Re:PKI and other issues
on
SSH v. SRP
·
· Score: 1
After reading your e-mail and ssh/srp comparison, I even more appreciate the way the Debian project (will?) handle it:
The ssh authorized_keys is manage through LDAP. If a maintainer wanted to modify it, it should use its official GPG key to encrypt the files and mail it to the ldap server. Because the key is well trusted (it must be sign by another maintainer), we obtain, IMHO, a secure way to exchange keys, which permit the use of RAS-based authentification.
For sure, the Achille Heal is on the Debian Key Ring. If it became compromise, the validation is no more valid. However, as I said, each key who aren't in the original key ring must be signed by someone else already in the key ring *which has met* the developper physically. Moreover, the key ring is manage by a person who can verify the authenticity of any demand and the keyring is widely distributed through the standard distribution.
It seems, when reading the comparaison, that ssh is as secure as srp if rsa-based authentification is used. So, for the Debian Project, SSH is as secure as SRP. However, having an yet another open source alternative is a Good Thing(TM) and one of SRP goals is to be a standard interface for authentification, making it easy to incorporate into other applications. OTOH, I really don't know if it's hard to add ssh authentification into an application. Can someone could give me some examples of applications doing so (both ssh and srp) which is not an ftp or telnet client?
Thanks and sorry for my bad english, I'm just a bit tired.
I think you do get the Full Story for Aladdin Free License. GhostScript is always licensed first under the AFPL than, after 18 months, release under the GPL. Is the right of Aladdin to re-release their code under a different license, and a great help for the free software community.
About GPL library, the position of the FSF is clear. The LGPL was a compromise and should only be used with libraries that replaced commercial equivalent (like libc) by letting commercial software be build against them (so the clause stipulating that you most provide a way for the user to relink their software against a new compatible version of the library). Libraries like GNU readline that provides a facility not generally available elsewhere should be licensed under the GPL (in the POV of the FSF - see Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library by RMS).
About the libapt case, Jason doesn't provides a special permission to Corel, although Corel press a little the issue. For the author of libapt, the Qt 2.0 library is free enough to be used with his library. So, it added this exception clause because, in the opinion of both Debian and the FSF, the small additional restriction add by the QPL are enough to forbidden the redistribution of software licenced under the GPL.
I hope this explain some issues. I'm glade to see that, even if you're not a fan of the GPL, you still respect its terms and the people who choose to distributed their software (even libraries) under it.
A word processor can be made the Unix Way(tm). If you can see it has an integration tool which use many sub programs. Components (like Corba) are just the new little tools of the new Distributed Object-Oriented Paradigm of the Software industry. As far as you can "easily" interchange the different components, and that the file output was "readable", you just got a new kind of GUI shell specialized for WYSIWYG word-processing. Just like VisualTcl is for Tk Development.
I'll look forward for KWord since frame oriented wp really miss me. I just hope they separate the content from the container (that's it, you can create the template from the kword file and you can easily extract the text from it) with, if possible, an XML compliant format so filter will be easier to do, as well as other goodies like XML/HTML stylesheets, articles database and composer forms/druid/wizard/whatever.
I think they're still a danger which the author don't see but have the same munitions: those companies will not care to fork project. Even those well-designed cooperative project. Just like Java (even I don't think Java is that great) and MS.
If they want a feature, they will pay a uninterested developers to do it, who will do simple scrap, and distributed world wild without asking first. And after that you will got a load of newbies asking on all forums why foo, who works on their rich-company-bar system, no more works elsewhere.
Think of it twice before accepting the $500 fee. May be you'll get all Slashdot's flamers on your track after that.
OffTopic: For Debian, all DFSG software is Free Software at level 1.0. We doesn't make scaling. However, I know that Bruce make some "exceptions" in the writing to included some popular license like Artistic. Read Bruce Perens Commented OSD for more info about this.
