Re:Interesting read, but you're forgetting one thi
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 1
You seem to forget that there are incentives outside the economic realm. For example, people of great wealth becoming Philanthropists. Once people's own well-being is asured, they _often_ become part of what is known as a gift culture (as ESR notes in Cathedral), where the more one gives away, in their labor, property, or whatever, the more value one gets. That is the basis of a truly socialist government.
Almost everyone of the "RMS should mind his own business" posts here ignores the key argument that he makes. That freedom cannot be limited only to the producer, but also must be extended to the consumer (the code user here). This cannot simply be a bad choice one vs bad choice two, but needs to extend to some of the realities of the world. While it may be simple to say, "well, I have the freedom to make my own software" (which for obvious reasons isn't true for the vast majority of people) is false becase of the power pattents grant.
They are arbitrary, not some divine (or as Rand would say, nature) given right. Say we live in a world where the software producer has total "freedom" to do what he or she would like. O'Riley and ERS would say that no one should have the "power" to take their right to this property away from them. What if the software or hardware pioneers had placed a pattent on a logic gate, or the word proccessor, or the browser, or any number of other broad areas like this. Think of how it would impact the rest of society, this untaped knowledge and technology that is now held from the public behind the iron bars of pattent and property. Sure, in theory I have the ability to say, I don't want to use product ABC with license requirements XYZ, but in pratice no such ability exists, as I must also sustain myself physically (food shelter, etc come to mind).
The reality is that our actions inharently effect others, and the (IMHO) simple way of looking at property, code in this case, as comming with a absolute freedom/power to decide how others use it not only makes little sense philosophically, but also pratically.
For what its worth, I think that nautilus is a great product. Is it a bit slower than exporer, sure, but it is not as if you were getting nothing back for it (everything is so smooth:) Anyway, thanks alot nautilus team!
Well, what you say is partically true, but the new gnome componets are very often updated, not just repackaged. For instace, many different versions of bonobo have come out during GNOME1.4. Same for GCONF, Nautilus, and many/most of the GNOME files.
Obviously not, but this is comparing apples to oranges. DOS is depreciated because new pieces of software do things that it won't. To follow through on your analogy, what does the new KDE do that GNOME won't?
Why? Because KDE now has a larger number infront of it? That really doesn't make it any better or worse. The fact is that the user level differeces between KDE2 and 3 will be much less than GNOME1 to GNOME2 (fixing gtk-flash-bug, aa text, pango, and so on). I can't help but think that if the GNOME project upped the release number everytime I see a new GNOME-related file in sid, everyone would be saying that KDE was dying and GNOME was developing amazingly quickly.
BTW, this should not in anyway be taken as a knock against anyone who use/develop/etc KDE, just those who feel the need to bash the alternative.
Seriously though, whats wrong with an ideology? He doesn't/can't force it on you or anyone else, and many people agree with him on many issues (myself included). I don't understand why so many people feel the need for everything to be seperated from oppinion.
How is it bad is the real question. These are two men that have CLEARLY been frammed. Take a look at Mumia for example. Since he was first arrested, someone else confessed to the murder, multiple whitnesses have said that the police were coerced into testifying falsly, it has been revieled that the bullet that killed the police officer was of a different calaber than the gun Mumia had on him. This is but a small sample of the evidence of Mumia's innocence. Similar evidence exists for Peltier's innocence.
In short, the more evidence you do into either of these cases, the more information that comes up in favor of their innocence. Or at least that has been my experence.
And don't go on a rant about how digital management and subscription-based services won't ever work and users will lose all their functionality to play music or use Word, and Microsoft will find some Evil way to corrupt your data or rob you of your privacy, because it's all speculation, and that adds up to jack shit in the real world.
Have you read the passport agreement?
Also, I'm not denying other peoples right to disagree with me or opensource, just that I would rather use an open product as oposed to a close one, even if it means a small step backwards.
