Here's the REAL MS tactic, you tell me how to get around it.
1) Release a browser that has non-standard (and difficult or impossible to reverse engineer) feature X.
2) Now bombard your loyal developers with information on how cool X is, how to use it best, how to "migrate" to it, etc. Give them ZERO information on how to NOT use it. That is, give no information on how to achieve the same effect without using feature X.
3) Now visitors to these sites have use X OR be locked out of these sites. In some cases, this is just not acceptable. When it's just a matter of protesting standards non-compliance I will shut off the feature. But if it's a matter of no longer being able to check my hotmail mail, or shop at Amazon, or check my medical condition at DrKoop.com....well, you get the picture.
What I'm trying to say is that sometimes the long-term optimal solution (get another browser) is not the same as the short-term optimal solution (turn on feature X). And how many people do you know that behave optimally long-term even for their health? Arguments from "think long-term" rarely work. Arguments from "if only everyone would..." rarely work. Used together they NEVER work. --
"Wow, we were really all over the news there for a while. ZDNet had daily stories about us, The Register kept running headlines like 'The End of Corel'. Even Linux Journal kept running advertisements, I mean 'articles', about us. But the worst appears to be over--you'll finally be able to read a Linux-related news story without any mention of me or my company." --
That depends on your reasons for wanting Open Source, I guess. If it's just curiosity "I want to have the software that's in that coke machine", then I guess you would have to create a license for that.
But *I* use OS software so that I *own* the software on my computer just as strongly as I own the computer itself. Non-OS software has a weak sense of ownership: I can use it, but I can't pass it on or modify it. The coke machine is even weaker, to the point where (I think) it doesn't make sense to say I own the software on the machine. I used it once, but it belongs to someone else.
Think of it this way: You go to your friend's house and play a cool game he has. Should he be required to send you home with the source code? I don't think so. --
Let's say you go to the store and buy a coke. The coke machine runs Linux. Should you get a free CD with every can? No.
The purpose of the GPL is put software back (as far as is possible) to the state of other information. Once you've been given some "information" you are free to tell other people and put any spin on it you want. So you can freely redistribute the binaries (that's the telling other people) and you have to give out the source code (so they can put their own spin on it).
But when I use a website, the only information I'm getting is what's shown on the browser. That's not to say you couldn't create a license that required a licensee to allow users to download the code--but it's not what the GPL is about. --
You have to be 18 to RENT, not to PLAY. This isn't the "government trying to raise my children". This is the government enabling me to raise my children. Now the choice to rent these games is back in the hands of the parents.
So then you can argue "but kids can get around the rules with older siblings/friends or less restrictive parents". Yes, but which rule is a child more likely to follow "Don't play video games with excessive violence" or "Don't play video games that are rated R"? Since they can rationalize the first one away, the second one is a better rule. --
Having tragically been filtered by the last remaining non-idiot on Slashdot, timothy was forced to post a Katz "piece" but mark the author as someone else. --
Is Gil Bates a new Slashdot columnist? He's got the length AND the leaping to conclusions down...
We go from "SCO is on sale" to "SCO didn't/doesn't have a viable business model" to "new owners have to kill the product" (but not the business model?) to "migrate to a different product". From there we conclude, somehow, that there will be "longer-term benefits of acquiring a chunk of the SCO customer/reseller base", whatever that means.
How about we just have the summaries spell out the NEWS and leave the theorizing to the comment area? --
"I've certainly had friends be harassed and threatened online, and turning a blind eye to everything but attacks directly against the network doesn't seem right either."
Nonetheless, it IS right. The ISP is providing Internet service (duh, that's what ISP means). Period, end of story. If they want to keep (or get back) "common carrier" status, they CANNOT log packet contents.
In my view it should go like this:
Harrasee: Hey, Mr ISP--your user BlahBlah keeps sending me threatening emails, please kick him off Mr ISP: I have no way of checking the contents of incoming or outgoing emails so I can't verify what you say is true. Furthermore, even if I could, I am not a law enforcement agency and can't take action against this person. --
1) Attaching riders to bills is pretty annoying and sneaky. What they do is stick an odious piece of crap onto a must-have bill. Then they can blackmail the congress-critters into taking the crap by saying "what will your constituents if you vote against the must-have?" How's this for a solution: If any law gets struck down (for whatever reason) the entire bill it was attached to when it was passed goes with it.
