where else do you expect the FSF to get money from to protect the GPL?
I know they can't get money from anywhere else. My point was that most people that I've seen on Slashdot find the idea of people making money from software at all to be completely intolerable. I've also seen transcripts from a speech he gave where Stallman said he felt that people wanting to make money from software development should find something else to do.
If it's true that there's nowhere else for the FSF to get money from, please explain to me...why do they have such a chronic problem with people making money from software development?
I'm assuming you have totally bland vanilla hardware then. Linux's support for diverse hardware is still quite a long way ahead of FreeBSD, at least it was last time I looked, and that was 6.2-RELEASE.
I honestly think of it as a gigantic distributed brain, and if you think about the topology, that makes sense. To me, it's a step closer towards the Borg's type of hive mind...but when you take away authority issues, that doesn't have to automatically be a bad thing.
I also think of it to a degree as an acorporeal reality; a mechanistic reproduction of astral space. I think both definitions describe different elements of it; the first the knowledge part, and the second the communication part.
Either way, I love the net myself...it's my own native element the same way a fish's is water. Before my current relationship, it was the proverbial mother, brother, sister, lover, and it still is to a limited degree. It provides me with everything I could want or need short of food. It's my home.
First, let me say that I genuinely *do* love your work, for the most part. Your search engine has literally become a sixth sense for me, as I'm sure it has for countless other people. The simple access that I have to Google, probably even more than security issues, is the main reason why I've stuck with Firefox over IE7.
But lately, I'll admit that I'm becoming a bit worried. It seems that the company has been wanting to branch out into a *lot* of other areas besides search. While I'm aware that diversification is well-documented as smart strategy once a company hits a certain level, the reason why it worries me in the case of Google is because I assume that maintaining a search engine as useful as yours must be an enormous undertaking. In other words, although Gmail and Google Video and the other things you've diversified into might be wonderful, I fear that they might remove focus from the search engine somewhat. Although you're a large and I assume very effectively managed company, I find myself thinking that even with eight arms, if someone tries to juggle too many eggs at once, eventually a few of them are going to get dropped, and reliability problems such as this are likely to start to creep in.
I'd really hate to see that happen, because I've been an enthusiastic user of the search and YouTube (which of course you recently acquired) for years now. It is my earnest hope that the company does not overextend itself, and is able to maintain a sufficiently restrained focus that its' core services, the things that so many of us have come to rely on so greatly, can be effectively maintained into the future.
This is true. If there is one overwhelming way in which the Furries have contributed to the rest of mankind, it is by virtue of the fact that once you've seen/heard of/been exposed to them, there are very few other things that will scare you.;)
I think we need more leaders like Linux, that isn't after blood. He wants to make Linux the best damn kernel he can. If a hundred leaders of a hundred applications rose to the occasion and realized their vision, the "war" would attend to itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I am rather cross with you for lending your verbal support to Novell/Ximian's ignoble agenda to push KDE out of its well deserved and much loved position as the default desktop of the SuSE distribution.
And he needs to care about your opinion...why, exactly?
If I was going to speculate myself about his resignation, I'd wonder whether he resigned for his own reasons, or whether seeing as Jeremy Allison resigned, he was pressured by the "community" to do the same thing.
Just a thought. I've seen the "community" do similar such things before.
You misunderstand. Slashdot's userbase cares deeply about ethics; it's just that they only care about *their* particular ethical model.
Slashdot's ethical model centres around a schizoid mix of the ideology of Karl Marx, (primarily introduced to them by their very own Communist answer to Moses, Richard Stallman) and eighteenth century atheistic libertarian philosophy. (Voltaire, John Locke, Kant, and to a lesser extent the framers of the American constitution; people like that)
According to said ethical model, there is no greater evil than capitalism. Or more specifically, there is no greater evil than someone *other* than the given poster making money. Additionally, information shall be free if and only if such information a) potentially leads to the downfall of one or more corporations, or b) enables Slashdot users to obtain something of value to them without them having to pay money for it. Information is considered a heinously and entirely evil thing if it aids the function of corporations in any way.
I am also perplexed. 1) The software in question is by microsoft, the most hated of hated. 2) Theres no real threat of anything bad ever comming of it. Definitely not a ticking time bomb ethical delima here...
