First of all, licenses matter. To programmers they matter directly--which code can you reuse and who can reuse your code. To non-programmers they matter indirectly--which products get which features, when and how compatible.
Second of all, I seriously doubt RMS has a list of software vendors that he consults and then goes out to badger them into using the GPL (or a compatible license). More likely, Python went to him to see if they were GPL-compat. He said "no" which is entirely his choice. Furthermore, Python acknowledged that it was his choice by the very act of asking.
Third, this causes no problems to the FSF, the Python people or the general public. It's only a problem for groups like Debian that want to distribute A) only GPL and GPL-compatible software and B) Python. --
When I was little and and lived at home, I didn't always remember to turn off lights when I left a room. My mother would say "we don't own stock in the electric company" which meant "we are losing, not making, money by leaving lights on".
Maybe Sega gives stocks to pirates to turn them into people that want to stop piracy. --
I didn't say the person knew everything, clearly knowledge is an asset. I said someone who can "figure it out".
Let me give you an example: We had some new computers set up that needed to get out our (Microsoft) proxy server and check POP3 mail on the Internet. I heard a lot of talk over the wall about how they couldn't get it working--about 3 hours worth. When I went into the server room, I saw the tech rebooting the server and calling the consultant who set things up.
I went to one of the client machines: DNS server wrong, default gateway wrong, browser proxy settings wrong. Fixed those and we are good to go.
I'm just a programmer with only the most basic knowledge of networking, yet I fixed this problem in less than 10 minutes because I'm competent.
Having someone around who can answer all questions is an asset. Having people around who depend on that asset long-term is a liability. Especially so if the Answer Man is supposed to be, say, programming, but can't find time to do it between all the tech support calls. --
And if you don't believe it, try this simple test:
Is there a person in your office who always seems to be able to get the hardware/software to do what (s)he wants? Someone that all questions percolate towards when no one else can figure it out? Someone who is good at "researching issues"?
That person doesn't possess any special magical powers, they are simply competent. By contrast, the other people are what? Incompetent, yes.
That's not to say you shouldn't ask questions for fear of looking incompetent. But if all the questions come from a large subset of your employees and go to a small subset of your employees you have a problem with competency. --
Windows 95/98 or NT 4.0
a VGA graphics card capable of high (16 bit) color
If installing on Windows 95/98 you need Microsoft's Direct 3D Library (Direct X). If you do not have Direct X you can download it here.
If installing on Windows NT 4.0 you need Microsofts Service Pack 3. If you need Service Pack 3 you can download it here.
(those "download it here"'s are links to Microsoft)
-- Bid on me!
...is people who can read a clearly written paragraph and reason about it logically.
I didn't say they "should give their work out for free". I'm saying that if they want to write something, I'm not obligated to pay for it. In other words, if they want to write a book, they can feel free to do so. If I want to give them money for it, I should feel free to do so. But having them come to Slashdot asking for money up front to fulfill a need that they see is not appropriate. Imagine if Linus had gone to some BBSs in 1990 asking for money to develop a replacement Unix kernel. Ridiculous. He just went ahead and did it, expecting no payment (indeed, expecting no fame or even assistance). -- Bid on me!
All the arguments you use for not just writing it without funding are perfectly valid--but they apply just as much to all the kernel hackers and other Free Software/Open Source programmers as well. To be perfectly frank (and no offense to the submitter) the issue isn't "how do we fund documentation writers" but "how do we find documentation writers who don't need/want to be funded"?
My advice is: If you love to document the Linux TCP/IP stack then do it. Period. You can put kibbies in the cat dish via other paid work. Conceivably someone might later want to give you money/stocks for the effort you put in, but that's not the reason you should be doing it.
There's no point in objecting to my advice by saying "but how'm I gonna eat?". Either you want to do this badly enough that you'll do it no matter what--or you won't. That's all there is. -- Bid on me!
"The courts announced that Unix has Microsoft running scared... anyone surprised?"
Yes, I am. Why would the courts say such a thing? It has nothing to do with a legal ruling. Do you have a reference for this? (it's not in the ZDNet story you provided a link to)
-- Bid on me!
Oddly enough, *less* interesting than first take
on
Ash: A Secret History
·
· Score: 1
When I saw the title, "Ash: A Secret History", I thought this would be about the ash shell and some historical sidelights about it's creation and evolution. I thought "sounds pretty boring". Then I read the summary and review--even more boring than I expected. -- Bid on me!
Let me start of by saying that I think HP should support any kind of client--we all need to print, why are they leaving 20% of us out in the cold?
However, just because they use Linux within the appliance means nothing. Blenders have a whirling blade inside of them--but does GE support tossing your blender into a whirling blade? I doubt it.