Back on topic, I think the use of the GPL by HP make a good for them. It shows that they really want to give the software to the Community instead of using the developpers as a bunch of cheap labors. Why? Because the patch they will receive must be under the GPL (that's a tradition that people send patches back with the same license), so, even if they want to make a non-free version of their soft, they can't incorporate all the contributions in their work, loosing a great deal of work. If they used the BSD or other less restrictive license, the deal will not be so clear. They will still be able to fork the code, included the patches and make their own, enhanced and incompatible non-free version. They can do that also under the GPL but, at least without the fixes coming from the Free Community.
For sure, HP has some interest in publishing those software. But most of this interest came from the Network Effect necessary to establish some standard, open or not. HP chooses the open source way; Good for them, good for us.
META tags and PICs-like protocol should be used. However, WISIWIG editor doesn't help much since META tags aren't a visual parts of the html document.
I also find that self-registred index sites (like WebRings) can be useful. May be a search engine for WebRings (e.g. look 'Elbereth' on Tolkien WebRing) can be useful (I have to look if there aren't already one).
Personnally, I use specialized index site (like NewHoo, Linux Life or Freshmeat) when I'm looking for something. Those sites will just have more value in the future, IMHO.
FYI, dpkg will soon officially supported multiple patches files and even source dependencies. That's it, apt-get -b source your_package will download all needed files, download and install needed development libraries and tools and compile and install everything, making pgcc distribution or new arch ports (with buildd) a mostly automated task.
However, making source-dependencies is not as easy as it seems and some makefile can be quite difficult to trace out. We hope to have soon a way to rebuild the entire distribution automatically before releasing it out, if it's feasible (400 & + packages is quite big, so may be we just do it for the base and standard packages).
I don't see where you disagree with me. I said that the GPL is a weapon. A defensive weapon who's here to protect and preserve our resources. This weapon can be particularely effective if used in conjunction with the Network Effect. Both can enhanced each other and make the GPL stronger.
The BSD or AL licenses can't benefits from the Network Effect as effectively than the GPL. That's not a flaw. Just a capacity not present by choice of the authors. Why this choice was made first? Currently, I don't care much about the answer. I don't used the GPL because of the Network Effect. Simply because I think the license is better construct and can do more good than harm. But that's only my opinion. YMMV;)
I understand that sometime the network effect is strong and the efforts need to avoid it is too much for the benefits/value that we want. Sometime, it can even be better to follow it just to be able to change it. Even RMS know this. That's why he created the LGPL.
However, saying that you must always follow the network effect is a refusal of your Freedom to say no. It's a deny of your capacity to change things. I don't think MS believes this when they decided to buy those less popular browser when Netscape already has the majority of the market. I don't think that what rms taught when he began gcc and emacs. Lot of people in the BSD team aren't getting screwed by the GPL. They create their own version of grep and of many other GPL utilities.
I believe in the Network Effect. It's powerful but it's nothing compare to the volonty inside any people. That's where I thing I think I disagree with you. BTW, the only software I used at home who's not DFSG free is Netscape, and only from when it falls under the NPL. Sure, I will use Mozilla as soon as it will go in beta. Most of my friends around me used Windows and MSWords or WordPerfect and we are able to exchange e-mail and documents. All we need is some good will. Hope you 'll got some. You'll need it to remove any GPL soft on your PC. And you'll miss lot of good things;)
If Larry really want Perl to be a full gift, he would have release it in the Public Domain. However, he didn't. Why? Because he doesn't want people trying to cheat on him by pretending that he wrote their modified version of the software.
He's right. Doing so it's bad. It's unethical. It's even against the law of copyright(IANAL). So you can't, AL or not, pretends to have wrote the code of other people or let pretends that someone else have wrote the software in place of you (or anyone else) without their explicit permission.
So the AL is not necessary and just confused people, IMO. It tries to replace the law, even the very specific idea of Justice and, by doing so, it gives a false impression that your work is protect better than on Public Domain. Is not all true because PD laws vary from country to country but almost with the most common PD and Copyright Laws around the world.
