I think you misunderstand the purpose of blocking access to child pornography.
Perhaps I do. Your argument is that child pornography is bad. For several reasons, including that the mere viewing of it may (or may not) be a causal factor in child abuse. Perhaps this is an oversimlification of your argument, but that is what it essentially boils down to.
So stipulated. I understand the objections to child pornography, and I understand the though process that would produce this sort of legislation. In some sense, I agree with the objective of the measure.
Unfortunately, it's the case of the right thing for the wrong reason. If making child pornography is illegal, and people continue to break the law anyway, why would one imagine that *more* legislation can fix the problem? The problem is fundamentally a social problem. Social problems *cannot* be solved by legislation. They are ultimately doomed to failure.
Another problem is that while this sort of legislation might hide the underlying problem, it attacks only the symptoms, not the root of the problem. So not only will it ultimately fail, it won't even help make the problem go away. This is nothing more than eyewash. This kind of legislation does nothing but make some constituents happy without actually accomplishing much. And that at the expense of making the government a moral judge. Bad idea.
And third, let's just use some common sense. If you know where the child pornography web sites are, shut them down! Proceed with legal action against them. Don't just ignore them and hope they go away.
So what I see is a dangerous increase in the government's powers, without any kind of commensurate benefit. That's not good government. That's foolish.
1. It's a slippery slope. Once the goverment decides that its job is to censor web sites, where does it stop? All pornography? Terrorist sites? Legitimate news sites from "terrorist countries"? Legitimate news sites period? Bad precedent, in my opinion.
2. This is a job that should be done at the end-user location. Want to surf safely? Don't surf on machines that don't have content filtering programs on them. Want your child to surf safely? Don't let him/her surf on machines that don't have content filtering programs on them.
3. Lastly, what are we protecting people from? It's an evil world, and evil stuff exists out there. We can't ignore it. And hiding it doesn't make it go away. I'm not sure what this fundamentally accomplishes.
Correlation vs. Causality
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Another classic example of confusing correlation with causality. Just because there is a correlation between the two, doesn't mean that one *causes* the other. They could just as easily *both* be affected by a third variable (average income? average levels of education? percentage of computer-using businesses?)
This is the kind of thing that gives statistics a bad name.
Here's another correlation distortion. People in the mid 1800's had an average lifespan of what? 45 years? Today's average lifespan is like 70 or something. Now, choose your data sets that way, and compare life expectancy of those people who have personal computers, and those that didn't (those from the 1800's). You'll find a *strong* correlation between PC use and life expectancy.
But it's clearly meaningless. The key factor here is obviously availability of health care. You can use this same trick to "prove" relationship between almost anything.
Hear hear. Trying to use Mozilla? Nope. Not everything will work. Konq? Probably can't even log in. Chimera? Safari? Nope. Not everything works.
Even IE on Mac doesn't work for all features.
The discussions are amazingly weak. Your ability to find information in past discussions sucks.
Why not use best of breed apps, rather than lowest common denominator?
Newsgroups + email + wiki = 10 times what WebCT is. If WebCT would just offer a POP3/SMTP and NNTP interface with its databases, pretty much all my bitches about it would end.
I'd say thats true to some degree. But even Google's stats aren't right... they rely on the browser info provided by the browser itself, not what it really is.
For example, I'm using konq, and I have it set to identify itself as IE 5.5 on Windows 2000. So I *know* I'm inflating the Win2K and IE 5.5 figures myself.
In fact, half of the techs in my office use linux, and the other half use Opera on Win2K... but everyone identifies themselves as IE, just to get around stupid browser sniffers.
Try getting to support.microsoft.com using something other than IE. Unless you lie, the page won't display right.
So I would submit that those numbers are probably biased against non-windows platforms. It might be the case that the Linux desktop percentage is as high as, say, 3%!
Yeah, okay. Still pretty sorry... but I'm not sure I trust the Google stats as-is. I believe your fundamental assertion is probably right. Linux desktop penetration is abysmal.
Heh. Okay. I'll give you that. But I was responding to:
> This guy is a loser, a vandal, and a criminal.
And yeah, that's all true, but the word criminal has such heavy connotations. Despite the fact that the statement is factually true, the crime he is guilty of is less than that of, say, a murderer (who is also obviously a criminal). Calling him a criminal puts him in the same classification as a murderer -- something thats clearly not warranted.
I didn't in any way mean to imply that the actions were forgivable, or shouldn't be punished or anything else of the sort. Just that the scope of the crimes was certainly less than the punishment.
Still, though... given a hackers inquisitive nature, and the desire to explore, a poorly secured system is an attrative nuisance. I just identify strongly with Kevin and feel like it could have been me, or any number of people I know. That's what makes me want to excuse it, though I know it shouldn't be excused. I know that feeling, and it's not a destructive or malicious drive, it's a drive born of desire to explore. Good motive, bad actions.
Perhaps I swung too far the other way to make my point though.