Maybe you're unfamiliar with how Microsoft treats companies when they find out that said companies have been pirating Microsoft's software.
This isn't a question of the average Slashbot not hating Microsoft. If you're living in a situation with a tyrant, although you might hate his guts you'll also realise that there are times when you need to tiptoe around him because he has the ability to do some very nasty things to you if you don't. Fear is actually a primary motivation behind hatred in most instances.
What I've also seen some posters advocate is moving the company to OpenOffice, ASAP. Since I'm thankfully not in a position where I need to use office software at all, I haven't actually used OO.org; however, being able to use ANY office software that lets a company do what they need to, while eliminating both costs and the risk of a lawsuit is worth it.
Where are the problems with linux that aren't in BSD? Is it lack of standardization? Or are there specific things that should work that were broken in linux? Why do hard-core admins scoff at linux?
There is a set specification which outlines what a UNIX system is. As far as admins complaining about Linux not being "standard" it often genuinely is the case with a number of binary Linux distributions that a number of the utilities outlined by that specification are not installed by default, but rather are viewed by the distribution makers as being optional extras. They do this in an attempt to increase user-friendliness or save disk space, but there are times when for some people anyway it can simply make life more difficult.
The BSDs are designed to include all of these utilities as part of the core system, so admins and other users who want them can rely on them being there; there is no uncertainty as there can be with Linux distros.
For basic desktop use, Ubuntu is fine, and has been praised for its' user-friendliness. If however there comes a time when you wish to learn more, (which may be of benefit if you wish, as you say, to gain Linux-related employment) I strongly recommend investigating the Linux From Scratch Project. They release an online book which will teach you how to assemble a Linux system yourself that is largely compliant with the abovementioned specification, at least as far as the installed utilities are concerned. If that sounds intimidating right now, I'd also recommend this which is a guide that I wrote for someone else a while back. That will give you the background knowledge you need before attempting to complete the Linux From Scratch book.
After you've done that and used Linux for a while, (months, years, whatever) I'd definitely recommend installing FreeBSD at some point, if only for the sake of contrasting the two and rounding out your knowledge. You will then be in a very good position to determine which system you wish to make your environment of choice, long term.
I notice the usual contemptible morons have come out of the woodwork with the usual trollish garbage that they routinely attach to any article here referring to the BSDs.
I have to ask, Linux users...when are you going to stop making yourselves so easy to hate?
...maybe the next thing someone could explain to me is why the countries who are on this "priority watch list," should do anything other than laugh, exactly?
;)
America doesn't have the ability to do anything to anyone any more. In terms of conventional military, that's still tied down and in the ongoing process of being bled dry in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. (Maybe Iran soon, too, if the Chimp still has his way)
The country's economy is also screwed; it's running on credit to China, and when China presents the bill, I can't even imagine what's going to happen...other than an assumption that it won't be in any way pretty.
Maybe the plutocrats who are concerned about this could try and use trade embargoes/sanctions as a punitive measure, but the amusing thing about that is that ultimately, it'd end up hurting them a lot more than it would the countries being sanctioned, given what I've already observed about the state of the country's economy.
The only offensive measure that the country really has left that I can see is nuclear weapons...and I get the feeling that that's actually the whole reason why Rumsfeld and a few other people were talking about using them again at one point; because I think deep down, they knew that. Using those however wouldn't gain anything...people can't be force fed "premium content" if they're dead.
Come to think of it, it makes me wonder why sites like Prison Planet are still going so strong. I read about the UK becoming more totalitarian these days, but they seem to be the only real country that is. America can still hurt people domestically, of course...but aside from what they're still doing in the middle east, that's about as far as it goes. The more I think about it, the more it actually feels as though we're moving towards a freer scenario, at least in some respects.
It's also why, to be honest, I've never been able to understand the pro-FSF people on this site seeing threats and enemies under every rock; the world isn't anywhere near as fearful a place from where I'm sitting as it used to be, at all.
Just because the story of Lord of the Rings ends, doesn't mean that the virtual world has to. It isn't as if the book ended with: "Sam took Rosy on his lap and suddenly the world exploded and everyone died."
;)
The world didn't physically end, but the third age did. I don't know specifically what time period the game is set in, but they would have given themselves a lot more breathing room if they'd started it during probably at least the beginning of the second age instead. Starting it during the first wouldn't make much sense gameplay wise, because Melkor only became a problem at the start of the second IIRC; (hence no bad guy to fight) plus it'd mean the elves would be probably the only playable race.
