Check out this comment from LinuxToday.
Evidently Netscape 6 comes with a utility that reports every file downloaded off the internet back to Netscape.
I guess IE is better if you do not like having a choice and you do not mind one company in complete control of every standard that runs the computers that are becoming so ingrained in every aspect of our lives. It astounds me that you and people like you are so willing to give Mr. Gates so much control over your lives. As for the technical superiority you mention, I am completely blown away. That is the most mindless drivel I have ever read. I hope it was meant to be humor or sarcasm or something. As I said, I use both, and IE 5.5 does not stand up to the Mozilla beta. Try actually using Mozilla before proclaiming how much better IE is.
I have the latest and greatest (5.5)Microsoft browser at work. It is some of the buggiest software I have ever used. Not even up to Microsoft's usually low standards. The Mozilla beta I use at home is much more stable. Then there is the fact that Microsoft only complies with the standards that it owns and controls.
No thanks. I will use Mozilla, the one that is open, the one that has the source code available for it, the one that has the stated goal of complying with all W3C standards, the one that is recognized as being the most standards compliant, the one that can and has already been used as a foundation for custom products, the one that can run on any operating system and any hardware platform.
My opinion, the choice is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the world (and Slashdot) is full of no-brainers.
I have read many posts here and am amazed at how strongly people feel about the candidates. What is funny is that no one is strongly for any of the candidates as much as they are strongly against his opponent. So many dire predictions about what is going to happen if Bush/Gore wins. One post even predicted a revolution if Bush wins. It is funny on one hand and sad on the other.
The truth is that who wins is irrelevent and is interesting only for the entertainment value. The real source of America's greatness is its people, not its government. This country has achieved greatness inspite of its government, not because of it. It was the laws established by the founding fathers giving power to the people that is responsible for all that is good about America not the actual mechanisms of government and certainly not the crooks that we elect to represent us and especially not the insane two party abomination that has become synynomous with our system of government. All real change in this country was brought about by people who were disatisfied with the way things were going, people who got involved to right some wrong, to fight injustice. The changes brought about people were made into law only when it is politically expedient to do so, not because it was right to do so. Need some examples? In my lifetime alone, I have seen the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement against Vietnam, equal rights for women, the environmental movement. All brought about by people who were willing to get involved. These changes would have only been possible through revolution or civil war in past ages and societies, but were brought about relatively peaceably in a short period of time, because power in this country ultimately lay in the hands of its people. I am not suggesting that these movements have produced perfect results, that we don't still have a ways to go, but, any rational person will agree that great progress has been made. Those who don't agree either don't remember how things used to be or they are the zealots who are the driving force behind these movements. I don't mean that in a derogatory way either. It takes people with an obsessive single minded focus to achieve changes like this, and people like this will accept nothing but perfection as acceptable. (Bring anyone to mind, say, RMS perhaps?)
When I said that it was irrelevant who was elected, I did not mean that Bush or Gore would not have an impact on our nation or that they would not affect our country's future. I believe that either one of them will have a negative influence on the future of this country because both of them will simply keep America moving in the same direction it is already moving and that is the wrong direction. Both parties are steadily taking power away from the people they are supposed to represent. While one party wants to transfer this power to the government the other wants to give it to the corporations. Both are wrong, and both will lead to the decline of our country.
The message I am trying to get across is that if you are not happy with the way your country is going, and you should not be, then get involved and make a difference. Take power back from the politicians and the corporations and return it back to the people where it belongs. If this country does continue to decline, it won't because of the people elected in Washington, it will be because of the apathy of the people who allow it to happen. One thing I would like to point out is how the power of the media helped act as a catalyst for all the changes that I used as examples. This was because the media allowed the ideas behind these movements to spread to a wide audience, allowed these ideas to infect and change a people one mind at a time. The power of the internet to be a catalyst for change is many orders of magnitude greater still.