2) Speaking of censorship: I was browsing at -1 yesterday and happened to see a cut-n-paste from what looked like an MSDN article. An hour or so later I again browsed that story at -1 and noticed that the MSDN thing was gone. Was it deleted? If so, does that mean Slashdot caved to Microsoft on the Kerberos thing (without telling us) and is now removing posts left and right? --
"Well, if you're not thinking too hard about the way they're distributed as opposed to how they work, it's not too bad a metaphor."
Yeah, I know where he got the metaphor. But the idea here is to get some sane laws regarding distribution. We'll be a lot better off if our metaphors match our intentions. --
I use X, I'm not against GUIs, but....well let me put it this way: I tried GNOME and KDE both. After about 10 minutes of looking through the "control panels" and "desktop shortcuts" I was reminded of (one of the reasons) why I hate Windows. rpm -e kde; rpm -e gnome --
Kinda. Programs are more deterministic than recipes, but OK.
A shrink-wrapped software suite is like a cook-book.
Yes and no. A library is like a cookbook, surely. A shrink-wrapped software suite is...a recipe you pay for. No analog.
"Operating systems are like kitchens."
Kitches aren't made of recipes. Operating systems are like...holding a banquet while you cook. (running programs to make other programs)
"Digital music files are like piano rolls."
AAHHH! No! This is exactly what digital music files are NOT. Piano rolls are a manufactured product that has a cost in physical materials. Digital music files have no physical parts--they are pure information. Once you have created one music file, you can have as many copies made as you want at zero cost. --
Your "solution" is just as bad as the disease. If I use my credit card to pay for something, I should be liable for the debt, period. If I want to gamble it all away over the Internet, there's no reason in the world I shouldn't. --
"I don't like to think lottery as a tax for the mathematically disinclined, as one joke goes, because my own grandparents enjoyed purchasing lottery tickets and they kind of do it just for fun)"
But couldn't your grandparents have MORE fun for LESS money by doing something else? Like going to a casino? Or touching matches to $100 bills? That means they are STILL bad at math because they aren't getting most bang for the buck. --
Lotteries are: -less fun (no flashing lights, ringing bells or buxom babes) -more trouble (often you can't find out if you've won until later that day or WEEK) -more fraudulent (casino's advertise the fun of playing, lotteries advertise the winning--which happens more often) -more hypocritical (using taxes on people with poor math skills to pay for education?) I could go on... --
I agree that the commentary is there. And I agree that it is (mostly) a good thing. But I don't agree that it's either deep or subtle. Maybe to a middle-schooler, but all the references I'VE seen have been VERY heavy-handed? --
If we are comparing draconian licenses to free licenses, then, no, they aren't better. If they were free to begin with we could spend time writing software that didn't exist at all.
But if we are comparing draconian licenses to less-evil-but-still-non-Free licenses, then yes, they ARE good because they provide the impetus needed to write a clone. --
People, complaints about how "The Man" is keeping "The Truth" away from "The People" are not insightful, they are REDUNDANT.
For instance, the above post. The underlying assumption is that all (or most, or many) politicians are evil geniuses whereas all citizens are uninformed sheep. But where do politicians come from? The citizenry. It's unlikely in the extreme that politicians are more evil OR intelligent than your neighbor.
In other words, a broken system does not imply a conspiracy. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." --
Since this is comment #4 and 1-3 are all "first posts", this can't be redundant. That's one moderator on crack.
Then we have 1 other who isn't able to read, and 2 who either feel threatened by questions about Linux security or stability OR are moderating based on username.
Your car example is specious. The original example was people who can't install their own software. That requires no knowledge of the internals of an OS. The car analog to installing your own software IS putting gas in.
