>Have you not studied even a sliver of history of >any civilization in the world?
Yes, I have...including a particular sliver about a man called Mahandas Gandhi. You might have heard of him.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, I will confess that I don't believe that Gandhi's tactics are *always* the correct card to play...but they're worth trying in a situation where the moral high ground is important...like this one, for instance.
Fundamentalist Christians thrive on the belief in their own moral superiority. Thus, I believe that by far the best way of dealing with them is to allow it to be graphically demonstrated that they are behaving in a morally inferior manner. (with regards to their fanaticism and so forth) If those who advocate evolution do not behave in any objectionable manner themselves, the contrast between their behaviour and that of the fundamentalists will become very clearly visible...with regards to the fundamentalists' attempts to ban information regarding evolution, etc.
By abstaining from retaliation in some instances (not all) when you are attacked, it is possible to make your attacker look extremely bad in the eyes of whoever may be observing, and again in some instances this can be far more powerful than simply retaliating, as by retaliating you would then be seen to exist on the same moral level as your attacker. To quote the apostle Paul,
"If your enemy hungers, feed him. If he thirsts, offer him cold water to drink. In doing so you pile hot coals upon his head."
In doing this, not only would the fundamentalists' tendency towards fascism be clearly exposed, but it would also be seen that the behaviour of the evolutionary advocates would be far more in line with both the letter and the spirit of genuine Christianity than the behaviour of the fundamentalists themselves. The appearance of martyrdom was the tactic which Christ himself in the end used...and even if a person does not believe in it having benefited him spiritually, the temporal benefits to him (with regards to becoming known) are self-explanatory.
Personally, I don't really see the creationists as being too much worse than that particular demographic of atheists who worship Darwin as God. *Excessive*, irrational veneration of evolutionary theory is just as unscientific IMHO as creationism. Of course, the main difference between the creationists and the pseudo-atheistic "Darwin => God" squad is that fundamentalist Christians more customarily have fascism on their side, and attempt to make use of such to shut Darwin's cheerleading squad up.
However, another group who I think desperately need to get lives are those who are frantically seeking life on Mars, purely/primarily because they hope they can use such proof to discredit creationism altogether.
I believe the best way that evolutionary advocates can win this particular battle is simply by not fighting it. The capacity for logic is the one element which fundamentalist Christians tend to lack more than any other, and as such I cannot see how any attempt at argument with them could be anything other than futile.
Mind you, this isn't to say that I advocate simply allowing them to win the argument, but rather waiting them out. This is a situation in which ironically, evolutionary theory will validate itself, as we will presumably end up seeing the fittest (more accurate) meme ultimately surviving.
The other crucial thing about pacifism of course is that it gains the practitioner the moral high ground, and will ultimately prove to any outside observers just what a group of moronic, jackbooted fanatics the creationists really are.
If the creationists insist on having their beliefs promoted in the classroom, fine. Simply withdraw and let them have it. This might mean that a certain percentage of one or two generations will grow up with a belief in creationist thinking, but it should be the task of more scientifically oriented parents to teach their children about at least *some* things, anyway.
The other issue of course is that *at the moment*, because of President Bush's own theological inclinations and his fascist approach to governance, concepts which exist outside the approved fundamentalist mould are unlikely to gain mainstream public favour. The key point to remember here is that Bush will not be in office forever, and therefore the ascendancy of his fundamentalist Christian base cannot last forever either. So give ground for the moment, and wait. When he leaves office, it is likely that the public will also have become so tired of the fundamentalists that the fundamentalists will be unable to make their voices heard for a substantial period of time. That will be the time when the public will be open (indeed, probably eager) to ideas from outside the orthodox Christian establishment, and thus it will also be the time, (slowly and quietly at first) to gradually reintroduce evolutionary theory back into the education system, where that time it would stay.
Do you realise how deeply mentally ill you make yourself look by mentioning something like that...whether a - or a / is used between the names of Kirk and Spock? You're right that it's a nitpick, but it's one which I can't believe anyone would make.
>the long term. One thing I can tell >you is that in >Australia getting some guy >to fix your XP box will >cost about $35/hr whereas a really hopeless Linux >administrator will cost >about $75. In a 'regional' >area like Newcastle you'll >have a hard time finding >a guy who can install Debian. >("Debbie who?")
This does not surprise me at all. Australia is a wonderful place to live in a great many respects...but from the perspective of all things IT, living in this country is a source of shame.
The problem with computers as far as most working Australians are concerned is that a computer
a) Doesn't require shearing, b) Can't be planted in the ground, c) Doesn't need to be dug *out of* the ground, and d) Is constructed in a highly complex factory, rather than a residential building site, and also does not require the lifting or carrying of bricks.
Put more specifically, using a computer actually requires intelligence, and is more complex than something which you could normally employ either a robot or an animal to do. Because of this, computer use is sadly far beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of my countrymen.
>After signing the letter and waiting a few minutes, >the time travelers never showed up. So, with a >heavy sigh, I threw the letter in the trash.
Hence the problem. Because you threw the letter in the rubbish, anyone from the future of that timeline couldn't have known about its existence and thus could not have travelled back to speak to you...Since rubbish most certainly is not recorded in minute detail, let alone publicised.