The GPL is not only a licence, it's a tool. A tool to promote FSF. A WEAPON (yes, GPL is not kind, I agree on Tom on this) to get more Free Software. The FSF is true activist movement. The GNU manifesto just state this way. However, the weapon is not an offensive one: it doesn't prevent you for doing your own way. It doesn't invade your territory without your permission. But it's a defensive weapon: it prevents people from stealing the ressource of your territory without giving back.
But this weapon as a side effect: if you simply accept its conditions, not only only you will enriched the ressource of your opponents, ressources that can enriched you by their functionnalities (no body would say that gcc, cvs or linux aren't enriched they life, GPLed or not) but you will now got a share from it! The ressource will now also be a part of your own territory making it even more precious, more valuable! The weapon is now a tool. A building tool.
Yes, letting people has ethics choice is good. But some person, especially corporation, aren't mature enough. They're just selfish kids. The GPL helps them to learn that they can receive something if they share. You can let them learn this by themselve. But, which one does more good? Your choice is YOUR personal decision.
BTW, if you really want to make a true gift for Christmas, as TC understand it, either choose one of the two short lines suggest by him or used the MIT/BSD style licenses. They has less loopholes and contradictions than the Artistic one.
Why upgrade? I'm still running 2.0.36 on my home computer but 2.2.12 on my work laptop because it needs the latest driver. What distinguish linux and the OS software on this point, is that even if my home computer doesn't run the same version of the software, they can still interact and exchange documents(*). MS apps must of the time, doesn't follow this policy. They prefer let some people upgrade, than force other people upgrade not only their software, but often their hardware which can be even more expensive.
Lot of the reasons why most distributions offers the latest of new releases of Gnome/Kernel/etc. is because either to support the latest new hardware that all their new customers (those one who *buy* RH cdroms) buy, and also because those latest are also the less buggy since they're mostly beta software. Isn't a great thing that people in RH try to send you the less buggy software? BTW, nothing oblige you to install and use them. Upgrade only the fixes to your currently installed software. Then, when you get time, offer to your users the new software, only if you dare support it.
Here, where I'm currently in contract, they still used Win95. Why don't they even used Win2k or at least Win98? Because, if they do, they have to push it on the entire network! At least, in Linux, you can always get only the fixes. 2.0 still have receive some fixes after 2.2 was out. For Debian, with our 1 year and more release cycle, we still make security patches available for 2.2 and even Hamm. Eh! You can even support aout binary. Can you say the same things about 3.0 windows apps? BTW, those latest often seems to run well in wine;)
As a Debian developper, I followed closely the development of Corel Linux Distribution. I can said they do it right for two reasons :
They put there work on the setup-api in our CVS archives and update it regurlarly (see the amyf post on debian-boot archives).
They will put everything under the GPL licence from the ground up.
Corel Linux have a good past story of collabration with the Linux Community. They even promise bus transport for the Montreal InstallFest for the OCLUG people (a 200km run). Just my 2 pennies.
The Gaussian curve is one of the most regular curves that a mathematician can obtain with ideal situations. As said, it's what you can obtain when adding intercepting independant uniform probability curve, the equivalent of throwing an infinity of time a dice with an infinity of face. This curve fit very well in the Euclidian universe with their straight inifinite line, geometrical form. However, the chaos theory, which can be consider like a new form of geometry, demonstrate, by strict observation, that the nature is better represent by fractals than by (even complex one) euclidian form. A good example is the lenght of the England coast: if you take a straight meter to calculate it, you obtain a certain lenght. Now, use something a feet long: your total will be higher because you have now to follow irregularity that your previous meter must ignore. Now take the smallest rule you can, something near 10 E-35 meter. If you have the patience to do it so, you will obtain something near the infinity. That's it, a finite space with an infinite surface! This can shock your common sense but it still strictly a question of strict observation and mathematics. Nothing new, just the point of view.
