Where if enough people use it, it gets better -- but never perfect mind you.
Instead of some kind of automatic keyword system, schools and people go through the internet and start black-listing web sites. Of course all USENET and chat should be blocked for all but the oldest kids.
And then when an inappropriate web site is found by anyone using the system, it gets black listed. Of course, black-listed sites should go into a queue to be verified.
Why do you think we have filtering software? To give slashdotters a reason to rant and rave and ultimately do nothing?
There are legitamate uses of filtering software. And in some places (elementary schools, unsupervised children) where its a choice between filtered internet or no internet.
Just like 12-year old Kenny can't go into Wal-Mart by himself and by the latest Eminem CD.
And guess what? My internet isn't filtered and neither is yours (you are reading a slashdot forum after all), and I don't think anyone is interested in filtering you net usage anyways.
Just a few responses to what seems to be a very honest message.
"#1) I had to learn new keystrokes for everything."
Of course the solution isn't for the system to use what you consider standard keybindings. People like me adore the traditional GNU keybinidngs. I think there should be a switch somewhere that toggles between the Windows keys and the GNU keys, probably defaulting with the GNU keys (since it is a GNU system afterall:-)
" Is it that hard to wrap the RPM functionality with a GUI and make the latest RPMs uninstall older RPMs?"
Well, both Red Hat and Mandrake have their own software management applications that use a graphical user interface. But, yeah, RPMs are a hassle. I've heard good things about the Debian system.
"I hate to say it, but all other development is secondary to getting a stable, easy to use and learn desktop working."
Stability is very important to me also. But I think your ease-of-use worries can be solved with proper documentation. I don't think you should have to go wondering around internet to learn how to configure your hardware and software on the system. Also it would be nice if all documentation on the sytem can be converted into the info format so that it can be accessed both from the command line as well as from the help viewer in GNOME and KDE. Personally, I hate trying info, man, looking for docs in/usr/share/doc and then doing a search on the web as well as on USENET to find information. I think this is a problem you elaborated on in your point #5.
It's going to be a while before I get my own computers working properly but once I do, this is something I want to work on.
"As long as Windows is the primary gaming platform of x86, Linux will never become the dominant home OS."
Come on. Most people don't give a fsck about games or the latest version of flight simulator.
Most people don't buy computers to play games. They buy gaming consoles to play games. They buy computers to do that four letter word that begins with a "W" and ends with an "ork".
"Yes, it's true that, if I had all the time in the world and was being paid 200% more, I could download each of these products, set up a staging environment, and try to hammer out the bugs myself."
This is amusing. You make it sound as if trying software is a chore. Are they not paying you enough? If not, then what are they paying you to do? buy stuff that your friends tell you is corporate accepted?
If you quit, can I have your job?
My point is, take chances. Take responsibility. Don't be such a yellow-belly.
"One more thing: I would like to remind all die-hards here that corporate profits are the *only* thing supporting Linux development right now. Every developer who works on any open source project gets his beer/rent money from a job someplace; even though he doesn't get paid (most of the time) for the time he spends on a project, he only has the luxury of spending spare time because he has a job to cover the expenses."
First of all, this isn't true in the specific sense. There are many developers who aren't employed at all--many who are employed by local businesses. A lot minors and college students develop the GNU/Linux operating system.
Second, the rest of what you said is, frankly, a crock of shit. If I wanted to bullshit a little, I could say that developers are the only thing fueling technical corporations. But that would be complete and utter bullshit.
"There's a reason that there's more MBA's than engineering degrees out there -- more people think in a management/marketing perspective than an engineering one."
I honestly thought that reason is because any business degree is a couple order of magnitudes easier to get than an engineering degree.
"It still doesn't change the reality that Linux is still far, far away from serious corporate acceptance."
Caldera may be begging for corporate dollars but I don't want anything. Corporations are strange things that I don't think geeks understand. Not because they are efficient beasts but because when they fall, they tend to land in the strangest positions.
"clarify that if Macromedia includes its own open source in its products, Macromedia does not have to state in its documentation where the source code version of the open source material is made available,"
Since when is Open Source a noun?
Anyway, anyone have any idea what they are planning?
The only argument that Open Source and Free Software are not synonymous is that they have different definitions. The Free Software definition is a concise statement of four principles. The Open Source definition is more of a legalese definition. But they mean the same thing.
First, we know that the term Free Software has existed for a long time before the term "Open Source" even existed. In fact, the "Open Source" movement was actually a rebranding of what was known then as Free Software. Stallman and the FSF disagreed that a new term was necessary and thats where the split began.
The Open Source definition, which I'm sure you would link me to otherwise, derived pretty much exactly from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. And the DFSG was based upon the social contract based on the Free Software Principles.
So when you say that a certain software package is Free Software but not Open Source, or vice-versa -- you're making a distinction that doesn't really exist since one is just another name for the other. Because both wordings are really just a name for a set of principles. If the definition doesn't meet the principle, then the definition changes or is reinterpreted--not the principle. Its a lot like the US Constitution in this regard. What matters is the spirit of Free Software and Open Source, not the definitions themselves.
"One could ask the same thing of the GPL. What if I distribute your work without disclosing the source? Will you fine me? Will you put me in jail?"
Aye. That was the other half of the argument I didn't have time to write down. And its important.
The difference is that the GPL is a community license. Everyone who gets GPLed software gets the same rights to it. But with proprietary software, only the proprieter gets the right to copy, modify, and redistribute the software.
It could be said that one way in that free software means freedom is in fairness. How everyone gets the same rights to the software. No one is master of anyone else.
