Mozilla's Firefox browser -- experienced a single period lasting just nine days last year in which exploit code for a serious security hole was posted online before Mozilla shipped a patch to remedy the problem."
It's worth noting that I'm betting that nine days was only how long it took for Mozilla to ship the "official" patch to "official" places...I'll bet a number of distros had downstream patches available (at least for submission) within 24 hours.
For anyone doubting ESR's written claim about FOSS's superior ability to squash bugs, you only need to take note of examples like this to know that he was right. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are indeed shallow.
*Dodges tomatoes headed in my direction with cries of "slavish, unquestioning fanboy!"*;)
on the other hand, I can't see the problem going away any time soon. Maybe we need to learn to work around it. Which presents some interesting problems in and of itself. We can't just set up an organisation to speak for the community: We already have the FSF, the OSI, the EFF, there are spokesmen for distros and for major projects all of whom get to put their oar in
Probably the single most interesting (and potentially effective) approach I've seen was reading about how some senators at one point were given iPods. Apparently it actually led to a few of them objecting to some of what the RIAA were trying to do, since it had created a scenario where they had a personal stake in it themselves.
That would tend to suggest that that is perhaps a viable strategy...if we can demonstrate to the people in government and other places how the various forms of technology (that Microsoft and various other entities are trying to destroy) can actually be enormously beneficial to them, a situation will arise where they will begin to want to oppose said entities themselves. Given the degree that Linux is being adopted in some places, there are indications that this strategy is already working. It's the reason why I'm not as afraid of DRM as a lot of people, I think...I see too many reasons for optimism to be truly scared of it.
I've never understood that, as regards BSD. I mean the BSD didn't get a penny (as far as I know) when MS slurped their TCP/IP stack, and I don't think they've had any real investment based on Apple's forking of BSD for OS/X.
Apple apparently ended up giving Jordan Hubbard a job.;) OpenBSD also had a contract with the DOD for a little while, and NetBSD at least has Wasabi behind it, which AFAIK is responsible for most of the mirrors for pkgsrc and a few other bits and pieces. You're right in thinking that there aren't millions of dollars pouring in...but they get at least a few people paying the bills. I will admit that the BSDs tend to remind me of the Zoroastrians, or "keepers of the flame," in terms of them perhaps preserving a somewhat more concentrated form of the older UNIX philosophy than Linux, which seems to be primarily about replacing Windows for the most part. Zoroastrianism is only a very small religion, but to a large degree is actually the root of the Abrahamic religions in particular...I see it as an interesting analogy.;)
Still balanced against that are his foresight, his skill in drafting the GPL and the fact that his intentions seem entirely honourable.
Contrary to how I sound most of the time, I do actually recognise Stallman's past achievements. However, I also agree with what Eric Raymond has written that although in many ways Stallman was responsible for getting the ball rolling, he's only really had a hand in how the story began...he can't determine how it will end, and he shouldn't try. Still, some of the stuff I see on the Free Software Magazine site at times gives me optimism; especially when I've seen the odd glimmer of the BSD license being advocated/used now and then. The FSF's tolerance of diversity (or lack of) has always been the single main thing about them that has worried me, but it seems that the rank and file are starting to think outside the doctrinal box, which is all I've ever wanted in that area.
The trouble is, it's hard to see how we can form a true consensus if we exclude radical and hysterical contributions to the discussion.
I think what you're trying to say here is that "radical" and "hysterical" are words with subjective definitions, which I'll concede...at least to a point.;-)
My only point was that although I might have no problem whatsoever with "radical" and "hysterical" perspectives being part of the discussion myself, it might damage "our" (like you, used in a broad sense) case with people who we potentially may need to have on side if we want to derail the development of the cryptographic DRM that you've defined. (Like, say, members of the legislative branches of a few different governments...not simply America's)
Eric Raymond: Values Open Source for the efficiency of the development model. Seems to hold adoption by businesses as the most important goal for FOSS.
My own reading about Raymond would tend to lead me to believe that the reason why he thinks corporations are so important is possible because (and to some extent this seems to be how some of the BSD people think as well, from what I've read) corporate dollars and corporate adoption both are important for any given software's long-term survival...be it Windows, Linux, FreeBSD or whatever.
However, (at least during my more balanced moments) I also tend to actually view Raymond and Stallman as each representing two extreme poles of a particular political/economic spectrum. Like in a lot of such cases, I tend to suspect that in this case a healthy perspective exists somewhere in the middle, between the two. (i.e., not worshipping the ground corporate people walk on, but not seeing them as the source of all evil either) I will admit that I tend to gravitate more toward's Raymond's end of that spectrum, firstly because I consider it more rational, and secondly because I can't completely purge myself of the sneaking belief, however hard I try, that what Stallman in particular (even if none of the rest of them) really wants is power over others. That however is something that many would probably tell me is a purely subjective opinion, I will concede.
There's a reason congress wrote the law that way. However, shitheads like you just accuse everyone of working with classified material as conspirators. So go fuck yourself.
That's probably the single main thing I've always admired about American government apologists: the amazingly compelling eloquence of their arguments.;)
One other thing. Irrespective of what you might think of me, one thing I would *never* do is tell someone to commit suicide. I would suggest for your own sake that you refrain from doing that in future as well, since if you make a habit of it there could well come a time when one of the people you tell to do that listens to you.
If you're any sort of human being at all, the guilt that you would likely experience from that would be formidable...so you might want to try and avoid such a scenario.
Also...if disagreeing with the party line on Linux earns me this kind of response, it can only lead me to conclude that maybe I'm actually *not* as paranoid as you claim after all...since said response is a fairly clear indication of how you feel towards people who express dissenting opinions.
It's been a while since I've been subjected to a level of vitriol with that degree of purity and intensity. I'm genuinely impressed.
