With 200 comments already, I'm surprised no one's mentioned this bit. Yeah, the author is really plugged into the Linux world:
But it isn't just about the developers. Gamers seek unity too. In this small sector of software design, Microsoft almost seems like an avuncular presence, and even the hardest-core gamers, who are often also advocates of Microsoft's' bête noire, Linux, give Gates grudging approval.
Simon Robertson, a teenage Photoshop whiz and Linux fan who sometimes fights in the online Quake world as "palpy[SC]" of Clan SoftCom, perhaps represents this reaction best.
"When I make my purchase," says Robertson, "I know that Blockbuster will be renting the games, and that the majority of America will be joining the Xbox bandwagon. This may sound like simple Microsoft communism, but as a gamer, this is good. A unifying console is what we're after."
One fun quirk: its Open Firmware thinks different than regular MacOS. So I've been having great fun with idiots who post to comp.sys.mac.misc that they can't uninstall OS X. Since the only people who should have it right now are serious Mac programmers, anyone asking that question is a pirate kiddie.
So, what's the answer? I may be a pirate kiddie but I'd really like to get that G3 working again before the sysadmins notice. Seriously..
Or do I have to go back on Hotline and get the beta release?
You know, for three years I've been reading how "This is the year that Linux is ready for the desktop.", "XXX is finally going to free users from the cryptic command-line and bring Unix to the desktop.", "I installed the new Red Hat with YYY and my grandmother finds it easier to use than Windows and Office."
Well, on September 13, Unix is coming to the consumer desktop. For real. Yeah, I think Apple deserves another round of abuse from the Slashdot readership.
Besides, it should be remembered that Apple has been shipping Mac OS X server for, what, two years? They're not hyping it but it's been on sale and in use.
Some key Linux developers, encouraged by the announcement of GNOME as the standard desktop environment for Linux and Unix, believe that Linux is poised to overtake the Macintosh as the primary challenger to Microsoft Windows.
And by what authority was GNOME declared "the standard desktop environment for Linux and Unix" anyway? Their own press releases?
Borsook isn't saying that everyone's a Randian, polyamorist, or free software / open source zealot; she is saying that the tech-culture (by which she is particularly referring to computer culture rather than the scientific community, biology etc.) is dominated by what she refers to as "technolibertarianism".
OK, but -- is it? Is that an accurate assessment, a stereotype or an accurate description of the skewed subset of computer workers who appear on the radar of a Wired writer?
I believe all of these things because human history has demonstrated that the biggest threat to individual freedom and liberty is consistantly a government gone awry. Democide (being killed by one's own government) has been the biggest non medical cause of death this century.
Republicans used to be the people who distinguished between democratic governments and the totalitarian regimes that killed millions of their own citizens. It was liberal Democrats who took the view that "Both our systems have good and bad points and who are we to judge between them? It's all pretty much the same."
I'd also point out that if the democratic governments had voted themselves out of existence, Hitler, Stalin and Mao would hardly have followed suit and we all would have joined their victims. Remember the kids in the Objectivist Society when you were in college? What are the chances that those guys could have won WWII or triumphed over Communism?
I thought this was an excellent review -- much better than Jon Katz's.
I haven't read the book but having read this and other reviews, my impression is that there's a kind of bait and switch going on here. I'm a molecular biologist, so I may or may not be part of "tech-culture" but I'm pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of engineers, coders, admins etc. are not Randians, polyamorists, or even free software / open source zealots. Borsook could write (and maybe has written) an insightful book about why the technical community has an overabundance of these types, but she seems to be saying that they _define_ the tech world, which I think is wildly inaccurate.
A lot of people will say, 'release often, release early', etc
The lesson I'd draw from Java and Mozilla is, "Release early, release often, but don't start issuing press releases about how Microsoft is doomed until you've got something that runs."
