Interesting. I just ejected the tray on my 24X Plextor, and the groove is there for the small CD-Rs. Are you saying the Plextor software does not support the small CD-Rs?
Certainly RMS does many imperfect things. But there is another side: The issues are very important. There are many ways that freely available software can, and does, drift away from being truly free. Even a small amount of legal tangle can make software useless to many people.
Consider this: How would you react if you were trying to explain something complicated, and very important, and you were getting responses that indicated that people didn't understand.
Richard Stallman is certainly not a good publicist for his ideas. However, it seems to me that when he takes a stand, there is generally some sensible underlying motivation. Here is a suggestion: Don't sweat the small stuff. Don't get caught up in his shortcomings. See the big picture. Remember that RMS stands to gain nothing personally. His ideas only keep software free for all of us to use and improve.
Mr. Stallman has become a popular outlet for anger. However, most of the angry people don't seem to have a true understanding of the underlying issues.
You are right. Windows 98 will not stop functioning. But the lack of support will begin to make it difficult. New drivers won't work with old operating systems, for example.
You can program for Windows 95 now, too. But there have been so many changes that it not something that makes sense in most cases.
When Microsoft made Windows 98, they apparently deliberately broke some of the DOS functionality. I know DOS is a joke, but it is the only common scripting language for this OS. I use it for important work. When Microsoft decided to remove features, it caused a lot of problem for me: I lost hours.
My idea is that this just would not happen under the GPL. At the very least, if I saw that functionality had been removed, I could post a bug report. If there were no good reason for the change, probably someone would fix it.
In actual practice, my experience has been that I have a response within hours, and a fix within a day. The people who write free software are often wonderful people, in my experience.
Subject: Re: FRED: Corrections about WPA?
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:15:18 -0400
From: Fred Langa
A small number of writers have argued that I'm misrepresenting WPA, because
it's not really "registration." They point out that the mandatory "product
activation" is step one, but that it involves no personal information. Step
two is an optional formal "registration;" you may skip this step if you wish.
But I think this argument lets Microsoft get away with some Clintonesque
semantic games. To me, if you have to contact the vendor to unlock your
software, that's "registration" even if Microsoft calls it something else.
As for the personal nature of it, I stated in the original article (
http://www.informationweek.com/851/langa.htm ) that Microsoft has a good
track record for not collecting inappropriate data via reg/update wizards
and such. But in this case, by generating a hash based on your CPU's unique
serial number, your network card's unique MAC address, etc., it gets
*awfully* specific.
Calling that level of detail "impersonal" is like saying, "I've developed a
unique identifier code for you that's based on where you live, your shoe
size, hat size, the type of car your drive, and the brand and size of your
spouse's underwear; but because I never actually asked you for your NAME,
it involves no personal information about you." Riiiiiiight.
Yes, Microsoft says the 50-digit hash cannot be deconstructed to reveal
your system information, but I have to wonder. At the very least, the
potential for abuse is enormous, both on the data-collection side, and on
the de-hashing side. (Want to bet that some cracker, somewhere, figures out
a de-hash algorithm?)
In short Microsoft can call it what they will. I call it "registration."
_____________
This is my message to Fred:
At 06:53 AM 8/20/01 -0700, Michael Jennings wrote:
Fred,
Response to your statements about WPA is below.
Who is right?
(I posted your comments to a Slashdot thread, with your web site address.)
Notice that I did not say that Windows 98 was already obsolete. Microsoft has decided that it will be obsolete after 2002, I understand. After that, you will not be able to get technical support from Microsoft.
Here is how Microsoft plans to yank everyone's chain in the future. This is from the LangaList, available free from Langa.com:
"When you register XP software, the registration process creates and sends to Microsoft a unique 50-digit numeric fingerprint or code that is a combination of the serial number of your copy of XP, plus additional information about 10 major hardware elements in your system:
1. CPU serial number
2. CPU model number/type
3. Amount of RAM in the system
4. Graphics adapter hardware ID string
5. Hard drive hardware ID string
6. SCSI host hardware ID string (if present)
7. IDE controller hardware ID string
8. "MAC" address of your network adapter
9. CD-ROM drive "hardware identification string"
10. And whether the system is a dockable unit (e.g. a laptop) or not
"But that's not all. Even when it's been fully registered, the WPA component wakes up from time to time to verify that it's still on the original system where it was first installed; and it "phones home" to check with the central Microsoft database to make sure it's still indeed a registered copy. If anything's amiss, your software reverts to reduced-functionality mode.