I'm reminded of the Emperor at the end of Return of the Jedi telling Luke to, "surrender to his hate." It sounds as though even if Luke didn't take that suggestion to heart, that you sure have.;-)
I'm surprised I've had this much of a response to the parent, particularly given that one of said replies is from Mr Allison. I can only possibly assume that it's because, even if I'm not being fundamentally any less confrontational than in the past, at least while doing it I am now hopefully attempting to keep a vaguely civil tongue in my head, (figuratively speaking of course) rather than simply resorting to shrill, profane, possibly seemingly schizoid trolling, as I had done on this site previously.
At least not the way I read it. It doesn't sound particularly juvenile, either. The man disagreed with company policy, and was willing to put his money where his mouth is.
To clarify, my only real concern in that regard is that I don't like the idea of a scenario developing where anybody who uses open source needs to feel that they are held ideologically over a barrel by its' developers. I am not arguing here for one moment in favour of violation of license terms, at all...but what I am worried about is a situation where a program's authors will feel that they have the right to demand that users of said program adopt the authors' worldview on subjects well outside the scope of the license itself.
I have tended to feel, I will be honest, that the "leaders" of the "community" hold an expectation that anybody who uses Linux should adopt their worldview in general and become a fully certified member of "the movement," over and above simple compliance with the GPL. I have no issues with complying with the license whatsoever, and I want to emphasise that, but at the same time, I don't particularly want to feel that using an operating system mandates that I be a member of a political party. Linux (insistence on usage of the term "GNU/Linux" is a very good example of exactly the type of issue I'm talking about here) *is* a form of computer software. Stallman and whoever else wants to can claim that there is an unavoidable link between using software and engaging in political activism as much as they want; my point is that I do have (and will unceasingly demand) the right to disagree with him on that score.
I do have to (and will) fully comply with the GPL in both a legal sense, and in the somewhat broader sense of intent in terms of ensuring that complete, compilable source code is provided with binaries, to the extent that another user receiving said source and binaries may be a beneficiary of the freedoms described by the GPL, (in the same distribution space, in my own interpretation; whether that be FTP directory, CD, or whatever) in the case of any GPL licensed software which I may wish to distribute/redistribute at some point, as well as complying with the intent of the license with regards to not attempting to seek legal loopholes through which to violate it.
On the other hand, I do not have to (and will or will not, at my own sole discretion) join with the FSF/"the community" in engaging in any form of activism whatsoever (or any other form of activity, for that matter) outside of the scope of that specifically described above. I am also under no legal or moral obligation to adopt as my own the political, moral, or other ideological perspectives of anyone associated with Linux other than that which is necessary to ensure my full compliance with that specifically described above.
The FSF apparently do not want (and have done their best in my perception to erradicate) any distinction between compliance with the GPL in specific legal and moral terms on the one hand, and becoming ideologically beholden to them in any manner they choose to define on the other. One of my primary interests with regards to open source is the degree of self-determination which I feel it affords me; I am extremely anxious to ensure that in attempting to gradually transition from Windows to open source, I do not merely go from having felt that I was the property of Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates, to feeling that I am the property of Bruce Perens or Richard S
I can also understand you feeling a need to remain anonymous in order to protect yourself from criticism or other retribution. There are many good people working with Linux, developing it, and carrying it forward... who as you and the signatories of this petition demonstrate, some people (I nearly fell into the trap of using the word 'we' there myself, but avoided it) don't want the sorts of narcissists attempting to speak for them who so often try to in relation to Linux...myself included.
If *those of us* (I hope that is an acceptable way of putting it) who don't want to see that happen though want to avoid it, we need to start letting the people like Perens know. I really mean "we" though here as well...not having any one person do it for the rest of a group, but every individual who feels that way do it.
I really feel myself anyway that with Linux it's time for the silent majority to no longer stay silent...because the people who *are* willing to raise their voice are doing real damage...and if other people don't do something, will continue to.
...but I honestly believe that piracy has divine will behind it. That's why no matter what protection scheme or form of encryption is implemented, it always gets broken. It gets broken because the greater majority of the human population depends on it being broken.
The GNU/advocates on this site need to understand something about me. I don't oppose you people because I oppose your underlying cause in many instances; quite the opposite. I oppose you because I feel that your leader and his second, Bradley Kuhn, are themselves authoritarian megalomaniacs...I also disagree with the level of fear I see among people within the FSF and its' supporters. I feel there needs to be a lot more faith expressed...faith in human beings, and faith in the concept that if the cause is just, its' justice will be self-evident and will prevail naturally for that reason.
This is going to sound trollish, and I don't condone the MS-Novell deal myself, but personally I think Allison is being arrogant and highly juvenile over this. I've also said elsewhere that I feel he is seriously overestimating his own importance if he thinks his resignation is actually going to matter, or dissuade Novell from continuing in the agreement.
I'm also deeply sick of reading about Bruce Perens displaying the attitude that the entire rest of the planet has to conform with his expectations. Who exactly do you think you are, Bruce? Calling on people to leave a place of employment strongly implies that you consider yourself an authority figure of some type.
Microsoft are well advanced in the process of digging their own grave. The Linux community does not need to risk damaging itself by attempting to accelerate the process. Microsoft have been given more than enough rope, and at this stage in the game, if left to their own devices, will more than happily proceed to hang themselves.
The real problem with so many Linux people that I'm seeing is fear...you absolutely reek of it. You see terminal threats under every rock, and you think that if you're not constantly trying to push them over a cliff somehow, that everything you hold dear yourselves will be destroyed. It's the activism and juvenile chest beating in itself which is actually more damaging to the cause than anything else...and having chronic narcissists with God complexes like Perens around also really doesn't help.
since it seems to describe setting up a very reliable open source-based network infrastructure in a lot of detail. I also wish you luck with this. Although I have some knowledge which I had thought could help with such things, normally when I make suggestions here I get reprimanded for being impractical if I advocate doing anything other than going to a vendor and simply letting them take care of a given problem.