Linux was, to a fair extent, born full grown, in that there was a full UNIX just sitting there, waiting for a kernel. This let Linux explode off the blocks, and gain a lot of momentum. (Okay, 10yrs or so is quite a slow burn for me to use the term 'explode', but hey)
I think the 10 years is at least as relevant in this context as the existing Unix infrastructure. If the Linux project were started today, you'd see Eric Raymond in CNet, Wired, Upside and People blaring about the glorious prospects of Linux -- followed by "Death of Linux" articles two years later when a fully functional OS wasn't shipping.
So, to MEconomy I'd say, "Release early but hype when it works."
MkLinux now has official support for these much sold first Nubus based PowerMac generation, that is rotting away in basements. These machines make excellent X-Terms." And the same models can naturally run NetBSD, too.
Really? The MkLinux announcement refers to "5200/5300/6200/6300 family of computers, and their Performa equivalents". I don't see those on the list of NetBSD supported hardware. The PowerMac models, anyway -- even Gil Amelio probably couldn't tell you offhand what the "Performa equivalent" of a 5300 is. Maybe somebody more knowledgable can comment on this?
x86'ers, this is why Apple has now shifted to using such a short list of product names. Which is why we now have to mention that we're using a "beige G3" or a "blue & white". No, it's not because the only thing we know about our hardware is what color it is.
OK, we've both said our piece and I'll leave it at that. One thing I want to clarify, though:
Would it surprise you if Michael realized that what he said was wrong, probably unecessarily harsh, if not, as you say, bigoted, and then took it down?
Of course not. That's what I figured had happened, or that a senior/. editor had objected and pulled it. This isn't a "CmdrTaco, Signal11 and Enoch Root are spying on us through transparent GIFs!" conspiracy theory. I'm not sure that adding a retraction to the post instead of yanking it wouldn't have been sounder journalism but that's not my department. I just wanted to explain why I was referring to a story that no one would find in the archives.
That story caught my attention because it seemed so hypocritical. Michael was always objecting to institutions using filters on the grounds that parental responsibility is the only answer. Now, when parents were trying to use that authority in a way that he didn't agree with, he condemned and ridiculed them. And -- while I understand how he could sincerely regret his wording -- I just can't see where anyone who genuinely believes in trusting parents to raise their kids could have taken a stance that is so blatantly contradictory.
Finally businesses are running into the reality that non-Windows using PC owners have faced all along. Until now, the Windows tax was irrelevant if you wanted Windows. But this is going to create a huge incentive for manufacturers to ship bare sytems and is a much better weapon against the MS tax than Windows Refund Day, even with Eric Raymond in a stupid costume.
Unlike censorware, webservers do their job 90% of the time.
The point is that the fact that software X has a flaw doesn't mean that it could never be useful (or even that it isn't useful). And if 90% is your cutoff for where further development on a project should be abandoned, take a look at the stuff on Freshmeat.
They are saying that. And they're pointing out the utter crappiness of the software by showing that IT BLOCKS THE VERY ORGANIZATIONS WHO DEMAND IT'S USE, among other valuable informational resources.
No, they're being completely disingenuous about their motives. The fact is that there will never be any web filters that they won't condemn and there will never be any software that works perfectly. So spare us this bitching about how they found some problem with some package and be up front about what they're really demanding.
No one says that. They say that as parents, THEY themselves will be responsible for what their children see. They won't simply use iron fist control, they'll make reasons, they'll discuss it, and they'll do it BY THEMSELVES for THEIR children. Parents can use filters all they want.
That's not what they're saying. That's not even what you're saying. You're saying, "WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN." What are these filters parents are supposed to use? The ones where anyone who develops them is an evil censoring monster?
Besides, this whole "parental responsibility" line is another bit of disingenuousness. Both Peacefire and the YRO'ers are as rabidly opposed to parents choosing what their children will see as they are to schools and libraries doing the same thing. That's why they're campaigning against the existence of censorware and why when a rabbinical court in Jerusalem advised parents to restrict their childrens' net access, Michael wrote a bigoted, sneering spew against them (which disappeared from/. a few days later.)