Put such a letter online, publicise it heavily, or (even better) have such a letter be submitted to a major yearbook(s), for instance, and you might have had a bit more luck.;)
This is extremely true, and it's something which I wish a lot more people would acknowledge. RMS claiming to be the father of free software is the equivalent of Gates claiming to be the father of operating systems in general. In other words, it's quite simply not true.
>The defendant stepped forward and said, "You cannot >trust strangers to help and support you out of the >goodness of their hearts!"
It's true that you can't trust strangers to help you "just because" necessarily...However what you most definitely *can* trust is the sociological vision (in an abstract sense) that said strangers have. Said strangers don't help you because helping you as *one individual* gives them the warm fuzzies...Said strangers help you because part of what *they* want is a society where people help each other in general...and so they realise that they themselves have to behave in a certain way first, in order to create an example for you (and the rest of the society that they're trying to change) to follow.
A lot of the people who are heavily into FOSS are visionaries...They have an internal picture of an altruistic, interdependent global society...a world where people realise that rather than it being purely out of the goodness of their hearts, as you put it, individual A will help individual B because individual A knows that that some point he will also need help, and will then want individual B to help *him.* A lot of the people involved in FOSS are also people who are themselves sick of corporate greed and self-sabotage, and realise that we could *all* be a lot better off, environmentally, socially, and in every other way, if such didn't exist.
It's not necessarily about compassion...it's more about taking the long term view. "I'll help you now because I know I myself will likely need help at some point down the road."
As far as trade is concerned, although fiat currency is useful for some things, I'm inclined to agree with the idea that this is why governments/corporations have tried so hard to discourage barter. Fiat currency is far more effective for promoting a situation where the few can effectively rape, oppress, and otherwise exploit the many.
The crucible or motivation here though is that we are also at a point where if we don't work to create a society where strangers *do* give a damn about each other, it's likely that as a species we're not going to survive much longer. The evidence of this is everywhere you look. If we don't start realising on a larger scale, and soon, that we *do* all need each other, then in our collective isolation we will wipe ourselves out. This also isn't meant as a Roddenberrian platitude either, nor am I necessarily advocating world federalist government or anything silly like that. What I am advocating however is that corporations need to stop engaging in scorched-earth economics, that people stop regarding each other with so much outright hostility, and that the George W Bushes of the world no longer be allowed to run the show. FOSS is one small step towards that.
>Oh, come on. You could have said that about Mac OS >9 - an OS that definately *was* a train-wreck.
Apple aren't a (near) universally hated, convicted predatory monopolist.
Besides which, you're not thinking big picture. If Longhorn fails, it will be even more of a vindication of what I've been saying about them not having any long-term strategy after NT4. If there's one thing corporate types don't like, it's having to use their brains. They want to be able to go into a software vendor's office and be taken care of from start to finish...Including the operating system itself, installation, training, and support...the lot. They don't want to have to think about any of it...they want it to be completely autonomic.
Because they don't want to have to think about it however, it means that in order to stay ahead of the game, the vendor corporation needs to think about it for them...and that includes having a concrete idea where the operating system is going, structure and feature wise, up to ten years in advance. Microsoft do not have that...and as a result, they will continue to keep scrambling to release half-baked patch jobs for an operating system which is sufficiently technically inferior that it never should have got out the door in the first place. Meanwhile, people will be buying shiny new Linux desktops and servers as Red Hat, Novell, IBM, and Mandrake quietly and steadily close the gap.
You may not agree with me, but you don't have to. Just watch.
Those who dislike Microsoft should rejoice if this beta *is* a train wreck.
I am entirely confident, and have been for some time, that one way or another, Longhorn is going to represent Microsoft's last stand...this will be made even more certain if it is a failure. I've said it before and I'll say it again...Microsoft have never had a coherent roadmap after NT 4, and that fact is now clearly showing.
Bankruptcy won't be here for a while yet, but market irrelevance is coming up fast...I'm predicting that by 2012 at the latest, Windows' market share will have almost completely evaporated.
If you're a Microsoft shareholder, I have one word of advice for you at this point: Sell. This is one ship which, when the sinking process is closer to completion, you really won't want to still be on.
Out of maybe 10-12 submissions, this is I think the third I've had accepted myself...so I sympathise. I've submitted stories that were rejected and then had another, later submission from someone else get through, as well.
From what I've seen, what works seems to be:- 1. Headline needs to be as precise about the subject as possible...we were the same there, so am unsure what happened for you.
2. The copy underneath the headline needs to be as brief as possible, and above all, not vague.
3. Pack in the hyperlinks. They seem to want as many relevant hyperlinks in the copy as possible. Users want to be able to go to the site with the story, referring sites, and sites relevant to the topic.
4. Avoid borderline irrelevant topics, and observe the groupthink. Although most IT related stuff seems to be fine, Linux related stuff in particular seems to have the biggest chance of getting through...especially if it's something about either Debian, GNU, or any of the FOSS "celebrities". Anything Star Trek/Wars is also a shoe-in...there seem to be a lot of ST/W geeks here. Windows related stuff seems to be enjoyed as well, because it gives people a chance to throw virtual tomatoes at Microsoft. Robotics seems iffy, and only stuff related to either space or mathematics seems to regularly get through on the science front.
This will probably sound insane to the skeptics among us, but I've actually tried to consult the I Ching a few times recently because, my other flippant and arguably vindictive comments on this thread notwithstanding, I am in all seriousness genuinely curious about Stallman's motivations.