Normal people had no problem with DOS for years. Normal people preferred WordPerfect, which is a mess of arcane keyboard commands.
Erm, yeah, they did. DOS never had close to the number of people using it as those who use XP-based computers now, and even most of those who did use it bitched and complained about how awful it was a lot of the time. By comparison, there are people who actually genuinely like XP, even if they now hold no great love for the corporation that produces it.
Computer use didn't really become mainstream in the genuine sense of the word until Windows 95. (And when I say mainstream, I mean in terms of someone with effectively zero general computer knowledge sitting down at a machine to use MSN messenger, IPod software, or similar)
If you want to split hairs, you could say that Commodore's machines (overwhelmingly more the C64 than the Amiga) achieved mainstream penetration, but the C64 was a lot more like a console in reality, at least in terms of how most people actually used it. Calling Apple's userbase a cult pre-OSX is actually being kind, and if we're honest, we can say that that is still true to a large degree.
From my own observation, there are (very) broadly three major types of computer/IT users represented on Slashdot:-
1) Windows BOFHs. (for want of a better term) Prolly the largest group from what I've seen. These guys know that in order to look cool on here they have to write about how Microsoft are hell-spawned evil and about how Vista is going to suck, when in reality they're likely to secretly be creaming their pants in anticipation for it. They also try and make out that they think Linux is awesome (again to try and look cool) when in reality they prefer Windows because it means that they can appear to be technically literate while still avoiding having to actually think.
2) GNU/cultists. These are actually a much smaller group than they want people to believe; they try and make up for it via sheer volume. Most of them also aren't actual programmers themselves, (think somewhat above average Linux end users) but like making themselves look as though they are...primarily so they can feel that they have some sort of genuine justification for telling real programmers how to think and act. They are also typically extremely hard leftist, but that's more because on a purely emotional level they feel that they have a right to expect the rest of the population to allow for their entire lives to be one gigantic free lunch, rather than because there's any truly rational thought behind it. This group are militantly opposed to Vista, but generally primarily because it hasn't received RMS's blessing rather than because they actually know anything about it themselves. They also have a tendency to see DRM lurking under their beds and within dark closets, as their Messiah has told them that it is the most evil thing imaginable, and that if they're not all exceptionally good little boys and girls, DRM will come and take them away to a place where fire and brimstone are fairly consistent elements of the decor. As with the first group, this one desperately seeks to avoid engaging in independent thought or active self-responsibility, however they're also aware that in order to gain credibility with people, they need to make it *look* as though they enjoy using their brains.
3) Actual programmers. Some of them write for Linux, most for Windows. There is usually conflict between the GNU/cultists and these guys, since the GNU/cultists will try and tell members of this group what to do and how to think, but do so more from a position of armchair activism than actually knowing what they're talking about via practical experience. I tend to suspect that the position of this group towards Vista is more, "wait and see," than the first or second, since they're also more likely to actually know more about it than the other two groups. This group, unlike the GNU/cultists, also don't have a problem with the idea of people making money from software, since they're able to recognise that they do it themselves. The most rational/sane of the three groups, and the one most likely to engage in actual mental effort on occasion.
Yes, the unspeakable bogeyman DRM is coming! It's coming for your SOULS! It's coming for your CHILDREN! It will invade your bedroom in the dead of night, rip your still-beating heart from your chest, and feast upon it in front of you! We're all DOOMED! Head for the hills! None other than our new Messiah, the being composed of alabaster light incarnate, Richard Stallman, can save us from this most unholy, hell-spawned menace!
I find Windows XP a pain to navigate, and never understood why so many people regard it as the easy option.
It's because (and don't take this as a troll) normal people's brains actually work very differently to ours. Normal people need to see things in terms of objects, and they need elements of an operating system to contain analogies to objects which they use in real life. In other words, non-autistic neurology really doesn't deal with abstractions well at all. As far as a UI goes, normal people very much need something which resembles, as I said, tactile, physical objects. A CLI is abstract...it isn't trying to pretend to be the buttons on a stereo or microwave oven, for example. That's why normal people have trouble with it.
1) Microsoft had a period of a few years where they were essentially the only game in town. (Yes, I know about the Mac, but back then it didn't count, and to a large degree still doesn't) That period is now unquestionably over. More and more people are using Linux in business; there is also FreeBSD and (for those interested in it) OpenSolaris. People have choices, and that means people don't necessarily *have* to use Microsoft.
2) The only place Microsoft still really has a software lock is in gaming, with DirectX. There are a lot of gamers (myself possibly included, eventually) who will feel a need to get Vista primarily in order to play the games that will need it. Spore is likely to be the main (and only, at this point) title on that list for me.
3) Microsoft have largely destroyed consumer goodwill on a global scale. To the extent that they've done it, you don't recover from that. Given this last point, it wouldn't much matter if the other two weren't true...because this one is, they can do whatever they want...but they're screwed. I do not believe Microsoft will exist beyond around 2020.
When you get tired of being used, Homer Simpsons, Linux awaits you.
Great. Whatever freedom said Homer Simpsons might get on a technical basis will also be compromised by a group of zealots loudly trying to tell them what to think.
Linux-as-operating-system is great, agreed. Linux-as-social-movement urgently needs to die...because until it does, Homer Simpson won't be coming anywhere near it...and I don't blame him.
Although the source wasn't one Slashbots would likely find credible, I read once that symptoms similar to global warming here had been recorded on a number of other planets in the solar system. If that were true, it would tend to imply that terrestrial global warming was not due to human presence, since we aren't present on the other planets.