Censorship is bad. In libraries it's worse, in my opinion, it's as bad as book burning.
Look, real censorship and "book burning" are when a society is broadly denied access to something. Saying that for a library to restrict its web browsing is "as bad as book burning" is as absurd as saying that because the library doesn't have a subscription to Hustler.
Time for another sneering article about how filterware blocks (doesn't block) some sites that Jamie and Michael feel it shouldn't (should) get. And decalrations that since it didn't work the way they think it should, such software obviously could never be of value.
Uh, yeah. I got a 404 error a few minutes ago -- clearly these so-called "web servers" are a waste of everyone's time. And those idiots in Congress want to spend money on giving schools Internet access!
Face it, what Peacefire and the YRO crew are opposed to is the possibility that anyone could sit down at any computer and be prevented from accessing anything. If that's what they think, fine. But say that instead of, "Look! A chicken breast recipe is blocked! What a bunch of morons!"
The fact is that filterware is going to be used. No matter how many (+5 insightful) posts we get declaring "When I have kids, I"ll let them view all the porn they want." there is simply no way that some schools and libraries (and parents) aren't going to use filters. And when those filters suck, and can't be configured to support what parents think is or isn't appropriate for their children, the tech community will have its own self-absorbtion and smugness to blame.
You know, there's a Unix-based MacOS with preemptive multitasking coming in a month or so. (DP4 available today at your nearest HotLine server.) In the meantime, you might consider letting go of that mouse button.
He's clearly trolling for ad revenue and perhaps enough controversy to make a follow-up mea-culpa article a winner also.
Absolutely. Long-time Mac users will remember this guy -- he's a professional ignoramus like Hiawatha Bray, James Coates and Jesse Berst. These guys used to make a living trolling the EvangeList with nonsensical Mac-bashing articles. Nowadays if you wrote something like that, the Apple fans are too busy drooling over cubes and Aqua to care so they've taken to trolling Slashdot instead.
I remember an Upside (?) article where CmdrTaco declared he refuses to link stories that are written solely to get/. attention. A lot of them seem to slip through, though.
Like most MS products, it either had to be brought in from outside, or go though 3+ revisions to stabilize... Makes you wonder if they ever get any work done over there.
Yes, but the flip side of that is that everything MS does starts to look good after 3+ revisions. Apple, Borland, Corel and a lot of others have all made the mistake of thinking that because version 1 of an MS product was a joke, they could relax. NT and their server software are about to get another notch better.
Why are people flipping out about mozilla? It's not like you paid money for it. The developers working on it are doing so because they enjoy it and think it's a good thing for the future of free computing.
I agree, and I've sat out the last few rounds of Mozilla bashing -- especially since a recent bit of feature creep was the one I've been begging for since the project started.
But there's a major problem here. I don't go around bashing everybody with a project on Freshmeat that I don't think is up to par but it's wrong to think that whether or not Mozilla exists doesn't affect any other projects. It consumes a huge amount of community resources in coding and bug testing and its existence has discouraged others (except KDE) from building a decnt browser on their own. And reading MozillaZine and comments by Mozilla devlopers here suggests they're in complete denial. They need to realize that there's a major problem -- and if they don't, we all need to realize that.
I'm sure there'll be a lot of sneering here but Microsoft has a good habit of eating their own dog food. In the early days of NT, they started using it internally as much as possible. They had a slow, buggy email system that lost a lot of their mail -- but NT and their servers got better. I've read that Solaris only started to get really usable when Sun forced their engineers to use it instead of SunOS.
Maybe if Motorola hadn't gotten rid of all their Macs they'd have improved the G4 in the last year.
Plus, I hate to be one of those "How dare you bypass my Katz filter!" people but, doesn't Slashdot have a music subject for a reason? I have it turned off because I find/. Napster coverage so infuriating but Napster stories keep getting posted under "news" or "internet".
