Guess you could say I've been around for a while. I've basically given up commenting because you never really get noticed.:) As you probably well know, freedom of speach means nothing if nobody hears you.
Flames, trolls, and idiots -- oh well.
In answer to your question about where everyone's gone, I'm sure it depends on the person. Personally I'm very active on comp.os.vms (watch, I'll get flamed for even mentioning VMS here, especially when I say I'd prefer it to linux in most cases if there were more apps available!:P), and sometimes (not too often) comp.sys.sgi.
What you're looking for is Tadpole-RDI
They make Ultrasparc and PA-RISC based notebooks. They used to make alpha-based ones which are still available refurbished, and for a short period of time, intel/windows notebooks. AFAIK, the windows products are non-existant now.
------------- So a famous artist that distributes his work free via mp3s and trade that fame for money. Selling his/her work is completely unnecessary. Once they are famous they do personal appearances, sponsor products whatever they can think of, to simply trade that fame for Money, Sex or Power. I'm taking a step back here and wondering why the artist needs to be paid upfront. Good art will generate fame. --------------
Let me answer by quoting your last statement.
"Good art will generate fame."
It follows, then, that "art" which is not good -- or is only nominally "art," will not generate fame.
In simple terms, most "artists" suck. They want paid upfront so that you can't tell how bad it's going to be before you buy it.;)
--------------- Then, while the Recording Industry was attempting to sell special CD recorders that would only take $13.95 audio blanks, the Computer Industry was coming out with CDR drives that used 99 cent blanks.
Guess who won. ---------------
I did.;) and you, and everyone else reading this...
It's worth noting that there are solutions to the same (SCMS, et al) problems with other media, also.
First off, there are audio-capable DAT drives, and perfectly audio-capable DAT cartriges, also, which are sold as data equipment. That's an option for DAT.
(I don't believe the data carts have the RIAA tax.)
Next, any "professional" model DAT or minidisc (or CD, if such a thing exists) recorder will at least be able to switch SCMS off.
Lastly, you can get SCMS filters for consumer equipment. Some boxes that are designed to do digital signal conversion, S/PDIF-to-Optical, for instance, will also incidentally have an SCMS on/off switch.
Unfortunately it's a little more expensive to bypass this, but it's well worth it, if only for the principals.
------------------- I have just been wondering what happens when this convergence becomes total - when all large recording companies are co-owned with music hardware companies. What happens when a new digital media format is specifically designed by its manufacturers' consortium to force users to adhere to excessively restrictive use limitations?
-------------------
You shouldn't wonder. You only need to look at SCMS (Serial copy management system, as it appears on consumer minidisc/cd/dat machines), and SDMI to find out.
My advice would be that you get the necessary hardware to bypass SCMS (it's quite easy), and don't purchase SDMI "compliant" hardware. You'll be a lot happier.
Re:Cmdr Taco, don't share your computer!
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 1
] I think he'll be safe with Mac OS X. It's a ] genuine multiuser Unix.
] Of course then the problem is... do you trust ] her with the root password?
The question is, if you don't trust her with your root password, what are you going out for in the first place?;)
Re:Cmdr Taco, don't share your computer!
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 1
Actually... If it's a real computer (read: multi-user system) it won't be nearly so much of a problem.
Now, as for loading "extensions" (I prefer to say "driver" if it's applicable, extension sounds hopelessly macintosh-centric...) If you can load and unload them on the fly (as with linux, and other unixes...) it becomes a non-issue, too.
In short, I think that a system based on MacOS X might be easilly shared.
I expected a product like this...
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 1
I'd be dissapointed if somebody _didn't_ do this. If an X server weren't available, that would keep mac users from taking full advantage of their os's unix-like features -- that is to say, there are really a wealth of X11 apps that the macintosh community would otherwise have to install another o/s to use... Personally, I hope to see a MacOS offering from XFree86 eventually.
Speaking as a unix user (note that there will likely be some bias here) who uses macintoshes on occasion (I write software for macintoshes at work, and my workstation dual-boots mac-os and linux) I think that apple has done the Right Thing (tm) with the move towards NeXT technology.
As a side-note, my girlfrined isn't a macintosh fanatic -- she wouldn't even touch them before I convincedher they weren't all evil.;) She's (very decidedly) a unix-user, so this won't do much for allowing us to share a desktop (we normally do anyway). On the up-shot, this will possibly make macintosh a more useable platform for the both of us. That's not to say that we'll start using them extensively at home, though... just that there will no longer be reason not to use them.
My personal favorite platform (and the one I use at home) is Silicon Graphics IRIX at this point, and that's not likely to change soon.
First off, I notice several people here saying "open source software" as if you should have an opinion on that, when you've made it relatively clear in the past that you're only interested in the "free software" (FSF style). Do you dislike the "open source" but not "free" programs? Do you use them at all?
Next, there's a lot of problem whenever you go out in public about the "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" thing. Personally I've been tempted on several occasions to build a linux distribution without any GNU parts just to avoid this problem.