...would be to develop/build a spacecraft actually worthy of the name. From what I've seen, if you can call the shuttle a spacecraft, then we can call putting one leg on either side of a log a seaworthy vessel. People will probably call me an ignorant troll for this, but many of us know about the shuttle disasters that have occurred. We ideally need a safer/more efficient form of propulsion than anything petroleum based, and IMHO if they're going to do anything, build a dock of some kind in orbit and use that as a staging area for going somewhere else, since from what I've read, most of a shuttle's fuel expenditure is purely due to needing to get out of orbit.
Although the other thing is...and maybe some people will call me narrow minded for this...but I really can't see a lot of practical use for us going into space. We've already established that none of the local planets are likely to be habitable, and frankly, I can think of a whole heap of problems that we've got down here on Earth which surely should be given far higher priority than going to Mars. If dry, inhospitable red gravel is what you're craving, then come to Australia. We've got as much of it as you could possibly want.;)
...The great thing about you wanting to learn programming is that it's unlikely that you'll be CLI averse, but Slack still allows for you to install X and GNOME/KDE.
Slackware is the only distribution still in existence that I know of where you get a clean, recognisable core toolchain which hasn't been mutilated beyond recognition by package management or other crap. Although when you download the ISOs, you get binary packages, when you've installed it you end up with a base system that's more or less completely identical to what you'd get if you downloaded the sources from gnu.org/kernel.org and assembled it yourself. No apt or rpm based system can honestly claim that. They all engage in subpackaging, weird, non-standard directory locations for things, and other assorted perversions...all of which the misguided souls responsible for them view as improvements, but which without exception end up causing more problems than they solve.
What that means is that you're able to gain Linux knowledge that is largely distribution agnostic. It will also give you an appreciation of what constitutes a genuinely sane Linux system...and tragically, there are precious few examples of that still in the world these days.
If you then want a sane form of package management, you can install pkgsrc, NetBSD's portable package management which works with Slackware and numerous other platforms.
This combined will give you a much more transparent, stable, reliable, efficient, and genuinely UNIX-like system than is usually seen with Linux distributions.
There is nearly always a tradeoff between superficial user friendliness and technical excellence; there is no free lunch. As another example of what I mean here...McDonald's might provide instant gratification in terms of food, but we've all seen the studies people have done into what said food is (or at least used to be) like from a nutritional perspective. The "user friendly" distributions follow the same principle where stability, transparency, and general technical desirability are concerned...they're fast food.
...of something I saw happening in Bourke Street in Melbourne one day several years back.
There was a station wagon parked opposite Myers full of cans of Dr. Pepper. I'm told it's popular in America, but Australians can't stand it...it became discontinued here very quickly.
Anywayz, the moral of the story is that these people with the cans were trying to sell it to passersby, and nobody would buy it, because as I said over here everyone hates it. When it became clear to the people trying to sell the cans that passersby wouldn't buy the cans, the people selling them instead began trying to give them away.
Got a source for that statistic or did you just pull it out of your ass? Ass? Thought so. FYI, When you do that, everything you say becomes suspect whether or not it has any merit.
And I suppose you think that the recorded message that the FSF drone was spouting in the parent was infinitely more credible?
Sure, a default install is tailored to specific scenarios, but Debian remains one of the most flexible Linux distros around.
I'm aware that dpkg/apt, as you say, reduces labour and essentially allows instant (or near-instant) gratification...that is its' primary appeal. My main objection to apt is that on 2 seperate occasions (once with Xandros, and once with Debian itself) I've had apt go berserk when trying to uninstall Open Office...the dep chain somehow got confused and I ended up with a completely corrupted system. It was deleting things in what seemed like an entirely random manner. That in my mind is not a stable system.
The real problem where apt is concerned I think isn't necessarily that it itself is all that great, but more that with Linux anywayz there isn't any real alternative, since for the most part, rpm is worse. Subpackaging is an attrocity in both systems as well...it makes source compilation outside either system (for scenarios where you find a package where there isn't an rpm/deb; it does happen) largely impossible.
The other thing is that saying you can put a custom kernel in without the system complaining isn't anything Debian users should be bragging about...it can be done in Slackware, minus the screwing around with making a kernel deb.
A lot of Debian fanboys here might love apt...but it isn't the silver bullet it's made out to be. As I said earlier, for end users who don't use much other than Open Office, XMMS, VLC, and Firefox, it'd be fine...but for those of us who want to use our systems for something slightly more meaningful, there are areas where it is wanting.
And Free Software is not always about being better, it's about being Free.
It's also about being insular, myopic, smug, and ultimately almost entirely irrelevant. 99.9...% of the human population do not and are never going to give a shit about being "Free."
Some of us also realise that being "Free" solely means being free to follow the FSF's dictates anywayz. If you want that, you can have it...personally I prefer being able to create/maintain my own definition of freedom, rather than being dictated to by Richard Stallman's.
As I've written before, Stallman craves control over others just as much as Microsoft or anybody else does. He wants said control in somewhat different areas, and he tries to make it look more morally desirable...but a tyrant dressed up as something else is still a tyrant.
Of all the Linux distributions I've seen, Ubuntu is the only one which has produced a sneaking feeling that it might just have a vague chance of achieving critical mass on the desktop.
However, it's a double edged sword. The Ubuntu people have apparently thought out a number of different usage scenarios, and an end-user following any of those can do so quickly and easily. The down side is when you're trying to do anything (and I do mean anything) outside of the box...it becomes a nightmare.
For people who want their computer to be an appliance, with only a few highly specialised uses, Ubuntu could meet their needs...and given that this description fits most end-users, that is the reason why I could see it becoming/remaining the most popular Linux distribution. For anyone who wants anything more versatile, however (and for anyone who cares about a system which follows UNIX design philosophy - I'm talking about the stuff here) both Ubuntu and Debian are to be avoided, in my own mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla's Firefox browser -- experienced a single period lasting just nine days last year in which exploit code for a serious security hole was posted online before Mozilla shipped a patch to remedy the problem."