Now, why am I bothering to post this here on Slashdot? Because most of the readers here are young, and it was our young who were at the forefront of each of these revolutions. In China, it was the youth of that nation who lay in front of the tanks, trying to bring about change in their country. The idealism and passion of youth is an almost unstoppable power for change when it is channeled into something other then the mindless gratification that is the focus of most young. So, I am posting here because I hope to infect a few minds with the idea you can make a difference if you get involved and that the liars and thieves in Washington are the problem, not the solution.
We can publish classified information, but, woe into those who would publish information on the inner workings of a DVD player. Oh well, at least we won this one.
You still do not get it. The original post I responded to was asking if OS X meant the end of Linux. My response was that my interest in Linux was based on the fact that it was free software, so the availability of the non-free OS X held little interest for me and therefore OS X does not represent the end of Linux. I don't think Apple owes me anything. I am sure OS X will be a very good product. I have always admired Apple products, but, I have made a decision to support free software so it is just not for me. If you like OS X, more power to you.
(quick question: if i'm illiterate, how did you understand me in the first place?)
Long practice from decoding comments from all these Slashdot idiots. (Just a joke)
By the way, your second comment was much better, more thought out. So my illiterate comment had some effect.
I don't want anything from Apple and am not interested in anything they have. If they "open sourced" their system I would be interested as I have made a decision to use only free/open source software. I realize that BSD is not GNU software but, I use the term free software in deference to RMS instead of using the idiotic "free (as in beer)"/"open source" blather.
I really don't know why I am responding to your post, as it is some of the most illiterate prattle I have ever read.
I use Linux because it is free software. Mac OSX is a proprietory GUI running on free software (BSD). I have no interest in it. Now, if they make it truly free, I would certainly be interested.
Sorry, but I disagree. By an alternative to Windows, I was refferring to something useable. Without all the tools, utilities and evangelism by the FSF, I don't believe you would have free/net/openbsd. BSDI was proprietory until recently. As far as the technical merits of Hurd, I pointed out that I am not qualified to say, but, it is based on the same Mach microkernal as the Mac OS X which you seemed to think had "some very good potential".
So your arguments did not sway me and I stand by my statement that it is mainly anti-Stallman rhetoric.
Thanks, but see what it got us. My original comment was evidently modded up to 3 and now back down to 1. Your comment got modded down to 0.
I guess intelligent comments are not appreciated.
I'd be far more willing to switch / put
effort into something which actually has
some potential to change things - like
EROS. see http://www.eros-os.org/
Eg mathematically provable security,
orthogonal persistance.
I love Linux and use it exclusively (except at work where I am forced to use windows, sigh) but, I don't believe that Linux is the final word in computing. Hurd may not be the answer and may never be a viable alternative. I don't know and I am not qualified to say. I will say that it is admirable that they are trying to advance the state of free operating systems and I hope they succeed. I just don't understand the mentality of the posters here think that they should not even try, because we have Linux. Actually, I do understand, it is simply because RMS and the FSF are behind it. If Linus was to announce that Linux 3.0 was going to be a rewrite using the microkernal idea, people would be proclaiming what a genuis he was. I am really tired of reading the moronic flaming that goes on here at Slashdot anytime an article mentions RMS or the Free software foundation. I am aware of the problems that Stallman's rhetoric has caused, but, I am also aware that without all the work done by him and the FSF, I would not have any alternative to Windows today. For that he has earned my respect and deserves yours.
Can somebody point me to a site where one can go to discuss issues intelligently. I am sick of the noise here.
If you are really concerned about the hungry, get off your ass and go out into your own community and feed, clothe and shelter the destitute people you find. And I am not being flip about this, you can do more good by organizing your community to take care of its own then any amount of spending by the federal government could ever hope to accomplish.
The big obstacle to establishing a long term presence in space away from earth is development of closed loop life support systems where resources are conserved and recycled. Do you reckon research like this might be applied to our environmental problems here on earth. It has been proven many times that money spent on the space program is returned many times over in new technology and jobs.
Microsoft would just buy SeaLand. Remember, BillG is the man who would be king, so that would fit nicely into his plans. Need Christmas shopping ideas Melinda dear?