The answers I've had back have been somewhat uncanny...but have essentially been that, despite the usual flaws that we all have, RMS is a man with fundamentally positive intentions. However, although many of his contributions have been positive, like all of us, not *all* is positive...and therefore it is necessary to use discernment and seperate the useful from the not-so-useful. Stallman is someone whose writing seems to evoke strong emotional responses in me...as it does in many of us...but when I try and balance my emotions and get clear of the temptation to make juvenile comments, I realise that it's necessary to see him simply as a fellow traveller. Not God...because he isn't...but not as a crackpot, because in all objectivity I don't really believe he is entirely that either...he's simply another human being. I think those who venerate him excessively need to remember that as much as those of us who dislike him...he has some valuable things to say, as well as things which annoy us at times.
>If they listen to RMS, blame them for their own >choice. RMS didn't drain their wills or twist >their brains - they made their own choices.
True, he didn't. But you're assuming people exercise self-responsibility here. The one thing "leaders" (read: megalomaniacal narcissists with God complexes) like RMS do when attempting to hijack mindshare for their own agendas is to expect that most people are not going to exercise self-responsibility...and the problem is that 99.8% of people don't. Look at Neuremburg. "But killing all those people wasn't my responsibility. I was just following orders."
A comparable excuse people *could* make here (and it's almost surprising that they don't, directly) is something like, "But you can't blame me for being a fanatic. RMS is my saviour. He gave me something with which to fill the hollow void of my mind, and made me feel that being a footsoldier in his army of autistic zombies was infinitely more meaningful than my previous sexually deprived, pedestrian, monocellular existence. Don't get angry with me. I'm just obeying His Will."
I'm also not falling for the support straw man. I'm entirely willing to believe that at least SOME people are willing to pay for innovation...How do you think Apple are making a profit from OSX? Come to that, why do you think some people prefer Distro X over Distro Y? Because there are innovations present compared to other distributions...Distro X might have better package management, nicer UI features...any number of different things. Other thing is...sure, all the seperate elements of Distro X might be open source and floating around in the aether...but do you really think Joe Six-pack is going to know how to pull all those disparate elements together, integrate them, and make them work together as a functional OS? I think not...and so if you *can* do it, Joe Six-pack is going to pay you for it...because you're either saving him a huge amount of time, or giving him something which he wouldn't have the technical knowledge to produce for himself at all.
The only reason why a lot of people associated with Linux in particular might think paying for an operating system is wrong is because they've been indoctrinated to think that by the free-beer/free-libre confusion. However, the general public have been doing it for years. And again...even if all the individual pieces are open source, assembling a distribution is still a service...a reasonably difficult and valuable one. If you'd ever tried to get Glibc to compile, you might understand why, even though it's open source, I still think people should be willing to pay a certain amount for Linux. The person charging them will have earned the money.
I'd advocate more than three months myself, but I will admit that I did like what id did with the Quake and Doom engines after they'd made their money. I've found myself wishing Epic would do the same with UT99, as well.
The thing about games is...an operating system is something that is critical to a computer's function...it won't function without one. It is this critical nature which is why I tend to think it's desirable for operating systems to be open source.
Games however are optional extras. They're a lot of fun, but a computer will work just fine without them for basic use. Hence, a game company is under no real obligation to provide them to anyone. An analogy might be porridge (an OS on its own) and pizza. (an OS with games) Porridge is highly nutritious, and you could live well on it...but you'd likely enjoy pizza a whole lot more.
Having a FOSS operating system means that people can meet their basic needs (the operating system) without which their computers wouldn't function *at all*. Because games aren't critical however, I don't have an issue with them being kept proprietary for the most part, personally. You get the basics for free, because otherwise people who couldn't afford the basics wouldn't be able to use a computer at all...so all that means is that we all have basic access.
I could see however this being a good model for a hybrid economy in at least some areas though in the future...it isn't communism, because non-critical items are still traded in a free market...but people are given what is required purely to keep breathing. If they want something extra above that though...*that* they can pay for.
Stallman specifically differentiates between "free as in beer" and free/libre in the article. He has no problem with people earning money from software...as I've tried to explain before...he has just always done a lousy job of differentiating between free/libre and free/beer...which is the entire reason why ESR and co invented the term Open Source. Hence, people continually have misconceptions, just like yours.
Mind you, I don't condone Tridgell's decision to trample on McVoy's license. "This license doesn't have the blessing of my Messiah, RMS...therefore McVoy is evil. Therefore I get to do whatever the hell I want with this code, and can still claim I'm doing the right thing afterwards," was basically Tridgell's thinking from what I saw.
I think free/libre licenses are a good thing...but unlike RMS and his mujahadeen, I do not agree that *forcing* people to use a free/libre license is part of the definition of freedom...Nor do I necessarily agree with the idea that any code/software under a non-free license is automatically fair game. Nor again do I believe that proprietary software is *always* harmful. Stallman is a fanatic, with a fairly well-demonstrated Messiah complex, (which his followers have done nothing to discourage, sadly) and such types have a tendency to think in absolutes.
In my more balanced moments I'm willing to concede that I agree with Stallman on a few points...but I've always had a problem with his attitude.
>Beyond that, it often seems that there are more >"believe it or not, I like Windows" types here than >the stereotypical Linux zealot. Seriously, Slashdot >doesn't exactly suck Stallman's dick.