Furthermore, you know a LOT more about your car than how to put the gas in. You know how to operate your car (which pedal makes it go faster, which stops it, how to steer), how to operate the "peripherals" (radio, AC, etc), how to read the feedback (odometer, speedometer, warning lights), traffic laws (no right on red, right side of road, four way stops, etc) and communication with other users (turn signals, honking, hand gestures, etc).
In fact, if you want to argue that computer usage and car usage (should) require similar levels of knowledge, you'll have to further argue that, unless you can prove basic proficiency and safety, you should be allowed to operate a computer. Just like a driver's license.
You are right that computers are powerful--but power by itself is useless. You need knowledge to apply that power usefully and safely. --
Given that part of the explanation for Tux's impressive performance is the use of a kernel-based httpd server, how much how stable and secure do you expect it is.
BTW, this isn't a flame. I'm sure it's better than IIS/NT on both fronts--but is it better than Apache/Linux, even after factoring in the speed? --
Crackers are just like schoolyard teases. They feel important when someone pays attention to them. Talking to the cracker didn't gain the admin any info and it made the cracker's day.
You might respond "but maybe you can befriend the cracker and set him straight". Yeah, maybe. Or maybe he'll start realizing you are getting too close and he'll lash out by typing "rm -rf/"--which is just what happened in this example. In any case, don't risk your precious time and money on your so-so psychology skills.
BTW, Slashdot trolls are the same way. Don't moderate them (esp down past 0), don't respond to them (even "just once"). Just ignore. Like your mother said "eventually they will get bored and leave you alone". And this isn't theory. I've gone through several cycles of trolls (or one troll with many names) targetting me for idiotic responses or unfair moderation (which reminds me, could we have some meta-mod power over "underrated" and "overrated"?). Once I realize what's going on, I don't even bother reading the responses. 24-48 hours later the "attack" is over. --
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the REAL MS tactic, you tell me how to get around it.
1) Release a browser that has non-standard (and difficult or impossible to reverse engineer) feature X.
2) Now bombard your loyal developers with information on how cool X is, how to use it best, how to "migrate" to it, etc. Give them ZERO information on how to NOT use it. That is, give no information on how to achieve the same effect without using feature X.
3) Now visitors to these sites have use X OR be locked out of these sites. In some cases, this is just not acceptable. When it's just a matter of protesting standards non-compliance I will shut off the feature. But if it's a matter of no longer being able to check my hotmail mail, or shop at Amazon, or check my medical condition at DrKoop.com....well, you get the picture.
What I'm trying to say is that sometimes the long-term optimal solution (get another browser) is not the same as the short-term optimal solution (turn on feature X). And how many people do you know that behave optimally long-term even for their health? Arguments from "think long-term" rarely work. Arguments from "if only everyone would..." rarely work. Used together they NEVER work.
--
"Wow, we were really all over the news there for a while. ZDNet had daily stories about us, The Register kept running headlines like 'The End of Corel'. Even Linux Journal kept running advertisements, I mean 'articles', about us. But the worst appears to be over--you'll finally be able to read a Linux-related news story without any mention of me or my company."
--
That depends on your reasons for wanting Open Source, I guess. If it's just curiosity "I want to have the software that's in that coke machine", then I guess you would have to create a license for that.
But *I* use OS software so that I *own* the software on my computer just as strongly as I own the computer itself. Non-OS software has a weak sense of ownership: I can use it, but I can't pass it on or modify it. The coke machine is even weaker, to the point where (I think) it doesn't make sense to say I own the software on the machine. I used it once, but it belongs to someone else.
Think of it this way: You go to your friend's house and play a cool game he has. Should he be required to send you home with the source code? I don't think so.
--
Actually, this is a two-way street. Water can lead to life via it's peculiar properties (solid less dense than liquid, etc).
But also note that life can lead to water. What do you need to make water? Free oxygen. And what's the best place to get free oxygen? Photosynthesis.
Clearly neither of this is set in stone. But Earth's two most obvious features are: 1) Life and 2) Water. That's probably not totally accidental.
--
Let's say you go to the store and buy a coke. The coke machine runs Linux. Should you get a free CD with every can? No.