It is hard not to be so general when you are trying to keep the message short. And you are right that "they" are not involved in a "conspiration against Mankind". I don't even think there is any sinister motives involved. It is simply a case of these entities fighting to retain the power that they have always enjoyed, power that they believe is rightfully theirs.
Examples:
People in government believe it is their right and even their duty to protect the citizens they govern. But, when their protection consists of taking away my right to speak and think freely, they are not protecting me, the cure is worse then any disease they could be protecting me from. Restrict the use of cryptography because it might be used by terrorists. But, what if the government being plotted against is repressive and doesn't deserve to remain in power. Enact gun control laws because people get killed with guns. But, you forget that the reason that the constitution gaurantees the right to bear arms is so that the people could protect themselves from oppressive government. I will take my chances with the terrorists and the criminal as I am much more afraid of the government. Just because our government is not an oppressive government does not mean it cannot become one. In fact, the issues we are discussing here disturb me because that is the direction we are heading if we don't change course.
The napster and decss lawsuits are examples of business trying to maintain the profit streams that they now enjoy from the distribution of music and movies. Perfectly understandable. The problem, once again, is that their solution tramples on our rights. Napster represents a new business model for distributing music. The problem with Napster is that it does not provide a mechanism for paying artists. The solution is to build in such mechanism, not to outlaw the competition, as the record companies would do, thus preserving their monopoly. The lawsuit against decss is truly insidious. In order to protect their revenue stream, the movie companies would take away my freedom to understand the world around me. Open up that DVD player I paid good money for and see how it works. Absolutely not! Tell other people how it works, go straight to jail, do not pass go. I can publish information on how to make an atomic bomb, but don't dare talk about the inner workings of a common consumer device. This desire to understand the world around us is hardwired into each and everyone of us. Might as well pass laws forbidding us to breath.
Bottom line, no mass conspiracy against mankind, no sinister motives. Just organizations looking out for their own self interest, just as I am looking out for the self interest of the organization I belong to, that of humanity. As I said in the short form, a matter of control.
The real issue is control. The internet has weakened the ability of governments, business and media to control what we think, what information we have access to, who we can talk to, etc. The internet has empowered people to a degree never before possible to speak out freely, access the store of human knowledge and share knowledge, ideas and opinions. So, under the pretense of protecting us from cyber criminals, child pornographers and terrorists, they pass these laws. But, the real reason is so that government can regain control of what we say and who we say it to, business gain regain control of the store of human knowledge so it can only be accessed by paying a toll fee and so that the media can regain control of what we think and feel by limiting us to the ideas and opinions that they want to feed us.
The question is what are we going to do about it? Are we going to let this happen? Is this period of real freedom going to sustain, or, like democracy in ancient Greece, just shine brightly for a brief moment and then die out to be (hopefully)reborn in another millenia?
Since almost all medical knowledge is open and available to all, I would argue that the philosophies mesh wonderfully well. Even if they did not mesh it wouldn't matter. As an example look at China, possibly the most closed system in the world, but they are embracing open source.
Thank you for an intelligent comment. Reading through all the comments it is evident that most of these people here either did not put much thought into their answers or they have very little imagination.
From reading the comments the consensus seems to be that this would be a bad thing, but, I disagree. I think it makes perfect sense. My response to the objections raised:
I would still be worried about the level of support that a commercial company offers over what a part time hacker offers.
This will not be accomplished by part time hackers. It would have to be driven by the medical community, probably through the AMA. The AMA would define the requirements and then have the work contracted through an organization like SourceXchange. I believe that this is the future of open source software, communtities such as the medical communtity defining a common set of software needs and then contracting with the open source community to have that itch scratched.
I sure as hell would not trust Linux, *BSD or any jack-of-all-trades OS to run my life support.
1. Any equipment used for medical use has to be certified and this would certainly be true of any open source equipment. I myself would have more trust in a system that was open for inspection then one that wasn't.
