There's an "otherwise" in there. In any event whatever you say, and also whatever I say, in/. ammounts to little in the grand scheme of things. But since I decide to comment here nonetheless I'm free to call you up on your BS, even if it's harmless.
We've conversed a couple of times before now, and you haven't added me to your foes list yet?
I don't usually resort to that when confronted with someone that persistently makes no sense and seems to live to badmouth others. I start by assuming good faith, debating, well, rational behaviour - nothing you would know about. In your case this was lost since you don't respond well to actual arguments and prefer to thrive in ad hominen attacks and baseless drivel.
I'm aiming to have pretty much everyone from this site who views the FSF even remotely positively, on my freaks list.
Given that you're a troll - and you are - I prefer to have your comments unburied just in case some absurd accusation you make goes unchallenged - otherwise you're harmeless, since most people here already know you're a troll, at least in this broad topic. My foe list is empty, and it wouldn't surely start with you. Your concerns about how others see you is interesting, but not surprising, given your fixation with the FSF.
So I assume that you take you psicotic hate for RMS, the FSF and the GPL to such a degree that you would prefer for RedHat to strike this shameful deal with Microsoft? Regardless of what that means for free software of any kind, GPL or BSD?
As for the "community", I'll say it again: your comments leave little margin to guess were the real "red eyed fanatics" are. Some know who their father is, you apparently have little problems in having Bill as step-dad as long as it furthers your only objective of badmouthing RMS and anything remotely associated with him.
Microsoft has every right to limit updates to valid licences. I don't understand how this is "good news". Well, apart from the "MS sucks again, ahaha" angle.
We complain that there is a MS tax. We complain that they hardsell licences. I would be very happy is Microsoft really had a way to limit the updates. Hell, even with Linux one *pays* for the updates in some distros, and there is nothing wrong with that. Plus, if piracy beneficts Microsoft - and it does - putting an end to it is all the better. Windows is "cheap" because many people are used to cracking all the software they have installed and then complaining about "there isn't a program in Linux/BSD that does *everything* I need and exactly the way I need".
Thanks for your answer, I had forgotten the Lotus Notes one.
And you raise an angle I had not seen: the Chinese involved in this do seem more "prepared" to pull this kind of stuff. And what's more, even if they get caught nothing happens:)
Indeed, my opinion exactly. Do note that I'm not shouting "OMG bad USA"; I'm not an American but I'm no hypocrite: if the posibility is there, I think that they should consider using it. Spying isn't a "clean" business anywhere. I remeber that Digital also made some interesting stuff for the US, mainly because their chips were being cloned by the Reds:). Anyone in Europe that worked for an American country signs a document stating that certain countries are off-limits.
The Heimdal version of kerberos appeared because of lack of crypto in MIT Kerberos at the time, due to export restrictions. What I was saying is that I ended up heading IT decisions for a government in the USA shitlist (will not happen because nobody votes for me, amongst other things) I would try to minimize reliance on closed software from US companies. Not because it's the USA, but because to be completely honest I would probably do the same if the foot was in the other shoe and the beneficts were deemed good enough. With Linux or BSD this "risk" is lower if the distribution channels remain open: at most it gives insight on possible exploits, but it levels the field in spyware. If the actual source is "closed" in some way the risk are the same though.
Well, I was assuming that the government-owned part of the deal would include that, if not now 5 years from now. I understand you though, I also never encountered anyone from Venezuela in the Linux or GNU camp myself (not saying thatey aren't out there, just my personal experience).
I understand you point but the way I read it the Chinese are in it for the technological and industrial part... the support will likely come from Venezuelans themselves, who are the other half of the "joint venture".
Although the image of a callcentre in Beijing helping users in Venezuela in spanish on how to install a TrueType font is interesting in it's own right:)
You can dislike the man, but he isn't a dictator. He could eventually become one, he wouldn't be the first, but to call him that at this point is banalizing the word. Sort of like terrorist.
Following your logic - which is indeed a possibility - isn't it OK to assume that the USA will do the same with software made by US corporations and sold to Venezuela? And in that light, and not taking into account the liking or disliking of the respective governments, isn't it a matter of national security to stop using US made software in government computers?
I'm mentioning this because I think this is the first concern they have, having their own brand of spyware can be a nice after effect. The second concern is the whole "Made in Venezuela, by contributions made from everyone!" which fits in their present ethos, a mix of nationalism and socialism (not a new mix, far from it).