The purpose of the GPL is put software back (as far as is possible) to the state of other information. Once you've been given some "information" you are free to tell other people and put any spin on it you want. So you can freely redistribute the binaries (that's the telling other people) and you have to give out the source code (so they can put their own spin on it).
But when I use a website, the only information I'm getting is what's shown on the browser. That's not to say you couldn't create a license that required a licensee to allow users to download the code--but it's not what the GPL is about.
--
You have to be 18 to RENT, not to PLAY. This isn't the "government trying to raise my children". This is the government enabling me to raise my children. Now the choice to rent these games is back in the hands of the parents.
So then you can argue "but kids can get around the rules with older siblings/friends or less restrictive parents". Yes, but which rule is a child more likely to follow "Don't play video games with excessive violence" or "Don't play video games that are rated R"? Since they can rationalize the first one away, the second one is a better rule.
--
Having tragically been filtered by the last remaining non-idiot on Slashdot, timothy was forced to post a Katz "piece" but mark the author as someone else.
--
What does a "godly" monitor do?
--
Is Gil Bates a new Slashdot columnist? He's got the length AND the leaping to conclusions down...
We go from "SCO is on sale" to "SCO didn't/doesn't have a viable business model" to "new owners have to kill the product" (but not the business model?) to "migrate to a different product". From there we conclude, somehow, that there will be "longer-term benefits of acquiring a chunk of the SCO customer/reseller base", whatever that means.
How about we just have the summaries spell out the NEWS and leave the theorizing to the comment area?
--
"I've certainly had friends be harassed and threatened online, and turning a blind eye to everything but attacks directly against the network doesn't seem right either."
Nonetheless, it IS right. The ISP is providing Internet service (duh, that's what ISP means). Period, end of story. If they want to keep (or get back) "common carrier" status, they CANNOT log packet contents.
In my view it should go like this:
Harrasee: Hey, Mr ISP--your user BlahBlah keeps sending me threatening emails, please kick him off
Mr ISP: I have no way of checking the contents of incoming or outgoing emails so I can't verify what you say is true. Furthermore, even if I could, I am not a law enforcement agency and can't take action against this person.
--
1) Attaching riders to bills is pretty annoying and sneaky. What they do is stick an odious piece of crap onto a must-have bill. Then they can blackmail the congress-critters into taking the crap by saying "what will your constituents if you vote against the must-have?" How's this for a solution: If any law gets struck down (for whatever reason) the entire bill it was attached to when it was passed goes with it.
2) Speaking of censorship: I was browsing at -1 yesterday and happened to see a cut-n-paste from what looked like an MSDN article. An hour or so later I again browsed that story at -1 and noticed that the MSDN thing was gone. Was it deleted? If so, does that mean Slashdot caved to Microsoft on the Kerberos thing (without telling us) and is now removing posts left and right?
--
"Well, if you're not thinking too hard about the way they're distributed as opposed to how they work, it's not too bad a metaphor."
Yeah, I know where he got the metaphor. But the idea here is to get some sane laws regarding distribution. We'll be a lot better off if our metaphors match our intentions.
--
I use X, I'm not against GUIs, but....well let me put it this way: I tried GNOME and KDE both. After about 10 minutes of looking through the "control panels" and "desktop shortcuts" I was reminded of (one of the reasons) why I hate Windows. rpm -e kde; rpm -e gnome
--
Programs are like recipes.
Kinda. Programs are more deterministic than recipes, but OK.
A shrink-wrapped software suite is like a cook-book.
Yes and no. A library is like a cookbook, surely. A shrink-wrapped software suite is...a recipe you pay for. No analog.
"Operating systems are like kitchens."
Kitches aren't made of recipes. Operating systems are like...holding a banquet while you cook. (running programs to make other programs)
"Digital music files are like piano rolls."
AAHHH! No! This is exactly what digital music files are NOT. Piano rolls are a manufactured product that has a cost in physical materials. Digital music files have no physical parts--they are pure information. Once you have created one music file, you can have as many copies made as you want at zero cost.
--
Your "solution" is just as bad as the disease. If I use my credit card to pay for something, I should be liable for the debt, period. If I want to gamble it all away over the Internet, there's no reason in the world I shouldn't.