2. Why do you assume that medical software = life support. How about hospital management, Doctors office management, patient records, billing, etc.
The benefits as I see them:
1. The ability for the medical community to get a common pool of software developed specifically for their needs.
2. The cost savings from having this common pool of free software will mean lower medical costs, which benefits everybody.
The answer is to get more involved, not less. In my lifetime I have seen people force enactment of civil rights laws and stop our involvement in the Vietnam war. This was accomplished by people who got involved, not by the government, who only reacted when it was politically expedient to do so. In years past, changes like this could only have come about through civil war or revolution. This is a testament to the power of Democracy and to the power of people who are willing to get involved.
On a side note:
The thing that made the above changes possible was a combination of the right to free speech allowing these people to speak these unpopular (at the time)ideas and the power of television to spread the ideas espoused by these movements. Do I need to point out how much more the Internet empowers us to get involved in the shaping of government policy?
Slashdot Mirror
Check out this comment from LinuxToday.
2 000-11-07-007-04-OP-CY-SW-0000
Evidently Netscape 6 comes with a utility that reports every file downloaded off the internet back to Netscape.
<br>http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=
I guess IE is better if you do not like having a choice and you do not mind one company in complete control of every standard that runs the computers that are becoming so ingrained in every aspect of our lives. It astounds me that you and people like you are so willing to give Mr. Gates so much control over your lives. As for the technical superiority you mention, I am completely blown away. That is the most mindless drivel I have ever read. I hope it was meant to be humor or sarcasm or something. As I said, I use both, and IE 5.5 does not stand up to the Mozilla beta. Try actually using Mozilla before proclaiming how much better IE is.
I have the latest and greatest (5.5)Microsoft browser at work. It is some of the buggiest software I have ever used. Not even up to Microsoft's usually low standards. The Mozilla beta I use at home is much more stable. Then there is the fact that Microsoft only complies with the standards that it owns and controls.
No thanks. I will use Mozilla, the one that is open, the one that has the source code available for it, the one that has the stated goal of complying with all W3C standards, the one that is recognized as being the most standards compliant, the one that can and has already been used as a foundation for custom products, the one that can run on any operating system and any hardware platform.
My opinion, the choice is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, the world (and Slashdot) is full of no-brainers.
I have read many posts here and am amazed at how strongly people feel about the candidates. What is funny is that no one is strongly for any of the candidates as much as they are strongly against his opponent. So many dire predictions about what is going to happen if Bush/Gore wins. One post even predicted a revolution if Bush wins. It is funny on one hand and sad on the other.
The truth is that who wins is irrelevent and is interesting only for the entertainment value. The real source of America's greatness is its people, not its government. This country has achieved greatness inspite of its government, not because of it. It was the laws established by the founding fathers giving power to the people that is responsible for all that is good about America not the actual mechanisms of government and certainly not the crooks that we elect to represent us and especially not the insane two party abomination that has become synynomous with our system of government. All real change in this country was brought about by people who were disatisfied with the way things were going, people who got involved to right some wrong, to fight injustice. The changes brought about people were made into law only when it is politically expedient to do so, not because it was right to do so. Need some examples? In my lifetime alone, I have seen the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement against Vietnam, equal rights for women, the environmental movement. All brought about by people who were willing to get involved. These changes would have only been possible through revolution or civil war in past ages and societies, but were brought about relatively peaceably in a short period of time, because power in this country ultimately lay in the hands of its people. I am not suggesting that these movements have produced perfect results, that we don't still have a ways to go, but, any rational person will agree that great progress has been made. Those who don't agree either don't remember how things used to be or they are the zealots who are the driving force behind these movements. I don't mean that in a derogatory way either. It takes people with an obsessive single minded focus to achieve changes like this, and people like this will accept nothing but perfection as acceptable. (Bring anyone to mind, say, RMS perhaps?)