Probably, it's a "there but for the grace of ghod" thing. If you boil away all the hype, what he did was certainly not right, but most of us here at Slashdot understand the urge, and if circumstances were different, could have easily *been* him. I know I could have been, had things been different.
Add to that the fact that they hype machine turned him from a minor delinquent to a major terrorist. Score extra sympathy points for unconstitutional treatment.
Now add the other side of the hype machine. A guy that could start a nuclear war with a simple phone call. A guy that roams unchecked through the most secure machines in the world.
Put all those together... the sense of identification, the sympathy, and the larger-than-life myth. I think it's easy to see why he's a celebrity.
Thats not to say he's a not a criminal, as you describe. But he's no more a criminal than the PC maintenance guy that looks at data on a machine he or she is repairing. Or someone who reads the papers sitting out on someone elses desk. No theft, no intentional vandalism, just access to information he or she didn't have.
I hope he gets a fair shake, and does well with his company. He got railroaded, and deserves better.
You see: "GPL license is too restrictive to allow Be to use the code".
I see: "Be's licensing lacked the freedom to allow it to use the GPL code".
The problem as I see it, isn't GPL, but Be. Of course, that's a matter of perspective. In the end though, given that whole story, my reaction wasn't "Damn GPL!", it was "Damn Be!".
And I'm *glad* they couldn't use it. It wouldn't be morally right to take other people's drivers and use it to make money off of. That's why I value GPL. It's a buy-in. When I add s/key support to a program, or I fix a parsing bug and return the patch, I've paid may fee to allow me access to all the GPL stuff out there.
Really, if you think of it that way, there is a cost associated with GPL -- the cost of contributing improvements. In that way, it really doesn't differ from commercial software.
Why didn't anyone get pissed off that Be couldn't use Microsoft's drivers for the 3c509? They would have the same rights to steal Microsoft's code as Donald Becker's.
I guess that just highlights the subject of the very parent post: the GPL isn't free. There is a real cost associated with it. For those that' won't share code. For users, it's better than free.
What's with this greedy people? Why do I assume that you really mean folks like me who actually have to support a family by writing code! And who could not make that money if my code had to be distributed with source, and the source had to be available for free?
Wait! That's not what I'm saying! My definition of greedy people is those people that want to use the efforts of other (by taking GPL code) and not returning the favor (contributing back). Those companies that want to use software as leverage to lock you into an upgrade cycle. (read: Microsoft). I'm in the same boat as you. My point is that if you want to use GPL software you have to give back. That's all. If you want to use GPL, you have to share. Period.
It's not such a white and black situation as you describe. Even in a mostly-GPL world, there will be plenty of non-GPL code. Your vertical market (health) will probably be largely non-GPL. Or in the industry I'm most familiar with (insurance).
And even in those markets, GPL code is still useable for non-distributed code. If there *were* a good health care app that you wanted to modify for in-house use, you could. Legally. Just not sell it for profit (as a greedy corporation would).
But in the real world, somebody needs to write that health insurance software, and that somebody wants to be paid, and that payment won't happen if the code is GPL'd.
And there would still be a market, even in an all-GPL world, for you to be paid to customize a GPL'd health app for your company.
Now, in another universe, that software is truely free - it is public domain. Several companies might pick it up and incorporate it into their products. The successful ones would make it more usable, more general, better documented. etc. There might be several that would compete. The result would be a reduction overall in the cost of processing health insurance claims - a positive good. The only objection I can see martialed to this is that somebody is *gasp* making money, with their own efforts, but using somebody else's product(for which that someone else was compensated by the government).
Aha. But can't you see that this situation is *worse* than the GPL one? Imagine there is a mediocre health care claims processing application out there. Then some insurance company picks it up and modifies it. They turn it into a great application, but one that only processes insurance claims for their company. They then turn around and release that software. Now, sure, there is a better claims processing software, but its locked into a particular company.
Certainly, that's good for the company, but it's bad for the user. In this case, the companies that process those claims. They would rather see the app turned into a good application for processing any claims. But the changes to the app that make it great for the one particular company are hidden. Can't get to them.
The GPL protects us from that kind of thing, and its better for it. It doesn't restrict your company's right to modify it to do anything you need it to do, but it prevents a greedy company from using that public domain software as a weapon against you.
Think on it a while, and see if GPL automatically means no software development. I think it doesn't. Most software development is in-house anyway, and GPL doesn't restrict in-house use. I firmly believe that GPL will drive more innovative software because it gives a larger platform to build from.
It doesn't really matter -- we are arguing in a vacuum. This is going to happen regardless. The economics of it we'll see soon enough.
Actually, thsi *did* happento me! I used to work for Be Inc, and I wanted better support for my 3com 3c509 based isa card. BeOS had a driver, but it was in house home brew hack, and I wanted to have it work liek my slack box. So I took Donald Beckards [sic] driver, and we developed a wrapper for it so the driver thought it was talking to a Linux kernel (but was really BeOS 4.5). To make a long story short I had to remove the driver from the official Be website, and later from other sites..... as a result of the GPL.