True. Although Linux-related news gets reported here, the fellatio and worship of RMS as God was Newsforge's mandate. They're a few doors down the hall.;-)
Slashdot is actually nowhere near as *nix-centric now as it used to be. Back six and more years ago, the concentration of Linux/BSD users here was a lot higher...but in recent times, we've had an influx of GWB advocating rednecks who think they're nerds primarily because they might have managed to land a part time job administering their local Wal-Mart's primary XP box...which is why political stories have started being covered here, in order to cater to the change in readership. As a result, I think most of the hardcore UNIX crowd that used to hang out here has moved on to greener pastures. For the most part, the closest we probably have now to the original users are the "Debian IS Linux!" chimps...a pale shadow indeed.
No... MySQL might be dual licensed under something commercial...but that's why I use this.
What I was going to say though is that although MySQL AB's license is commercial, the GPL is not inherently commercial at all...so he might be in violation of the commercial MySQL license, but he isn't in violation of the GPL. If he wants a free as in beer DB for commercial use, the answer is simple...Use Postgres as I said. I've found it simpler to work with than MySQL as well, to be honest.
Though I also can't see the elephant allowing this. If as others have said, OS/2 shares code with anything from Microsoft, there's less than no chance of it happening. Not only that, IBM probably wouldn't think it would make good commercial sense to do it...because they're currently trying to make money from Linux. They might worry (rightly, in at least some cases) that if they were to give OS/2 away, people might simply use that instead.
Still, I know of at least one person who most likely still uses OS/2, and I'm sure there are a substantial minority out there who also still do. The 0S/2 user I know works for IBM...She gave me some Warp 4 CDs once...but I only installed it fairly briefly, and then took it off again...it didn't grow on me.
The good thing about it being opened of course would be that despite a possible minority still using it, AFAIK IBM aren't still developing it, which means that it is more or less doomed to become extinct eventually. If it were opened, its lifespan could be increased greatly. It'd probably win IBM a large amount of PR points to do it as well, come to think of it. I doubt they could do it...but if they can, methinks they should.
His swimming path would take him across arguably the coldest, deepest, and generally most terrifying body of water on the planet. Norway is further north than England...To a degree the man would literally be retracing the path of the Titanic.
If it wasn't for the fact that he had already begun, I would write to him and beg him in the strongest possible terms not to do this. If he wishes to die, there are much faster, less painful, and less fearful means available.
Auctioning of in-game stuff is something that players want, and have wanted, for years...to the point where they're going to do it irrespective of whether an MMORPG's parent company supports it or tries to stop them. By supporting it, SOE are being highly insightful and intelligent...and by taking a cut of the cheese from it, they're also doing something which I've advocated that such companies do for a long time, in order to create an incentive for themselves to do this. SOE should be applauded for this in the strongest possible terms, and most definitely NOT criticised for it. SOE will find that by doing this, not only will they notice a large boost in revenue, but they will enjoy an equivalent boost in positive public relations as well.
This is a case of an entertainment company (SOE) actually supporting what their customers want, and existing in harmony with their customers, rather than trying to dictate every minute detail of what they're able to do, and suffering economically (and in other ways) as a result, which is the more normal form of behaviour.
The customer is not the enemy, Mark. They're the person who pays your bills, and gives you a profit. If SOE have the vision and intelligence to be able to recognise this fact and utilise it in order to prosper from it, don't whine because them doing it makes you look bad because you're *not* doing it.
*groan* Yes, I know about this...I also know about Berkeley being involved in implementing the original TCP/IP stack, etc, etc.
What I meant was, that I think it's more likely for Microsoft to base an *entire operating system* on FreeBSD than it is for them to bring out their own distribution of Linux...if they were going to do *anything* of that nature, that is. As I said, the GPL is probably the main reason for that.
Virtualisation is very slow though, isn't it? If so...then it will enable people who want to try Linux to do so, and then if they get sick of Linux applications being slow because of having to run on top of Windows, they may decide to start running Linux natively instead.
What Microsoft might inadvertently have done is make it a lot easier for people to migrate to Linux...because it allows people to get used to Linux at whatever pace they need/want, while still being in Windows for the transition. Then when they're fully confident with Linux, they can throw the Windows virtualisation away and just run Linux directly...and get the associated speed/stability increase.
From Microsoft's perspective, this probably isn't such a great idea after all. For Linux however it could actually be wonderful.
a) I can't see Microsoft willingly abiding by the GPL, and it would be a lot more damaging for them to attempt to release something which violates it.
b) Because of a) above, if MS do anything in the open source UNIX space, it'll more likely be with FreeBSD...simply because that will still allow them to make the rules.
On the other hand, an interesting route that they could possibly go would be to get involved purely in Xorg development. That way the underlying OS is provided by Linux/*BSD, (the area that Microsoft are *not* good at) while Microsoft continues working on usability/UI. (an area where they *are* reasonably good) The other thing is that the MIT license is still sufficiently flexible that it allows them the possibility of some protection for their IP if they desire it, as well.
If Microsoft were to come out with their own OSS DE/WM a la KDE, I'd use it, personally...or at the very least check it out. Not to sound too much like Laura Didio and the ZDNet crew here, but Microsoft DO have some idea of what Joe Six-pack wants...as they've been making large amounts of money from him for the last 30 years.
Slashdot Mirror
>Have you not studied even a sliver of history of >any civilization in the world?
