Your pattern suggests "mechanical thinking"
on
You Call This Agile?
·
· Score: 1
"Actually, the ability to look into the inner workings of a failed system and determine the cause of failure and effect a solution are pretty primary to software development (as opposed to writing code, which is only a part of SD). "
True, but the "inner workings" of software have little in common with those of a copier. That's why copier repair experience isn't considered a qualification for software development.
"Unless you want to be a junior coder forever, so you can ignore integration and deployment issues"
I love this one. I guess you forgot to say "Unless one wants". Or did you mean to imply that that I was a "junior coder" on the grounds that I that I must be if I disagree with someone as knowledgeable as you think you are.
Actually, the skills required for clearing a paper jam have little in common with the skills required for software development. BTW, Xerox use to flag paper jams when the program crashed. So now you know why you can't always find the paper to clear.
Network administration is very important work and should be well compenstated, but that doesn't change the fact that it is different from software development.
"Typically, microcode (as I understand it) implements a part of the instruction set in a processor, built on a smaller "kernel" of instructions implemented more directly."
I'm sure there are all kinds of variations, but I think a counter would be the minimum required to bootstrap the microcode.
"Sure, when looking at the machine it is part of; from a development perspective, its like a conventional set of utilities written to run on the simpler machine represented by the core instructions of the processor that are implemented directly rather than through microcode. Now, clearly, since the microcode is within the processor and not rewritable, open-source microcode doesn't provide a means to let you "upgrade" a processor, it would be more useful in cutting down development time of a compatible or related processor, or perhaps in emulating the processor."
I don't think there needs to be "core instructions", but as I said, there are a lot of different ways to implement it. Some processors do allow microcode to be rewritable although that's not the most common practice.
"I disagree, since BIOS is software, that in the context it was being discussed hardware has to be "included in the discussion", and, at any rate, I think that in the phrase "open source system", the "open source", since it only has any meaning in regard to software, does explicitly designate the "system" as being software only."
The point is that BIOS is specifically designed as an interface to hardware, so it serves no purpose if the system is defined to exclude hardware. As I've aleady shown, there is code within microprocessors, so the term open source can apply to some hardware components as well.
I agree, but I don't think it's appropriate to use the word system to describe it. The broader point is that if one wants to be "pure" with respect to openness, you can't stop at the software. If it's "evil" to use closed source software it's also "evil" to use closed microprocessors, graphics cards etc. Otherwise, the "moral" argument falls apart.
"Microcode certainly has source code, which is the source code for software included in or with the hardware, but not source code for the hardware itself."
Are you confusing microcode with machine code? Microcode implements the instruction set in a processor, machine code is a program that uses the instruction set. From the outside, microcode is part of the hardware because the processor will not function without it.
I think in the context where hardware is part of the discussion (which it must be for a BIOS to be relevent), it's understood that the word "system" includes software and hardware unless it is explicitly designated as software only.
I can't evaluate the level of openness of opensparc in a few minutes, but in any case, I don't think the fact that one of the minor microprocessor players (in terms of volume) has opened up their design allows one to conclude that an open BIOS is the last barrier to an open system. In fact, Sun wouldn't be opening it up if it thought that the sparc was still a viable player in the marketplace.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Management is always looking for the next silver bullet as long as schedules, costs, and contents don't have to be adjusted.
Of course, it's often one of your own "control-freak" team members that give management the idea in the first place.
No. This is another example of Microsoft having nothing to do with the subject at hand (Excel didn't appear until well after VisiCalc was dead or dying). Quite common on Slashdot though.
I don't want to argue this endlessly, so I'll just focus on one comment you made:
"I'd say that the movement organized and politicized an existing tradition out of which profound technological progress was made."
This one of the great myths of the "free" software movement: that historically technological progress was made through a tradition of non-proprietary openness. Along with the proprietary realities there has always been a tradition to share ideas, but there was never a political aspect to it and it beared little resemblance to the control-oriented practices of the "free" software movement.
You are conflating my understanding of violating the spirit with my opinion of degrees of unethical behavior. I previously discussed principles and moved on to degrees, which I know are not particular to spirit."
You certainly spoke of degrees in relation to "violating the sprit", I didn't conflate anything. You need to review what you wrote.
""Quantities" is a nice attempt to belittle my point, but you know that "proportion" is more indicative of what I was getting at."
Not at all. I just happened to use the word "quantities", I'm quite happy arguing the case with the word "proportion" instead. In my view "proportion" is a legalistic way of thinking.
"As already pointed out to you by another poster, proportion happens to be a widely held criterion by the community in this context. If you disagree that it is widely held in the FOSS community, again we will have to agree to disagree about this."
Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about consistent ethics on the part of the community where the word "ethics" is not limited to the community's definition of the word. In my view, the question of whether something is or is not "widely held within the FOSS community" is irrelevent to the issue of ethics in a broader sense.
"I like how you jump from these kinds of proponents to "you". "
Just sloppiness on my part. I should have said "one" but it sounds so formal.
""Evil" and "good" are used in ethical discussions, so it is unsurprising that a movement which espouses certain ethical positions will include commentary on good and evil things."