I don't see how you can see this as anything but a *plus* for GPL. If Be used GPL drivers to get a wide compatibility base without giving back improvements or new networking features, that's a bad thing. The GPL prevents that kind of thing. And that's better for users... they would get Be's improvements available in anything that used the GPL drivers. The only people punished here is Be -- because they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
And that's the whole GPL thing... it's *user* centric, not business-centric. And as a user, I see that as a plus. In fact, the GPL gives you the ability to do what you did... just not redistribute it. So the GPL protected your right as an individual user to do just what you did. It protected your individual freedom without letting a company profit from stealing without giving back.
Don't forget that this same vendor lock in is also what gave us the broad spectrum of advanced hardware platforms with tailored software. This same advancement in vendor lockin also spured OSS inovation.
The vendor lockin didn't spur OSS, it created it. Users don't like being locked in. They like choice, and given none by the vendor, they find ways to create choice. Hence OSS.
I'll give you that vendor lockin caused the software industry to advance quickly. But the availability of high-quality GPL code make the economics of the situation different now. With such a large base of good-quality GPL code, GPL can advance as fast (or faster) than commercial interests to meet a goal. And as that happens, the added code is in GPL. Which accelerates the pace of the GPL side. Soon, I don't think it will be possible to compete against GPL. I just don't. The manpower necessary to clean-room implement all the stuff that GPL code does won't be worth it. Not for a operating system, certainly. Maybe only for standalone apps and vertical markets. And even then, the vendors will have to move fast to keep from being overtaken by GPL. Note that again, that's in the best interests of users.
In fact, for people who want to steal gpl code, there really isn't much stopping them, especially not the GPL. This is like arguing that copyright laws is going to prevent teenagers from trading
But that's not illegal! You can use any GPL code you want for any purpose. Unless you want to redistribute it. If you want to redistribute it, then you'll have to GPL everything. If you've redistributed it for the purpose of getting money, then you have assets and a business infrastructure that can be challenged in court.
The fact is, the GPL has been very effective in stopping people from using GPL code illegaly. Your example is one. Epson's printer drivers is another. nVidia's use of GPL code is another. The GPL *is* an effective tool to protect users rights.
I see why you are unhappy with GPL, but you are pointing the finger of blame the wrong way. It's not the GPLs fault that its license isn't compatible with Be. It's *Be's* fault. They made the conscious decision that they could make a better OS without using GPL code. That's fine. That's their right. But if they can't pull it off, it's not the fault of GPL for not letting them save themselves by stealing code. It's their fault for underestimating the size of the task or the cost of accomplishing those goals. Poor business planning, period.
And I'm even sympathetic, because I liked Be. I wanted it to succeed. But they chose wrong. It happens in business. But it's not the GPL's fault. Maybe its even a good object lession: work with free software, not against it.
I cannot stand it when people confuse freedom with free (as in price). The GPL isn't 100% *free* as in the definition of the term "freedom". The GPL has a nasty restriction, and even one restriction means it is not free (as in freedom).
Yeah, I'll give you this, but really the restrictions harm nobody but greedy people. It's the developer's freedoms (greedy developers) that are infringed. That's the whole point. From the point of view of the user or a civic-minded developer, there are as many freedoms as any other licenses, but with more benefits (as in the benefit of being able to use other's modifications). From any perspective aside from that of a greedy business, the GPL is superior.
So it could be argued that GPL is not suitable for certain things. STuff like protocals, audio/video codex, and device drivers.
It could be, but I sure won't do it. Perhaps a BSD licensing for core protocols right now is important, because as you say, it is necessary to get commercial interest to get a sufficient "critical mass" to make something like Ogg a standard. Okay. Right now.
But that's only because right now there aren't enough free software users to be able to call the development shots with our force of numbers. As the free software pool grows, the harder it is to re-write that code base. That means that commercial interests will have to be able to make a *really* impressive application to expect people to pay for it. And that's in the best interests of the users as well.
As far as poor BeOs not being able to use linux drivers in their OS... huh? Why should they? If they want to use, they have to share. What's wrong with that? And if they can't build a replacement OS that has the broad range of features and compatibilities as linux, or other free Operating Systems, then more the fool them for trying to get into a dying business model. Maybe they should have found a business model that leveraged free software rather than trying to compete with it. Let Be be a lesson to other commercial software companies.
We sometimes have to remind ourselves that the entire computer industry would not be where it is today without the openness of computer programers back in the early days. This open spirt existed way before any GNU license existed, and that was good enough for us then, good enought now.
Absolutely! Now you are sounding like a free software convert. Oh. Wait. You mean public domain. Yeah... you are right. In some ways, this would be ideal. In fact, I would imagine that most free software people would rather not have to copyright software and just let it be in the public domain. But the problem with that is that when that used to be case (your "early days" of the computer industry) commercial entities would rape the public domain software by taking the software and modifying it in ways that locked you into a vendors product, be it hardware or software.