Let me explain, now, that I have a great amount of respect for you, and for FSF, and GNU software in general. My contention is that you can't force somebody to say "GNU/Linux." While most of the supporting apps and utils are likely GNU, that doesn't mean the system is GNU. (HURD, of course, would be.)
So the question is: What is your opinion of -- well -- people like myself, who are willing to acknowledge GNU contributions, but aren't comfortable tacking a GNU onto the beginning of the name? Certainly there's nothing in the GPL that says "each product using this code must have GNU in the name..." I personally find it very offensive that you would refuse to speak to me on the grounds that I don't tack a GNU onto the front.:)
In an ideal world, would software be free, in the speach and beer senses? I know that you endorse the free speach end more, but wouldn't the software eventually become free in the beer style, too?
Lastly, I notice that people have started to abbreviate your name, which makes you sound like a VMS system service. What's your opinion of VMS, especially the RMS service?;)
I believe what's meant by that is that, the common person will be dispossessed of the information either way -- that is to say, they can't do whatever they like with it.
I do see a difference, however. The companies which would like to dispossess people of this information, would also like to keep possession of it for themselves. The free-software people choose what they clearly believe the lesser of two evils, and force the information permanently into the hands of the public. It's almost become a race against the larger companies, because we know that people might be able to use the information if some free software developer comes up with the first implimentation.
Now, as I understand it, we have a middle ground here, which I believe is allready advocated in a much less eloquent manner by lots of people who like free software, but don't believe it to be a magic bullet. (Think about this: would the free software movement be as nessecary if software were more reasonably licensed in the first place? Yes, it would certainly still be a Good Thing, but it wouldn't be absolutely required.)
Normally I'm not bothered by Jon's stories (I even like some of them), but this one really hits a nerve.
First of all, I'm disgusted that anyone -- meaning Jon, and half the idiots who've replied to him -- would differentiate between "men" and "women" on anything other than a purely physical level. The only difference is, after all, physical. Anything else is either imagined, or a difference in personality. You can't say that a male is more likely to have X type of personality than a female, or it's unfair to everyone. Being a male, I would find it offensive, for instance, if somebody insisted that I was more likely to be hostile than a female -- and being a female (if i were one) I'd be offended that somebody didn't think that I could possibly be as hostile as any male might be.
So, I'm going to ask, and I know that it won't do any good... please don't do that. People are different from one another. Males and females, swedes and brits, etc, etc, are not.
Next, I'm shocked by the notion that women haven't been involved with internet, and computing in general, for just as long as men have. I know of at least two women currently on the OpenVMS engineering team at compaq (formerly dec) who've been there AFAIK for a very long time. I have a friend who was one of the original designers of LynxOS, and happens to be a woman. I've heard stories of women doing work on the multics team at honeywell... need I continue?
It seems appearent to me that women have been involved in this kind of stuff for a long time, and that shouldn't be any different.
Certainly there's a taboo about women and technology, but I think that's purely superficial -- again, like the percieved difference between men and women -- and should go away. Look at the evidence, though, and you'll see several women who were determined to work with technology, and didn't let that stop them.
In fact, I'd like to express my deep admiration for these people. I wish more people were like that.
So, in conclusion, this entire story, and most of the messages that it's recieved, are irrelevant, and regard imaginary subject matter.
Don't we have more important things to worry about than creating gaps between large groups of people? Can't we go and cure cancer, fly to mars, or something?
Am I to belive that dumbmarketingguy thinks that the us constitution has some sort of exclusive license to free speech -- that other countries couldn't possibly have simmilar rights guaranteed in completely unrelated documents?
Am I to also believe that he thinks anti-us sentiment is wrong?
I certainly hope that this is a joke.
In case it's not a joke, I'd encourage people in countries other than the us to post links to documents which guarantee them their freedom of speech, in order to illustrate that they've got it. (being an american myself, I have no idea what these documents might be called, or where to find them, sorry. I'm sure they can't guarantee any less freedom than the documents we've got in the us, though.)
I'd encourage every patriotic moron who's reading this to consider the evidence. The united states is not the only country which has laws to protect free speech. (It's also not the only country that ignores its own laws generally.. but that's another story.) The united states isn't half as "free" as it should be, and it's not even "the best option" as several people seem to think.
The very sad truth is that until more people realize this, it will just keep getting worse.
First off, do I think the internet as we know it will die?
I think that's allready happened. I think that most people just haven't noticed yet. Sure, it's still useful, to a limited degree, but it's nowhere near as useful as it has been due to the really good information being replaced by mediocre stuff, or just litigated away.
Signal is low; noise is unacceptably high. Every corrupt shithead (I can't put this more politely) and their lobbyist wants to make it worse. It takes several times longer than it should to find anything useful, and this disgusts me.
So what am I going to do about it?
I've thought about starting another network for several months. Something that would have to be much smaller; something that would be a little more exclusive of the mainstream; something very much like I imagine arpanet being originally.