--
"I don't like to think lottery as a tax for the mathematically disinclined, as one joke goes, because my own grandparents enjoyed purchasing lottery tickets and they kind of do it just for fun)"
But couldn't your grandparents have MORE fun for LESS money by doing something else? Like going to a casino? Or touching matches to $100 bills? That means they are STILL bad at math because they aren't getting most bang for the buck.
--
Lotteries are:
-less fun (no flashing lights, ringing bells or buxom babes)
-more trouble (often you can't find out if you've won until later that day or WEEK)
-more fraudulent (casino's advertise the fun of playing, lotteries advertise the winning--which happens more often)
-more hypocritical (using taxes on people with poor math skills to pay for education?)
I could go on...
--
I agree that the commentary is there. And I agree that it is (mostly) a good thing. But I don't agree that it's either deep or subtle. Maybe to a middle-schooler, but all the references I'VE seen have been VERY heavy-handed?
--
If we are comparing draconian licenses to free licenses, then, no, they aren't better. If they were free to begin with we could spend time writing software that didn't exist at all.
But if we are comparing draconian licenses to less-evil-but-still-non-Free licenses, then yes, they ARE good because they provide the impetus needed to write a clone.
--
...is reading "Applied Cryptography" by Bruce Schneier.
--
People, complaints about how "The Man" is keeping "The Truth" away from "The People" are not insightful, they are REDUNDANT.
For instance, the above post. The underlying assumption is that all (or most, or many) politicians are evil geniuses whereas all citizens are uninformed sheep. But where do politicians come from? The citizenry. It's unlikely in the extreme that politicians are more evil OR intelligent than your neighbor.
In other words, a broken system does not imply a conspiracy. "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."
--
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=5, Overrated=2, Total=11.
Since this is comment #4 and 1-3 are all "first posts", this can't be redundant. That's one moderator on crack.
Then we have 1 other who isn't able to read, and 2 who either feel threatened by questions about Linux security or stability OR are moderating based on username.
Dimwits.
--
Your car example is specious. The original example was people who can't install their own software. That requires no knowledge of the internals of an OS. The car analog to installing your own software IS putting gas in.
Furthermore, you know a LOT more about your car than how to put the gas in. You know how to operate your car (which pedal makes it go faster, which stops it, how to steer), how to operate the "peripherals" (radio, AC, etc), how to read the feedback (odometer, speedometer, warning lights), traffic laws (no right on red, right side of road, four way stops, etc) and communication with other users (turn signals, honking, hand gestures, etc).
In fact, if you want to argue that computer usage and car usage (should) require similar levels of knowledge, you'll have to further argue that, unless you can prove basic proficiency and safety, you should be allowed to operate a computer. Just like a driver's license.
You are right that computers are powerful--but power by itself is useless. You need knowledge to apply that power usefully and safely.
--
Given that part of the explanation for Tux's impressive performance is the use of a kernel-based httpd server, how much how stable and secure do you expect it is.
BTW, this isn't a flame. I'm sure it's better than IIS/NT on both fronts--but is it better than Apache/Linux, even after factoring in the speed?
--
Crackers are just like schoolyard teases. They feel important when someone pays attention to them. Talking to the cracker didn't gain the admin any info and it made the cracker's day.
/"--which is just what happened in this example. In any case, don't risk your precious time and money on your so-so psychology skills.
You might respond "but maybe you can befriend the cracker and set him straight". Yeah, maybe. Or maybe he'll start realizing you are getting too close and he'll lash out by typing "rm -rf
BTW, Slashdot trolls are the same way. Don't moderate them (esp down past 0), don't respond to them (even "just once"). Just ignore. Like your mother said "eventually they will get bored and leave you alone". And this isn't theory. I've gone through several cycles of trolls (or one troll with many names) targetting me for idiotic responses or unfair moderation (which reminds me, could we have some meta-mod power over "underrated" and "overrated"?). Once I realize what's going on, I don't even bother reading the responses. 24-48 hours later the "attack" is over.
--