;)
It's worth noting that I'm betting that nine days was only how long it took for Mozilla to ship the "official" patch to "official" places...I'll bet a number of distros had downstream patches available (at least for submission) within 24 hours.
For anyone doubting ESR's written claim about FOSS's superior ability to squash bugs, you only need to take note of examples like this to know that he was right. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are indeed shallow.
*Dodges tomatoes headed in my direction with cries of "slavish, unquestioning fanboy!"*
on the other hand, I can't see the problem going away any time soon. Maybe we need to learn to work around it. Which presents some interesting problems in and of itself. We can't just set up an organisation to speak for the community: We already have the FSF, the OSI, the EFF, there are spokesmen for distros and for major projects all of whom get to put their oar in
;) OpenBSD also had a contract with the DOD for a little while, and NetBSD at least has Wasabi behind it, which AFAIK is responsible for most of the mirrors for pkgsrc and a few other bits and pieces. You're right in thinking that there aren't millions of dollars pouring in...but they get at least a few people paying the bills. I will admit that the BSDs tend to remind me of the Zoroastrians, or "keepers of the flame," in terms of them perhaps preserving a somewhat more concentrated form of the older UNIX philosophy than Linux, which seems to be primarily about replacing Windows for the most part. Zoroastrianism is only a very small religion, but to a large degree is actually the root of the Abrahamic religions in particular...I see it as an interesting analogy. ;)
Probably the single most interesting (and potentially effective) approach I've seen was reading about how some senators at one point were given iPods. Apparently it actually led to a few of them objecting to some of what the RIAA were trying to do, since it had created a scenario where they had a personal stake in it themselves.
That would tend to suggest that that is perhaps a viable strategy...if we can demonstrate to the people in government and other places how the various forms of technology (that Microsoft and various other entities are trying to destroy) can actually be enormously beneficial to them, a situation will arise where they will begin to want to oppose said entities themselves. Given the degree that Linux is being adopted in some places, there are indications that this strategy is already working. It's the reason why I'm not as afraid of DRM as a lot of people, I think...I see too many reasons for optimism to be truly scared of it.
I've never understood that, as regards BSD. I mean the BSD didn't get a penny (as far as I know) when MS slurped their TCP/IP stack, and I don't think they've had any real investment based on Apple's forking of BSD for OS/X.
Apple apparently ended up giving Jordan Hubbard a job.
Still balanced against that are his foresight, his skill in drafting the GPL and the fact that his intentions seem entirely honourable.
Contrary to how I sound most of the time, I do actually recognise Stallman's past achievements. However, I also agree with what Eric Raymond has written that although in many ways Stallman was responsible for getting the ball rolling, he's only really had a hand in how the story began...he can't determine how it will end, and he shouldn't try. Still, some of the stuff I see on the Free Software Magazine site at times gives me optimism; especially when I've seen the odd glimmer of the BSD license being advocated/used now and then. The FSF's tolerance of diversity (or lack of) has always been the single main thing about them that has worried me, but it seems that the rank and file are starting to think outside the doctrinal box, which is all I've ever wanted in that area.
The trouble is, it's hard to see how we can form a true consensus if we exclude radical and hysterical contributions to the discussion.
;-)
I think what you're trying to say here is that "radical" and "hysterical" are words with subjective definitions, which I'll concede...at least to a point.
My only point was that although I might have no problem whatsoever with "radical" and "hysterical" perspectives being part of the discussion myself, it might damage "our" (like you, used in a broad sense) case with people who we potentially may need to have on side if we want to derail the development of the cryptographic DRM that you've defined. (Like, say, members of the legislative branches of a few different governments...not simply America's)
Eric Raymond: Values Open Source for the efficiency of the development model. Seems to hold adoption by businesses as the most important goal for FOSS.
My own reading about Raymond would tend to lead me to believe that the reason why he thinks corporations are so important is possible because (and to some extent this seems to be how some of the BSD people think as well, from what I've read) corporate dollars and corporate adoption both are important for any given software's long-term survival...be it Windows, Linux, FreeBSD or whatever.
However, (at least during my more balanced moments) I also tend to actually view Raymond and Stallman as each representing two extreme poles of a particular political/economic spectrum. Like in a lot of such cases, I tend to suspect that in this case a healthy perspective exists somewhere in the middle, between the two. (i.e., not worshipping the ground corporate people walk on, but not seeing them as the source of all evil either) I will admit that I tend to gravitate more toward's Raymond's end of that spectrum, firstly because I consider it more rational, and secondly because I can't completely purge myself of the sneaking belief, however hard I try, that what Stallman in particular (even if none of the rest of them) really wants is power over others. That however is something that many would probably tell me is a purely subjective opinion, I will concede.
There's a reason congress wrote the law that way. However, shitheads like you just accuse everyone of working with classified material as conspirators. So go fuck yourself.
;)
That's probably the single main thing I've always admired about American government apologists: the amazingly compelling eloquence of their arguments.
One other thing. Irrespective of what you might think of me, one thing I would *never* do is tell someone to commit suicide. I would suggest for your own sake that you refrain from doing that in future as well, since if you make a habit of it there could well come a time when one of the people you tell to do that listens to you.
If you're any sort of human being at all, the guilt that you would likely experience from that would be formidable...so you might want to try and avoid such a scenario.
Also...if disagreeing with the party line on Linux earns me this kind of response, it can only lead me to conclude that maybe I'm actually *not* as paranoid as you claim after all...since said response is a fairly clear indication of how you feel towards people who express dissenting opinions.
Wow.
;-)
It's been a while since I've been subjected to a level of vitriol with that degree of purity and intensity. I'm genuinely impressed.
I'm reminded of the Emperor at the end of Return of the Jedi telling Luke to, "surrender to his hate." It sounds as though even if Luke didn't take that suggestion to heart, that you sure have.