The London-based founder of Freenet, the software that allows digital music downloads, is setting up a new company in the US, designed to directly challenge existing copyright laws. and "We intend to stay vigorously on the right side of the law." and Mr Clarke explained how the new venture would bypass copyright protection laws by citing the example of Stephen King, the blockbuster novelist, who is asking for voluntary payment for each online instalment of his latest novel.
So, they're not breaking or challenging any laws at all. They're asking people to pay for the music they want.
It is also unclear how Uprizer, which will use the open source Freenet software, is to make money.
Uh, by taking a share of the money raised? Seems simple enough to me. Oddly, no one seems to wonder how Napster is going to make any money, or Helix Code or Eazel or...
Same starting point, different result
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 2
Sure, I could sneer about how this topic was so -- this past May, and how ESR grabbed it for his own agenda months ago. But I agree with the premise that the tech community is too invoved in itself to deal effectively with the outside world. I reach some different conclusions.
Reading Slashdot, you see people shouting the party line at each other and moderating each other up. It leads to lots of karma as well as to forgetting that what's obvious to the, err, "community" isn't really how anyone else thinks.
Look at Napster. Instead of thinking about how we can develop a music distribution that is efficient, popular and respectful of artists' rights, everyone here reminded each other how copyrights are evil, that the FSF says it's not really piracy because there are no puffy shirts involved, how the artists should all just sell T-shirts instead. That didn't lst long in front of a judge.
Look at internet filters. Libraries want to install filters and Michael and Jamie scream that parents should take responsibility. A rabbinical court in Jerusalem advises its congregants to restrict their children's net access and Michael writes a sneering, bigoted rant against parents who take responsibility. (Said rant vanished from/. a few days later.) Every time some new software comes out, Michael or Jamie find some site that they think it improperly does or doesn't block and pronounce that all filterware will be forever hopeless and that the idea should be immediately discarded. Look -- if you think the world is going to accept the YRO credo of "all porn access, all the time" you're kidding yourself. Filterware will be used and when shoddy software is the norm, the tech community will have itself to blame for ridiculing parents' concerns instead of trying to develop a reasonable alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
But it isn't just about the developers. Gamers seek unity too. In this small sector of software design, Microsoft almost seems like an avuncular presence, and even the hardest-core gamers, who are often also advocates of Microsoft's' bête noire, Linux, give Gates grudging approval.
Simon Robertson, a teenage Photoshop whiz and Linux fan who sometimes fights in the online Quake world as "palpy[SC]" of Clan SoftCom, perhaps represents this reaction best.
"When I make my purchase," says Robertson, "I know that Blockbuster will be renting the games, and that the majority of America will be joining the Xbox bandwagon. This may sound like simple Microsoft communism, but as a gamer, this is good. A unifying console is what we're after."
---------
So, what's the answer? I may be a pirate kiddie but I'd really like to get that G3 working again before the sysadmins notice. Seriously..
Or do I have to go back on Hotline and get the beta release?
---------
Well, on September 13, Unix is coming to the consumer desktop. For real. Yeah, I think Apple deserves another round of abuse from the Slashdot readership.
Besides, it should be remembered that Apple has been shipping Mac OS X server for, what, two years? They're not hyping it but it's been on sale and in use.
---------
And by what authority was GNOME declared "the standard desktop environment for Linux and Unix" anyway? Their own press releases?
---------
Borsook isn't saying that everyone's a Randian, polyamorist, or free software / open source zealot; she is saying that the tech-culture (by which she is particularly referring to computer culture rather than the scientific community, biology etc.) is dominated by what she refers to as "technolibertarianism".
OK, but -- is it? Is that an accurate assessment, a stereotype or an accurate description of the skewed subset of computer workers who appear on the radar of a Wired writer?
I believe all of these things because human history has demonstrated that the biggest threat to individual freedom and liberty is consistantly a government gone awry. Democide (being killed by one's own government) has been the biggest non medical cause of death this century.