Yes, I have...including a particular sliver about a man called Mahandas Gandhi. You might have heard of him.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, I will confess that I don't believe that Gandhi's tactics are *always* the correct card to play...but they're worth trying in a situation where the moral high ground is important...like this one, for instance.
Fundamentalist Christians thrive on the belief in their own moral superiority. Thus, I believe that by far the best way of dealing with them is to allow it to be graphically demonstrated that they are behaving in a morally inferior manner. (with regards to their fanaticism and so forth) If those who advocate evolution do not behave in any objectionable manner themselves, the contrast between their behaviour and that of the fundamentalists will become very clearly visible...with regards to the fundamentalists' attempts to ban information regarding evolution, etc.
By abstaining from retaliation in some instances (not all) when you are attacked, it is possible to make your attacker look extremely bad in the eyes of whoever may be observing, and again in some instances this can be far more powerful than simply retaliating, as by retaliating you would then be seen to exist on the same moral level as your attacker. To quote the apostle Paul,
"If your enemy hungers, feed him. If he thirsts, offer him cold water to drink. In doing so you pile hot coals upon his head."
In doing this, not only would the fundamentalists' tendency towards fascism be clearly exposed, but it would also be seen that the behaviour of the evolutionary advocates would be far more in line with both the letter and the spirit of genuine Christianity than the behaviour of the fundamentalists themselves. The appearance of martyrdom was the tactic which Christ himself in the end used...and even if a person does not believe in it having benefited him spiritually, the temporal benefits to him (with regards to becoming known) are self-explanatory.
Personally, I don't really see the creationists as being too much worse than that particular demographic of atheists who worship Darwin as God. *Excessive*, irrational veneration of evolutionary theory is just as unscientific IMHO as creationism. Of course, the main difference between the creationists and the pseudo-atheistic "Darwin => God" squad is that fundamentalist Christians more customarily have fascism on their side, and attempt to make use of such to shut Darwin's cheerleading squad up.
However, another group who I think desperately need to get lives are those who are frantically seeking life on Mars, purely/primarily because they hope they can use such proof to discredit creationism altogether.
I believe the best way that evolutionary advocates can win this particular battle is simply by not fighting it. The capacity for logic is the one element which fundamentalist Christians tend to lack more than any other, and as such I cannot see how any attempt at argument with them could be anything other than futile.
Mind you, this isn't to say that I advocate simply allowing them to win the argument, but rather waiting them out. This is a situation in which ironically, evolutionary theory will validate itself, as we will presumably end up seeing the fittest (more accurate) meme ultimately surviving.
The other crucial thing about pacifism of course is that it gains the practitioner the moral high ground, and will ultimately prove to any outside observers just what a group of moronic, jackbooted fanatics the creationists really are.
If the creationists insist on having their beliefs promoted in the classroom, fine. Simply withdraw and let them have it. This might mean that a certain percentage of one or two generations will grow up with a belief in creationist thinking, but it should be the task of more scientifically oriented parents to teach their children about at least *some* things, anyway.
The other issue of course is that *at the moment*, because of President Bush's own theological inclinations and his fascist approach to governance, concepts which exist outside the approved fundamentalist mould are unlikely to gain mainstream public favour. The key point to remember here is that Bush will not be in office forever, and therefore the ascendancy of his fundamentalist Christian base cannot last forever either. So give ground for the moment, and wait. When he leaves office, it is likely that the public will also have become so tired of the fundamentalists that the fundamentalists will be unable to make their voices heard for a substantial period of time. That will be the time when the public will be open (indeed, probably eager) to ideas from outside the orthodox Christian establishment, and thus it will also be the time, (slowly and quietly at first) to gradually reintroduce evolutionary theory back into the education system, where that time it would stay.
Do you realise how deeply mentally ill you make yourself look by mentioning something like that...whether a - or a / is used between the names of Kirk and Spock? You're right that it's a nitpick, but it's one which I can't believe anyone would make.
She'd be fairly close, and actually more attactive than Antonia, IMHO.
I wonder if SOE thought of her?
>the long term. One thing I can tell
>you is that in
>Australia getting some guy
>to fix your XP box will
>cost about $35/hr whereas a really hopeless Linux
>administrator will cost
>about $75. In a 'regional'
>area like Newcastle you'll
>have a hard time finding
>a guy who can install Debian.
>("Debbie who?")
This does not surprise me at all. Australia is a wonderful place to live in a great many respects...but from the perspective of all things IT, living in this country is a source of shame.
The problem with computers as far as most working Australians are concerned is that a computer
a) Doesn't require shearing,
b) Can't be planted in the ground,
c) Doesn't need to be dug *out of* the ground, and
d) Is constructed in a highly complex factory, rather than a residential building site, and also does not require the lifting or carrying of bricks.
Put more specifically, using a computer actually requires intelligence, and is more complex than something which you could normally employ either a robot or an animal to do. Because of this, computer use is sadly far beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of my countrymen.
>After signing the letter and waiting a few minutes, >the time travelers never showed up. So, with a >heavy sigh, I threw the letter in the trash.
;)
Hence the problem. Because you threw the letter in the rubbish, anyone from the future of that timeline couldn't have known about its existence and thus could not have travelled back to speak to you...Since rubbish most certainly is not recorded in minute detail, let alone publicised.
Put such a letter online, publicise it heavily, or (even better) have such a letter be submitted to a major yearbook(s), for instance, and you might have had a bit more luck.