I'm surprised I've had this much of a response to the parent, particularly given that one of said replies is from Mr Allison. I can only possibly assume that it's because, even if I'm not being fundamentally any less confrontational than in the past, at least while doing it I am now hopefully attempting to keep a vaguely civil tongue in my head, (figuratively speaking of course) rather than simply resorting to shrill, profane, possibly seemingly schizoid trolling, as I had done on this site previously.
At least not the way I read it. It doesn't sound particularly juvenile, either. The man disagreed with company policy, and was willing to put his money where his mouth is.
To clarify, my only real concern in that regard is that I don't like the idea of a scenario developing where anybody who uses open source needs to feel that they are held ideologically over a barrel by its' developers. I am not arguing here for one moment in favour of violation of license terms, at all...but what I am worried about is a situation where a program's authors will feel that they have the right to demand that users of said program adopt the authors' worldview on subjects well outside the scope of the license itself.
I have tended to feel, I will be honest, that the "leaders" of the "community" hold an expectation that anybody who uses Linux should adopt their worldview in general and become a fully certified member of "the movement," over and above simple compliance with the GPL. I have no issues with complying with the license whatsoever, and I want to emphasise that, but at the same time, I don't particularly want to feel that using an operating system mandates that I be a member of a political party. Linux (insistence on usage of the term "GNU/Linux" is a very good example of exactly the type of issue I'm talking about here) *is* a form of computer software. Stallman and whoever else wants to can claim that there is an unavoidable link between using software and engaging in political activism as much as they want; my point is that I do have (and will unceasingly demand) the right to disagree with him on that score.
I do have to (and will) fully comply with the GPL in both a legal sense, and in the somewhat broader sense of intent in terms of ensuring that complete, compilable source code is provided with binaries, to the extent that another user receiving said source and binaries may be a beneficiary of the freedoms described by the GPL, (in the same distribution space, in my own interpretation; whether that be FTP directory, CD, or whatever) in the case of any GPL licensed software which I may wish to distribute/redistribute at some point, as well as complying with the intent of the license with regards to not attempting to seek legal loopholes through which to violate it.
On the other hand, I do not have to (and will or will not, at my own sole discretion) join with the FSF/"the community" in engaging in any form of activism whatsoever (or any other form of activity, for that matter) outside of the scope of that specifically described above. I am also under no legal or moral obligation to adopt as my own the political, moral, or other ideological perspectives of anyone associated with Linux other than that which is necessary to ensure my full compliance with that specifically described above.
The FSF apparently do not want (and have done their best in my perception to erradicate) any distinction between compliance with the GPL in specific legal and moral terms on the one hand, and becoming ideologically beholden to them in any manner they choose to define on the other. One of my primary interests with regards to open source is the degree of self-determination which I feel it affords me; I am extremely anxious to ensure that in attempting to gradually transition from Windows to open source, I do not merely go from having felt that I was the property of Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates, to feeling that I am the property of Bruce Perens or Richard S
Thank you for this.
I can also understand you feeling a need to remain anonymous in order to protect yourself from criticism or other retribution. There are many good people working with Linux, developing it, and carrying it forward... who as you and the signatories of this petition demonstrate, some people (I nearly fell into the trap of using the word 'we' there myself, but avoided it) don't want the sorts of narcissists attempting to speak for them who so often try to in relation to Linux...myself included.
If *those of us* (I hope that is an acceptable way of putting it) who don't want to see that happen though want to avoid it, we need to start letting the people like Perens know. I really mean "we" though here as well...not having any one person do it for the rest of a group, but every individual who feels that way do it.
I really feel myself anyway that with Linux it's time for the silent majority to no longer stay silent...because the people who *are* willing to raise their voice are doing real damage...and if other people don't do something, will continue to.
...but I honestly believe that piracy has divine will behind it. That's why no matter what protection scheme or form of encryption is implemented, it always gets broken. It gets broken because the greater majority of the human population depends on it being broken.
The GNU/advocates on this site need to understand something about me. I don't oppose you people because I oppose your underlying cause in many instances; quite the opposite. I oppose you because I feel that your leader and his second, Bradley Kuhn, are themselves authoritarian megalomaniacs...I also disagree with the level of fear I see among people within the FSF and its' supporters. I feel there needs to be a lot more faith expressed...faith in human beings, and faith in the concept that if the cause is just, its' justice will be self-evident and will prevail naturally for that reason.
This is going to sound trollish, and I don't condone the MS-Novell deal myself, but personally I think Allison is being arrogant and highly juvenile over this. I've also said elsewhere that I feel he is seriously overestimating his own importance if he thinks his resignation is actually going to matter, or dissuade Novell from continuing in the agreement.
I'm also deeply sick of reading about Bruce Perens displaying the attitude that the entire rest of the planet has to conform with his expectations. Who exactly do you think you are, Bruce? Calling on people to leave a place of employment strongly implies that you consider yourself an authority figure of some type.
Microsoft are well advanced in the process of digging their own grave. The Linux community does not need to risk damaging itself by attempting to accelerate the process. Microsoft have been given more than enough rope, and at this stage in the game, if left to their own devices, will more than happily proceed to hang themselves.
The real problem with so many Linux people that I'm seeing is fear...you absolutely reek of it. You see terminal threats under every rock, and you think that if you're not constantly trying to push them over a cliff somehow, that everything you hold dear yourselves will be destroyed. It's the activism and juvenile chest beating in itself which is actually more damaging to the cause than anything else...and having chronic narcissists with God complexes like Perens around also really doesn't help.
Although I don't have direct experience with such things, the only thing I would offer is this site:-
http://www.infrastructures.org/
since it seems to describe setting up a very reliable open source-based network infrastructure in a lot of detail.