We all already new linux users are a bunch of commies
Ahh, but not all commies are yet Linux users. There is still an untapped market of commies that use Windows (Gasp! How can anyone read the "Criticism of Gotha and Erfurt Program" and do that is beyond me!) or OSX - these more popular in the agit-prop subculture of commies, they design posters calling for general strikes in it because they want "colour calibration". Or so they say, still smells like burgeoise behaviour, bloody revisionists.
So is the whole thing falling apart, or is Linus' valiant stand in opposition to GPLv3 the only thing that will keep
the community going?
What community? The community of anti-GPL whinners that can't help themselves to make any news a crusade against the GPL and RMS, the "King of the Nutjobs" as you so elegantly put it? For all that I care that "community" could drop dead tomorrow. I wouldn't even notice, and what's more, nobody else would since when it comes to actually *do something* that "community" has little or nothing to show for. Unless you're using any BSD, but in that case you wouldn't be talking about the "community" in an article about Linux vendors.
BTW, "Linus valiant stand" against the GPLv3 isn't half as romantic as your hyperbole would led to believe.
I commented on that thread, and I was totally against Theo's position and the way he expressed it (see, for example, here . But disagreeing. albeit strongly, with some particular position or even the general way he likes to promote his views (and I did mention the specific case of GPL vs. BSD, which is where I disgree the most) isn't enough to sidestep the contributions he has made and his insight when dealing with prorietary threats and licences.
could talk about this all day but I'm not going to waste my time.
Yes, that usually works.
It is a generally accepted convention that PC = a computer running DOS or Windows
Ok, at least you answered my question directly, thanks. If that's what passes for "PC" on/. articles nowadays this place could serv as a support forum for AOLers.
People are perhaps reading to much into it. Linus advanced some scenarios, while at the same time giving his reasons. He was blunt, in his style, about some things but I don't see it as an all-out attack on Sun. Even more interesting is that he says that he could be wrong, and that he hope he is wrong, and that releasing Solaris under the GPLv3 would be a very good thing.
Also of note is Theo's de Raadt message in Sun's blog:
"Jonathan, I wish the above was true. 15 years ago I was the biggest Sun fan. Today I speak as the project leader for another set of open source projects -- OpenBSD and OpenSSH. OpenSSH will be better known to your audience, as it is what they use daily to connect securely to and from their Solaris (or Linux) machines. OpenSSH killed telnet and rlogin, for those who still remember those mechanisms. We give our software completely freely to the world, without even the standard encumberances people see in the GPL or CDDL. Yet when we turn around and ask Sun to give us documentation for the chips on their machines -- chips Sun themselves designed, not via contractors -- Sun drags their feet. Recently we tried to reopen these 10-year-old repeated requests, and once again nothing positive happened. You may remember, because you and David Yen were in an email conversation with us. Lots of nice open words were exchanged, but no action. However, let me give an example of the duplicity of Sun. (I wish I could use a lighter word). Two operating systems run on Sun's latest PCI-e based (smallish) Ultrasparc-III machines, the v215/v245 -- Solaris and OpenBSD. The latter system runs on those machines because the code to support the non-processor chips on the board had to be written after painstaking reverse engineering, because Sun refuses to make available documentation for how these chips are programmed. Now we will readily admit that not every programmer in the world needs to know how to program these chips. But does every programmer in the world need to know how to program every little detail on Sun's processors, in system mode? Sun gets great press out of UltraSPARC being all "open", but what use is supervisor-mode documentation when the rest of the chips that the supervisor-mode code has to communicate with are entirely undocumented??? The press does not spot this problem, but Jonathan, you should clearly understand this is a fallacy. There are two operating systems which surprisingly do not run on the Sun v215/v245 -- Linux and OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris?? Yes -- Sun isn't even open enough to give the OpenSolaris community enough documentation to support their new machines. So I think that Linus is right, and Sun has a long road ahead."
I tend to listen to Theo's opinion carefully on this subjects. I'm an "FSF fanboy" to the bone, card carrying and all, which curiously is one of the reasons I tend to view Theo's opinion on this subjects with interest, more so than Linus. When it's not a GPL vs BSD thing (which is a fait-diver discussion in my sense of priorities) the fact remains that he seems to see the problems with licencing with a greater depth and in general is more "idealistic" than "pragmatic".
Yes, that "confusion" is still present today with Linux... for example, many companies have teams that take care of Windows planning and other that take care of Unix planning (i.e. architecture, proposals, etc). Since historically Windows runs on ix86 and proprietary Unix in custom hardaware (dubbed workstation when for PC use, as you noted) the hardware division is also made along those lines. Now, with Linux the expertise is on one side - Unix - while the hardware resposability on the other - since it's assumed that ix86 == Windows. This is is some ways responsible for the lack of Linux proposals, since the people in charge of the ix86 hardware are almost always relunctant to propose Linux.