Sure, but in evaluating the morality of such a movement, one must look at their behavior with respect to ethics without merely accepting their definition of the word.
"Where is the discussion of ethics about software development among the proprietary folks?"
Just look at your argument about movements for the answer. Most organizations that make proprietary software don't consider that they are on a moral quest, so they don't see "evil" hiding in the bushes. That's not to say that they are immoral, they just have a conventional view of ethics.
"Think of how new the digital age is; some just consider proprietary software as a bump on the road."
I'm not sure what your definition of the "digital age" is, but the "free" software movement has been around for only a tiny fraction of software development's history, so it better qualifies as the "bump on the road" at this point in time. It may turn out to be more someday, but it's too early to say so now.
I disagree. Using USB for any kind of communication with devices is standard use. If you used a USB port to directly recharge a car battery or something equally unusual, that would be a hack.
that unless you've seen the paystubs from an astroturfer's check, you're just speculating.
Re:I've noticed that this round of MS products...
on
The Zune Cometh
·
· Score: -1
"I will also point out the obvious that MS has seeded quite a few landscapers here on Slashdot lately, but I'm sure one will come along soon and prove my point..."
So if somebody says something positive about the Zune, it proves they are "landscapers" (whatever the hell that means). I don't really have to point out the invalidity of your argument, do I?
"That's odd, considering that social contract theory is fundamental to ethics; the connection is solid."
I'd say that the role of a social contract in ethics is an ethical question that is still debated, not something that most philosophers have historically agreed upon. In any case, you spoke of an implied social contract which is a weaker form.
"Violating the spirit of the BSD takes no thought; doing the same to the GPL involves a team of lawyers and much consideration. Violating spirit by a fraction of percent of code is the same to you as violating by nearly all of the code."
I don't think you understand what "violating the spirit" really means. It's not about quantities or about how easy it is to do, it's about not following a general principle.
"I agree there are groups of people who believe in the transcendence of their goals. Indeed, another example is that one of these groups believes that proprietary software should exist, which requires the transcendence other people's ethics that include helping their neighbor."
One difference is that those who support proprietary software rarely brand the "free" software folks with labels like "evil" the way "free" software proponents often do. If you're going to claim moral superiority, you need to demonstrate it beyond your own special interests.
Slashdot Mirror
"Actually, the ability to look into the inner workings of a failed system and determine the cause of failure and effect a solution are pretty primary to software development (as opposed to writing code, which is only a part of SD). "
True, but the "inner workings" of software have little in common with those of a copier. That's why copier repair experience isn't considered a qualification for software development.
"Unless you want to be a junior coder forever, so you can ignore integration and deployment issues"
I love this one. I guess you forgot to say "Unless one wants". Or did you mean to imply that that I was a "junior coder" on the grounds that I that I must be if I disagree with someone as knowledgeable as you think you are.
Actually, the skills required for clearing a paper jam have little in common with the skills required for software development. BTW, Xerox use to flag paper jams when the program crashed. So now you know why you can't always find the paper to clear.
Network administration is very important work and should be well compenstated, but that doesn't change the fact that it is different from software development.
J# isn't java.
MS has never been prosecuted by the DOJ under criminal law. Look it up.
The unqualified statement "antitrust is a criminal offense" is wrong. As indicated in the passage you quote, it can be either criminal or civil.
"In the US, antitrust abuse is a criminal offense"
Nope.
"Typically, microcode (as I understand it) implements a part of the instruction set in a processor, built on a smaller "kernel" of instructions implemented more directly."
I'm sure there are all kinds of variations, but I think a counter would be the minimum required to bootstrap the microcode.
"Sure, when looking at the machine it is part of; from a development perspective, its like a conventional set of utilities written to run on the simpler machine represented by the core instructions of the processor that are implemented directly rather than through microcode. Now, clearly, since the microcode is within the processor and not rewritable, open-source microcode doesn't provide a means to let you "upgrade" a processor, it would be more useful in cutting down development time of a compatible or related processor, or perhaps in emulating the processor."
I don't think there needs to be "core instructions", but as I said, there are a lot of different ways to implement it. Some processors do allow microcode to be rewritable although that's not the most common practice.
"I disagree, since BIOS is software, that in the context it was being discussed hardware has to be "included in the discussion", and, at any rate, I think that in the phrase "open source system", the "open source", since it only has any meaning in regard to software, does explicitly designate the "system" as being software only."
The point is that BIOS is specifically designed as an interface to hardware, so it serves no purpose if the system is defined to exclude hardware. As I've aleady shown, there is code within microprocessors, so the term open source can apply to some hardware components as well.
I agree, but I don't think it's appropriate to use the word system to describe it. The broader point is that if one wants to be "pure" with respect to openness, you can't stop at the software. If it's "evil" to use closed source software it's also "evil" to use closed microprocessors, graphics cards etc. Otherwise, the "moral" argument falls apart.
"Microcode certainly has source code, which is the source code for software included in or with the hardware, but not source code for the hardware itself."
Are you confusing microcode with machine code? Microcode implements the instruction set in a processor, machine code is a program that uses the instruction set. From the outside, microcode is part of the hardware because the processor will not function without it.