Thus, it became necessary to protect ourselves from greedy and unethical businesses. *That's* why there is a GPL. Yeah, it would be nice to imagine that all software could be free. Really free. Public Domain. But history proves that greedy people can't stop using public domain software to take away users freedoms. So users have to take matters into their own hands.
To clarify, I think Microsoft biggest fear is to be in a world where all code is saturated by a gnu encumberance, and one could not modify any code without being forced to publish the modifications.
Absolutely. And they should be, because that's how it's going. They are greedy monopolists locked into a dying business model -- that of extorting their customer base. Good riddance, I say.
A world so utterly GPL that it collapses upon itself into stagnation.
I'm not sure this follows. In fact, I'd argue that because of the large base of GPL code from which to build, it allows for people to innovate more easily. The infrastructure is already there, and someone with a great idea sitting in front of a computer in the Congo can implement it. Without a huge company behind them. Then we'll see stuff *really* start happening.
Don't waste your tears on Microsoft. As they sow, so shall they reap.
My gripe isn't about whether or not its legal to search someone's garbage. My gripe is with the fact that it's either one way or the other. I can understand both arguments, both for and against the ownership of garbage placed on the curb. I *don't* agree with the idea that it would be legal for police without a warrant to search the garbage, but not a private citizen.
Whether or not garbage is the personal property of the owner is another argument altogether.
I was just ticked because the parent poster made the assertion that warrentless search by the police was okay, but searches by private citizens were not. This in the interest of "making it easier for the police to do their jobs".
Either the garbage, once placed on the curb, is the private property of the owner (in which case the police must get a warrant) or it is not. If it is not the private property of the owner, then it must be legal for a private citizen to paw through. Period. Those are the only two alternatives. The idea that it's okay for police to paw through it without a warrant but not for private citizens is bullshit.
I really don't give a damn if it makes it difficult for policemen to do their job. Thats how it is. We are supposed to be a freedom-loving country. I'll agree that it would be nice if the job of the police could be made easier without restricting citizens civil rights. But it can't. And I won't give up my liberties to make it easier for police to do their jobs. I just won't.
Its un-American. By doing things like this (Patriot act, anyone?) we devalue the price American citizens paid to secure those liberties. They paid with their lives. Don't be so quick to throw that away.
Yeah, but that's his job. He's the voice of conscience. Kind of like the ACLU.
Without someone to constantly point out the difference between "almost free" or "free-like" and "truly free" we might get lazy and do what's convenient, rather than what is morally right.
And no matter how you feel about him: if you hate him, agree with him, consider him a whiner... whatever... you *have* to respect someone who has such an unwavering set of principles that he is not afraid or ashamed to look like an idiot to stand up for them. No matter what, you have to admire him for that.
So despite the fact that he spins me up occasionally, I shut up and listen to what he has to say because when you come right down to it... he's right. Annoying. Irritating. But right.
Oh. And you have to respect him for emacs, too. Obviously.
Yup, turns out you are wrong. The first NT was NT 3.1. Available in "3.1 Advanced Server" and "3.1 Workstation" flavors.
Now, there was also a Windows for Workgroups 3.1. That released shortly after Windows 3.1 (Sometime in 92?) About a year after that, Windows NT 3.1 was released. Presumably that was where the "3.1" came from.
I know this for a fact, because I still have the pretty green NT 3.1 Workstation CD around someplace. Ran like crap on my 16Mb 486-66. And VC++ 1.0 set me back $500. But it was cool to be able to develop 32 bit code. No more segments. Woo!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article states that:
1. The bootloader and kernel are stored in flash. 2. The bootloader is RC-4 encrypted (symmetric, not public/private keypair) 3. The flash can be reprogrammed either by desoldering the flash, like bunny did, or by using what he calls a "bed-of-nails" jig. (I assume this is merely contact points to connect the test points on the board).
The RC-4 key is now known, so it appears to me that a custom bootloader (and kernel) can be flashed on the box that will allow unsigned code to run without soldering or expensive equipment.
Probably the path that will be taken is that a booting linux kernel will be developed using the mod chips that are reported to be on the way, then, once drivers and an xbox kernel are developed, a bootloader will be written to boot it directly off CD-R/RW or HDD. Supposedly the xbox is kinda flakey about reading CR-R's, but DVD+RW won't present a problem.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a bootloader that would either boot into the xbox or off an untrusted CD or DVD.
I expect to see a cheap and easy kit for booting linux on xbox in less than six months. Console DivX/MP3/Mame player, here we come!
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I do. Your argument is that child pornography is bad. For several reasons, including that the mere viewing of it may (or may not) be a causal factor in child abuse. Perhaps this is an oversimlification of your argument, but that is what it essentially boils down to.