The point is that the technology a company uses to create a product and the need that the product fulfills are totally orthogonal issues. --
The logging is bad enough (just because HTML does it doesn't make it OK). But combine that with the already known scripting "features" of Word and you have a recipe for disaster. Everyone who has Word installed has a generalized scriptable app open to the Internet. That's a big problem. --
People expect a web browser to be network-savvy. Clearly webbugs in a browser are bad, but at least you think to check there. But web bugs in a word processor?? --
-Run arbitrary macros
-Access your hardware
-Access the Internet
-Download and upload data
-Set and send cookies
I'm beginning to think Microsoft is right: They don't know the difference between an app and an OS.
Just to spell it all out: A Word macro virus now has the ability to, say, infect all your existing Word files such that when you open one of those files the contents are sent to a named address on the Internet. Goodbye confidential documents! --
Why are you looking for a good way to comply with a bad law? The problem is the law--fix it! Yeah, yeah, "I can't afford court fees", etc, etc, etc. Write your congress-critters (federal and state), talk to city/county councils, get your voice out there! These things can be fixed without resort to courts and expensive lawyer fees.
Better yet, pay attention to current bills being considered. An ounce of prevention.... --
It seems to me that the current lack of success in the Christian religion is indicative of the fact that we really are alone in the cosmos. If there were other superior entities out there we would see evidence for them - after all, they would likely have been around for millions of years already, and in that time their handiwork could easily have reached a scale where we could see them from Earth. But we only see natural pheomena. --
How many applications depend on Windows?
How many applications run on Windows?
How many applications Windows users can use?
The first two are both mentioned in the Slashdot summary, but the three are largely unrelated. Consider programs that run on multiple platforms (via porting), consider Java, consider mainframe apps with customized (or telnet) front ends. I'm sure MS Marketing and MS Legal are both exploiting the vagueness of English to pull the wool over our eyes. Don't let's help them with misleading (and even contradictory!) news stories. --
"Installing Unix [and Linux] is still beyond the task of most normal people, okay?"
Okay. However, the implication is that NT and/or 95/98 is easy to install for normal people. This is false*. Heck, it's hard for normal techies. What difference does it make? It points out that the reason people use Windows is not "because it's easy to install" but "because it's already installed" (by the factory, by the previous user, etc).
*Start with a bare system, one blank floppy and Win95 CD. No bootable CD drive. You have one day. Even making the CDROM bootable doesn't help all that much if there is no partition table (or it needs to be recreated) and formatting has to be done. I've had to do this many many times and I still have to sit down and plan it all out: "OK, first I need to make this floppy bootable. Then I need to get the CD drivers onto it, plus fdisk, plus format, plus edit.com. Then...." etc. --
The example Unix/Linux systems are all "infrastructure"--that is, they aren't just standalone machines dedicated to a task (like a CD press could be). But MS is well-known for making it *ahem* difficult to integrate Windows with Unix (cf Kerberos). So how does the internal IS/IT group handle this? I wonder if Microsoft's IS department hates W2k as much as all other IS groups do? --
"I think you are confused about what the "invisible hand" is. All this concept claims is that common good can and does arise out of egoistical and selfish actions of individuals."
I understand this.
"...it doesn't have much to do with monopolies (oil companies, Microsoft et al)."
Ah, I see--so when our (the US) economy creates a monopoly via the invisible hand, then it must be for the common good? No? So the invisible hand only creates the common good when certain assumptions are met? Huh, that's exactly what I said.
"Physics (non-quantum, anyway) deals with a deterministic world where situations can be repeated to see if the results are the same."
I guess you've never heard of "chaos". There are plenty of physics problems that are deterministic but you can't repeat them and see if the results are the same.
'"Soft" sciences like history or economics do not work this way. No situation ever repeats itself exactly. You can never "prove" anything. The laws in soft sciences do not dictate what will happen -- they just indicate what's likely to happen if the situation is somewhat similar.'
I see where your confusion lies. I'm not talking "the Fed raised interest rates today" type economics. I'm talking "consider a network of 'consumers' attached to a 'producer' node" type of economics. Network theory + information theory + statistics + a few other other things. All of it purely mathematical and repeatable. If it is to be useful it will be both messy AND complicated--but that doesn't mean impossible any more than using physics to launch a spacecraft is impossible.
--
You can't access one unless you pay for it, "getting the password".
Ummm...yes you can. While I was in school I was quite poor. So I convinced my roommate (same major) to go halfsies on books. Two uses, one payment. That feature would be obsolete under this system. --
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, licenses matter. To programmers they matter directly--which code can you reuse and who can reuse your code. To non-programmers they matter indirectly--which products get which features, when and how compatible.
Second of all, I seriously doubt RMS has a list of software vendors that he consults and then goes out to badger them into using the GPL (or a compatible license). More likely, Python went to him to see if they were GPL-compat. He said "no" which is entirely his choice. Furthermore, Python acknowledged that it was his choice by the very act of asking.