In concept this would be similar to fido, but based on UUCP. It would be free-form. In order to start a node, you'd just need to have somebody with a node that's allready connected, whom you could connect through.
Most likely, the network would be relay-type (almost deffinately UUCP), so that all you need is a phone line, and a computer that's idle some of the time. Anyone with a bit of savvy could set their computer up to accept interactive logins during certain times, and non-interactive (connections from other nodes) other times.
Yes, the network woulb be slow; yes, it would be limited to file transfer, email, and whatever-else-we-could-shove-through-UUCP (you'd be suprised...). The point is that the network would actually belong to the people who owned the nodes, and not to corporate babylon.
So that's my idea. Local hosts connect to other local machines via phone. Long-range connections can be handled via pgp/gpg/whatever-else-both-nodes-can-agree-on encrypted transmission via internet -- or not...
We'd be free to house whatever data we like on our nodes, and there would be little to worry about from lawmakers who are really too stuck on the internet to even think about anything else. There'd be no corporate presence, so anything that was there would be the because a person -- not some corporation -- thought it was important.
Will this work? I have no idea, myself. I'm willing to try it, but I've found no other people so far who share that willingness. Consider it an experiment. There would really be no obligation to anyone who'd want to try it -- at any rate, I encourage anyone who's interested to email me (protheus@seabrook.aurdev.com).
That's the only solution I've come up with. I certianly look forward to hearing from other people who've come up with solutions of their own, and I hope that at least one of them works, because, as I've said, I believe the internet's time as a hotbed of creativity and freedom is near over. We need to find a new way.
-As far as I know, no "clubs" have membership - agreements that set their members up as - employees/agents of the host corporation, which - would be required if their use of the software - is to be considered "internal."
Actually, America online used to do something similar if i recall properly, by claiming in their membership agreement that the user was, once a member, considered a "representative" of AOL in any online context. This was the basis for their censoring their members' speech in non-aol-controled areas (like internet).
(Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. -- That's what I remember)
I've been watching Corel for a long time. I used to use corel-draw occasionally at major version ~2, and have really liked the product since. I've seen the company aquire other (fine) products -- for instance, ventura publisher, and word perfect, and now I've seen the company embrace linux.
That's all wonderful, and your company has lots of good ideas. What I'd like to know, is, do you have a focus -- a set of goals that you'd like too achieve? What does corel want to offer people in the end, and what sets you apart from some other company offering similar products?
Obviously there's an "ideal" marketplace for your products, a target audience, and a focal-point, or type of offering you'd like to give.
So, how long do you think it will be until we see that "ideal" marketplace, who is your target audience, and where is your focus?
The stuffy technical definition says, I think, that an operating system is a program (or collection of programs -- a system) that allows you to manage your coupter's resources.
Once you get past the point of "managing resources," everything else is an application.
The question is: What's a resource?
In general, a resource is a piece of hardware. The operating system should, for instance, manage your disks, manage your programs (in memory, and on disk), manage your video hardware, at least to the point where it writes stuff on the screen, and probably provide interfaces for your programs to do the same. (Note that this specifically excludes program loaders, like lilo -- and in my opinion bios, from being an operating system)
Your idea of managing resources might be different than mine, though.
Two things that I find help with my writs/hand pain -- note that I don't have carpal tunnel syndrome, but I get muscular pain in that area pretty easilly. 1) Raise the chair up so that when you bend your elbows 90 degrees forward your fingers should just land on the home-keys on your keyboard. (wrists should be above the desk at this point. You'd be suprised how much easier it is to type correctly if you can get the chair to set at the right level. 2) Remove any and all jewelry you might be wearing -- no kidding. I used to wear a somewhat heavy (but i was used to it) gold ring on the ring finger of my right hand. I would get really bad cramp-like pains in that hand after working for a relatively short period of time. It stoped when I wasn't wearing the ring. Needless to say, I don't wear it anymore when I'm typing.
All censorship is bad. I'd challenge anyone to argue with that point, but since I probalby won't revisit this page, there's really no reason.
Have any of you we-have-to-protect-our-children-from-naked-people- big-brother-will-take-care-of-us lamers actually thought about your stance on the issue?
What's the harm in actually teaching our children what's bad, and what they probably should stay away from, instead of trying to put a clamshell over them and hope that nothing ever gets through? You know what, something eventually will, and they won't be prepared. The argument is complicated further, since children have the same rights that any of us do, and can make their own decisions (that should upset some people). If a child wants to do one thing or the other, and is responsible about it, then there's no problem. The goverment has no right toay what a child can or can't do, and any parent had better take their responsability (not right) to supervise a child very seriously. As a parent it's your job to prepare your child for life, not shelter them from it.
So, if you think porn is bad, then explain to your child and hope they see it your way, because if they don't, you really have no authority to force your views upon them. You might be suprised, children are highly intelligent, and often like to do what's right.