That IMHO though would be the main problem with an LOTR based MMORPG though. The book wasn't about the physical end of the world, but it was more or less about the end of it being a world where magic in particular had a tangible influence...or more specifically, where physical reality and astral space were growing too far apart for beings who were supposed to consciously exist simultaneously in both (primarily the elves) to survive. That's why you had the elves and a lot of other people leaving, and it's also what Gandalf meant when he talked about humans running the place; they were the only entirely mundane race living there, so they were the only ones who could survive.
So, yeah, if this whole "Let's call it Open, because business won't like us if we call ourselves what we are, which is Free" thing goes away, I won't be crying myself to sleep.
Really honestly...why do you think like this? Do you honestly think it sounds as though you're quoting something that's come from your own mind? Then again...maybe my mistake has been assuming that individuality is something that people around here consider important, just because I do. Maybe being drones is something that some people actually enjoy.
The thing I can't explain is that for a while, the above type of thinking seemed to be fading away...I can remember the sense of breathless anticipation that I had that it might die entirely. Then suddenly, without warning about 18 months ago it rematerialised again, and the faithful seem more fanatical and zombie-like now than ever before. I suspect that one of the main reasons is that tragically, Steve Ballmer has genuinely behaved recently in a manner which reinforces the FSF's fearmongering.
Everybody knows the "or any later version" clause is an option. If you have a copy of some GPL v2 code with the "or any later version" clause lying around, you can choose to adhere to the GPL v3 terms if you wish, but you can also choose to adhere to the v2 terms and ignore your option to use "any later version". So what's your point?
If it's only an option, why make it a prerequisite for Savannah hosting that it be mandatory there? Ever considered that the only reason why it's only an option is merely because Stallman knew that he wouldn't be able to enforce it in most instances, and therefore decided not to try? In the case of Savannah however, he can. The easy response to this (which you no doubt would try to make if I hadn't brought it up) is simply not to use Savannah. That however is dodging the issue; namely that in whatever context he can, he is trying to force the "any later version" option on people.
Version 3 of the GPL definitely meets my own definition of open source jumping the shark. Not to mention the core, vocal minority of regressive fanatics who seem to become ever more fear-based and shrill with every day that passes. I only just witnessed yet another batch of their Marxist vitriol attached to the blog of a staff member of Novell.
The way I see it, Linux basically has two options in front of it. One path involves getting rid of Stallman, the FSF, and the associated fanatics entirely, and moving increasingly closer to being something that could genuinely be called mainstream. The other path involves Stallman becoming completely ascendant where Linux is concerned, (which is what we're moving towards at the moment) the toolchain and kernel adopting GPL v3, and the OS going well and truly back down into the basement. As much as I myself might long for it, realistically I'm also aware that there's more chance of hell freezing over than the first path mentioned above being followed, as well.
Learn something from history people, please...Linux has come as far as it has *despite* the FSF, not because of it. If you have trouble believing that, you only need to look at Stallman's inability to produce a kernel himself before Linux.
I know, I know...I'm urinating into the face of an oncoming hurricane, here...what I wish for is entirely futile; it's never going to happen. If that is the case though, it makes me also wish I knew how to let go. I'm having trouble precisely because I'm also seeing what might be possible if it wasn't for this tiny group of fanatics who cause so many problems, as well as people's unwillingness to tell them to take a fucking hike.
I know there are other people here who feel the way I do; I've seen you write here before. However, I've also seen you being successfully intimidated by the fanatics. The fanatics will try and tell you that Linux needs them; it doesn't. It's actually quite the opposite; they are damaging Linux's credibility and alienating people.
I've also had people tell me that I need to simply migrate to FreeBSD. However, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not leaving; if I can do anything to arrange it, the cult is.
...and probably never will.
;) It's a win all around.
I am on a disability support pension, and get around $500 AUD for hardware upgrades, once every 12 months. There is a local (relatively small) computer repair place near where I live, which I go to every year. Because I went there last year, and am almost certain to go there next year, the guy there realises that although it isn't much, my money is a relatively sure thing for him. Not only that, I've managed to get him some additional business from other family members at times as well.