Third, this causes no problems to the FSF, the Python people or the general public. It's only a problem for groups like Debian that want to distribute A) only GPL and GPL-compatible software and B) Python.
--
When I was little and and lived at home, I didn't always remember to turn off lights when I left a room. My mother would say "we don't own stock in the electric company" which meant "we are losing, not making, money by leaving lights on".
Maybe Sega gives stocks to pirates to turn them into people that want to stop piracy.
--
I didn't say the person knew everything, clearly knowledge is an asset. I said someone who can "figure it out".
Let me give you an example: We had some new computers set up that needed to get out our (Microsoft) proxy server and check POP3 mail on the Internet. I heard a lot of talk over the wall about how they couldn't get it working--about 3 hours worth. When I went into the server room, I saw the tech rebooting the server and calling the consultant who set things up.
I went to one of the client machines: DNS server wrong, default gateway wrong, browser proxy settings wrong. Fixed those and we are good to go.
I'm just a programmer with only the most basic knowledge of networking, yet I fixed this problem in less than 10 minutes because I'm competent.
Having someone around who can answer all questions is an asset. Having people around who depend on that asset long-term is a liability. Especially so if the Answer Man is supposed to be, say, programming, but can't find time to do it between all the tech support calls.
--
And if you don't believe it, try this simple test:
Is there a person in your office who always seems to be able to get the hardware/software to do what (s)he wants? Someone that all questions percolate towards when no one else can figure it out? Someone who is good at "researching issues"?
That person doesn't possess any special magical powers, they are simply competent. By contrast, the other people are what? Incompetent, yes.
That's not to say you shouldn't ask questions for fear of looking incompetent. But if all the questions come from a large subset of your employees and go to a small subset of your employees you have a problem with competency.
--
Fewer production stages, sure. But doesn't it rely on a resource that is more scarce (oil instead of silicon)?
--
Heaven forbid anyone should do anything interesting on Windows.
...only. Yes, please Heaven, forbid it.
--
Bid on me!
To run Alice you must have:
Windows 95/98 or NT 4.0
a VGA graphics card capable of high (16 bit) color
If installing on Windows 95/98 you need Microsoft's Direct 3D Library (Direct X). If you do not have Direct X you can download it here.
If installing on Windows NT 4.0 you need Microsofts Service Pack 3. If you need Service Pack 3 you can download it here.
(those "download it here"'s are links to Microsoft)
--
Bid on me!
...is people who can read a clearly written paragraph and reason about it logically.
I didn't say they "should give their work out for free". I'm saying that if they want to write something, I'm not obligated to pay for it. In other words, if they want to write a book, they can feel free to do so. If I want to give them money for it, I should feel free to do so. But having them come to Slashdot asking for money up front to fulfill a need that they see is not appropriate. Imagine if Linus had gone to some BBSs in 1990 asking for money to develop a replacement Unix kernel. Ridiculous. He just went ahead and did it, expecting no payment (indeed, expecting no fame or even assistance).
--
Bid on me!
All the arguments you use for not just writing it without funding are perfectly valid--but they apply just as much to all the kernel hackers and other Free Software/Open Source programmers as well. To be perfectly frank (and no offense to the submitter) the issue isn't "how do we fund documentation writers" but "how do we find documentation writers who don't need/want to be funded"?
My advice is: If you love to document the Linux TCP/IP stack then do it. Period. You can put kibbies in the cat dish via other paid work. Conceivably someone might later want to give you money/stocks for the effort you put in, but that's not the reason you should be doing it.
There's no point in objecting to my advice by saying "but how'm I gonna eat?". Either you want to do this badly enough that you'll do it no matter what--or you won't. That's all there is.
--
Bid on me!
"The courts announced that Unix has Microsoft running scared ... anyone surprised?"
Yes, I am. Why would the courts say such a thing? It has nothing to do with a legal ruling. Do you have a reference for this? (it's not in the ZDNet story you provided a link to)
--
Bid on me!
When I saw the title, "Ash: A Secret History", I thought this would be about the ash shell and some historical sidelights about it's creation and evolution. I thought "sounds pretty boring". Then I read the summary and review--even more boring than I expected.
--
Bid on me!
Let me start of by saying that I think HP should support any kind of client--we all need to print, why are they leaving 20% of us out in the cold?
However, just because they use Linux within the appliance means nothing. Blenders have a whirling blade inside of them--but does GE support tossing your blender into a whirling blade? I doubt it.
The point is that the technology a company uses to create a product and the need that the product fulfills are totally orthogonal issues.
--
The logging is bad enough (just because HTML does it doesn't make it OK). But combine that with the already known scripting "features" of Word and you have a recipe for disaster. Everyone who has Word installed has a generalized scriptable app open to the Internet. That's a big problem.