This is extremely true, and it's something which I wish a lot more people would acknowledge. RMS claiming to be the father of free software is the equivalent of Gates claiming to be the father of operating systems in general. In other words, it's quite simply not true.
>The defendant stepped forward and said, "You cannot
>trust strangers to help and support you out of the
>goodness of their hearts!"
It's true that you can't trust strangers to help you "just because" necessarily...However what you most definitely *can* trust is the sociological vision (in an abstract sense) that said strangers have. Said strangers don't help you because helping you as *one individual* gives them the warm fuzzies...Said strangers help you because part of what *they* want is a society where people help each other in general...and so they realise that they themselves have to behave in a certain way first, in order to create an example for you (and the rest of the society that they're trying to change) to follow.
A lot of the people who are heavily into FOSS are visionaries...They have an internal picture of an altruistic, interdependent global society...a world where people realise that rather than it being purely out of the goodness of their hearts, as you put it, individual A will help individual B because individual A knows that that some point he will also need help, and will then want individual B to help *him.* A lot of the people involved in FOSS are also people who are themselves sick of corporate greed and self-sabotage, and realise that we could *all* be a lot better off, environmentally, socially, and in every other way, if such didn't exist.
It's not necessarily about compassion...it's more about taking the long term view. "I'll help you now because I know I myself will likely need help at some point down the road."
As far as trade is concerned, although fiat currency is useful for some things, I'm inclined to agree with the idea that this is why governments/corporations have tried so hard to discourage barter. Fiat currency is far more effective for promoting a situation where the few can effectively rape, oppress, and otherwise exploit the many.
The crucible or motivation here though is that we are also at a point where if we don't work to create a society where strangers *do* give a damn about each other, it's likely that as a species we're not going to survive much longer. The evidence of this is everywhere you look. If we don't start realising on a larger scale, and soon, that we *do* all need each other, then in our collective isolation we will wipe ourselves out. This also isn't meant as a Roddenberrian platitude either, nor am I necessarily advocating world federalist government or anything silly like that. What I am advocating however is that corporations need to stop engaging in scorched-earth economics, that people stop regarding each other with so much outright hostility, and that the George W Bushes of the world no longer be allowed to run the show. FOSS is one small step towards that.
>Oh, come on. You could have said that about Mac OS
>9 - an OS that definately *was* a train-wreck.
Apple aren't a (near) universally hated, convicted predatory monopolist.
Besides which, you're not thinking big picture. If Longhorn fails, it will be even more of a vindication of what I've been saying about them not having any long-term strategy after NT4. If there's one thing corporate types don't like, it's having to use their brains. They want to be able to go into a software vendor's office and be taken care of from start to finish...Including the operating system itself, installation, training, and support...the lot. They don't want to have to think about any of it...they want it to be completely autonomic.
Because they don't want to have to think about it however, it means that in order to stay ahead of the game, the vendor corporation needs to think about it for them...and that includes having a concrete idea where the operating system is going, structure and feature wise, up to ten years in advance. Microsoft do not have that...and as a result, they will continue to keep scrambling to release half-baked patch jobs for an operating system which is sufficiently technically inferior that it never should have got out the door in the first place. Meanwhile, people will be buying shiny new Linux desktops and servers as Red Hat, Novell, IBM, and Mandrake quietly and steadily close the gap.
You may not agree with me, but you don't have to. Just watch.
Those who dislike Microsoft should rejoice if this beta *is* a train wreck.
I am entirely confident, and have been for some time, that one way or another, Longhorn is going to represent Microsoft's last stand...this will be made even more certain if it is a failure. I've said it before and I'll say it again...Microsoft have never had a coherent roadmap after NT 4, and that fact is now clearly showing.
Bankruptcy won't be here for a while yet, but market irrelevance is coming up fast...I'm predicting that by 2012 at the latest, Windows' market share will have almost completely evaporated.
If you're a Microsoft shareholder, I have one word of advice for you at this point: Sell. This is one ship which, when the sinking process is closer to completion, you really won't want to still be on.
Out of maybe 10-12 submissions, this is I think the third I've had accepted myself...so I sympathise. I've submitted stories that were rejected and then had another, later submission from someone else get through, as well.
From what I've seen, what works seems to be:-
1. Headline needs to be as precise about the subject as possible...we were the same there, so am unsure what happened for you.
2. The copy underneath the headline needs to be as brief as possible, and above all, not vague.
3. Pack in the hyperlinks. They seem to want as many relevant hyperlinks in the copy as possible. Users want to be able to go to the site with the story, referring sites, and sites relevant to the topic.
4. Avoid borderline irrelevant topics, and observe the groupthink. Although most IT related stuff seems to be fine, Linux related stuff in particular seems to have the biggest chance of getting through...especially if it's something about either Debian, GNU, or any of the FOSS "celebrities". Anything Star Trek/Wars is also a shoe-in...there seem to be a lot of ST/W geeks here. Windows related stuff seems to be enjoyed as well, because it gives people a chance to throw virtual tomatoes at Microsoft.
Robotics seems iffy, and only stuff related to either space or mathematics seems to regularly get through on the science front.
This will probably sound insane to the skeptics among us, but I've actually tried to consult the I Ching a few times recently because, my other flippant and arguably vindictive comments on this thread notwithstanding, I am in all seriousness genuinely curious about Stallman's motivations.