Due to the above however, I am able to get a new case, motherboard, processor, and ram from him for that $500 (maybe $580) each year. This also means that I can buy a box one year, and a monitor the next, at the rate that I can afford it.
If I went to one of the chain stores here and asked for a Dell, I wouldn't be quoted a price of much less than $2,000, and the only way I could hope to pay for that would be on credit, which being on a pension I probably wouldn't be able to get. Due to the precarious nature of my financial situation I also wouldn't want it, even if they were willing to give it to me.
Dell (and the other big OEMs) are a bad thing, in my mind. In addition to the inflexibility on price, I've known a couple of other people who've bought complete systems and been given faulty hardware; I myself got burned on that score the one time I was able to do it. Not only that, Microsoft's monopoly only really exists because of people like Michael Dell; his profit margin per unit is so small that they are able to bully him in terms of the price of Windows, and dictate that people pay such things as the "Microsoft tax," as well as making it as difficult as it is for other operating systems (such as Linux) to enter the market.
I realise that for some people, technical knowledge and other reasons prevent them from going to the little guy and buying parts; but if you can do it, I advocate it. Not only will it be cheaper in most instances, in my experience you have less chance of getting faulty hardware, and you also don't end up supporting one of the big corporate behemoths that I know people on Slashdot hate so much.
Of course if restrictions start being attached to the code, if patent threats start adding a layer of threat and restriction to the community then things could be jepordised
Ironically, this is the very reason why I anyway have had reservations about version 3 of the GPL; because of the idea of the FSF incrementally adding more and more restrictions to how licensed software can be used over time. I thought it was particularly telling when I found out that projects hosted on Savannah are not allowed to limit themselves to one version of the GPL; they are required to accept the "or any later version," clause.
I keep on and on finding more and more proof that Richard Stallman genuinely *is* a tyrant, but people still think I'm ignorant, or a troll, or deluded, or just plain wrong. I keep wondering how openly rogue the FSF are going to have to become before people will see the truth.
When you pump cash into an open source project, the volunteers will tend to leave or their effort will diminish (why would they invest their precious time, if others are paid to do exactly the same?).
I see this continually with Linux...over and over and over again. It's never about what an individual themselves are doing. Rather, the rule is always, "I am my brother's keeper."
Here's a thought:- Instead of focusing constantly on whether everyone else is "giving back," whether everyone else is being paid for what they do, whether everyone else is saying, doing, and thinking the Stallman-approved "right" things...how about focusing on yourself?
Here's an explanation for those who can read: parent poster was referring to Free, as in 'Free Speech', not free as in 'no cost'.
Ah. Of course. He meant that Debian is the only distro in existence with explicit approval from Stallman's cult. My apologies for the misconception.
However, with gnuSense, even that is no longer strictly true.
"I begin with the young. We older ones are used up. We are rotten to the marrow. We are cowardly and sentimental. We are bearing the burden of a humiliating past, and have in our blood the dull recollection of serfdom and servility. But my magnificent youngsters! Are there any finer ones in the world? Look at these young men and boys! What material! With them, I can make a new world. This is the heroic stage of youth. Out of it will come the creative man, the man-god."
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I say calmly, 'Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community'."
-- Adolf Hitler
In all this discussion of Big Business "Open Source" software let's tip our hats to the thousands of Debian Developers who help keep software FREE. Not just free in monetary terms, free of the stranglehold that big business can place on software development when they decide to move on to the next big thing.
What about Gentoo, Fedora, Linux From Scratch, Gobolinux, and Blag? (To name but a few other non-commercial Linux distros) Don't they count too?
Debian is *not* the only non-commercial Linux distribution in existence. Please don't give me the usual crap in response about it being the only "serious" non-commercial distro in existence either, because that's entirely subjective, emotive bullshit too. The other distros I've mentioned are perfectly serious to the people using/developing them.
I'm very tired of Debian advocates' lack of awareness of Debian's alternatives...although actually, I'm really just plain sick of Debian advocates in general.
...that makes me wonder whether it really is unhinged kids who're responsible for the other shootings that have happened. I remember the footage I saw during Bowling for Columbine; some people reckon that the government hired a mercenary to do it, and then pin it on some kids so that they could use that as justification for removing people's right to own firearms entirely. If school administration staffs are as paranoid as TFA implies, do you really believe that armed kids manage to get past them in order to commit the shootings?