Fractal and self-similarity is more natural than euclidian geometry and gaussian probabilities, IMHO. First scientist use to name everything they find, distinguing the aort from the veins, fingers from the toes, etc. In the chaos theory, it seems easier to talk about self-similarity of a single component. The vein is really simply a small aort, and fingers are really like toes who evoluate differently because of different conditions. Chaos simply say that: euclidian matahematics is may be easy for the human mind, it's not for the nature. Nature prefer too use the simpler way of fractal geometry, with no regards for our simple mind. The chaos is not a new invention, is only the tools that give us a new model of the world around us. A model who is more precise than previous one.
Finally, a little remark on the context of when Einstein had said: "God don't play with dice!" It was about quantic physics who said that probability is inherent to particules, for example, between their position and their energy. A particule CAN USE this incertitude to, e.g., gain enough energy to put itself out of the atom. That's call radioactivity. The problem Einstein had with this is that, even theorically, you can never predict what will happen. It's just like if God as said: "You're lucky being here, but they're still some chances that all the air of the atmosphere get suddenly out of the planet. I make thing this way, so even I can know which will happen." In fact, one interpretation of the quantic theory simply state that all probability happen, we simply not there to see the other.
"There's a lot of things that Linux is 'better' at, and a lot of things FreeBSD is 'better' at, and a lot of those things can easily fluctuate on a daily or weekly basis," said Fuller, who maintains a Linux vs. BSD Web page. "Thus, any definitive narrow statement that can be made is usually obsolete before anyone hears it."
OK. I have to buy a car. Yes, I'm looking for a good mecanics, but is that all? No. I'm not a professionnal driver. So, I first want a reliable car. Because I'm a new driver, I also want a car that I can open the hood to just see how it works (must be my engineer formation). I also don't want leather but a confortable tissu to sit, as well as some pretty options like CD-radio and a program for proximity support. I really don't care the nationality or even the company as long as it has a good reputation of fiability.
OS is the same thing. For me, all BSD or Linux is rock stable enough for my purpose. I found them both at the same time, including the internet world. I choice Linux first because FreeBSD seem to be less user friendly than slackware and have less options (it was a pre-2.0 FreeBSD I think, vs the old Slackware with 75 floppies to download). Now, I switch to Debian and quite happy with it for 2 years. I was looking sometime for FreeBSD but... well... I don't like the install process even if make world is very cool. Also, I'm now a bit use to the Linux way and don't feel much at home with BSD. Finally, Linux is more... do you feel the wave?;) I like the community sense of Debian and can't find a similar one in FreeBSD.
So, I used Linux simply because I'm used to and because it has all the dynamism I'm looking for. Maybe one day, I will change for something else. MkLinux? Hurd? BSD? I don't know but it surely be Debian for anything else[1]!
Yes, Debian will have soon (we hope), a FreeBSD Debian. There was also some projects for a Debian GNU/Win32 but I don't think it will ever be a full stand-alone distribution;).
I mostly agree with you, except that I think there an answer. In fact, the answer is from the same arguments/value promote by the GPL and the BSD licence: Freedom.
A company are free to use an Open Source model or not. The bazaar model is not necessarely the right one, especially for a company like Apple. When Netscape "freed" Mozilla, it has some good reasons to do so. The more important one is the only sure gain from OSD. A freed browser CAN'T die. It's important because if Communicator die, IE will be the dominant browser and all competitors to MS in the domain of Web servers will have to react to any change made by MS in its IE. This a real handicap.
I think Apple can benefits highly for a truely free MacOS X base. I should suggest them a licence like BSD or something similar. This make them benefits from the bazaar method and let build over this the good proprietary interfaces Apple are used to give us. Even if they don't want to be truely OSD compliant, I'm sure they're will be a lot of fans who find it enough free to contribute a lot of codes!
About the alternative economics models, they're also a good market for people coding on demand. Software aren't eternals. They need to be improve and demand a lot of works to be put on. Also, the effectiveness of a company often depends on them. That's how MS makes money. "Improvements" on the tools are necessary for any companies who want to be competitive. That's why they still buy the newest version of MSOffice or Windows, whatever the price charge.