Republicans used to be the people who distinguished between democratic governments and the totalitarian regimes that killed millions of their own citizens. It was liberal Democrats who took the view that "Both our systems have good and bad points and who are we to judge between them? It's all pretty much the same."
I'd also point out that if the democratic governments had voted themselves out of existence, Hitler, Stalin and Mao would hardly have followed suit and we all would have joined their victims. Remember the kids in the Objectivist Society when you were in college? What are the chances that those guys could have won WWII or triumphed over Communism?
I thought this was an excellent review -- much better than Jon Katz's.
I haven't read the book but having read this and other reviews, my impression is that there's a kind of bait and switch going on here. I'm a molecular biologist, so I may or may not be part of "tech-culture" but I'm pretty certain that the overwhelming majority of engineers, coders, admins etc. are not Randians, polyamorists, or even free software / open source zealots. Borsook could write (and maybe has written) an insightful book about why the technical community has an overabundance of these types, but she seems to be saying that they _define_ the tech world, which I think is wildly inaccurate.
A lot of people will say, 'release often, release early', etc
The lesson I'd draw from Java and Mozilla is, "Release early, release often, but don't start issuing press releases about how Microsoft is doomed until you've got something that runs."
Linux was, to a fair extent, born full grown, in that there was a full UNIX just sitting there, waiting for a kernel. This let Linux explode off the blocks, and gain a lot of momentum. (Okay, 10yrs or so is quite a slow burn for me to use the term 'explode', but hey)
I think the 10 years is at least as relevant in this context as the existing Unix infrastructure. If the Linux project were started today, you'd see Eric Raymond in CNet, Wired, Upside and People blaring about the glorious prospects of Linux -- followed by "Death of Linux" articles two years later when a fully functional OS wasn't shipping.
So, to MEconomy I'd say, "Release early but hype when it works."
MkLinux now has official support for these much sold first Nubus based PowerMac generation, that is rotting away in basements. These machines make excellent X-Terms." And the same models can naturally run NetBSD, too.
Really? The MkLinux announcement refers to "5200/5300/6200/6300 family of computers, and their Performa equivalents". I don't see those on the list of NetBSD supported hardware. The PowerMac models, anyway -- even Gil Amelio probably couldn't tell you offhand what the "Performa equivalent" of a 5300 is. Maybe somebody more knowledgable can comment on this?
x86'ers, this is why Apple has now shifted to using such a short list of product names. Which is why we now have to mention that we're using a "beige G3" or a "blue & white". No, it's not because the only thing we know about our hardware is what color it is.
OK, we've both said our piece and I'll leave it at that. One thing I want to clarify, though:
/. editor had objected and pulled it. This isn't a "CmdrTaco, Signal11 and Enoch Root are spying on us through transparent GIFs!" conspiracy theory. I'm not sure that adding a retraction to the post instead of yanking it wouldn't have been sounder journalism but that's not my department. I just wanted to explain why I was referring to a story that no one would find in the archives.
Would it surprise you if Michael realized that what he said was wrong, probably unecessarily harsh, if not, as you say, bigoted, and then took it down?
Of course not. That's what I figured had happened, or that a senior
That story caught my attention because it seemed so hypocritical. Michael was always objecting to institutions using filters on the grounds that parental responsibility is the only answer. Now, when parents were trying to use that authority in a way that he didn't agree with, he condemned and ridiculed them. And -- while I understand how he could sincerely regret his wording -- I just can't see where anyone who genuinely believes in trusting parents to raise their kids could have taken a stance that is so blatantly contradictory.
Finally businesses are running into the reality that non-Windows using PC owners have faced all along. Until now, the Windows tax was irrelevant if you wanted Windows. But this is going to create a huge incentive for manufacturers to ship bare sytems and is a much better weapon against the MS tax than Windows Refund Day, even with Eric Raymond in a stupid costume.
Karma whore ;-)
Geez, let go of the shift key.
/. a few days later.)
Unlike censorware, webservers do their job 90% of the time.