--
People expect a web browser to be network-savvy. Clearly webbugs in a browser are bad, but at least you think to check there. But web bugs in a word processor??
--
So let me get this straight. Word can:
-Run arbitrary macros
-Access your hardware
-Access the Internet
-Download and upload data
-Set and send cookies
I'm beginning to think Microsoft is right: They don't know the difference between an app and an OS.
Just to spell it all out: A Word macro virus now has the ability to, say, infect all your existing Word files such that when you open one of those files the contents are sent to a named address on the Internet. Goodbye confidential documents!
--
Why are you looking for a good way to comply with a bad law? The problem is the law--fix it! Yeah, yeah, "I can't afford court fees", etc, etc, etc. Write your congress-critters (federal and state), talk to city/county councils, get your voice out there! These things can be fixed without resort to courts and expensive lawyer fees.
Better yet, pay attention to current bills being considered. An ounce of prevention....
--
I'd never bunch of bunch of semi-autonomous, sharp pieces of metal in my underwear. ... Oh, it's not that kind of RoboCup?
--
It seems to me that the current lack of success in the Christian religion is indicative of the fact that we really are alone in the cosmos. If there were other superior entities out there we would see evidence for them - after all, they would likely have been around for millions of years already, and in that time their handiwork could easily have reached a scale where we could see them from Earth. But we only see natural pheomena.
--
What question are we trying to answer?
How many applications depend on Windows?
How many applications run on Windows?
How many applications Windows users can use?
The first two are both mentioned in the Slashdot summary, but the three are largely unrelated. Consider programs that run on multiple platforms (via porting), consider Java, consider mainframe apps with customized (or telnet) front ends. I'm sure MS Marketing and MS Legal are both exploiting the vagueness of English to pull the wool over our eyes. Don't let's help them with misleading (and even contradictory!) news stories.
--
Datapoint: I run 99.9% Linux (100% at home, and only boot to Windows 1 hour/month to submit a time sheet written in Excel).
Datapoint: I turned off the poll slashbox quite a long time ago and so didn't vote.
--
"Installing Unix [and Linux] is still beyond the task of most normal people, okay?"
Okay. However, the implication is that NT and/or 95/98 is easy to install for normal people. This is false*. Heck, it's hard for normal techies. What difference does it make? It points out that the reason people use Windows is not "because it's easy to install" but "because it's already installed" (by the factory, by the previous user, etc).
*Start with a bare system, one blank floppy and Win95 CD. No bootable CD drive. You have one day. Even making the CDROM bootable doesn't help all that much if there is no partition table (or it needs to be recreated) and formatting has to be done. I've had to do this many many times and I still have to sit down and plan it all out: "OK, first I need to make this floppy bootable. Then I need to get the CD drivers onto it, plus fdisk, plus format, plus edit.com. Then...." etc.
--
How do we know (and ensure) that the FBI (or the NSA or Echelon or whoever) hasn't "requested" that "certain features" be built into Internet2?
--
The example Unix/Linux systems are all "infrastructure"--that is, they aren't just standalone machines dedicated to a task (like a CD press could be). But MS is well-known for making it *ahem* difficult to integrate Windows with Unix (cf Kerberos). So how does the internal IS/IT group handle this? I wonder if Microsoft's IS department hates W2k as much as all other IS groups do?
--
"I think you are confused about what the "invisible hand" is. All this concept claims is that common good can and does arise out of egoistical and selfish actions of individuals."
I understand this.
"...it doesn't have much to do with monopolies (oil companies, Microsoft et al)."
Ah, I see--so when our (the US) economy creates a monopoly via the invisible hand, then it must be for the common good? No? So the invisible hand only creates the common good when certain assumptions are met? Huh, that's exactly what I said.
"Physics (non-quantum, anyway) deals with a deterministic world where situations can be repeated to see if the results are the same."
I guess you've never heard of "chaos". There are plenty of physics problems that are deterministic but you can't repeat them and see if the results are the same.
'"Soft" sciences like history or economics do not work this way. No situation ever repeats itself exactly. You can never "prove" anything. The laws in soft sciences do not dictate what will happen -- they just indicate what's likely to happen if the situation is somewhat similar.'
I see where your confusion lies. I'm not talking "the Fed raised interest rates today" type economics. I'm talking "consider a network of 'consumers' attached to a 'producer' node" type of economics. Network theory + information theory + statistics + a few other other things. All of it purely mathematical and repeatable. If it is to be useful it will be both messy AND complicated--but that doesn't mean impossible any more than using physics to launch a spacecraft is impossible.
--
You can't access one unless you pay for it, "getting the password".
Ummm...yes you can. While I was in school I was quite poor. So I convinced my roommate (same major) to go halfsies on books. Two uses, one payment. That feature would be obsolete under this system.
--