If I look back on my young carrier, I can already see a good package of softwares I wrote. Some of them for the government, some for a 911 company, some for Switcher Testsets. All of them are special purpose softwares that can't be easily transfert to another platform or another purpose. I sell my coding time and the company keep the code. Sometime they will sell the software but most of the time not. And when this happen, the client will buy it for the service, the entire system or both. Copying of the software is irrelevant. The software will be perimated within a year or two. So why not free them after all? [answer: secret recipe, like the witch in Snow White;)]
So, the economics model I purpose is one that already exist: it's the turn-on-key solution. You have a good idea? Find someone to pay you for implementing it. Someone have a problem? Offer him to find a solution for him in a good delay in exchange of some money. That's the service industry, that's the consulting industry. And it pays!
This kind of article are really bad. Easy express opinion, no proof, no arguments. A single "metaphore" and he thinks he caught the whole subject.
Comparing Linux History to Unix history is incorrect. Linux really not follow the same development line and the way Linux evolved is really not the same as the way Unix as evolved.
To be brief, in answer to this article, I should say that achieving compatibility between Linux versions is always possible, as long that the components involved are "open". That's a major differences with Unix where people are bashing each other in law suits (Are there law anoraks? Just kidding.) for stolen ideas. That's the same reason why Linux can't die totally exceipt from holocaust or a MS totalitary mondial government. If this happen, you can be sure I will be in the rebellion.
Slashdot Mirror
The ssh authorized_keys is manage through LDAP. If a maintainer wanted to modify it, it should use its official GPG key to encrypt the files and mail it to the ldap server. Because the key is well trusted (it must be sign by another maintainer), we obtain, IMHO, a secure way to exchange keys, which permit the use of RAS-based authentification.
For sure, the Achille Heal is on the Debian Key Ring. If it became compromise, the validation is no more valid. However, as I said, each key who aren't in the original key ring must be signed by someone else already in the key ring *which has met* the developper physically. Moreover, the key ring is manage by a person who can verify the authenticity of any demand and the keyring is widely distributed through the standard distribution.
It seems, when reading the comparaison, that ssh is as secure as srp if rsa-based authentification is used. So, for the Debian Project, SSH is as secure as SRP. However, having an yet another open source alternative is a Good Thing(TM) and one of SRP goals is to be a standard interface for authentification, making it easy to incorporate into other applications. OTOH, I really don't know if it's hard to add ssh authentification into an application. Can someone could give me some examples of applications doing so (both ssh and srp) which is not an ftp or telnet client?
Thanks and sorry for my bad english, I'm just a bit tired.
About GPL library, the position of the FSF is clear. The LGPL was a compromise and should only be used with libraries that replaced commercial equivalent (like libc) by letting commercial software be build against them (so the clause stipulating that you most provide a way for the user to relink their software against a new compatible version of the library). Libraries like GNU readline that provides a facility not generally available elsewhere should be licensed under the GPL (in the POV of the FSF - see Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library by RMS).
About the libapt case, Jason doesn't provides a special permission to Corel, although Corel press a little the issue. For the author of libapt, the Qt 2.0 library is free enough to be used with his library. So, it added this exception clause because, in the opinion of both Debian and the FSF, the small additional restriction add by the QPL are enough to forbidden the redistribution of software licenced under the GPL.
I hope this explain some issues. I'm glade to see that, even if you're not a fan of the GPL, you still respect its terms and the people who choose to distributed their software (even libraries) under it.
Thanks
I'll look forward for KWord since frame oriented wp really miss me. I just hope they separate the content from the container (that's it, you can create the template from the kword file and you can easily extract the text from it) with, if possible, an XML compliant format so filter will be easier to do, as well as other goodies like XML/HTML stylesheets, articles database and composer forms/druid/wizard/whatever.