On the point of censorship in general, let me put it this way: Do you think that making laws is going to discourage pornography any more than it has with, say, drugs? No, It's just going to complicate things more. So argue your point, speak intelligently, make informed judgements, and NEVER try to take away another person's freedom, because loss of a freedom for one person will sooner-or-later be a loss for everyone. Democracy is supposed to be founded on the idea that people can collectively make their own decisions -- so why not do this with minimal interference from the goverment? It can be done, and we'd be better off. Legislation is not the answer, but rather communication is.
It's not the greatest news, getting aquired. On the other hand, if it's a choice between than and venture capital, you guys got the better deal. At least andover will be straight-out with you, and not use the covert tactics that some venture capitalists do.
As for that changing the quality of your site for the worse, I doubt that... I mean, ars-technica isn't a bad site (even with all their microsoftian talk about nt), and aren't they owned by maximum-pc or something?
There are too many linux zealots... there are also too many macintosh zealots, amiga zealouts, and, yes, believe it or not, somehow, windows zealouts.
Usually these are people who don't understand much about the system they're using and are just in it for the group mentality. What can we do? We can try to show them the error of their ways, and educate them so that they can be sure of, and defend, their choices. If this doesn't work, then it's out of our hands.
It's not just a problem with linux advocacy. Almost any product will have something simmilar -- and if you don't believe me, go ahead and write an article that upsets windows users, or netscape users, or...
The linux community certainly has more than its share of these people. Maybe it's because linux users feel "connected" with their o/s. If that's the case then they'll want what's best for the community as a whole, and articles like this _will_ work; It's our duty to watch out for this kind of behaviour, and correct it if we can. Otherwise, we've done our part, and we have to hope that the sane voices will outnumber the flamers.
RMS is good and bad like everyone else...
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
Sure, I don't always agree with Mr. Stallman, for instance, this GNU/Linux(Seriously, if i take an nt box and replace everything but the kernel, will it be GNU/NT?) garbage has to go, while GNU/HURD is completely acceptable.
The thing i'm writing to say though, is that no matter how much i disagree with Mr. Stallman's actions, I share several of his ideals, i think. I actually do *prefer* "free software" to proprietary stuff that just happens to be "open source," though it's by no means a requirement for me to use a piece of software. (It may become a requirement when there's more "free software" around.)
Well, now that I have nothing more to ramble about, let me say in closing that no matter how annoying RMS is, he's done a lot for our collective lives, and no matter how much he's done, he'll still be annoying sometimes. Let's learn to treat him like we would any other person.
The problem with good encryption, as has been mentioned on previous/. threads, is that joe-bonehead-point-and-drool-windows-moron can't do it. Sure it's fine for those of us who at least have the mental capacity of a monkey with a typewriter, but things would be inherrently more secure if lower lifeforms also used encryption -- that would keep those of us who are using it now from getting singled out for sniffing.
The other problem is that since almost none of my friends can do pgp, i'm stuck with 2048-bit signatures.:) I can't encrypt something that i want somebody to read if they can't decrypt it.
Some things that people seem to ignore about licensing are:
You can license your own software under any license that you think proper. There's nothing that says you can't write your own license that's in the style of BSD or the style of GPL --one that has all the good points and none of the bad. This may be the best idea in a lot of cases.
AFAIK, a developer could release code under the GPL (or anything else), and at any point later, take that same code, and put it into their own proprietary project _WITHOUT_ releasing the source. I believe this is so, because the GPL represents your terms of license for your product, and it's legally acceptable for one to change their licensing terms whenever they like. According to a clause in the GPL, the person wouldn't be able to prohibit people fromstill using the GPL'd version of this product, but the person, since they're the owner of said product, also wouldn't be bound nessecarily by the GPL. (Anybody have a definitive answer here?)
The GPL represents a lot of personal values of richard stallman. While I have a great amount of respect for mr. stallman, his values aren't always on par with mine (and this gnu/linux thing just has to go... but back to the point) -- I think that nobody should feel obligated to use a license that they don't agree with 100%. If you fully agree with and understand the GPL, then by all means, use it. Otherwise, maybe you should look for an alternative, BSD is one such. As I said before, even write your own license that reflects your beliefs.
Freedom, like a lot of other things, has a slightly different meaning for everyone. When you release "free software," you should be comfortable calling it "free," or there's no point. Pick a license that will do what you want it to do, and none of what you don't -- it's not that big of a deal.
Re:Sorry Katz, its technically feasible
on
Bootlegging Buffy
·
· Score: 1
Technically feasible? Hmmm...
It's certainly technically feasible to censor your average point-and-drool windows-using moron, sure. Give even that moron a copy of the most rudimentary encryption program, and filters, etc, are useless.
PGP, especially GPG (open-source 2048-bit-encryption, yay!) is great. You can get GPG from german servers, too, so that US export stupidity doesn't apply.
The wonderful thing about the internet is that any bit of data can be made public, and there's so much of it that it's just not possible to scan through every bit of it. The censorship schemes assume that any data of interest will be plain, human-readable text. Put the same censored data in a jpeg, and then what? (just to give a web-centric example for the person who originated this thread, and is naive enough to think that censorship might work.)