I think in the context where hardware is part of the discussion (which it must be for a BIOS to be relevent), it's understood that the word "system" includes software and hardware unless it is explicitly designated as software only.
"That could equally be read as "Linux wouldn't be open if it was a viable player in the market place"
Not exactly, but if AT&T had decided way back when that they could make a lot of money selling UNIX, there probably wouldn't be a Linux.
Actually processors are often implemented using microcode, so some hardware can and does have source code.
In any case, if you exclude the hardware, there is no such thing as an "open source system", only "open source software".
I can't evaluate the level of openness of opensparc in a few minutes, but in any case, I don't think the fact that one of the minor microprocessor players (in terms of volume) has opened up their design allows one to conclude that an open BIOS is the last barrier to an open system. In fact, Sun wouldn't be opening it up if it thought that the sparc was still a viable player in the marketplace.
to Open Source systems since the microprocessor and other PC hardware is not open.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Management is always looking for the next silver bullet as long as schedules, costs, and contents don't have to be adjusted.
Of course, it's often one of your own "control-freak" team members that give management the idea in the first place.
I know, which is why I said MS had nothing to do with the issue.
No. This is another example of Microsoft having nothing to do with the subject at hand (Excel didn't appear until well after VisiCalc was dead or dying). Quite common on Slashdot though.
I don't want to argue this endlessly, so I'll just focus on one comment you made:
"I'd say that the movement organized and politicized an existing tradition out of which profound technological progress was made."
This one of the great myths of the "free" software movement: that historically technological progress was made through a tradition of non-proprietary openness. Along with the proprietary realities there has always been a tradition to share ideas, but there was never a political aspect to it and it beared little resemblance to the control-oriented practices of the "free" software movement.
You are conflating my understanding of violating the spirit with my opinion of degrees of unethical behavior. I previously discussed principles and moved on to degrees, which I know are not particular to spirit."
You certainly spoke of degrees in relation to "violating the sprit", I didn't conflate anything. You need to review what you wrote.
""Quantities" is a nice attempt to belittle my point, but you know that "proportion" is more indicative of what I was getting at."
Not at all. I just happened to use the word "quantities", I'm quite happy arguing the case with the word "proportion" instead. In my view "proportion" is a legalistic way of thinking.
"As already pointed out to you by another poster, proportion happens to be a widely held criterion by the community in this context. If you disagree that it is widely held in the FOSS community, again we will have to agree to disagree about this."
Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about consistent ethics on the part of the community where the word "ethics" is not limited to the community's definition of the word. In my view, the question of whether something is or is not "widely held within the FOSS community" is irrelevent to the issue of ethics in a broader sense.
"I like how you jump from these kinds of proponents to "you". "
Just sloppiness on my part. I should have said "one" but it sounds so formal.
""Evil" and "good" are used in ethical discussions, so it is unsurprising that a movement which espouses certain ethical positions will include commentary on good and evil things."
Sure, but in evaluating the morality of such a movement, one must look at their behavior with respect to ethics without merely accepting their definition of the word.
"Where is the discussion of ethics about software development among the proprietary folks?"
Just look at your argument about movements for the answer. Most organizations that make proprietary software don't consider that they are on a moral quest, so they don't see "evil" hiding in the bushes. That's not to say that they are immoral, they just have a conventional view of ethics.
"Think of how new the digital age is; some just consider proprietary software as a bump on the road."
I'm not sure what your definition of the "digital age" is, but the "free" software movement has been around for only a tiny fraction of software development's history, so it better qualifies as the "bump on the road" at this point in time. It may turn out to be more someday, but it's too early to say so now.
I disagree. Using USB for any kind of communication with devices is standard use. If you used a USB port to directly recharge a car battery or something equally unusual, that would be a hack.
We enjoyed watching you knock it down.
that unless you've seen the paystubs from an astroturfer's check, you're just speculating.
"I will also point out the obvious that MS has seeded quite a few landscapers here on Slashdot lately, but I'm sure one will come along soon and prove my point..."
So if somebody says something positive about the Zune, it proves they are "landscapers" (whatever the hell that means). I don't really have to point out the invalidity of your argument, do I?
I guess the Apple section got assimilated.
"That's odd, considering that social contract theory is fundamental to ethics; the connection is solid."
I'd say that the role of a social contract in ethics is an ethical question that is still debated, not something that most philosophers have historically agreed upon. In any case, you spoke of an implied social contract which is a weaker form.
"Violating the spirit of the BSD takes no thought; doing the same to the GPL involves a team of lawyers and much consideration. Violating spirit by a fraction of percent of code is the same to you as violating by nearly all of the code."
I don't think you understand what "violating the spirit" really means. It's not about quantities or about how easy it is to do, it's about not following a general principle.
"I agree there are groups of people who believe in the transcendence of their goals. Indeed, another example is that one of these groups believes that proprietary software should exist, which requires the transcendence other people's ethics that include helping their neighbor."
One difference is that those who support proprietary software rarely brand the "free" software folks with labels like "evil" the way "free" software proponents often do. If you're going to claim moral superiority, you need to demonstrate it beyond your own special interests.