If they want a feature, they will pay a uninterested developers to do it, who will do simple scrap, and distributed world wild without asking first. And after that you will got a load of newbies asking on all forums why foo, who works on their rich-company-bar system, no more works elsewhere.
Think of it twice before accepting the $500 fee. May be you'll get all Slashdot's flamers on your track after that.
Back on topic, I think the use of the GPL by HP make a good for them. It shows that they really want to give the software to the Community instead of using the developpers as a bunch of cheap labors. Why? Because the patch they will receive must be under the GPL (that's a tradition that people send patches back with the same license), so, even if they want to make a non-free version of their soft, they can't incorporate all the contributions in their work, loosing a great deal of work. If they used the BSD or other less restrictive license, the deal will not be so clear. They will still be able to fork the code, included the patches and make their own, enhanced and incompatible non-free version. They can do that also under the GPL but, at least without the fixes coming from the Free Community.
For sure, HP has some interest in publishing those software. But most of this interest came from the Network Effect necessary to establish some standard, open or not. HP chooses the open source way; Good for them, good for us.
I also find that self-registred index sites (like WebRings) can be useful. May be a search engine for WebRings (e.g. look 'Elbereth' on Tolkien WebRing) can be useful (I have to look if there aren't already one).
Personnally, I use specialized index site (like NewHoo, Linux Life or Freshmeat) when I'm looking for something. Those sites will just have more value in the future, IMHO.
However, making source-dependencies is not as easy as it seems and some makefile can be quite difficult to trace out. We hope to have soon a way to rebuild the entire distribution automatically before releasing it out, if it's feasible (400 & + packages is quite big, so may be we just do it for the base and standard packages).
The BSD or AL licenses can't benefits from the Network Effect as effectively than the GPL. That's not a flaw. Just a capacity not present by choice of the authors. Why this choice was made first? Currently, I don't care much about the answer. I don't used the GPL because of the Network Effect. Simply because I think the license is better construct and can do more good than harm. But that's only my opinion. YMMV ;)
I understand that sometime the network effect is strong and the efforts need to avoid it is too much for the benefits/value that we want. Sometime, it can even be better to follow it just to be able to change it. Even RMS know this. That's why he created the LGPL.
However, saying that you must always follow the network effect is a refusal of your Freedom to say no. It's a deny of your capacity to change things. I don't think MS believes this when they decided to buy those less popular browser when Netscape already has the majority of the market. I don't think that what rms taught when he began gcc and emacs. Lot of people in the BSD team aren't getting screwed by the GPL. They create their own version of grep and of many other GPL utilities.
I believe in the Network Effect. It's powerful but it's nothing compare to the volonty inside any people. That's where I thing I think I disagree with you. BTW, the only software I used at home who's not DFSG free is Netscape, and only from when it falls under the NPL. Sure, I will use Mozilla as soon as it will go in beta. Most of my friends around me used Windows and MSWords or WordPerfect and we are able to exchange e-mail and documents. All we need is some good will. Hope you 'll got some. You'll need it to remove any GPL soft on your PC. And you'll miss lot of good things ;)
Good luck!
He's right. Doing so it's bad. It's unethical. It's even against the law of copyright(IANAL). So you can't, AL or not, pretends to have wrote the code of other people or let pretends that someone else have wrote the software in place of you (or anyone else) without their explicit permission.
So the AL is not necessary and just confused people, IMO. It tries to replace the law, even the very specific idea of Justice and, by doing so, it gives a false impression that your work is protect better than on Public Domain. Is not all true because PD laws vary from country to country but almost with the most common PD and Copyright Laws around the world.
The GPL is not only a licence, it's a tool. A tool to promote FSF. A WEAPON (yes, GPL is not kind, I agree on Tom on this) to get more Free Software. The FSF is true activist movement. The GNU manifesto just state this way. However, the weapon is not an offensive one: it doesn't prevent you for doing your own way. It doesn't invade your territory without your permission. But it's a defensive weapon: it prevents people from stealing the ressource of your territory without giving back.