So that explains what happened to OS/2, or why everyone drives BMWs instead of Geos or Kias. Or why Apple stayed on top, or why were all using fuel cells, or.......
Basically what you said amounts to massive oversimplication. There are many other factors, such as I won't use WMA, even if it does sound better, because I will choose the open software first. Not to mention I'm not familar with any WMA players for linux.
Galeon.11 complied fine for me. Did you set the MOZILLA_LIBS_PATH correctly in the config file. And, I too noticed what you are speaking of about.10.6..11 clears those stability problems right up.
I've seen this GNOME is dying argument quite a few times, and it Irks me every time. I use GNOME, enjoy it, and do what I can to support it (which admitidly at this point is not much, but I'm learning GTK at a rather brisk pace and hope to become more involved soon). So, I'd like to say a few things in defense of GNOME.
First off, It is very easy to create links in Nautilus. Left click and drag, select create link. Done. Also, I'm not sure why you are having instibility problems, but my Woody version of GNOME seems rock solid. GTK is also has all of the cross platform capabilities that QT has (FB, BeOS, OSX, Windows, etc). Galeon works better great, and since its based on Gecko, its not another format like konquer is. Finally, on the whole "C isn't object oriented" fiasco, SO WHAT. It hasn't caused me any problems. It doesn't seem to breed instibility, and it does what it is ment to do. The fact that C++ is more popular than C seems a moot point too, since GNOME has C++ bindings (gnome--) and something being popular does not mean its better. More people still use Windows than Linux, but that doesn't mean its superior.
Oh well, I hope my rant hasn't ruffled too many feathers!:-)
Now, I respect other people's oppinions, and certiantly on something as trivial as which Desktop to choose, but spreading FUD still makes me angry.
The point was expressing my fear that Mozilla development many slow down significantly if it loses the Netscape employes who are currently doing a good deal of the work.
Oh yea, and before you go ape shit, make sure you understand the statement/question. It will make everyone's day a little better. (Or at least piss less people off)
What happens to the people at Netscape who have been working on Mozilla? Will they still be there with the rest of the company moving in a different dirrection. It would be a big loss to the Mozilla project to lose them all. Also, does this mean no Netscape 6.5?
I for one will miss Eazel. I very much enjoy Nautilus, and use it full time. Too me it seems more polished and just overall more fun. (Whens the last time you described a file manager as fun!) Regardless, I hope that the community that has surrounded the company continues to improve upon Nautilus, I know I will.
Anyway, a general thank you to Andy and all the rest from Eazel who took a chance and built a fantastic product.
Response to all of the Libertarians out there...
on
Why Community Matters
·
· Score: 1
I feel that the artical is very thought provoking. Just because most of "us" here at slashdot are capitalist and libertarian, doesn't mean that:
1) You should shelter yourselves from other oppinions
and
2) That all who disagree with Ayn Ryand and her, IMHO, poorly written, and poorly thoughtout philosophy, are wrong.
Communist Russia fell because the heads of state refused to let go of power, not because of some contradictory connection between effort (or work if you'd like) and property. The ownership of property on its face stands in direct contradiction to this idea. Once it is agreed upon that there is a finite amount of "stuff" to be owned (Physics 101 tells you that matter isn't made or destroyed) and thus ownership of property is a Zero-Sum idea. One must loose for another to win. When you make money in the market, for example, someone else lost that amount. Thus, when one ownes property, there is that much less for others to obtain. Regardless of how hard you or I try, there is no way, no matter how hard we work or how much effort we put into it, to gain property without meeting the arbitrary whims of the property owner.
Thus, property is the ultimate form of theft. Once the propery is owned, by a monopoly for example, the rest of the people must do as the owner wishes for things as mundane as substance existance!
In closing, the article is well written and deserves, at the very least, a second thought.
Pete
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to forget that there are incentives outside the economic realm. For example, people of great wealth becoming Philanthropists. Once people's own well-being is asured, they _often_ become part of what is known as a gift culture (as ESR notes in Cathedral), where the more one gives away, in their labor, property, or whatever, the more value one gets. That is the basis of a truly socialist government.