When I said that it was irrelevant who was elected, I did not mean that Bush or Gore would not have an impact on our nation or that they would not affect our country's future. I believe that either one of them will have a negative influence on the future of this country because both of them will simply keep America moving in the same direction it is already moving and that is the wrong direction. Both parties are steadily taking power away from the people they are supposed to represent. While one party wants to transfer this power to the government the other wants to give it to the corporations. Both are wrong, and both will lead to the decline of our country.
The message I am trying to get across is that if you are not happy with the way your country is going, and you should not be, then get involved and make a difference. Take power back from the politicians and the corporations and return it back to the people where it belongs. If this country does continue to decline, it won't because of the people elected in Washington, it will be because of the apathy of the people who allow it to happen. One thing I would like to point out is how the power of the media helped act as a catalyst for all the changes that I used as examples. This was because the media allowed the ideas behind these movements to spread to a wide audience, allowed these ideas to infect and change a people one mind at a time. The power of the internet to be a catalyst for change is many orders of magnitude greater still.
Now, why am I bothering to post this here on Slashdot? Because most of the readers here are young, and it was our young who were at the forefront of each of these revolutions. In China, it was the youth of that nation who lay in front of the tanks, trying to bring about change in their country. The idealism and passion of youth is an almost unstoppable power for change when it is channeled into something other then the mindless gratification that is the focus of most young. So, I am posting here because I hope to infect a few minds with the idea you can make a difference if you get involved and that the liars and thieves in Washington are the problem, not the solution.
We can publish classified information, but, woe into those who would publish information on the inner workings of a DVD player. Oh well, at least we won this one.
(quick question: if i'm illiterate, how did you understand me in the first place?)
Long practice from decoding comments from all these Slashdot idiots. (Just a joke)
By the way, your second comment was much better, more thought out. So my illiterate comment had some effect.
I really don't know why I am responding to your post, as it is some of the most illiterate prattle I have ever read.
I use Linux because it is free software. Mac OSX is a proprietory GUI running on free software (BSD). I have no interest in it. Now, if they make it truly free, I would certainly be interested.
So your arguments did not sway me and I stand by my statement that it is mainly anti-Stallman rhetoric.
Thanks, but see what it got us. My original comment was evidently modded up to 3 and now back down to 1. Your comment got modded down to 0. I guess intelligent comments are not appreciated.
What is stopping you, if that is what you want?
I love Linux and use it exclusively (except at work where I am forced to use windows, sigh) but, I don't believe that Linux is the final word in computing. Hurd may not be the answer and may never be a viable alternative. I don't know and I am not qualified to say. I will say that it is admirable that they are trying to advance the state of free operating systems and I hope they succeed. I just don't understand the mentality of the posters here think that they should not even try, because we have Linux. Actually, I do understand, it is simply because RMS and the FSF are behind it. If Linus was to announce that Linux 3.0 was going to be a rewrite using the microkernal idea, people would be proclaiming what a genuis he was. I am really tired of reading the moronic flaming that goes on here at Slashdot anytime an article mentions RMS or the Free software foundation. I am aware of the problems that Stallman's rhetoric has caused, but, I am also aware that without all the work done by him and the FSF, I would not have any alternative to Windows today. For that he has earned my respect and deserves yours.
Can somebody point me to a site where one can go to discuss issues intelligently. I am sick of the noise here.
If you are really concerned about the hungry, get off your ass and go out into your own community and feed, clothe and shelter the destitute people you find. And I am not being flip about this, you can do more good by organizing your community to take care of its own then any amount of spending by the federal government could ever hope to accomplish.
The big obstacle to establishing a long term presence in space away from earth is development of closed loop life support systems where resources are conserved and recycled. Do you reckon research like this might be applied to our environmental problems here on earth. It has been proven many times that money spent on the space program is returned many times over in new technology and jobs.
Don't recognize humor when you see it, do you?
Microsoft would just buy SeaLand. Remember, BillG is the man who would be king, so that would fit nicely into his plans. Need Christmas shopping ideas Melinda dear?