"So, with WPA, Microsoft is quite literally *forcing* registration: Microsoft wants your full-fare money for the software *and* they want to know who you are and what PC you're using--- and you better give it to them pronto, buster, or they'll cripple your software!"
For me, this is impossible. I don't want to have to communicate information about my customers to Microsoft. Suppose Microsoft has a disloyal employee who steals the data? Suppose someone breaks into Microsoft computers? This has happened before.
Also, I need to be able to make changes to the customer's hardware. Often when an employee changes desks, some of the hardware goes with the employee, and some stays with the old machine. Under the new scheme for Microsoft XP products (XP stands for eXtra Pain.), I will have to justify this to Microsoft.
Bill Gates has a history of putting his needs first, before the needs of his customers. What he does is not different from what dictators and kings have always done.
The GPL (GNU General Public License) protects us from this kind of abuse.
My opinion: It seems to me that when people comment on Slashdot about free software licensing, they often become sidetracked from the main issue.
The main issue is not whether Richard Stallman has personal failings! I have noticed that he sometimes becomes strained when, for the one-millionth time, people misunderstand the issues. But who cares about personal issues? We should be concerned about a particular type of world freedom, I think.
An example of the main issue, for me, is that if you use, or program for, Microsoft Windows, you are effectively a dog on Bill Gates' leash. Bill can do whatever he wants with you. He can refuse to support new hardware. He can decide that your copy of Windows is obsolete. He can decide that your old hardware is obsolete. He can, under the DMCA, remotely disable your entire OS. He can support U.S. spy agencies in a hidden way. He can avoid fixing bugs because he wants to save some so that you will be interested in buying a new release. Under the traditional system, one person has control over an entire world of software.
The GPL is a sophisticated way of avoiding being under the control of a dictator. That's where the word "freedom" counts the most. The GPL creates a brotherhood in the place of a dictatorship.
Robert Frost said in a famous poem, "Good fences make good neighbors." In this case, the extremely rigid and legally powerful fence of the GPL creates a worldwide brotherhood that no one can take away from us.
There are cases where rigidity in one area creates freedom where you want it. The GPL creates freedom where you want it, but only if it is rigidly followed.
A lot of people have a lot of pain over rules that were set for them in childhood. But not all rules are bad.
To me, the article seems to confuse the main issue. An example of the main issue, for me, is that if you use, or program for, Microsoft Windows, you are effectively a dog on Bill Gates' leash. Bill can do whatever he wants with you. He can refuse to support new hardware. He can decide that your copy of Windows is obsolete. He can decide that your old hardware is obsolete. He can, under the DMCA, remotely disable your entire OS. He can support U.S. spy agencies in a hidden way. He can avoid fixing bugs because he wants to save some so that you will be interested in buying a new release.
The GPL is a sophisticated way of avoiding being under the control of a dictator. That's where the word "freedom" applies.
I have learned over the years that quality components make ALL the difference in the Wintel hardware world.
This is EXACTLY correct, and very important. Often cheaper components are being sold cheaply because they are somehow incompatible.
Save yourself grief. Buy the best hardware. Buy Intel motherboards with Intel processors, for example. The easy install with Mandrake 8.0 (two comments above) was with an Iwill motherboard and a Pentium 200 processor. At the time the system was bought, these were conservative choices for hardware.
I own a small computer dealership, and could have chosen any hardware on which to test Mandrake, but I wanted to see if the reports were correct. Is Linux fast on less powerful machines? It is.
The big hardware manufacturers want new software to be slow, because that causes customers to buy more expensive machines. Linux doesn't have this conflict of interest. It runs fast everywhere.
Good-quality hardware helps you avoid problems caused by a BIOS or OS programmer not coding for your particular hardware.
Once a friend bought a sound card for $12 from Fry's, back when sound cards were expensive. After several hours, we decided we would never be able to get it to work. That was the most expensive sound card I've ever touched.
I installed Mandrake 8.0, and I was amazed. Everything worked, and the install
was easier than any version of Windows.
Sometimes bad hardware, or bad connections, can cause a difficult or
impossible install. An adapter card that is not making good contact, for
example, can confuse the install system. Bad contacts are cured by pulling the
card or cable connector out a tiny amount, and pushing it back.
A spike in the power, if you are not using a battery backup, can put junk in
memory. In this case, re-booting the machine and starting the install over
fixes the problem.
The major issue is not whether Linux can have worms. The major issue is that Microsoft products seem to be of very low quality. Extremely poor security is only one aspect of that.
No Linux email programs or word-processing programs have the authority to take over the entire operating system. Microsoft products sometimes do.