Slashdot Mirror
Guess you could say I've been around for a while. I've basically given up commenting because you never really get noticed. :) As you probably well know, freedom of speach means nothing if nobody hears you.
:P), and sometimes (not too often) comp.sys.sgi.
Flames, trolls, and idiots -- oh well.
In answer to your question about where everyone's gone, I'm sure it depends on the person. Personally I'm very active on comp.os.vms (watch, I'll get flamed for even mentioning VMS here, especially when I say I'd prefer it to linux in most cases if there were more apps available!
What you're looking for is Tadpole-RDI
They make Ultrasparc and PA-RISC based notebooks. They used to make alpha-based ones which are still available refurbished, and for a short period of time, intel/windows notebooks. AFAIK, the windows products are non-existant now.
-------------
;)
So a famous artist that distributes his work free via mp3s and trade that fame for money. Selling his/her work is completely unnecessary. Once they are famous they do personal appearances, sponsor products whatever they can think of, to simply trade that fame for Money, Sex or Power. I'm taking a step back here and wondering why the artist needs to be paid upfront. Good art will generate fame.
--------------
Let me answer by quoting your last statement.
"Good art will generate fame."
It follows, then, that "art" which is not good -- or is only nominally "art," will not generate fame.
In simple terms, most "artists" suck. They want paid upfront so that you can't tell how bad it's going to be before you buy it.
At least -- that's one theory.
---------------
;) and you, and everyone else reading this...
Then, while the Recording Industry was attempting to sell special CD recorders that would only take $13.95 audio blanks, the Computer Industry was coming out with CDR drives that used 99 cent blanks.
Guess who won.
---------------
I did.
It's worth noting that there are solutions to the same (SCMS, et al) problems with other media, also.
First off, there are audio-capable DAT drives, and perfectly audio-capable DAT cartriges, also, which are sold as data equipment. That's an option for DAT.
(I don't believe the data carts have the RIAA tax.)
Next, any "professional" model DAT or minidisc (or CD, if such a thing exists) recorder will at least be able to switch SCMS off.
Lastly, you can get SCMS filters for consumer equipment. Some boxes that are designed to do digital signal conversion, S/PDIF-to-Optical, for instance, will also incidentally have an SCMS on/off switch.
Unfortunately it's a little more expensive to bypass this, but it's well worth it, if only for the principals.
-------------------
I have just been wondering what happens when this convergence becomes total - when all large recording companies are co-owned with music hardware companies. What happens when a new digital media format is specifically designed by its manufacturers' consortium to force users to adhere to excessively restrictive use limitations?
-------------------
You shouldn't wonder. You only need to look at SCMS (Serial copy management system, as it appears on consumer minidisc/cd/dat machines), and SDMI to find out.
My advice would be that you get the necessary hardware to bypass SCMS (it's quite easy), and don't purchase SDMI "compliant" hardware. You'll be a lot happier.
] I think he'll be safe with Mac OS X. It's a
;)
] genuine multiuser Unix.
] Of course then the problem is... do you trust
] her with the root password?
The question is, if you don't trust her with your root password, what are you going out for in the first place?
Actually... If it's a real computer (read: multi-user system) it won't be nearly so much of a problem.
Now, as for loading "extensions" (I prefer to say "driver" if it's applicable, extension sounds hopelessly macintosh-centric...) If you can load and unload them on the fly (as with linux, and other unixes...) it becomes a non-issue, too.
In short, I think that a system based on MacOS X might be easilly shared.
I'd be dissapointed if somebody _didn't_ do this. If an X server weren't available, that would keep mac users from taking full advantage of their os's unix-like features -- that is to say, there are really a wealth of X11 apps that the macintosh community would otherwise have to install another o/s to use... Personally, I hope to see a MacOS offering from XFree86 eventually.
;) She's (very decidedly) a unix-user, so this won't do much for allowing us to share a desktop (we normally do anyway). On the up-shot, this will possibly make macintosh a more useable platform for the both of us. That's not to say that we'll start using them extensively at home, though... just that there will no longer be reason not to use them.
Speaking as a unix user (note that there will likely be some bias here) who uses macintoshes on occasion (I write software for macintoshes at work, and my workstation dual-boots mac-os and linux) I think that apple has done the Right Thing (tm) with the move towards NeXT technology.
As a side-note, my girlfrined isn't a macintosh fanatic -- she wouldn't even touch them before I convincedher they weren't all evil.
My personal favorite platform (and the one I use at home) is Silicon Graphics IRIX at this point, and that's not likely to change soon.
First off, I notice several people here saying "open source software" as if you should have an opinion on that, when you've made it relatively clear in the past that you're only interested in the "free software" (FSF style). Do you dislike the "open source" but not "free" programs? Do you use them at all?
:)
;)
Next, there's a lot of problem whenever you go out in public about the "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" thing. Personally I've been tempted on several occasions to build a linux distribution without any GNU parts just to avoid this problem.