But this weapon as a side effect: if you simply accept its conditions, not only only you will enriched the ressource of your opponents, ressources that can enriched you by their functionnalities (no body would say that gcc, cvs or linux aren't enriched they life, GPLed or not) but you will now got a share from it! The ressource will now also be a part of your own territory making it even more precious, more valuable! The weapon is now a tool. A building tool.
Yes, letting people has ethics choice is good. But some person, especially corporation, aren't mature enough. They're just selfish kids. The GPL helps them to learn that they can receive something if they share. You can let them learn this by themselve. But, which one does more good? Your choice is YOUR personal decision.
BTW, if you really want to make a true gift for Christmas, as TC understand it, either choose one of the two short lines suggest by him or used the MIT/BSD style licenses. They has less loopholes and contradictions than the Artistic one.
Lot of the reasons why most distributions offers the latest of new releases of Gnome/Kernel/etc. is because either to support the latest new hardware that all their new customers (those one who *buy* RH cdroms) buy, and also because those latest are also the less buggy since they're mostly beta software. Isn't a great thing that people in RH try to send you the less buggy software? BTW, nothing oblige you to install and use them. Upgrade only the fixes to your currently installed software. Then, when you get time, offer to your users the new software, only if you dare support it.
Here, where I'm currently in contract, they still used Win95. Why don't they even used Win2k or at least Win98? Because, if they do, they have to push it on the entire network! At least, in Linux, you can always get only the fixes. 2.0 still have receive some fixes after 2.2 was out. For Debian, with our 1 year and more release cycle, we still make security patches available for 2.2 and even Hamm. Eh! You can even support aout binary. Can you say the same things about 3.0 windows apps? BTW, those latest often seems to run well in wine ;)
(*): Beta software doesn't count ;)
- They put there work on the setup-api in our CVS archives and update it regurlarly (see the amyf post on debian-boot archives).
- They will put everything under the GPL licence from the ground up.
Corel Linux have a good past story of collabration with the Linux Community. They even promise bus transport for the Montreal InstallFest for the OCLUG people (a 200km run). Just my 2 pennies.However, the chaos theory, which can be consider like a new form of geometry, demonstrate, by strict observation, that the nature is better represent by fractals than by (even complex one) euclidian form. A good example is the lenght of the England coast: if you take a straight meter to calculate it, you obtain a certain lenght. Now, use something a feet long: your total will be higher because you have now to follow irregularity that your previous meter must ignore. Now take the smallest rule you can, something near 10 E-35 meter. If you have the patience to do it so, you will obtain something near the infinity. That's it, a finite space with an infinite surface! This can shock your common sense but it still strictly a question of strict observation and mathematics. Nothing new, just the point of view.
Fractal and self-similarity is more natural than euclidian geometry and gaussian probabilities, IMHO. First scientist use to name everything they find, distinguing the aort from the veins, fingers from the toes, etc. In the chaos theory, it seems easier to talk about self-similarity of a single component. The vein is really simply a small aort, and fingers are really like toes who evoluate differently because of different conditions. Chaos simply say that: euclidian matahematics is may be easy for the human mind, it's not for the nature. Nature prefer too use the simpler way of fractal geometry, with no regards for our simple mind. The chaos is not a new invention, is only the tools that give us a new model of the world around us. A model who is more precise than previous one.
Finally, a little remark on the context of when Einstein had said: "God don't play with dice!" It was about quantic physics who said that probability is inherent to particules, for example, between their position and their energy. A particule CAN USE this incertitude to, e.g., gain enough energy to put itself out of the atom. That's call radioactivity. The problem Einstein had with this is that, even theorically, you can never predict what will happen. It's just like if God as said: "You're lucky being here, but they're still some chances that all the air of the atmosphere get suddenly out of the planet. I make thing this way, so even I can know which will happen." In fact, one interpretation of the quantic theory simply state that all probability happen, we simply not there to see the other.