The point is that the fact that software X has a flaw doesn't mean that it could never be useful (or even that it isn't useful). And if 90% is your cutoff for where further development on a project should be abandoned, take a look at the stuff on Freshmeat.
They are saying that. And they're pointing out the utter crappiness of the software by showing that IT BLOCKS THE VERY ORGANIZATIONS WHO DEMAND IT'S USE, among other valuable informational resources.
No, they're being completely disingenuous about their motives. The fact is that there will never be any web filters that they won't condemn and there will never be any software that works perfectly. So spare us this bitching about how they found some problem with some package and be up front about what they're really demanding.
No one says that. They say that as parents, THEY themselves will be responsible for what their children see. They won't simply use iron fist control, they'll make reasons, they'll discuss it, and they'll do it BY THEMSELVES for THEIR children. Parents can use filters all they want.
That's not what they're saying. That's not even what you're saying. You're saying, "WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN." What are these filters parents are supposed to use? The ones where anyone who develops them is an evil censoring monster?
Besides, this whole "parental responsibility" line is another bit of disingenuousness. Both Peacefire and the YRO'ers are as rabidly opposed to parents choosing what their children will see as they are to schools and libraries doing the same thing. That's why they're campaigning against the existence of censorware and why when a rabbinical court in Jerusalem advised parents to restrict their childrens' net access, Michael wrote a bigoted, sneering spew against them (which disappeared from
Censorship is bad. In libraries it's worse, in my opinion, it's as bad as book burning.
Look, real censorship and "book burning" are when a society is broadly denied access to something. Saying that for a library to restrict its web browsing is "as bad as book burning" is as absurd as saying that because the library doesn't have a subscription to Hustler.
Time for another sneering article about how filterware blocks (doesn't block) some sites that Jamie and Michael feel it shouldn't (should) get. And decalrations that since it didn't work the way they think it should, such software obviously could never be of value.
Uh, yeah. I got a 404 error a few minutes ago -- clearly these so-called "web servers" are a waste of everyone's time. And those idiots in Congress want to spend money on giving schools Internet access!
Face it, what Peacefire and the YRO crew are opposed to is the possibility that anyone could sit down at any computer and be prevented from accessing anything. If that's what they think, fine. But say that instead of, "Look! A chicken breast recipe is blocked! What a bunch of morons!"
The fact is that filterware is going to be used. No matter how many (+5 insightful) posts we get declaring "When I have kids, I"ll let them view all the porn they want." there is simply no way that some schools and libraries (and parents) aren't going to use filters. And when those filters suck, and can't be configured to support what parents think is or isn't appropriate for their children, the tech community will have its own self-absorbtion and smugness to blame.
You know, there's a Unix-based MacOS with preemptive multitasking coming in a month or so. (DP4 available today at your nearest HotLine server.) In the meantime, you might consider letting go of that mouse button.
Forget threaded. It can only single task.
Those assertions are both completely false.
He's clearly trolling for ad revenue and perhaps enough controversy to make a follow-up mea-culpa article a winner also.
/. attention. A lot of them seem to slip through, though.
Absolutely. Long-time Mac users will remember this guy -- he's a professional ignoramus like Hiawatha Bray, James Coates and Jesse Berst. These guys used to make a living trolling the EvangeList with nonsensical Mac-bashing articles. Nowadays if you wrote something like that, the Apple fans are too busy drooling over cubes and Aqua to care so they've taken to trolling Slashdot instead.
I remember an Upside (?) article where CmdrTaco declared he refuses to link stories that are written solely to get
The three games I can play forever: Angband, Maelstrom (Ambrosia's Mac clone of Asteroids but much better) and Doom II.
Like most MS products, it either had to be brought in from outside, or go though 3+ revisions to stabilize... Makes you wonder if they ever get any work done over there.
Yes, but the flip side of that is that everything MS does starts to look good after 3+ revisions. Apple, Borland, Corel and a lot of others have all made the mistake of thinking that because version 1 of an MS product was a joke, they could relax. NT and their server software are about to get another notch better.