The answers I've had back have been somewhat uncanny...but have essentially been that, despite the usual flaws that we all have, RMS is a man with fundamentally positive intentions. However, although many of his contributions have been positive, like all of us, not *all* is positive...and therefore it is necessary to use discernment and seperate the useful from the not-so-useful. Stallman is someone whose writing seems to evoke strong emotional responses in me...as it does in many of us...but when I try and balance my emotions and get clear of the temptation to make juvenile comments, I realise that it's necessary to see him simply as a fellow traveller. Not God...because he isn't...but not as a crackpot, because in all objectivity I don't really believe he is entirely that either...he's simply another human being. I think those who venerate him excessively need to remember that as much as those of us who dislike him...he has some valuable things to say, as well as things which annoy us at times.
Again, in short, he's simply human.
>If they listen to RMS, blame them for their own
>choice. RMS didn't drain their wills or twist
>their brains - they made their own choices.
True, he didn't. But you're assuming people exercise self-responsibility here. The one thing "leaders" (read: megalomaniacal narcissists with God complexes) like RMS do when attempting to hijack mindshare for their own agendas is to expect that most people are not going to exercise self-responsibility...and the problem is that 99.8% of people don't. Look at Neuremburg.
"But killing all those people wasn't my responsibility. I was just following orders."
A comparable excuse people *could* make here (and it's almost surprising that they don't, directly) is something like, "But you can't blame me for being a fanatic. RMS is my saviour. He gave me something with which to fill the hollow void of my mind, and made me feel that being a footsoldier in his army of autistic zombies was infinitely more meaningful than my previous sexually deprived, pedestrian, monocellular existence. Don't get angry with me. I'm just obeying His Will."
I'm never given mod points when I truly need them. Parent is crying out to be modded +10,Insightful. ;-)
Read this.
I'm also not falling for the support straw man. I'm entirely willing to believe that at least SOME people are willing to pay for innovation...How do you think Apple are making a profit from OSX? Come to that, why do you think some people prefer Distro X over Distro Y? Because there are innovations present compared to other distributions...Distro X might have better package management, nicer UI features...any number of different things. Other thing is...sure, all the seperate elements of Distro X might be open source and floating around in the aether...but do you really think Joe Six-pack is going to know how to pull all those disparate elements together, integrate them, and make them work together as a functional OS? I think not...and so if you *can* do it, Joe Six-pack is going to pay you for it...because you're either saving him a huge amount of time, or giving him something which he wouldn't have the technical knowledge to produce for himself at all.
The only reason why a lot of people associated with Linux in particular might think paying for an operating system is wrong is because they've been indoctrinated to think that by the free-beer/free-libre confusion. However, the general public have been doing it for years. And again...even if all the individual pieces are open source, assembling a distribution is still a service...a reasonably difficult and valuable one. If you'd ever tried to get Glibc to compile, you might understand why, even though it's open source, I still think people should be willing to pay a certain amount for Linux. The person charging them will have earned the money.
I'd advocate more than three months myself, but I will admit that I did like what id did with the Quake and Doom engines after they'd made their money. I've found myself wishing Epic would do the same with UT99, as well.
The thing about games is...an operating system is something that is critical to a computer's function...it won't function without one. It is this critical nature which is why I tend to think it's desirable for operating systems to be open source.
Games however are optional extras. They're a lot of fun, but a computer will work just fine without them for basic use. Hence, a game company is under no real obligation to provide them to anyone. An analogy might be porridge (an OS on its own) and pizza. (an OS with games) Porridge is highly nutritious, and you could live well on it...but you'd likely enjoy pizza a whole lot more.
Having a FOSS operating system means that people can meet their basic needs (the operating system) without which their computers wouldn't function *at all*. Because games aren't critical however, I don't have an issue with them being kept proprietary for the most part, personally. You get the basics for free, because otherwise people who couldn't afford the basics wouldn't be able to use a computer at all...so all that means is that we all have basic access.
I could see however this being a good model for a hybrid economy in at least some areas though in the future...it isn't communism, because non-critical items are still traded in a free market...but people are given what is required purely to keep breathing. If they want something extra above that though...*that* they can pay for.
Stallman specifically differentiates between "free as in beer" and free/libre in the article. He has no problem with people earning money from software...as I've tried to explain before...he has just always done a lousy job of differentiating between free/libre and free/beer...which is the entire reason why ESR and co invented the term Open Source. Hence, people continually have misconceptions, just like yours.
Mind you, I don't condone Tridgell's decision to trample on McVoy's license.
"This license doesn't have the blessing of my Messiah, RMS...therefore McVoy is evil. Therefore I get to do whatever the hell I want with this code, and can still claim I'm doing the right thing afterwards," was basically Tridgell's thinking from what I saw.
I think free/libre licenses are a good thing...but unlike RMS and his mujahadeen, I do not agree that *forcing* people to use a free/libre license is part of the definition of freedom...Nor do I necessarily agree with the idea that any code/software under a non-free license is automatically fair game. Nor again do I believe that proprietary software is *always* harmful. Stallman is a fanatic, with a fairly well-demonstrated Messiah complex, (which his followers have done nothing to discourage, sadly) and such types have a tendency to think in absolutes.
In my more balanced moments I'm willing to concede that I agree with Stallman on a few points...but I've always had a problem with his attitude.
>Beyond that, it often seems that there are more
;-)
>"believe it or not, I like Windows" types here than
>the stereotypical Linux zealot. Seriously, Slashdot
>doesn't exactly suck Stallman's dick.