I'm pretty sure MS backs cDc. Isn't just another c00l product that only run on MS system? ;)
OK. I have to buy a car. Yes, I'm looking for a good mecanics, but is that all? No. I'm not a professionnal driver. So, I first want a reliable car. Because I'm a new driver, I also want a car that I can open the hood to just see how it works (must be my engineer formation). I also don't want leather but a confortable tissu to sit, as well as some pretty options like CD-radio and a program for proximity support. I really don't care the nationality or even the company as long as it has a good reputation of fiability.
OS is the same thing. For me, all BSD or Linux is rock stable enough for my purpose. I found them both at the same time, including the internet world. I choice Linux first because FreeBSD seem to be less user friendly than slackware and have less options (it was a pre-2.0 FreeBSD I think, vs the old Slackware with 75 floppies to download). Now, I switch to Debian and quite happy with it for 2 years. I was looking sometime for FreeBSD but... well... I don't like the install process even if make world is very cool. Also, I'm now a bit use to the Linux way and don't feel much at home with BSD. Finally, Linux is more... do you feel the wave? ;) I like the community sense of Debian and can't find a similar one in FreeBSD.
So, I used Linux simply because I'm used to and because it has all the dynamism I'm looking for. Maybe one day, I will change for something else. MkLinux? Hurd? BSD? I don't know but it surely be Debian for anything else[1]!
I mostly agree with you, except that I think there an answer. In fact, the answer is from the same arguments/value promote by the GPL and the BSD licence: Freedom.
;)]
A company are free to use an Open Source model or not. The bazaar model is not necessarely the right one, especially for a company like Apple. When Netscape "freed" Mozilla, it has some good reasons to do so. The more important one is the only sure gain from OSD. A freed browser CAN'T die. It's important because if Communicator die, IE will be the dominant browser and all competitors to MS in the domain of Web servers will have to react to any change made by MS in its IE. This a real handicap.
I think Apple can benefits highly for a truely free MacOS X base. I should suggest them a licence
like BSD or something similar. This make them benefits from the bazaar method and let build over this the good proprietary interfaces Apple are used to give us. Even if they don't want to be truely OSD compliant, I'm sure they're will be a lot of fans who find it enough free to contribute a lot of codes!
About the alternative economics models, they're also a good market for people coding on demand.
Software aren't eternals. They need to be improve and demand a lot of works to be put on. Also, the effectiveness of a company often depends on them. That's how MS makes money. "Improvements" on the tools are necessary for any companies who want to be competitive. That's why they still buy the newest version of MSOffice or Windows, whatever the price charge.
If I look back on my young carrier, I can already see a good package of softwares I wrote. Some of them for the government, some for a 911 company, some for Switcher Testsets. All of them are special purpose softwares that can't be easily transfert to another platform or another purpose. I sell my coding time and the company keep the code. Sometime they will sell the software but most of the time not. And when this happen, the client will buy it for the service, the entire system or both. Copying of the software is irrelevant. The software will be perimated within a year or two. So why not free them after all? [answer: secret recipe, like the witch in Snow White
So, the economics model I purpose is one that already exist: it's the turn-on-key solution. You have a good idea? Find someone to pay you for implementing it. Someone have a problem? Offer him to find a solution for him in a good delay in exchange of some money. That's the service industry, that's the consulting industry. And it pays!
This kind of article are really bad. Easy express opinion, no proof, no arguments. A single "metaphore" and he thinks he caught the whole subject.
Comparing Linux History to Unix history is incorrect. Linux really not follow the same development line and the way Linux evolved is really not the same as the way Unix as evolved.
To be brief, in answer to this article, I should say that achieving compatibility between Linux versions is always possible, as long that the components involved are "open". That's a major differences with Unix where people are bashing each other in law suits (Are there law anoraks? Just kidding.) for stolen ideas. That's the same reason why Linux can't die totally exceipt from holocaust or a MS totalitary mondial government.
If this happen, you can be sure I will be in the rebellion.
Just my 2 pennies.