Let me explain, now, that I have a great amount of respect for you, and for FSF, and GNU software in general. My contention is that you can't force somebody to say "GNU/Linux." While most of the supporting apps and utils are likely GNU, that doesn't mean the system is GNU. (HURD, of course, would be.)
So the question is: What is your opinion of -- well -- people like myself, who are willing to acknowledge GNU contributions, but aren't comfortable tacking a GNU onto the beginning of the name? Certainly there's nothing in the GPL that says "each product using this code must have GNU in the name..." I personally find it very offensive that you would refuse to speak to me on the grounds that I don't tack a GNU onto the front.
In an ideal world, would software be free, in the speach and beer senses? I know that you endorse the free speach end more, but wouldn't the software eventually become free in the beer style, too?
Lastly, I notice that people have started to abbreviate your name, which makes you sound like a VMS system service. What's your opinion of VMS, especially the RMS service?
I believe what's meant by that is that, the common person will be dispossessed of the information either way -- that is to say, they can't do whatever they like with it.
I do see a difference, however. The companies which would like to dispossess people of this information, would also like to keep possession of it for themselves. The free-software people choose what they clearly believe the lesser of two evils, and force the information permanently into the hands of the public. It's almost become a race against the larger companies, because we know that people might be able to use the information if some free software developer comes up with the first implimentation.
Now, as I understand it, we have a middle ground here, which I believe is allready advocated in a much less eloquent manner by lots of people who like free software, but don't believe it to be a magic bullet. (Think about this: would the free software movement be as nessecary if software were more reasonably licensed in the first place? Yes, it would certainly still be a Good Thing, but it wouldn't be absolutely required.)
Normally I'm not bothered by Jon's stories (I even like some of them), but this one really hits a nerve.
First of all, I'm disgusted that anyone -- meaning Jon, and half the idiots who've replied to him -- would differentiate between "men" and "women" on anything other than a purely physical level. The only difference is, after all, physical. Anything else is either imagined, or a difference in personality. You can't say that a male is more likely to have X type of personality than a female, or it's unfair to everyone. Being a male, I would find it offensive, for instance, if somebody insisted that I was more likely to be hostile than a female -- and being a female (if i were one) I'd be offended that somebody didn't think that I could possibly be as hostile as any male might be.
So, I'm going to ask, and I know that it won't do any good... please don't do that. People are different from one another. Males and females, swedes and brits, etc, etc, are not.
Next, I'm shocked by the notion that women haven't been involved with internet, and computing in general, for just as long as men have. I know of at least two women currently on the OpenVMS engineering team at compaq (formerly dec) who've been there AFAIK for a very long time. I have a friend who was one of the original designers of LynxOS, and happens to be a woman. I've heard stories of women doing work on the multics team at honeywell... need I continue?
It seems appearent to me that women have been involved in this kind of stuff for a long time, and that shouldn't be any different.
Certainly there's a taboo about women and technology, but I think that's purely superficial -- again, like the percieved difference between men and women -- and should go away. Look at the evidence, though, and you'll see several women who were determined to work with technology, and didn't let that stop them.
In fact, I'd like to express my deep admiration for these people. I wish more people were like that.
So, in conclusion, this entire story, and most of the messages that it's recieved, are irrelevant, and regard imaginary subject matter.
Don't we have more important things to worry about than creating gaps between large groups of people? Can't we go and cure cancer, fly to mars, or something?
Really.
Oh, this certainly scares me.
Am I to belive that dumbmarketingguy thinks that the us constitution has some sort of exclusive license to free speech -- that other countries couldn't possibly have simmilar rights guaranteed in completely unrelated documents?
Am I to also believe that he thinks anti-us sentiment is wrong?
I certainly hope that this is a joke.
In case it's not a joke, I'd encourage people in countries other than the us to post links to documents which guarantee them their freedom of speech, in order to illustrate that they've got it. (being an american myself, I have no idea what these documents might be called, or where to find them, sorry. I'm sure they can't guarantee any less freedom than the documents we've got in the us, though.)
I'd encourage every patriotic moron who's reading this to consider the evidence. The united states is not the only country which has laws to protect free speech. (It's also not the only country that ignores its own laws generally.. but that's another story.) The united states isn't half as "free" as it should be, and it's not even "the best option" as several people seem to think.
The very sad truth is that until more people realize this, it will just keep getting worse.
Where to start...
First off, do I think the internet as we know it will die?
I think that's allready happened. I think that most people just haven't noticed yet. Sure, it's still useful, to a limited degree, but it's nowhere near as useful as it has been due to the really good information being replaced by mediocre stuff, or just litigated away.
Signal is low; noise is unacceptably high. Every corrupt shithead (I can't put this more politely) and their lobbyist wants to make it worse. It takes several times longer than it should to find anything useful, and this disgusts me.
So what am I going to do about it?
I've thought about starting another network for several months. Something that would have to be much smaller; something that would be a little more exclusive of the mainstream; something very much like I imagine arpanet being originally.
In concept this would be similar to fido, but based on UUCP. It would be free-form. In order to start a node, you'd just need to have somebody with a node that's allready connected, whom you could connect through.