I also wish you luck with this. Although I have some knowledge which I had thought could help with such things, normally when I make suggestions here I get reprimanded for being impractical if I advocate doing anything other than going to a vendor and simply letting them take care of a given problem.
Normal people had no problem with DOS for years. Normal people preferred WordPerfect, which is a mess of arcane keyboard commands.
Erm, yeah, they did. DOS never had close to the number of people using it as those who use XP-based computers now, and even most of those who did use it bitched and complained about how awful it was a lot of the time. By comparison, there are people who actually genuinely like XP, even if they now hold no great love for the corporation that produces it.
Computer use didn't really become mainstream in the genuine sense of the word until Windows 95. (And when I say mainstream, I mean in terms of someone with effectively zero general computer knowledge sitting down at a machine to use MSN messenger, IPod software, or similar)
If you want to split hairs, you could say that Commodore's machines (overwhelmingly more the C64 than the Amiga) achieved mainstream penetration, but the C64 was a lot more like a console in reality, at least in terms of how most people actually used it. Calling Apple's userbase a cult pre-OSX is actually being kind, and if we're honest, we can say that that is still true to a large degree.
From my own observation, there are (very) broadly three major types of computer/IT users represented on Slashdot:-
1) Windows BOFHs. (for want of a better term) Prolly the largest group from what I've seen. These guys know that in order to look cool on here they have to write about how Microsoft are hell-spawned evil and about how Vista is going to suck, when in reality they're likely to secretly be creaming their pants in anticipation for it. They also try and make out that they think Linux is awesome (again to try and look cool) when in reality they prefer Windows because it means that they can appear to be technically literate while still avoiding having to actually think.
2) GNU/cultists. These are actually a much smaller group than they want people to believe; they try and make up for it via sheer volume. Most of them also aren't actual programmers themselves, (think somewhat above average Linux end users) but like making themselves look as though they are...primarily so they can feel that they have some sort of genuine justification for telling real programmers how to think and act. They are also typically extremely hard leftist, but that's more because on a purely emotional level they feel that they have a right to expect the rest of the population to allow for their entire lives to be one gigantic free lunch, rather than because there's any truly rational thought behind it.
This group are militantly opposed to Vista, but generally primarily because it hasn't received RMS's blessing rather than because they actually know anything about it themselves. They also have a tendency to see DRM lurking under their beds and within dark closets, as their Messiah has told them that it is the most evil thing imaginable, and that if they're not all exceptionally good little boys and girls, DRM will come and take them away to a place where fire and brimstone are fairly consistent elements of the decor. As with the first group, this one desperately seeks to avoid engaging in independent thought or active self-responsibility, however they're also aware that in order to gain credibility with people, they need to make it *look* as though they enjoy using their brains.
3) Actual programmers. Some of them write for Linux, most for Windows. There is usually conflict between the GNU/cultists and these guys, since the GNU/cultists will try and tell members of this group what to do and how to think, but do so more from a position of armchair activism than actually knowing what they're talking about via practical experience.
I tend to suspect that the position of this group towards Vista is more, "wait and see," than the first or second, since they're also more likely to actually know more about it than the other two groups. This group, unlike the GNU/cultists, also don't have a problem with the idea of people making money from software, since they're able to recognise that they do it themselves. The most rational/sane of the three groups, and the one most likely to engage in actual mental effort on occasion.
Yes, the unspeakable bogeyman DRM is coming! It's coming for your SOULS! It's coming for your CHILDREN! It will invade your bedroom in the dead of night, rip your still-beating heart from your chest, and feast upon it in front of you! We're all DOOMED! Head for the hills! None other than our new Messiah, the being composed of alabaster light incarnate, Richard Stallman, can save us from this most unholy, hell-spawned menace!
I find Windows XP a pain to navigate, and never understood why so many people regard it as the easy option.
It's because (and don't take this as a troll) normal people's brains actually work very differently to ours. Normal people need to see things in terms of objects, and they need elements of an operating system to contain analogies to objects which they use in real life. In other words, non-autistic neurology really doesn't deal with abstractions well at all. As far as a UI goes, normal people very much need something which resembles, as I said, tactile, physical objects. A CLI is abstract...it isn't trying to pretend to be the buttons on a stereo or microwave oven, for example. That's why normal people have trouble with it.
Three things you're missing:-
1) Microsoft had a period of a few years where they were essentially the only game in town. (Yes, I know about the Mac, but back then it didn't count, and to a large degree still doesn't) That period is now unquestionably over. More and more people are using Linux in business; there is also FreeBSD and (for those interested in it) OpenSolaris. People have choices, and that means people don't necessarily *have* to use Microsoft.
2) The only place Microsoft still really has a software lock is in gaming, with DirectX. There are a lot of gamers (myself possibly included, eventually) who will feel a need to get Vista primarily in order to play the games that will need it. Spore is likely to be the main (and only, at this point) title on that list for me.
3) Microsoft have largely destroyed consumer goodwill on a global scale. To the extent that they've done it, you don't recover from that. Given this last point, it wouldn't much matter if the other two weren't true...because this one is, they can do whatever they want...but they're screwed. I do not believe Microsoft will exist beyond around 2020.
When you get tired of being used, Homer Simpsons, Linux awaits you.
Great. Whatever freedom said Homer Simpsons might get on a technical basis will also be compromised by a group of zealots loudly trying to tell them what to think.
Linux-as-operating-system is great, agreed. Linux-as-social-movement urgently needs to die...because until it does, Homer Simpson won't be coming anywhere near it...and I don't blame him.
Although the source wasn't one Slashbots would likely find credible, I read once that symptoms similar to global warming here had been recorded on a number of other planets in the solar system. If that were true, it would tend to imply that terrestrial global warming was not due to human presence, since we aren't present on the other planets.