Things are changin however, and those teams are sometimes called "Wintel" and the Linux component either gets designed by the Unix guys, or the "Wintel" guys begin to broaden their scope and propose Linux solutions.
Oh, right. So, in your opinion, a x86 running Linux or BSD bought from Dell *isn't* a PC? Since apparently it isn't a generic term for a kind of IBM compatible personal computer (this is the narrowest sense), or a general usage personal computer of any architecture (the wider sense).
So, what is a PC in your opinion? I'm quite ready to accept whatever newspeak you've got, just spell it out for me. What precisely is a PC, how do you define it? You've got my two previsously assumed definitions above.
And *that* is insightful? Really? If I cared one bit about moderation I wouldn't even be touching the Mac articles.
You do realize that redifining words just to maintain the sense of diferentiation of a community is all well and nice but it doesn't mean that the rest of us have to play along with it? PC, in that context, means almost nothing. *Once upon a time* it did mean something, when Mac fans talked at lenghts about the beaty of PowerPC, so different from the Intel PC garbage (kind of true, but irrelevant here). To say that the term "evolved" is a coup out: it didn't "evolved", the Mac did, and became a PC. IBM compatible PC. With chips mabe by Intel. With an OS that runs on all other IBM compatible PCs.
I understand the need to "think different" and as such the clinging to an expression that puts things in dualistic terms, but I will not accomodate that need. Words do evolve, and especially so does technology and its use by corporations.
Actually, it does, but as usual the article's title is wrong. Somehow "Manage Macs and PC's" translantes to "Manages OSX and Windows", as if OSX runs on some different hardware - it doesn't - and Windows is the only non-OSX OS to also run on it - it isn't.
This isn't the 90's. They're over, go listen to "Ace of Base" in iTunes while reading the PowerPC Assembly Manual to relive it, and stop with this "Macs and PC's" crap. OSX, Windows, Linux, BSD, etc all run on "PC's" now. What's more it's condescending to assume PC==Windows. Seing that in/. is even more embarassing.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an "otherwise" in there. In any event whatever you say, and also whatever I say, in /. ammounts to little in the grand scheme of things. But since I decide to comment here nonetheless I'm free to call you up on your BS, even if it's harmless.
We've conversed a couple of times before now, and you haven't added me to your foes list yet?
I don't usually resort to that when confronted with someone that persistently makes no sense and seems to live to badmouth others. I start by assuming good faith, debating, well, rational behaviour - nothing you would know about. In your case this was lost since you don't respond well to actual arguments and prefer to thrive in ad hominen attacks and baseless drivel.
I'm aiming to have pretty much everyone from this site who views the FSF even remotely positively, on my freaks list.
Given that you're a troll - and you are - I prefer to have your comments unburied just in case some absurd accusation you make goes unchallenged - otherwise you're harmeless, since most people here already know you're a troll, at least in this broad topic. My foe list is empty, and it wouldn't surely start with you. Your concerns about how others see you is interesting, but not surprising, given your fixation with the FSF.
So I assume that you take you psicotic hate for RMS, the FSF and the GPL to such a degree that you would prefer for RedHat to strike this shameful deal with Microsoft? Regardless of what that means for free software of any kind, GPL or BSD?
As for the "community", I'll say it again: your comments leave little margin to guess were the real "red eyed fanatics" are. Some know who their father is, you apparently have little problems in having Bill as step-dad as long as it furthers your only objective of badmouthing RMS and anything remotely associated with him.
Oh, that's not a bad point, hadn't tought of that.
Microsoft has every right to limit updates to valid licences. I don't understand how this is "good news". Well, apart from the "MS sucks again, ahaha" angle.
We complain that there is a MS tax. We complain that they hardsell licences. I would be very happy is Microsoft really had a way to limit the updates. Hell, even with Linux one *pays* for the updates in some distros, and there is nothing wrong with that. Plus, if piracy beneficts Microsoft - and it does - putting an end to it is all the better. Windows is "cheap" because many people are used to cracking all the software they have installed and then complaining about "there isn't a program in Linux/BSD that does *everything* I need and exactly the way I need".
Thanks for your answer, I had forgotten the Lotus Notes one.
:)
And you raise an angle I had not seen: the Chinese involved in this do seem more "prepared" to pull this kind of stuff. And what's more, even if they get caught nothing happens
Ehehehe. Quite :)
Indeed, my opinion exactly. Do note that I'm not shouting "OMG bad USA"; I'm not an American but I'm no hypocrite: if the posibility is there, I think that they should consider using it. Spying isn't a "clean" business anywhere. I remeber that Digital also made some interesting stuff for the US, mainly because their chips were being cloned by the Reds :). Anyone in Europe that worked for an American country signs a document stating that certain countries are off-limits.