If you want to call me a tinfoil-hat wearing moonbat, then guilty as charged. I believe the Bush government was responsible for 9/11, and I'm also inclined to believe that the government has been responsible for at least a good number of the school shootings that have happened, as well. It's exactly the same with the inflation of the immigration issue. They'll whip people into a frenzy about that, and then use it as justification for opening the domestic network of concentration camps which they've been in the process of building for years.
Creating a dictatorship out of an earlier democratic system isn't something that you can do overnight, and the only way you can get people to willingly accept it is to keep them in a permanent state of being terrified out of their minds. The only way aspirant despots get *that* is by generating a constant stream of threats, terrorist incidents, and other upheavals. 9/11, school shootings, global warming, bird flu; it doesn't matter what it is. The only important thing is to keep the population in a constant state of apocalyptic hysteria, because that's the only way to get them to accept the increasingly fascist things such individuals want to do.
Start the camps running, Dick and George. Take your masks off. The preliminary stuff is getting old.
I would love to load BSD/ubuntu/etc... on my pops machine - I really would. But he's 60ish and NOT a geek and its just not there yet.
Can you tell me more about what he uses the machine for? You mention "photo stuff." Can you be a little more specific?
Does the European Parliament ever actually do anything non-fascist?
If they have, can someone tell me about it? I'm starting to get an extremely negative impression of them, here.
Where else do you expect the FSF to get money from to protect the GPL?
I know they can't get money from anywhere else. My point was that most people that I've seen on Slashdot find the idea of people making money from software at all to be completely intolerable. I've also seen transcripts from a speech he gave where Stallman said he felt that people wanting to make money from software development should find something else to do.
If it's true that there's nowhere else for the FSF to get money from, please explain to me...why do they have such a chronic problem with people making money from software development?
I'm assuming you have totally bland vanilla hardware then. Linux's support for diverse hardware is still quite a long way ahead of FreeBSD, at least it was last time I looked, and that was 6.2-RELEASE.
I honestly think of it as a gigantic distributed brain, and if you think about the topology, that makes sense. To me, it's a step closer towards the Borg's type of hive mind...but when you take away authority issues, that doesn't have to automatically be a bad thing.
I also think of it to a degree as an acorporeal reality; a mechanistic reproduction of astral space. I think both definitions describe different elements of it; the first the knowledge part, and the second the communication part.
Either way, I love the net myself...it's my own native element the same way a fish's is water. Before my current relationship, it was the proverbial mother, brother, sister, lover, and it still is to a limited degree. It provides me with everything I could want or need short of food. It's my home.
First, let me say that I genuinely *do* love your work, for the most part. Your search engine has literally become a sixth sense for me, as I'm sure it has for countless other people. The simple access that I have to Google, probably even more than security issues, is the main reason why I've stuck with Firefox over IE7.
But lately, I'll admit that I'm becoming a bit worried. It seems that the company has been wanting to branch out into a *lot* of other areas besides search. While I'm aware that diversification is well-documented as smart strategy once a company hits a certain level, the reason why it worries me in the case of Google is because I assume that maintaining a search engine as useful as yours must be an enormous undertaking. In other words, although Gmail and Google Video and the other things you've diversified into might be wonderful, I fear that they might remove focus from the search engine somewhat. Although you're a large and I assume very effectively managed company, I find myself thinking that even with eight arms, if someone tries to juggle too many eggs at once, eventually a few of them are going to get dropped, and reliability problems such as this are likely to start to creep in.
I'd really hate to see that happen, because I've been an enthusiastic user of the search and YouTube (which of course you recently acquired) for years now. It is my earnest hope that the company does not overextend itself, and is able to maintain a sufficiently restrained focus that its' core services, the things that so many of us have come to rely on so greatly, can be effectively maintained into the future.
This is true. If there is one overwhelming way in which the Furries have contributed to the rest of mankind, it is by virtue of the fact that once you've seen/heard of/been exposed to them, there are very few other things that will scare you. ;)
I think we need more leaders like Linux, that isn't after blood. He wants to make Linux the best damn kernel he can. If a hundred leaders of a hundred applications rose to the occasion and realized their vision, the "war" would attend to itself.
:)
I really wish more people thought like you.