...would be to develop/build a spacecraft actually worthy of the name. From what I've seen, if you can call the shuttle a spacecraft, then we can call putting one leg on either side of a log a seaworthy vessel. People will probably call me an ignorant troll for this, but many of us know about the shuttle disasters that have occurred. We ideally need a safer/more efficient form of propulsion than anything petroleum based, and IMHO if they're going to do anything, build a dock of some kind in orbit and use that as a staging area for going somewhere else, since from what I've read, most of a shuttle's fuel expenditure is purely due to needing to get out of orbit.
;)
Although the other thing is...and maybe some people will call me narrow minded for this...but I really can't see a lot of practical use for us going into space. We've already established that none of the local planets are likely to be habitable, and frankly, I can think of a whole heap of problems that we've got down here on Earth which surely should be given far higher priority than going to Mars. If dry, inhospitable red gravel is what you're craving, then come to Australia. We've got as much of it as you could possibly want.
...The great thing about you wanting to learn programming is that it's unlikely that you'll be CLI averse, but Slack still allows for you to install X and GNOME/KDE.
Slackware is the only distribution still in existence that I know of where you get a clean, recognisable core toolchain which hasn't been mutilated beyond recognition by package management or other crap. Although when you download the ISOs, you get binary packages, when you've installed it you end up with a base system that's more or less completely identical to what you'd get if you downloaded the sources from gnu.org/kernel.org and assembled it yourself. No apt or rpm based system can honestly claim that. They all engage in subpackaging, weird, non-standard directory locations for things, and other assorted perversions...all of which the misguided souls responsible for them view as improvements, but which without exception end up causing more problems than they solve.
What that means is that you're able to gain Linux knowledge that is largely distribution agnostic. It will also give you an appreciation of what constitutes a genuinely sane Linux system...and tragically, there are precious few examples of that still in the world these days.
If you then want a sane form of package management, you can install pkgsrc, NetBSD's portable package management which works with Slackware and numerous other platforms.
This combined will give you a much more transparent, stable, reliable, efficient, and genuinely UNIX-like system than is usually seen with Linux distributions.
There is nearly always a tradeoff between superficial user friendliness and technical excellence; there is no free lunch. As another example of what I mean here...McDonald's might provide instant gratification in terms of food, but we've all seen the studies people have done into what said food is (or at least used to be) like from a nutritional perspective. The "user friendly" distributions follow the same principle where stability, transparency, and general technical desirability are concerned...they're fast food.
...of something I saw happening in Bourke Street in Melbourne one day several years back.
There was a station wagon parked opposite Myers full of cans of Dr. Pepper. I'm told it's popular in America, but Australians can't stand it...it became discontinued here very quickly.
Anywayz, the moral of the story is that these people with the cans were trying to sell it to passersby, and nobody would buy it, because as I said over here everyone hates it. When it became clear to the people trying to sell the cans that passersby wouldn't buy the cans, the people selling them instead began trying to give them away.
Got a source for that statistic or did you just pull it out of your ass? Ass? Thought so. FYI, When you do that, everything you say becomes suspect whether or not it has any merit.
And I suppose you think that the recorded message that the FSF drone was spouting in the parent was infinitely more credible?
Sure, a default install is tailored to specific scenarios, but Debian remains one of the most flexible Linux distros around.
I'm aware that dpkg/apt, as you say, reduces labour and essentially allows instant (or near-instant) gratification...that is its' primary appeal. My main objection to apt is that on 2 seperate occasions (once with Xandros, and once with Debian itself) I've had apt go berserk when trying to uninstall Open Office...the dep chain somehow got confused and I ended up with a completely corrupted system. It was deleting things in what seemed like an entirely random manner. That in my mind is not a stable system.
The real problem where apt is concerned I think isn't necessarily that it itself is all that great, but more that with Linux anywayz there isn't any real alternative, since for the most part, rpm is worse. Subpackaging is an attrocity in both systems as well...it makes source compilation outside either system (for scenarios where you find a package where there isn't an rpm/deb; it does happen) largely impossible.
The other thing is that saying you can put a custom kernel in without the system complaining isn't anything Debian users should be bragging about...it can be done in Slackware, minus the screwing around with making a kernel deb.
A lot of Debian fanboys here might love apt...but it isn't the silver bullet it's made out to be. As I said earlier, for end users who don't use much other than Open Office, XMMS, VLC, and Firefox, it'd be fine...but for those of us who want to use our systems for something slightly more meaningful, there are areas where it is wanting.
And Free Software is not always about being better, it's about being Free.
It's also about being insular, myopic, smug, and ultimately almost entirely irrelevant. 99.9...% of the human population do not and are never going to give a shit about being "Free."
Some of us also realise that being "Free" solely means being free to follow the FSF's dictates anywayz. If you want that, you can have it...personally I prefer being able to create/maintain my own definition of freedom, rather than being dictated to by Richard Stallman's.
As I've written before, Stallman craves control over others just as much as Microsoft or anybody else does. He wants said control in somewhat different areas, and he tries to make it look more morally desirable...but a tyrant dressed up as something else is still a tyrant.
Of all the Linux distributions I've seen, Ubuntu is the only one which has produced a sneaking feeling that it might just have a vague chance of achieving critical mass on the desktop.
However, it's a double edged sword. The Ubuntu people have apparently thought out a number of different usage scenarios, and an end-user following any of those can do so quickly and easily. The down side is when you're trying to do anything (and I do mean anything) outside of the box...it becomes a nightmare.
For people who want their computer to be an appliance, with only a few highly specialised uses, Ubuntu could meet their needs...and given that this description fits most end-users, that is the reason why I could see it becoming/remaining the most popular Linux distribution. For anyone who wants anything more versatile, however (and for anyone who cares about a system which follows UNIX design philosophy - I'm talking about the stuff here) both Ubuntu and Debian are to be avoided, in my own mind.