Almost everyone of the "RMS should mind his own business" posts here ignores the key argument that he makes. That freedom cannot be limited only to the producer, but also must be extended to the consumer (the code user here). This cannot simply be a bad choice one vs bad choice two, but needs to extend to some of the realities of the world. While it may be simple to say, "well, I have the freedom to make my own software" (which for obvious reasons isn't true for the vast majority of people) is false becase of the power pattents grant.
They are arbitrary, not some divine (or as Rand would say, nature) given right. Say we live in a world where the software producer has total "freedom" to do what he or she would like. O'Riley and ERS would say that no one should have the "power" to take their right to this property away from them. What if the software or hardware pioneers had placed a pattent on a logic gate, or the word proccessor, or the browser, or any number of other broad areas like this. Think of how it would impact the rest of society, this untaped knowledge and technology that is now held from the public behind the iron bars of pattent and property. Sure, in theory I have the ability to say, I don't want to use product ABC with license requirements XYZ, but in pratice no such ability exists, as I must also sustain myself physically (food shelter, etc come to mind).
The reality is that our actions inharently effect others, and the (IMHO) simple way of looking at property, code in this case, as comming with a absolute freedom/power to decide how others use it not only makes little sense philosophically, but also pratically.
(sorry for the typos by the way)
For what its worth, I think that nautilus is a great product. Is it a bit slower than exporer, sure, but it is not as if you were getting nothing back for it (everything is so smooth :) Anyway, thanks alot nautilus team!
Well, what you say is partically true, but the new gnome componets are very often updated, not just repackaged. For instace, many different versions of bonobo have come out during GNOME1.4. Same for GCONF, Nautilus, and many/most of the GNOME files.
"Give it some thought, that's all I ask. Image where we could be if we stand united."
Yes, united behind what you want....
Obviously not, but this is comparing apples to oranges. DOS is depreciated because new pieces of software do things that it won't. To follow through on your analogy, what does the new KDE do that GNOME won't?
Why? Because KDE now has a larger number infront of it? That really doesn't make it any better or worse. The fact is that the user level differeces between KDE2 and 3 will be much less than GNOME1 to GNOME2 (fixing gtk-flash-bug, aa text, pango, and so on). I can't help but think that if the GNOME project upped the release number everytime I see a new GNOME-related file in sid, everyone would be saying that KDE was dying and GNOME was developing amazingly quickly.
BTW, this should not in anyway be taken as a knock against anyone who use/develop/etc KDE, just those who feel the need to bash the alternative.
WHy do you say that GNOME is dying? Is the code somehow becoming less functional? That would be a first!
Yea, who wants someone who believes in something!
Seriously though, whats wrong with an ideology? He doesn't/can't force it on you or anyone else, and many people agree with him on many issues (myself included). I don't understand why so many people feel the need for everything to be seperated from oppinion.
How is it bad is the real question. These are two men that have CLEARLY been frammed. Take a look at Mumia for example. Since he was first arrested, someone else confessed to the murder, multiple whitnesses have said that the police were coerced into testifying falsly, it has been revieled that the bullet that killed the police officer was of a different calaber than the gun Mumia had on him. This is but a small sample of the evidence of Mumia's innocence. Similar evidence exists for Peltier's innocence.
In short, the more evidence you do into either of these cases, the more information that comes up in favor of their innocence. Or at least that has been my experence.
Also, I'm not denying other peoples right to disagree with me or opensource, just that I would rather use an open product as oposed to a close one, even if it means a small step backwards.
So that explains what happened to OS/2, or why everyone drives BMWs instead of Geos or Kias. Or why Apple stayed on top, or why were all using fuel cells, or....... Basically what you said amounts to massive oversimplication. There are many other factors, such as I won't use WMA, even if it does sound better, because I will choose the open software first. Not to mention I'm not familar with any WMA players for linux.