True. Although Linux-related news gets reported here, the fellatio and worship of RMS as God was Newsforge's mandate. They're a few doors down the hall.
Slashdot is actually nowhere near as *nix-centric now as it used to be. Back six and more years ago, the concentration of Linux/BSD users here was a lot higher...but in recent times, we've had an influx of GWB advocating rednecks who think they're nerds primarily because they might have managed to land a part time job administering their local Wal-Mart's primary XP box...which is why political stories have started being covered here, in order to cater to the change in readership. As a result, I think most of the hardcore UNIX crowd that used to hang out here has moved on to greener pastures. For the most part, the closest we probably have now to the original users are the "Debian IS Linux!" chimps...a pale shadow indeed.
No...
MySQL might be dual licensed under something commercial...but that's why I use this.
What I was going to say though is that although MySQL AB's license is commercial, the GPL is not inherently commercial at all...so he might be in violation of the commercial MySQL license, but he isn't in violation of the GPL. If he wants a free as in beer DB for commercial use, the answer is simple...Use Postgres as I said. I've found it simpler to work with than MySQL as well, to be honest.
Though I also can't see the elephant allowing this. If as others have said, OS/2 shares code with anything from Microsoft, there's less than no chance of it happening. Not only that, IBM probably wouldn't think it would make good commercial sense to do it...because they're currently trying to make money from Linux. They might worry (rightly, in at least some cases) that if they were to give OS/2 away, people might simply use that instead.
Still, I know of at least one person who most likely still uses OS/2, and I'm sure there are a substantial minority out there who also still do. The 0S/2 user I know works for IBM...She gave me some Warp 4 CDs once...but I only installed it fairly briefly, and then took it off again...it didn't grow on me.
The good thing about it being opened of course would be that despite a possible minority still using it, AFAIK IBM aren't still developing it, which means that it is more or less doomed to become extinct eventually. If it were opened, its lifespan could be increased greatly. It'd probably win IBM a large amount of PR points to do it as well, come to think of it. I doubt they could do it...but if they can, methinks they should.
His swimming path would take him across arguably the coldest, deepest, and generally most terrifying body of water on the planet. Norway is further north than England...To a degree the man would literally be retracing the path of the Titanic.
If it wasn't for the fact that he had already begun, I would write to him and beg him in the strongest possible terms not to do this. If he wishes to die, there are much faster, less painful, and less fearful means available.
Auctioning of in-game stuff is something that players want, and have wanted, for years...to the point where they're going to do it irrespective of whether an MMORPG's parent company supports it or tries to stop them. By supporting it, SOE are being highly insightful and intelligent...and by taking a cut of the cheese from it, they're also doing something which I've advocated that such companies do for a long time, in order to create an incentive for themselves to do this. SOE should be applauded for this in the strongest possible terms, and most definitely NOT criticised for it. SOE will find that by doing this, not only will they notice a large boost in revenue, but they will enjoy an equivalent boost in positive public relations as well.
This is a case of an entertainment company (SOE) actually supporting what their customers want, and existing in harmony with their customers, rather than trying to dictate every minute detail of what they're able to do, and suffering economically (and in other ways) as a result, which is the more normal form of behaviour.
The customer is not the enemy, Mark. They're the person who pays your bills, and gives you a profit. If SOE have the vision and intelligence to be able to recognise this fact and utilise it in order to prosper from it, don't whine because them doing it makes you look bad because you're *not* doing it.
*groan* Yes, I know about this...I also know about Berkeley being involved in implementing the original TCP/IP stack, etc, etc.
What I meant was, that I think it's more likely for Microsoft to base an *entire operating system* on FreeBSD than it is for them to bring out their own distribution of Linux...if they were going to do *anything* of that nature, that is. As I said, the GPL is probably the main reason for that.
Virtualisation is very slow though, isn't it? If so...then it will enable people who want to try Linux to do so, and then if they get sick of Linux applications being slow because of having to run on top of Windows, they may decide to start running Linux natively instead.
What Microsoft might inadvertently have done is make it a lot easier for people to migrate to Linux...because it allows people to get used to Linux at whatever pace they need/want, while still being in Windows for the transition. Then when they're fully confident with Linux, they can throw the Windows virtualisation away and just run Linux directly...and get the associated speed/stability increase.
From Microsoft's perspective, this probably isn't such a great idea after all. For Linux however it could actually be wonderful.
a) I can't see Microsoft willingly abiding by the GPL, and it would be a lot more damaging for them to attempt to release something which violates it.
b) Because of a) above, if MS do anything in the open source UNIX space, it'll more likely be with FreeBSD...simply because that will still allow them to make the rules.
On the other hand, an interesting route that they could possibly go would be to get involved purely in Xorg development. That way the underlying OS is provided by Linux/*BSD, (the area that Microsoft are *not* good at) while Microsoft continues working on usability/UI. (an area where they *are* reasonably good) The other thing is that the MIT license is still sufficiently flexible that it allows them the possibility of some protection for their IP if they desire it, as well.
If Microsoft were to come out with their own OSS DE/WM a la KDE, I'd use it, personally...or at the very least check it out. Not to sound too much like Laura Didio and the ZDNet crew here, but Microsoft DO have some idea of what Joe Six-pack wants...as they've been making large amounts of money from him for the last 30 years.