The Heimdal version of kerberos appeared because of lack of crypto in MIT Kerberos at the time, due to export restrictions. What I was saying is that I ended up heading IT decisions for a government in the USA shitlist (will not happen because nobody votes for me, amongst other things) I would try to minimize reliance on closed software from US companies. Not because it's the USA, but because to be completely honest I would probably do the same if the foot was in the other shoe and the beneficts were deemed good enough. With Linux or BSD this "risk" is lower if the distribution channels remain open: at most it gives insight on possible exploits, but it levels the field in spyware. If the actual source is "closed" in some way the risk are the same though.
Well, I was assuming that the government-owned part of the deal would include that, if not now 5 years from now. I understand you though, I also never encountered anyone from Venezuela in the Linux or GNU camp myself (not saying thatey aren't out there, just my personal experience).
Well, it was a simple mistake, quite simple becaust that's how it's written in my native language. I'm glad it inspired you that much though :)
I understand you point but the way I read it the Chinese are in it for the technological and industrial part... the support will likely come from Venezuelans themselves, who are the other half of the "joint venture".
:)
Although the image of a callcentre in Beijing helping users in Venezuela in spanish on how to install a TrueType font is interesting in it's own right
North Corea didn't have an election in 2006, with international observers.
You can dislike the man, but he isn't a dictator. He could eventually become one, he wouldn't be the first, but to call him that at this point is banalizing the word. Sort of like terrorist.
Following your logic - which is indeed a possibility - isn't it OK to assume that the USA will do the same with software made by US corporations and sold to Venezuela? And in that light, and not taking into account the liking or disliking of the respective governments, isn't it a matter of national security to stop using US made software in government computers?
I'm mentioning this because I think this is the first concern they have, having their own brand of spyware can be a nice after effect. The second concern is the whole "Made in Venezuela, by contributions made from everyone!" which fits in their present ethos, a mix of nationalism and socialism (not a new mix, far from it).
We all already new linux users are a bunch of commies
Ahh, but not all commies are yet Linux users. There is still an untapped market of commies that use Windows (Gasp! How can anyone read the "Criticism of Gotha and Erfurt Program" and do that is beyond me!) or OSX - these more popular in the agit-prop subculture of commies, they design posters calling for general strikes in it because they want "colour calibration". Or so they say, still smells like burgeoise behaviour, bloody revisionists.
So is the whole thing falling apart, or is Linus' valiant stand in opposition to GPLv3 the only thing that will keep the community going?
What community? The community of anti-GPL whinners that can't help themselves to make any news a crusade against the GPL and RMS, the "King of the Nutjobs" as you so elegantly put it? For all that I care that "community" could drop dead tomorrow. I wouldn't even notice, and what's more, nobody else would since when it comes to actually *do something* that "community" has little or nothing to show for. Unless you're using any BSD, but in that case you wouldn't be talking about the "community" in an article about Linux vendors.
BTW, "Linus valiant stand" against the GPLv3 isn't half as romantic as your hyperbole would led to believe.
I commented on that thread, and I was totally against Theo's position and the way he expressed it (see, for example, here . But disagreeing. albeit strongly, with some particular position or even the general way he likes to promote his views (and I did mention the specific case of GPL vs. BSD, which is where I disgree the most) isn't enough to sidestep the contributions he has made and his insight when dealing with prorietary threats and licences.
could talk about this all day but I'm not going to waste my time.
/. articles nowadays this place could serv as a support forum for AOLers.
Yes, that usually works.
It is a generally accepted convention that PC = a computer running DOS or Windows
Ok, at least you answered my question directly, thanks. If that's what passes for "PC" on
People are perhaps reading to much into it. Linus advanced some scenarios, while at the same time giving his reasons. He was blunt, in his style, about some things but I don't see it as an all-out attack on Sun. Even more interesting is that he says that he could be wrong, and that he hope he is wrong, and that releasing Solaris under the GPLv3 would be a very good thing.