So stipulated. I understand the objections to child pornography, and I understand the though process that would produce this sort of legislation. In some sense, I agree with the objective of the measure.
Unfortunately, it's the case of the right thing for the wrong reason. If making child pornography is illegal, and people continue to break the law anyway, why would one imagine that *more* legislation can fix the problem? The problem is fundamentally a social problem. Social problems *cannot* be solved by legislation. They are ultimately doomed to failure.
Another problem is that while this sort of legislation might hide the underlying problem, it attacks only the symptoms, not the root of the problem. So not only will it ultimately fail, it won't even help make the problem go away. This is nothing more than eyewash. This kind of legislation does nothing but make some constituents happy without actually accomplishing much. And that at the expense of making the government a moral judge. Bad idea.
And third, let's just use some common sense. If you know where the child pornography web sites are, shut them down! Proceed with legal action against them. Don't just ignore them and hope they go away.
So what I see is a dangerous increase in the government's powers, without any kind of commensurate benefit. That's not good government. That's foolish.
Here's a crazy idea... prosecute them under existing laws?
Several things that bother me about it:
1. It's a slippery slope. Once the goverment decides that its job is to censor web sites, where does it stop? All pornography? Terrorist sites? Legitimate news sites from "terrorist countries"? Legitimate news sites period? Bad precedent, in my opinion.
2. This is a job that should be done at the end-user location. Want to surf safely? Don't surf on machines that don't have content filtering programs on them. Want your child to surf safely? Don't let him/her surf on machines that don't have content filtering programs on them.
3. Lastly, what are we protecting people from? It's an evil world, and evil stuff exists out there. We can't ignore it. And hiding it doesn't make it go away. I'm not sure what this fundamentally accomplishes.
Another classic example of confusing correlation with causality. Just because there is a correlation between the two, doesn't mean that one *causes* the other. They could just as easily *both* be affected by a third variable (average income? average levels of education? percentage of computer-using businesses?)
This is the kind of thing that gives statistics a bad name.
Here's another correlation distortion. People in the mid 1800's had an average lifespan of what? 45 years? Today's average lifespan is like 70 or something. Now, choose your data sets that way, and compare life expectancy of those people who have personal computers, and those that didn't (those from the 1800's). You'll find a *strong* correlation between PC use and life expectancy.
But it's clearly meaningless. The key factor here is obviously availability of health care. You can use this same trick to "prove" relationship between almost anything.
This study is clearly junk.
You've all fallen victim to the April Fool's troll.
Hear hear. Trying to use Mozilla? Nope. Not everything will work. Konq? Probably can't even log in. Chimera? Safari? Nope. Not everything works.
Even IE on Mac doesn't work for all features.
The discussions are amazingly weak. Your ability to find information in past discussions sucks.
Why not use best of breed apps, rather than lowest common denominator?
Newsgroups + email + wiki = 10 times what WebCT is. If WebCT would just offer a POP3/SMTP and NNTP interface with its databases, pretty much all my bitches about it would end.
I'd say thats true to some degree. But even Google's stats aren't right... they rely on the browser info provided by the browser itself, not what it really is.
For example, I'm using konq, and I have it set to identify itself as IE 5.5 on Windows 2000. So I *know* I'm inflating the Win2K and IE 5.5 figures myself.
In fact, half of the techs in my office use linux, and the other half use Opera on Win2K... but everyone identifies themselves as IE, just to get around stupid browser sniffers.
Try getting to support.microsoft.com using something other than IE. Unless you lie, the page won't display right.
So I would submit that those numbers are probably biased against non-windows platforms. It might be the case that the Linux desktop percentage is as high as, say, 3%!
Yeah, okay. Still pretty sorry... but I'm not sure I trust the Google stats as-is. I believe your fundamental assertion is probably right. Linux desktop penetration is abysmal.
Oh, there you go... bringing class into it again.
Heh. Okay. I'll give you that. But I was responding to:
> This guy is a loser, a vandal, and a criminal.
And yeah, that's all true, but the word criminal has such heavy connotations. Despite the fact that the statement is factually true, the crime he is guilty of is less than that of, say, a murderer (who is also obviously a criminal). Calling him a criminal puts him in the same classification as a murderer -- something thats clearly not warranted.
I didn't in any way mean to imply that the actions were forgivable, or shouldn't be punished or anything else of the sort. Just that the scope of the crimes was certainly less than the punishment.
Still, though... given a hackers inquisitive nature, and the desire to explore, a poorly secured system is an attrative nuisance. I just identify strongly with Kevin and feel like it could have been me, or any number of people I know. That's what makes me want to excuse it, though I know it shouldn't be excused. I know that feeling, and it's not a destructive or malicious drive, it's a drive born of desire to explore. Good motive, bad actions.
Perhaps I swung too far the other way to make my point though.
Probably, it's a "there but for the grace of ghod" thing. If you boil away all the hype, what he did was certainly not right, but most of us here at Slashdot understand the urge, and if circumstances were different, could have easily *been* him. I know I could have been, had things been different.