Many of the security bugs in Microsoft products seem to come from sloppy programming. The open source world would have a difficult time being as sloppy.
The popular Linux programs give a general impression of quality, and of sincerely wanting to do a good job. Microsoft programs give the general impression (to me) that Microsoft wants to give as little as possible to the customer, so that the customer will feel motivated to upgrade.
COMPLETELY off-topic, but thanks for the link to the articles on drugs. (See the web address given by Kraft, above.)
We have the drug laws we do, I think, largely because there are members of our society who want to have gun battles. Most of our drug prevention laws don't prevent.
This question is moderated as "Flamebait". Often moderators don't do very well, I think. The emphasis seems to be on disapproving, rather than approving.
This is a reasonable question. And here is an answer: I'd like to use lower bit rates to make smaller audio files. I do international tech support sometimes, and speaking is 5 times faster than writing. Sometimes an audio file is the best way of responding.
Ogg produces great-sounding voice files.
Anyone know of a recording application? I'm having trouble finding one that is suitable. A Windows version will work; I'd like a Linux recorder also.
I got a perfect install, no hassles, with Mandrake 8.0. It set up network connections perfectly. Very impressive, and a better-looking desktop than Windows.
You are raising extremely interesting questions. If people don't like many features, should language designers provide subsets that people can access easily? Could a compiler switch make C++ like Java?
Is the dislike people have for a language partly due to poor explanation of the features?
I'm not saying I know the answers. I'm just thinking that we could do better for ourselves than create an average of one big language each year.
Maybe the ideas of Perl, SmallTalk, C++, Lisp and Icon are just a subset of a larger truth that, if we recognized it, would simplify all languages.
You raise an interesting question about the politics. My guess is that, if someone knew enough to lead us in a better direction, the politics would eventually be changed to fit the new situation.
Age is not the issue here. The issue is that it might be better to put more of the fine features into one language, rather than have so many languages.
There would still be the same amount of features to learn, but they would not be scattered all over the programming landscape.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I just ejected the tray on my 24X Plextor, and the groove is there for the small CD-Rs. Are you saying the Plextor software does not support the small CD-Rs?
Plextor is the best drive. They now have a 24X write version, and the computer stores are starting to sell 24X certified CD-R blank media.
Certainly RMS does many imperfect things. But there is another side: The issues are very important. There are many ways that freely available software can, and does, drift away from being truly free. Even a small amount of legal tangle can make software useless to many people.
Consider this: How would you react if you were trying to explain something complicated, and very important, and you were getting responses that indicated that people didn't understand.
Richard Stallman is certainly not a good publicist for his ideas. However, it seems to me that when he takes a stand, there is generally some sensible underlying motivation. Here is a suggestion: Don't sweat the small stuff. Don't get caught up in his shortcomings. See the big picture. Remember that RMS stands to gain nothing personally. His ideas only keep software free for all of us to use and improve.
Mr. Stallman has become a popular outlet for anger. However, most of the angry people don't seem to have a true understanding of the underlying issues.
You are right. Windows 98 will not stop functioning. But the lack of support will begin to make it difficult. New drivers won't work with old operating systems, for example.
You can program for Windows 95 now, too. But there have been so many changes that it not something that makes sense in most cases.
When Microsoft made Windows 98, they apparently deliberately broke some of the DOS functionality. I know DOS is a joke, but it is the only common scripting language for this OS. I use it for important work. When Microsoft decided to remove features, it caused a lot of problem for me: I lost hours.
My idea is that this just would not happen under the GPL. At the very least, if I saw that functionality had been removed, I could post a bug report. If there were no good reason for the change, probably someone would fix it.
In actual practice, my experience has been that I have a response within hours, and a fix within a day. The people who write free software are often wonderful people, in my experience.
Subject: Re: FRED: Corrections about WPA?
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 10:15:18 -0400
From: Fred Langa
A small number of writers have argued that I'm misrepresenting WPA, because it's not really "registration." They point out that the mandatory "product activation" is step one, but that it involves no personal information. Step two is an optional formal "registration;" you may skip this step if you wish.
But I think this argument lets Microsoft get away with some Clintonesque semantic games. To me, if you have to contact the vendor to unlock your software, that's "registration" even if Microsoft calls it something else.
As for the personal nature of it, I stated in the original article ( http://www.informationweek.com/851/langa.htm ) that Microsoft has a good track record for not collecting inappropriate data via reg/update wizards and such. But in this case, by generating a hash based on your CPU's unique serial number, your network card's unique MAC address, etc., it gets *awfully* specific.