Also of note is Theo's de Raadt message in Sun's blog: "Jonathan, I wish the above was true. 15 years ago I was the biggest Sun fan. Today I speak as the project leader for another set of open source projects -- OpenBSD and OpenSSH. OpenSSH will be better known to your audience, as it is what they use daily to connect securely to and from their Solaris (or Linux) machines. OpenSSH killed telnet and rlogin, for those who still remember those mechanisms. We give our software completely freely to the world, without even the standard encumberances people see in the GPL or CDDL. Yet when we turn around and ask Sun to give us documentation for the chips on their machines -- chips Sun themselves designed, not via contractors -- Sun drags their feet. Recently we tried to reopen these 10-year-old repeated requests, and once again nothing positive happened. You may remember, because you and David Yen were in an email conversation with us. Lots of nice open words were exchanged, but no action. However, let me give an example of the duplicity of Sun. (I wish I could use a lighter word). Two operating systems run on Sun's latest PCI-e based (smallish) Ultrasparc-III machines, the v215/v245 -- Solaris and OpenBSD. The latter system runs on those machines because the code to support the non-processor chips on the board had to be written after painstaking reverse engineering, because Sun refuses to make available documentation for how these chips are programmed. Now we will readily admit that not every programmer in the world needs to know how to program these chips. But does every programmer in the world need to know how to program every little detail on Sun's processors, in system mode? Sun gets great press out of UltraSPARC being all "open", but what use is supervisor-mode documentation when the rest of the chips that the supervisor-mode code has to communicate with are entirely undocumented??? The press does not spot this problem, but Jonathan, you should clearly understand this is a fallacy. There are two operating systems which surprisingly do not run on the Sun v215/v245 -- Linux and OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris?? Yes -- Sun isn't even open enough to give the OpenSolaris community enough documentation to support their new machines. So I think that Linus is right, and Sun has a long road ahead."
I tend to listen to Theo's opinion carefully on this subjects. I'm an "FSF fanboy" to the bone, card carrying and all, which curiously is one of the reasons I tend to view Theo's opinion on this subjects with interest, more so than Linus. When it's not a GPL vs BSD thing (which is a fait-diver discussion in my sense of priorities) the fact remains that he seems to see the problems with licencing with a greater depth and in general is more "idealistic" than "pragmatic".
Indeed. After all, the other developers that made the closed-source alternatives we would have to pay also need to "make a living".
Yes, that "confusion" is still present today with Linux... for example, many companies have teams that take care of Windows planning and other that take care of Unix planning (i.e. architecture, proposals, etc). Since historically Windows runs on ix86 and proprietary Unix in custom hardaware (dubbed workstation when for PC use, as you noted) the hardware division is also made along those lines. Now, with Linux the expertise is on one side - Unix - while the hardware resposability on the other - since it's assumed that ix86 == Windows. This is is some ways responsible for the lack of Linux proposals, since the people in charge of the ix86 hardware are almost always relunctant to propose Linux.
Things are changin however, and those teams are sometimes called "Wintel" and the Linux component either gets designed by the Unix guys, or the "Wintel" guys begin to broaden their scope and propose Linux solutions.
Oh, right. So, in your opinion, a x86 running Linux or BSD bought from Dell *isn't* a PC? Since apparently it isn't a generic term for a kind of IBM compatible personal computer (this is the narrowest sense), or a general usage personal computer of any architecture (the wider sense).
So, what is a PC in your opinion? I'm quite ready to accept whatever newspeak you've got, just spell it out for me. What precisely is a PC, how do you define it? You've got my two previsously assumed definitions above.
And *that* is insightful? Really? If I cared one bit about moderation I wouldn't even be touching the Mac articles.
You do realize that redifining words just to maintain the sense of diferentiation of a community is all well and nice but it doesn't mean that the rest of us have to play along with it? PC, in that context, means almost nothing. *Once upon a time* it did mean something, when Mac fans talked at lenghts about the beaty of PowerPC, so different from the Intel PC garbage (kind of true, but irrelevant here). To say that the term "evolved" is a coup out: it didn't "evolved", the Mac did, and became a PC. IBM compatible PC. With chips mabe by Intel. With an OS that runs on all other IBM compatible PCs.
I understand the need to "think different" and as such the clinging to an expression that puts things in dualistic terms, but I will not accomodate that need. Words do evolve, and especially so does technology and its use by corporations.
Actually, it does, but as usual the article's title is wrong. Somehow "Manage Macs and PC's" translantes to "Manages OSX and Windows", as if OSX runs on some different hardware - it doesn't - and Windows is the only non-OSX OS to also run on it - it isn't.
/. is even more embarassing.
This isn't the 90's. They're over, go listen to "Ace of Base" in iTunes while reading the PowerPC Assembly Manual to relive it, and stop with this "Macs and PC's" crap. OSX, Windows, Linux, BSD, etc all run on "PC's" now. What's more it's condescending to assume PC==Windows. Seing that in
The BSD troll army is however smaller, and seems to like WoW :D