Add to that the fact that they hype machine turned him from a minor delinquent to a major terrorist. Score extra sympathy points for unconstitutional treatment.
Now add the other side of the hype machine. A guy that could start a nuclear war with a simple phone call. A guy that roams unchecked through the most secure machines in the world.
Put all those together... the sense of identification, the sympathy, and the larger-than-life myth. I think it's easy to see why he's a celebrity.
Thats not to say he's a not a criminal, as you describe. But he's no more a criminal than the PC maintenance guy that looks at data on a machine he or she is repairing. Or someone who reads the papers sitting out on someone elses desk. No theft, no intentional vandalism, just access to information he or she didn't have.
I hope he gets a fair shake, and does well with his company. He got railroaded, and deserves better.
Or, if you really want six...
That took longer than I thought it would. :)
Its a matter of perspective.
You see: "GPL license is too restrictive to allow Be to use the code".
I see: "Be's licensing lacked the freedom to allow it to use the GPL code".
The problem as I see it, isn't GPL, but Be. Of course, that's a matter of perspective. In the end though, given that whole story, my reaction wasn't "Damn GPL!", it was "Damn Be!".
And I'm *glad* they couldn't use it. It wouldn't be morally right to take other people's drivers and use it to make money off of. That's why I value GPL. It's a buy-in. When I add s/key support to a program, or I fix a parsing bug and return the patch, I've paid may fee to allow me access to all the GPL stuff out there.
Really, if you think of it that way, there is a cost associated with GPL -- the cost of contributing improvements. In that way, it really doesn't differ from commercial software.
Why didn't anyone get pissed off that Be couldn't use Microsoft's drivers for the 3c509? They would have the same rights to steal Microsoft's code as Donald Becker's.
I guess that just highlights the subject of the very parent post: the GPL isn't free. There is a real cost associated with it. For those that' won't share code. For users, it's better than free.
The fact of the matter is that I was a Be user. I bought 4.0 and 4.5. And I couldn't get my ISA NIC to work either. I had to buy a PCI one.
So I was impacted by this same issue. But that has nothing to do with the utility of GPL code.
Wait! That's not what I'm saying! My definition of greedy people is those people that want to use the efforts of other (by taking GPL code) and not returning the favor (contributing back). Those companies that want to use software as leverage to lock you into an upgrade cycle. (read: Microsoft). I'm in the same boat as you. My point is that if you want to use GPL software you have to give back. That's all. If you want to use GPL, you have to share. Period.
It's not such a white and black situation as you describe. Even in a mostly-GPL world, there will be plenty of non-GPL code. Your vertical market (health) will probably be largely non-GPL. Or in the industry I'm most familiar with (insurance).
And even in those markets, GPL code is still useable for non-distributed code. If there *were* a good health care app that you wanted to modify for in-house use, you could. Legally. Just not sell it for profit (as a greedy corporation would).
But in the real world, somebody needs to write that health insurance software, and that somebody wants to be paid, and that payment won't happen if the code is GPL'd.And there would still be a market, even in an all-GPL world, for you to be paid to customize a GPL'd health app for your company.
Now, in another universe, that software is truely free - it is public domain. Several companies might pick it up and incorporate it into their products. The successful ones would make it more usable, more general, better documented. etc. There might be several that would compete. The result would be a reduction overall in the cost of processing health insurance claims - a positive good. The only objection I can see martialed to this is that somebody is *gasp* making money, with their own efforts, but using somebody else's product(for which that someone else was compensated by the government).Aha. But can't you see that this situation is *worse* than the GPL one? Imagine there is a mediocre health care claims processing application out there. Then some insurance company picks it up and modifies it. They turn it into a great application, but one that only processes insurance claims for their company. They then turn around and release that software. Now, sure, there is a better claims processing software, but its locked into a particular company.
Certainly, that's good for the company, but it's bad for the user. In this case, the companies that process those claims. They would rather see the app turned into a good application for processing any claims. But the changes to the app that make it great for the one particular company are hidden. Can't get to them.
The GPL protects us from that kind of thing, and its better for it. It doesn't restrict your company's right to modify it to do anything you need it to do, but it prevents a greedy company from using that public domain software as a weapon against you.
Think on it a while, and see if GPL automatically means no software development. I think it doesn't. Most software development is in-house anyway, and GPL doesn't restrict in-house use. I firmly believe that GPL will drive more innovative software because it gives a larger platform to build from.
It doesn't really matter -- we are arguing in a vacuum. This is going to happen regardless. The economics of it we'll see soon enough.
I don't see how you can see this as anything but a *plus* for GPL. If Be used GPL drivers to get a wide compatibility base without giving back improvements or new networking features, that's a bad thing. The GPL prevents that kind of thing. And that's better for users... they would get Be's improvements available in anything that used the GPL drivers. The only people punished here is Be -- because they wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
And that's the whole GPL thing... it's *user* centric, not business-centric. And as a user, I see that as a plus. In fact, the GPL gives you the ability to do what you did... just not redistribute it. So the GPL protected your right as an individual user to do just what you did. It protected your individual freedom without letting a company profit from stealing without giving back.