Most likely, the network would be relay-type (almost deffinately UUCP), so that all you need is a phone line, and a computer that's idle some of the time. Anyone with a bit of savvy could set their computer up to accept interactive logins during certain times, and non-interactive (connections from other nodes) other times.
Yes, the network woulb be slow; yes, it would be limited to file transfer, email, and whatever-else-we-could-shove-through-UUCP (you'd be suprised...). The point is that the network would actually belong to the people who owned the nodes, and not to corporate babylon.
So that's my idea. Local hosts connect to other local machines via phone. Long-range connections can be handled via pgp/gpg/whatever-else-both-nodes-can-agree-on encrypted transmission via internet -- or not...
We'd be free to house whatever data we like on our nodes, and there would be little to worry about from lawmakers who are really too stuck on the internet to even think about anything else. There'd be no corporate presence, so anything that was there would be the because a person -- not some corporation -- thought it was important.
Will this work? I have no idea, myself. I'm willing to try it, but I've found no other people so far who share that willingness. Consider it an experiment. There would really be no obligation to anyone who'd want to try it -- at any rate, I encourage anyone who's interested to email me (protheus@seabrook.aurdev.com).
That's the only solution I've come up with. I certianly look forward to hearing from other people who've come up with solutions of their own, and I hope that at least one of them works, because, as I've said, I believe the internet's time as a hotbed of creativity and freedom is near over. We need to find a new way.
-As far as I know, no "clubs" have membership
- agreements that set their members up as
- employees/agents of the host corporation, which
- would be required if their use of the software
- is to be considered "internal."
Actually, America online used to do something similar if i recall properly, by claiming in their membership agreement that the user was, once a member, considered a "representative" of AOL in any online context. This was the basis for their censoring their members' speech in non-aol-controled areas (like internet).
(Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. -- That's what I remember)
I've been watching Corel for a long time. I used to use corel-draw occasionally at major version ~2, and have really liked the product since. I've seen the company aquire other (fine) products -- for instance, ventura publisher, and word perfect, and now I've seen the company embrace linux.
That's all wonderful, and your company has lots of good ideas. What I'd like to know, is, do you have a focus -- a set of goals that you'd like too achieve? What does corel want to offer people in the end, and what sets you apart from some other company offering similar products?
Obviously there's an "ideal" marketplace for your products, a target audience, and a focal-point, or type of offering you'd like to give.
So, how long do you think it will be until we see that "ideal" marketplace, who is your target audience, and where is your focus?
The stuffy technical definition says, I think, that an operating system is a program (or collection of programs -- a system) that allows you to manage your coupter's resources.
Once you get past the point of "managing resources," everything else is an application.
The question is: What's a resource?
In general, a resource is a piece of hardware. The operating system should, for instance, manage your disks, manage your programs (in memory, and on disk), manage your video hardware, at least to the point where it writes stuff on the screen, and probably provide interfaces for your programs to do the same. (Note that this specifically excludes program loaders, like lilo -- and in my opinion bios, from being an operating system)
Your idea of managing resources might be different than mine, though.
Two things that I find help with my writs/hand pain -- note that I don't have carpal tunnel syndrome, but I get muscular pain in that area pretty easilly. 1) Raise the chair up so that when you bend your elbows 90 degrees forward your fingers should just land on the home-keys on your keyboard. (wrists should be above the desk at this point. You'd be suprised how much easier it is to type correctly if you can get the chair to set at the right level. 2) Remove any and all jewelry you might be wearing -- no kidding. I used to wear a somewhat heavy (but i was used to it) gold ring on the ring finger of my right hand. I would get really bad cramp-like pains in that hand after working for a relatively short period of time. It stoped when I wasn't wearing the ring. Needless to say, I don't wear it anymore when I'm typing.
Some of us -- the smart ones, i guess -- don't use these "services" for this, and many other reasons.
Seriously, just give geocities to the s/RiPt/iDd13z, they deserve each other.
All censorship is bad. I'd challenge anyone to argue with that point, but since I probalby won't revisit this page, there's really no reason.
- big-brother-will-take-care-of-us lamers actually thought about your stance on the issue?
Have any of you we-have-to-protect-our-children-from-naked-people
What's the harm in actually teaching our children what's bad, and what they probably should stay away from, instead of trying to put a clamshell over them and hope that nothing ever gets through? You know what, something eventually will, and they won't be prepared. The argument is complicated further, since children have the same rights that any of us do, and can make their own decisions (that should upset some people). If a child wants to do one thing or the other, and is responsible about it, then there's no problem. The goverment has no right toay what a child can or can't do, and any parent had better take their responsability (not right) to supervise a child very seriously. As a parent it's your job to prepare your child for life, not shelter them from it.
So, if you think porn is bad, then explain to your child and hope they see it your way, because if they don't, you really have no authority to force your views upon them. You might be suprised, children are highly intelligent, and often like to do what's right.