Well, as RMS repeatitly says, I would rather use free software, even if it was "inferiour" to a closed source one.
Galeon .11 complied fine for me. Did you set the MOZILLA_LIBS_PATH correctly in the config file. And, I too noticed what you are speaking of about .10.6. .11 clears those stability problems right up.
You win the award for the most rediculus and unfounded statment of the day. Jay, tell him what hes won....
I've seen this GNOME is dying argument quite a few times, and it Irks me every time. I use GNOME, enjoy it, and do what I can to support it (which admitidly at this point is not much, but I'm learning GTK at a rather brisk pace and hope to become more involved soon). So, I'd like to say a few things in defense of GNOME. First off, It is very easy to create links in Nautilus. Left click and drag, select create link. Done. Also, I'm not sure why you are having instibility problems, but my Woody version of GNOME seems rock solid. GTK is also has all of the cross platform capabilities that QT has (FB, BeOS, OSX, Windows, etc). Galeon works better great, and since its based on Gecko, its not another format like konquer is. Finally, on the whole "C isn't object oriented" fiasco, SO WHAT. It hasn't caused me any problems. It doesn't seem to breed instibility, and it does what it is ment to do. The fact that C++ is more popular than C seems a moot point too, since GNOME has C++ bindings (gnome--) and something being popular does not mean its better. More people still use Windows than Linux, but that doesn't mean its superior. Oh well, I hope my rant hasn't ruffled too many feathers! :-)
Now, I respect other people's oppinions, and certiantly on something as trivial as which Desktop to choose, but spreading FUD still makes me angry.
The point was expressing my fear that Mozilla development many slow down significantly if it loses the Netscape employes who are currently doing a good deal of the work. Oh yea, and before you go ape shit, make sure you understand the statement/question. It will make everyone's day a little better. (Or at least piss less people off)
What happens to the people at Netscape who have been working on Mozilla? Will they still be there with the rest of the company moving in a different dirrection. It would be a big loss to the Mozilla project to lose them all. Also, does this mean no Netscape 6.5?
I for one will miss Eazel. I very much enjoy Nautilus, and use it full time. Too me it seems more polished and just overall more fun. (Whens the last time you described a file manager as fun!) Regardless, I hope that the community that has surrounded the company continues to improve upon Nautilus, I know I will. Anyway, a general thank you to Andy and all the rest from Eazel who took a chance and built a fantastic product.
I feel that the artical is very thought provoking. Just because most of "us" here at slashdot are capitalist and libertarian, doesn't mean that: 1) You should shelter yourselves from other oppinions and 2) That all who disagree with Ayn Ryand and her, IMHO, poorly written, and poorly thoughtout philosophy, are wrong. Communist Russia fell because the heads of state refused to let go of power, not because of some contradictory connection between effort (or work if you'd like) and property. The ownership of property on its face stands in direct contradiction to this idea. Once it is agreed upon that there is a finite amount of "stuff" to be owned (Physics 101 tells you that matter isn't made or destroyed) and thus ownership of property is a Zero-Sum idea. One must loose for another to win. When you make money in the market, for example, someone else lost that amount. Thus, when one ownes property, there is that much less for others to obtain. Regardless of how hard you or I try, there is no way, no matter how hard we work or how much effort we put into it, to gain property without meeting the arbitrary whims of the property owner. Thus, property is the ultimate form of theft. Once the propery is owned, by a monopoly for example, the rest of the people must do as the owner wishes for things as mundane as substance existance! In closing, the article is well written and deserves, at the very least, a second thought. Pete
Does that mean if I dont read microsofts little message at the begining of installs, I can ignore it... Of course not.
What a breath of fresh air... someone who doesnt assuem that their oppinion is law. Thankyou for a bit o sanity
Really? I dont remember any OSX reports claiming that it would be buggy, slow, and a rehash of ancient technology (at least in tech time)