Don't forget that this same vendor lock in is also what gave us the broad spectrum of advanced hardware platforms with tailored software. This same advancement in vendor lockin also spured OSS inovation.The vendor lockin didn't spur OSS, it created it. Users don't like being locked in. They like choice, and given none by the vendor, they find ways to create choice. Hence OSS.
I'll give you that vendor lockin caused the software industry to advance quickly. But the availability of high-quality GPL code make the economics of the situation different now. With such a large base of good-quality GPL code, GPL can advance as fast (or faster) than commercial interests to meet a goal. And as that happens, the added code is in GPL. Which accelerates the pace of the GPL side. Soon, I don't think it will be possible to compete against GPL. I just don't. The manpower necessary to clean-room implement all the stuff that GPL code does won't be worth it. Not for a operating system, certainly. Maybe only for standalone apps and vertical markets. And even then, the vendors will have to move fast to keep from being overtaken by GPL. Note that again, that's in the best interests of users.
In fact, for people who want to steal gpl code, there really isn't much stopping them, especially not the GPL. This is like arguing that copyright laws is going to prevent teenagers from tradingBut that's not illegal! You can use any GPL code you want for any purpose. Unless you want to redistribute it. If you want to redistribute it, then you'll have to GPL everything. If you've redistributed it for the purpose of getting money, then you have assets and a business infrastructure that can be challenged in court.
The fact is, the GPL has been very effective in stopping people from using GPL code illegaly. Your example is one. Epson's printer drivers is another. nVidia's use of GPL code is another. The GPL *is* an effective tool to protect users rights.
I see why you are unhappy with GPL, but you are pointing the finger of blame the wrong way. It's not the GPLs fault that its license isn't compatible with Be. It's *Be's* fault. They made the conscious decision that they could make a better OS without using GPL code. That's fine. That's their right. But if they can't pull it off, it's not the fault of GPL for not letting them save themselves by stealing code. It's their fault for underestimating the size of the task or the cost of accomplishing those goals. Poor business planning, period.
And I'm even sympathetic, because I liked Be. I wanted it to succeed. But they chose wrong. It happens in business. But it's not the GPL's fault. Maybe its even a good object lession: work with free software, not against it.
Yeah, I'll give you this, but really the restrictions harm nobody but greedy people. It's the developer's freedoms (greedy developers) that are infringed. That's the whole point. From the point of view of the user or a civic-minded developer, there are as many freedoms as any other licenses, but with more benefits (as in the benefit of being able to use other's modifications). From any perspective aside from that of a greedy business, the GPL is superior.
So it could be argued that GPL is not suitable for certain things. STuff like protocals, audio/video codex, and device drivers.It could be, but I sure won't do it. Perhaps a BSD licensing for core protocols right now is important, because as you say, it is necessary to get commercial interest to get a sufficient "critical mass" to make something like Ogg a standard. Okay. Right now.
But that's only because right now there aren't enough free software users to be able to call the development shots with our force of numbers. As the free software pool grows, the harder it is to re-write that code base. That means that commercial interests will have to be able to make a *really* impressive application to expect people to pay for it. And that's in the best interests of the users as well.
As far as poor BeOs not being able to use linux drivers in their OS... huh? Why should they? If they want to use, they have to share. What's wrong with that? And if they can't build a replacement OS that has the broad range of features and compatibilities as linux, or other free Operating Systems, then more the fool them for trying to get into a dying business model. Maybe they should have found a business model that leveraged free software rather than trying to compete with it. Let Be be a lesson to other commercial software companies.
We sometimes have to remind ourselves that the entire computer industry would not be where it is today without the openness of computer programers back in the early days. This open spirt existed way before any GNU license existed, and that was good enough for us then, good enought now.Absolutely! Now you are sounding like a free software convert. Oh. Wait. You mean public domain. Yeah... you are right. In some ways, this would be ideal. In fact, I would imagine that most free software people would rather not have to copyright software and just let it be in the public domain. But the problem with that is that when that used to be case (your "early days" of the computer industry) commercial entities would rape the public domain software by taking the software and modifying it in ways that locked you into a vendors product, be it hardware or software.
Thus, it became necessary to protect ourselves from greedy and unethical businesses. *That's* why there is a GPL. Yeah, it would be nice to imagine that all software could be free. Really free. Public Domain. But history proves that greedy people can't stop using public domain software to take away users freedoms. So users have to take matters into their own hands.
To clarify, I think Microsoft biggest fear is to be in a world where all code is saturated by a gnu encumberance, and one could not modify any code without being forced to publish the modifications.Absolutely. And they should be, because that's how it's going. They are greedy monopolists locked into a dying business model -- that of extorting their customer base. Good riddance, I say.