Calling that level of detail "impersonal" is like saying, "I've developed a unique identifier code for you that's based on where you live, your shoe size, hat size, the type of car your drive, and the brand and size of your spouse's underwear; but because I never actually asked you for your NAME, it involves no personal information about you." Riiiiiiight.
Yes, Microsoft says the 50-digit hash cannot be deconstructed to reveal your system information, but I have to wonder. At the very least, the potential for abuse is enormous, both on the data-collection side, and on the de-hashing side. (Want to bet that some cracker, somewhere, figures out a de-hash algorithm?)
In short Microsoft can call it what they will. I call it "registration."
_____________
This is my message to Fred:
At 06:53 AM 8/20/01 -0700, Michael Jennings wrote:
Fred,
Response to your statements about WPA is below.
Who is right?
(I posted your comments to a Slashdot thread, with your web site address.)
Regards,
Michael Jennings
Notice that I did not say that Windows 98 was already obsolete. Microsoft has decided that it will be obsolete after 2002, I understand. After that, you will not be able to get technical support from Microsoft.
Here is how Microsoft plans to yank everyone's chain in the future. This is from the LangaList, available free from Langa.com:
"When you register XP software, the registration process creates and sends to Microsoft a unique 50-digit numeric fingerprint or code that is a combination of the serial number of your copy of XP, plus additional information about 10 major hardware elements in your system:
1. CPU serial number
2. CPU model number/type
3. Amount of RAM in the system
4. Graphics adapter hardware ID string
5. Hard drive hardware ID string
6. SCSI host hardware ID string (if present)
7. IDE controller hardware ID string
8. "MAC" address of your network adapter
9. CD-ROM drive "hardware identification string"
10. And whether the system is a dockable unit (e.g. a laptop) or not
"But that's not all. Even when it's been fully registered, the WPA component wakes up from time to time to verify that it's still on the original system where it was first installed; and it "phones home" to check with the central Microsoft database to make sure it's still indeed a registered copy. If anything's amiss, your software reverts to reduced-functionality mode.
"So, with WPA, Microsoft is quite literally *forcing* registration: Microsoft wants your full-fare money for the software *and* they want to know who you are and what PC you're using--- and you better give it to them pronto, buster, or they'll cripple your software!"
For me, this is impossible. I don't want to have to communicate information about my customers to Microsoft. Suppose Microsoft has a disloyal employee who steals the data? Suppose someone breaks into Microsoft computers? This has happened before.
Also, I need to be able to make changes to the customer's hardware. Often when an employee changes desks, some of the hardware goes with the employee, and some stays with the old machine. Under the new scheme for Microsoft XP products (XP stands for eXtra Pain.), I will have to justify this to Microsoft.
Bill Gates has a history of putting his needs first, before the needs of his customers. What he does is not different from what dictators and kings have always done.
The GPL (GNU General Public License) protects us from this kind of abuse.
My opinion: It seems to me that when people comment on Slashdot about free software licensing, they often become sidetracked from the main issue.
The main issue is not whether Richard Stallman has personal failings! I have noticed that he sometimes becomes strained when, for the one-millionth time, people misunderstand the issues. But who cares about personal issues? We should be concerned about a particular type of world freedom, I think.
An example of the main issue, for me, is that if you use, or program for, Microsoft Windows, you are effectively a dog on Bill Gates' leash. Bill can do whatever he wants with you. He can refuse to support new hardware. He can decide that your copy of Windows is obsolete. He can decide that your old hardware is obsolete. He can, under the DMCA, remotely disable your entire OS. He can support U.S. spy agencies in a hidden way. He can avoid fixing bugs because he wants to save some so that you will be interested in buying a new release. Under the traditional system, one person has control over an entire world of software.
The GPL is a sophisticated way of avoiding being under the control of a dictator. That's where the word "freedom" counts the most. The GPL creates a brotherhood in the place of a dictatorship.
Robert Frost said in a famous poem, "Good fences make good neighbors." In this case, the extremely rigid and legally powerful fence of the GPL creates a worldwide brotherhood that no one can take away from us.
There are cases where rigidity in one area creates freedom where you want it. The GPL creates freedom where you want it, but only if it is rigidly followed.
A lot of people have a lot of pain over rules that were set for them in childhood. But not all rules are bad.
To me, the article seems to confuse the main issue. An example of the main issue, for me, is that if you use, or program for, Microsoft Windows, you are effectively a dog on Bill Gates' leash. Bill can do whatever he wants with you. He can refuse to support new hardware. He can decide that your copy of Windows is obsolete. He can decide that your old hardware is obsolete. He can, under the DMCA, remotely disable your entire OS. He can support U.S. spy agencies in a hidden way. He can avoid fixing bugs because he wants to save some so that you will be interested in buying a new release.