Why are people flipping out about mozilla? It's not like you paid money for it. The developers working on it are doing so because they enjoy it and think it's a good thing for the future of free computing.
I agree, and I've sat out the last few rounds of Mozilla bashing -- especially since a recent bit of feature creep was the one I've been begging for since the project started.
But there's a major problem here. I don't go around bashing everybody with a project on Freshmeat that I don't think is up to par but it's wrong to think that whether or not Mozilla exists doesn't affect any other projects. It consumes a huge amount of community resources in coding and bug testing and its existence has discouraged others (except KDE) from building a decnt browser on their own. And reading MozillaZine and comments by Mozilla devlopers here suggests they're in complete denial. They need to realize that there's a major problem -- and if they don't, we all need to realize that.
I'm sure there'll be a lot of sneering here but Microsoft has a good habit of eating their own dog food. In the early days of NT, they started using it internally as much as possible. They had a slow, buggy email system that lost a lot of their mail -- but NT and their servers got better. I've read that Solaris only started to get really usable when Sun forced their engineers to use it instead of SunOS.
Maybe if Motorola hadn't gotten rid of all their Macs they'd have improved the G4 in the last year.
"How could they take my Napster away?" as that e-mail wailed. "Who did it? Where did they come from?"
I find it very difficult to believe this quote is genuine.
Oh, good for you. I'm glad to see you taking a morilistic stance on other peoples behalfs like that.
Sarcasm, eh? Well, next time I see a crackhead stealing your car stereo, I'll make sure not to take a morilistic stand on his behalfs...
Plus, I hate to be one of those "How dare you bypass my Katz filter!" people but, doesn't Slashdot have a music subject for a reason? I have it turned off because I find /. Napster coverage so infuriating but Napster stories keep getting posted under "news" or "internet".
I don't get this Uprizer story:
The London-based founder of Freenet, the software that allows digital music downloads, is setting up a new company in the US, designed to directly challenge existing copyright laws.
and
"We intend to stay vigorously on the right side of the law."
and
Mr Clarke explained how the new venture would bypass copyright protection laws by citing the example of Stephen King, the blockbuster novelist, who is asking for voluntary payment for each online instalment of his latest novel.
So, they're not breaking or challenging any laws at all. They're asking people to pay for the music they want.
It is also unclear how Uprizer, which will use the open source Freenet software, is to make money.
Uh, by taking a share of the money raised? Seems simple enough to me. Oddly, no one seems to wonder how Napster is going to make any money, or Helix Code or Eazel or...
Sure, I could sneer about how this topic was so -- this past May, and how ESR grabbed it for his own agenda months ago. But I agree with the premise that the tech community is too invoved in itself to deal effectively with the outside world. I reach some different conclusions.
/. a few days later.) Every time some new software comes out, Michael or Jamie find some site that they think it improperly does or doesn't block and pronounce that all filterware will be forever hopeless and that the idea should be immediately discarded. Look -- if you think the world is going to accept the YRO credo of "all porn access, all the time" you're kidding yourself. Filterware will be used and when shoddy software is the norm, the tech community will have itself to blame for ridiculing parents' concerns instead of trying to develop a reasonable alternative.
Reading Slashdot, you see people shouting the party line at each other and moderating each other up. It leads to lots of karma as well as to forgetting that what's obvious to the, err, "community" isn't really how anyone else thinks.
Look at Napster. Instead of thinking about how we can develop a music distribution that is efficient, popular and respectful of artists' rights, everyone here reminded each other how copyrights are evil, that the FSF says it's not really piracy because there are no puffy shirts involved, how the artists should all just sell T-shirts instead. That didn't lst long in front of a judge.
Look at internet filters. Libraries want to install filters and Michael and Jamie scream that parents should take responsibility. A rabbinical court in Jerusalem advises its congregants to restrict their children's net access and Michael writes a sneering, bigoted rant against parents who take responsibility. (Said rant vanished from