A world so utterly GPL that it collapses upon itself into stagnation.I'm not sure this follows. In fact, I'd argue that because of the large base of GPL code from which to build, it allows for people to innovate more easily. The infrastructure is already there, and someone with a great idea sitting in front of a computer in the Congo can implement it. Without a huge company behind them. Then we'll see stuff *really* start happening.
Don't waste your tears on Microsoft. As they sow, so shall they reap.
My gripe isn't about whether or not its legal to search someone's garbage. My gripe is with the fact that it's either one way or the other. I can understand both arguments, both for and against the ownership of garbage placed on the curb. I *don't* agree with the idea that it would be legal for police without a warrant to search the garbage, but not a private citizen.
Whether or not garbage is the personal property of the owner is another argument altogether.
I was just ticked because the parent poster made the assertion that warrentless search by the police was okay, but searches by private citizens were not. This in the interest of "making it easier for the police to do their jobs".
Just to put the whole argument in context.
I have to call foul on this one.
Either the garbage, once placed on the curb, is the private property of the owner (in which case the police must get a warrant) or it is not. If it is not the private property of the owner, then it must be legal for a private citizen to paw through. Period. Those are the only two alternatives. The idea that it's okay for police to paw through it without a warrant but not for private citizens is bullshit.
I really don't give a damn if it makes it difficult for policemen to do their job. Thats how it is. We are supposed to be a freedom-loving country. I'll agree that it would be nice if the job of the police could be made easier without restricting citizens civil rights. But it can't. And I won't give up my liberties to make it easier for police to do their jobs. I just won't.
Its un-American. By doing things like this (Patriot act, anyone?) we devalue the price American citizens paid to secure those liberties. They paid with their lives. Don't be so quick to throw that away.
Grumble.
How come everyone always forgets what this site is? It's a free site (or ad supported) that promotes its own agenda for its own purposes.
Don't like it? Don't read it. Start your own "ms-bashing free" site.
WHO CARES! Let people chose on their own, don't advertise every single person, because the general population doesn't give care.
Thats the whole premise. Get over it.
Now *that's* funny.
But the worst part is, twenty years from now, we'll still probably be saying, "... and that's why Hurd is so important to the future!"
Ack. That was me, BTW. Didn't log in. Don't include me in your Anti-Anonymous Posters thing. I just forgot!
Yeah, but that's his job. He's the voice of conscience. Kind of like the ACLU.
Without someone to constantly point out the difference between "almost free" or "free-like" and "truly free" we might get lazy and do what's convenient, rather than what is morally right.
And no matter how you feel about him: if you hate him, agree with him, consider him a whiner... whatever... you *have* to respect someone who has such an unwavering set of principles that he is not afraid or ashamed to look like an idiot to stand up for them. No matter what, you have to admire him for that.
So despite the fact that he spins me up occasionally, I shut up and listen to what he has to say because when you come right down to it... he's right. Annoying. Irritating. But right.
Oh. And you have to respect him for emacs, too. Obviously.
Yup, turns out you are wrong. The first NT was NT 3.1. Available in "3.1 Advanced Server" and "3.1 Workstation" flavors.
:)
Now, there was also a Windows for Workgroups 3.1. That released shortly after Windows 3.1 (Sometime in 92?) About a year after that, Windows NT 3.1 was released. Presumably that was where the "3.1" came from.
I know this for a fact, because I still have the pretty green NT 3.1 Workstation CD around someplace. Ran like crap on my 16Mb 486-66. And VC++ 1.0 set me back $500. But it was cool to be able to develop 32 bit code. No more segments. Woo!
You're excused.
That's because BHSU students couldn't design a hybrid car. Generally, they'd be lucky to merely identify a car correctly two times out of three.
/. readers from SD)
Now SDSM&T, on the other hand... *that's* an engineering school.
:)
Let the flames begin. (Between me an the other four
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article states that:
1. The bootloader and kernel are stored in flash.
2. The bootloader is RC-4 encrypted (symmetric, not public/private keypair)
3. The flash can be reprogrammed either by desoldering the flash, like bunny did, or by using what he calls a "bed-of-nails" jig. (I assume this is merely contact points to connect the test points on the board).
The RC-4 key is now known, so it appears to me that a custom bootloader (and kernel) can be flashed on the box that will allow unsigned code to run without soldering or expensive equipment.
Probably the path that will be taken is that a booting linux kernel will be developed using the mod chips that are reported to be on the way, then, once drivers and an xbox kernel are developed, a bootloader will be written to boot it directly off CD-R/RW or HDD. Supposedly the xbox is kinda flakey about reading CR-R's, but DVD+RW won't present a problem.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a bootloader that would either boot into the xbox or off an untrusted CD or DVD.
I expect to see a cheap and easy kit for booting linux on xbox in less than six months. Console DivX/MP3/Mame player, here we come!