The GPL is a sophisticated way of avoiding being under the control of a dictator. That's where the word "freedom" applies.
I have learned over the years that quality components make ALL the difference in the Wintel hardware world.
This is EXACTLY correct, and very important. Often cheaper components are being sold cheaply because they are somehow incompatible.
Save yourself grief. Buy the best hardware. Buy Intel motherboards with Intel processors, for example. The easy install with Mandrake 8.0 (two comments above) was with an Iwill motherboard and a Pentium 200 processor. At the time the system was bought, these were conservative choices for hardware.
I own a small computer dealership, and could have chosen any hardware on which to test Mandrake, but I wanted to see if the reports were correct. Is Linux fast on less powerful machines? It is.
The big hardware manufacturers want new software to be slow, because that causes customers to buy more expensive machines. Linux doesn't have this conflict of interest. It runs fast everywhere.
Good-quality hardware helps you avoid problems caused by a BIOS or OS programmer not coding for your particular hardware.
Once a friend bought a sound card for $12 from Fry's, back when sound cards were expensive. After several hours, we decided we would never be able to get it to work. That was the most expensive sound card I've ever touched.
I installed Mandrake 8.0, and I was amazed. Everything worked, and the install was easier than any version of Windows.
Sometimes bad hardware, or bad connections, can cause a difficult or impossible install. An adapter card that is not making good contact, for example, can confuse the install system. Bad contacts are cured by pulling the card or cable connector out a tiny amount, and pushing it back.
A spike in the power, if you are not using a battery backup, can put junk in memory. In this case, re-booting the machine and starting the install over fixes the problem.
The real world is more interesting than science fiction.
The most important fact about this computer is that it is used to study how best to kill people and destroy their property.
3 inch CDs = 185 Megabytes.
Automobiles have overtaken diesel trucks.
Work at home, dude!
No cubicle is as nice as home: No driving. Everything you need is always there. Possible afternoon delight with your honey.
Good advice.
The major issue is not whether Linux can have worms. The major issue is that Microsoft products seem to be of very low quality. Extremely poor security is only one aspect of that.
No Linux email programs or word-processing programs have the authority to take over the entire operating system. Microsoft products sometimes do.
Many of the security bugs in Microsoft products seem to come from sloppy programming. The open source world would have a difficult time being as sloppy.
The popular Linux programs give a general impression of quality, and of sincerely wanting to do a good job. Microsoft programs give the general impression (to me) that Microsoft wants to give as little as possible to the customer, so that the customer will feel motivated to upgrade.
COMPLETELY off-topic, but thanks for the link to the articles on drugs. (See the web address given by Kraft, above.)
We have the drug laws we do, I think, largely because there are members of our society who want to have gun battles. Most of our drug prevention laws don't prevent.
Why would you want lower bitrates?
This question is moderated as "Flamebait". Often moderators don't do very well, I think. The emphasis seems to be on disapproving, rather than approving.
This is a reasonable question. And here is an answer: I'd like to use lower bit rates to make smaller audio files. I do international tech support sometimes, and speaking is 5 times faster than writing. Sometimes an audio file is the best way of responding.
Ogg produces great-sounding voice files.
Anyone know of a recording application? I'm having trouble finding one that is suitable. A Windows version will work; I'd like a Linux recorder also.
Because a small percentage of the people who post to Slashdot are the smartest people with whom I have contact about a particular subject.
eXtra Pain
Thanks for saying that. I get tired of people calling other people "idiots" and making other disparaging remarks.
I got a perfect install, no hassles, with Mandrake 8.0. It set up network connections perfectly. Very impressive, and a better-looking desktop than Windows.
You are raising extremely interesting questions. If people don't like many features, should language designers provide subsets that people can access easily? Could a compiler switch make C++ like Java?
Is the dislike people have for a language partly due to poor explanation of the features?
I'm not saying I know the answers. I'm just thinking that we could do better for ourselves than create an average of one big language each year.
Maybe the ideas of Perl, SmallTalk, C++, Lisp and Icon are just a subset of a larger truth that, if we recognized it, would simplify all languages.
You raise an interesting question about the politics. My guess is that, if someone knew enough to lead us in a better direction, the politics would eventually be changed to fit the new situation.
Age is not the issue here. The issue is that it might be better to put more of the fine features into one language, rather than have so many languages.
There would still be the same amount of features to learn, but they would not be scattered all over the programming landscape.