On the point of censorship in general, let me put it this way: Do you think that making laws is going to discourage pornography any more than it has with, say, drugs? No, It's just going to complicate things more. So argue your point, speak intelligently, make informed judgements, and NEVER try to take away another person's freedom, because loss of a freedom for one person will sooner-or-later be a loss for everyone. Democracy is supposed to be founded on the idea that people can collectively make their own decisions -- so why not do this with minimal interference from the goverment? It can be done, and we'd be better off. Legislation is not the answer, but rather communication is.
It's not the greatest news, getting aquired. On the other hand, if it's a choice between than and venture capital, you guys got the better deal. At least andover will be straight-out with you, and not use the covert tactics that some venture capitalists do.
As for that changing the quality of your site for the worse, I doubt that... I mean, ars-technica isn't a bad site (even with all their microsoftian talk about nt), and aren't they owned by maximum-pc or something?
There are too many linux zealots... there are also too many macintosh zealots, amiga zealouts, and, yes, believe it or not, somehow, windows zealouts.
...
Usually these are people who don't understand much about the system they're using and are just in it for the group mentality. What can we do? We can try to show them the error of their ways, and educate them so that they can be sure of, and defend, their choices. If this doesn't work, then it's out of our hands.
It's not just a problem with linux advocacy. Almost any product will have something simmilar -- and if you don't believe me, go ahead and write an article that upsets windows users, or netscape users, or
The linux community certainly has more than its share of these people. Maybe it's because linux users feel "connected" with their o/s. If that's the case then they'll want what's best for the community as a whole, and articles like this _will_ work; It's our duty to watch out for this kind of behaviour, and correct it if we can. Otherwise, we've done our part, and we have to hope that the sane voices will outnumber the flamers.
Sure, I don't always agree with Mr. Stallman, for instance, this GNU/Linux(Seriously, if i take an nt box and replace everything but the kernel, will it be GNU/NT?) garbage has to go, while GNU/HURD is completely acceptable.
The thing i'm writing to say though, is that no matter how much i disagree with Mr. Stallman's actions, I share several of his ideals, i think. I actually do *prefer* "free software" to proprietary stuff that just happens to be "open source," though it's by no means a requirement for me to use a piece of software. (It may become a requirement when there's more "free software" around.)
Well, now that I have nothing more to ramble about, let me say in closing that no matter how annoying RMS is, he's done a lot for our collective lives, and no matter how much he's done, he'll still be annoying sometimes. Let's learn to treat him like we would any other person.
The problem with good encryption, as has been mentioned on previous /. threads, is that joe-bonehead-point-and-drool-windows-moron can't do it. Sure it's fine for those of us who at least have the mental capacity of a monkey with a typewriter, but things would be inherrently more secure if lower lifeforms also used encryption -- that would keep those of us who are using it now from getting singled out for sniffing.
:) I can't encrypt something that i want somebody to read if they can't decrypt it.
The other problem is that since almost none of my friends can do pgp, i'm stuck with 2048-bit signatures.
Some things that people seem to ignore about licensing are:
You can license your own software under any license that you think proper. There's nothing that says you can't write your own license that's in the style of BSD or the style of GPL --one that has all the good points and none of the bad. This may be the best idea in a lot of cases.
AFAIK, a developer could release code under the GPL (or anything else), and at any point later, take that same code, and put it into their own proprietary project _WITHOUT_ releasing the source. I believe this is so, because the GPL represents your terms of license for your product, and it's legally acceptable for one to change their licensing terms whenever they like. According to a clause in the GPL, the person wouldn't be able to prohibit people fromstill using the GPL'd version of this product, but the person, since they're the owner of said product, also wouldn't be bound nessecarily by the GPL. (Anybody have a definitive answer here?)
The GPL represents a lot of personal values of richard stallman. While I have a great amount of respect for mr. stallman, his values aren't always on par with mine (and this gnu/linux thing just has to go... but back to the point) -- I think that nobody should feel obligated to use a license that they don't agree with 100%. If you fully agree with and understand the GPL, then by all means, use it. Otherwise, maybe you should look for an alternative, BSD is one such. As I said before, even write your own license that reflects your beliefs.
Freedom, like a lot of other things, has a slightly different meaning for everyone. When you release "free software," you should be comfortable calling it "free," or there's no point. Pick a license that will do what you want it to do, and none of what you don't -- it's not that big of a deal.
Technically feasible? Hmmm...
It's certainly technically feasible to censor your average point-and-drool windows-using moron, sure. Give even that moron a copy of the most rudimentary encryption program, and filters, etc, are useless.
PGP, especially GPG (open-source 2048-bit-encryption, yay!) is great. You can get GPG from german servers, too, so that US export stupidity doesn't apply.
The wonderful thing about the internet is that any bit of data can be made public, and there's so much of it that it's just not possible to scan through every bit of it. The censorship schemes assume that any data of interest will be plain, human-readable text. Put the same censored data in a jpeg, and then what? (just to give a web-centric example for the person who originated this thread, and is naive enough to think that censorship might work.)
Think again.