Examples:
People in government believe it is their right and even their duty to protect the citizens they govern. But, when their protection consists of taking away my right to speak and think freely, they are not protecting me, the cure is worse then any disease they could be protecting me from. Restrict the use of cryptography because it might be used by terrorists. But, what if the government being plotted against is repressive and doesn't deserve to remain in power. Enact gun control laws because people get killed with guns. But, you forget that the reason that the constitution gaurantees the right to bear arms is so that the people could protect themselves from oppressive government. I will take my chances with the terrorists and the criminal as I am much more afraid of the government. Just because our government is not an oppressive government does not mean it cannot become one. In fact, the issues we are discussing here disturb me because that is the direction we are heading if we don't change course.
The napster and decss lawsuits are examples of business trying to maintain the profit streams that they now enjoy from the distribution of music and movies. Perfectly understandable. The problem, once again, is that their solution tramples on our rights. Napster represents a new business model for distributing music. The problem with Napster is that it does not provide a mechanism for paying artists. The solution is to build in such mechanism, not to outlaw the competition, as the record companies would do, thus preserving their monopoly. The lawsuit against decss is truly insidious. In order to protect their revenue stream, the movie companies would take away my freedom to understand the world around me. Open up that DVD player I paid good money for and see how it works. Absolutely not! Tell other people how it works, go straight to jail, do not pass go. I can publish information on how to make an atomic bomb, but don't dare talk about the inner workings of a common consumer device. This desire to understand the world around us is hardwired into each and everyone of us. Might as well pass laws forbidding us to breath.
Bottom line, no mass conspiracy against mankind, no sinister motives. Just organizations looking out for their own self interest, just as I am looking out for the self interest of the organization I belong to, that of humanity. As I said in the short form, a matter of control.
The question is what are we going to do about it? Are we going to let this happen? Is this period of real freedom going to sustain, or, like democracy in ancient Greece, just shine brightly for a brief moment and then die out to be (hopefully)reborn in another millenia?
-- Yes, I'm an utter fool.
Now that may be worth giving up the freedom of speech for. :>
What you are talking about is the barriers to getting licensed to apply that knowledge. The knowledge itself is there for anybody and everybody.
Since almost all medical knowledge is open and available to all, I would argue that the philosophies mesh wonderfully well. Even if they did not mesh it wouldn't matter. As an example look at China, possibly the most closed system in the world, but they are embracing open source.
Thank you for an intelligent comment. Reading through all the comments it is evident that most of these people here either did not put much thought into their answers or they have very little imagination.
I would still be worried about the level of support that a commercial company offers over what a part time hacker offers.
This will not be accomplished by part time hackers. It would have to be driven by the medical community, probably through the AMA. The AMA would define the requirements and then have the work contracted through an organization like SourceXchange. I believe that this is the future of open source software, communtities such as the medical communtity defining a common set of software needs and then contracting with the open source community to have that itch scratched.
I sure as hell would not trust Linux, *BSD or any jack-of-all-trades OS to run my life support.
1. Any equipment used for medical use has to be certified and this would certainly be true of any open source equipment. I myself would have more trust in a system that was open for inspection then one that wasn't.
2. Why do you assume that medical software = life support. How about hospital management, Doctors office management, patient records, billing, etc.
The benefits as I see them:
1. The ability for the medical community to get a common pool of software developed specifically for their needs.
2. The cost savings from having this common pool of free software will mean lower medical costs, which benefits everybody.
The answer is to get more involved, not less. In my lifetime I have seen people force enactment of civil rights laws and stop our involvement in the Vietnam war. This was accomplished by people who got involved, not by the government, who only reacted when it was politically expedient to do so. In years past, changes like this could only have come about through civil war or revolution. This is a testament to the power of Democracy and to the power of people who are willing to get involved.
On a side note:
The thing that made the above changes possible was a combination of the right to free speech allowing these people to speak these unpopular (at the time)ideas and the power of television to spread the ideas espoused by these movements. Do I need to point out how much more the Internet empowers us to get involved in the shaping of government policy?