"Free Software is almost invariably copycat software. They are clones of existing products. Sure, sometimes they become better than the original (Apache has passed the original HTTPd), but there's no innovation there. Linux users complaining about Microsoft's lack of innovation are the pot calling the kettle black."
There is innovation, but you can't see it in the clouds. They are more engineering innovations rather than "Whoa, look -- a new interface". The gems of the free software movement are usually overlooked. Such as the emacs editor -- written completely in the free software community and often duplicated both by other hackers and corporations. And guile, which I've been investigating recently. Its a scheme interpreter that tries to make interoperation seamless between the scheme world and the C world and is the official GNU scripting language.
In truth, there's a lot out there that I haven't looked at yet. That's one of the things that makes free software exciting. Look at fresco and the hurd. These emerging projects may or may not make a huge difference in the free software landscape.
The problem I see is that there's a lot of outside demand for software to work a certain way. Eventually the hackers seem to oblige this demand.
"You can make loony rantings about 'transcending' the market, but the market isn't the issue. Pushing the state of art is. Free Software, by and large, does not push the state of the art."
I'm serious about transcending the market--its not luny at all. I was replying to the idea that the market is important.
I've been running wholly free software for a while now. A lot of people think that we use it because its cheap. Well, anymore, I don't even think about cost anymore. I'll buy a new distribution when I think its ready, but for the most part I download software off the internet. As long as it has an acceptable license, I'll run it if I find it useful. And I'm continueing to look for ways to contribute back.
It really is an ecosystem not based on money or a market at all. A lot of it is people curious about the technology they and wanting to learn more about and extending it. I believe thats what free software is all about. Where as proprietary software corporations see that as infringing on intellectual property. So they rather make their end-users helpless users of technology. Free software is about empowerment.
As far as the state of the art goes--we'll see. It ain't over yet.
"In my example I was using contract law. In a way, contract law is the foundation of civilization and a key component of property. I sure hope you're not arguing that contracts are immoral beasts."
They can be--it depends on the contract. But with software, its controlled by copyright and licensing. I don't know anything about contract law really, but I can't see any contract being legal that would forbid fair use.
But even if contract law can be used as you described, its still unethical. Not the law, but the person making the demand. If I write software that employs a new algorithm, I might lend it to you and ask you not to give it to anyone else. This is okay since it is by the bond of friendship. But is it okay to ask the same of a stranger? And what if he disobeys you? Will you fine him? Put him in jail? Are you his master because of the information you gave him?
There is plenty more to this that I left out, but I think you get the jist.
"Your neighbor wishes to see that information but you don't wish it to be widely disseminated beyond your neighbor."
With copyright, you don't "wish" it to be so, you demand it to be so. Not just with neighborly oath, but with the backing of the law. This is the fundamental moral problem. You are telling your neighbor that he can't share the information that you shared with him. Not very neighborly, I say.
To you, keeping information secret is the basis of your new property right. But the GNU way is the opposite, to publish broadly the information you have and hope people will make as much use of it as they can.
"The entire concept of an inalienable freedom only became popular in the last 500 years. Prior to the American revolution such freedoms did not exist."
America has been around 500 years? And you're talking about understanding history...:)
"Free speech was not envisioned to be in opposition to basic property rights, the right to profit from the fruit of your labor. In approving copyright the constitution recognizes this right."
How is copyright a basic property right? When you make an intellectual work, you don't *own* that work but merely have the exclusive right to copy it for a limited amount of time for uses not considered fair use.
And there certainly isn't a "right to profit from the fruit of your labor". Businesses filled with hard working people fail all the time and at least where I work, the more money you make the less work you do. This is a silly excuse for the existance of software copyright.
"What you don't have with copyright law is the freedom to plagarize or to copy verbatum."
Sure. Plagarizing written works. But how do you plagarize software? Because I thought we were talking about copyright with respect to software.
"This asserts the existance of unalienable rights to copy, modify and disseminate the information created by others. I just don't see a natural right to disseminate your private diary, even if you have given it to me. That's the premise that GNU is founded on, but I have not seen to date any justification for it."
Its not a natural (aka human right) but its one of them things we should have the right to do if we have all of our basic natural rights. This is akin to property rights or the right to vote.
In fact, the courts have already agreed that copyright grants the creator of a work a limited monopoly over his creation. The limitation is important since after a certain period of time, the information becomes free to copy, modify, and distribute. Thats why you can get the works of Shakespeare over the net these days.
The problem with copyright with software is not only does it prohibit quite a bit of fair use (I can't use a snippet of the source code in my own works) but that once the artificial monopoly ends, the software isn't likely to work on anyone's machine. So the monopoly becomes unlimited, which is against the wording of the American Constitution.
Using the word "freedom" isn't bogus at all. "freedom" has several subtle different meanings, the one the FSF uses is as in "free of restrictions".
Not that any of this will prevent you from trolling this same topic again, mind you...
By now, I am readily convinced that there is other life in the universe. In fact, it seems that odds are greater that there isn't life in the universe.
But if I'm like most anyone else, the possibility of life on the western spiral of the Andromeda Galaxy just isn't useful. Its simply too far. We would never recieve a radio transmission from there and its too far to travel.
First, lets assume Einstein is correct and we can not travel faster than the speed of light. In addition, lets rid our minds of all this science-fiction crap like wormholes and warp-drive. While I am naive, I'm not *that* naive.
Lets take the nearest star. I've heard it is 4.3 light years away. That means a radio transmission originating their takes 4.3 years to travel here. Honestly, we could live with that. Of course that is not only assuming that that civilization has developed technology, but it also assumes that they haven't been exinct by some means.
But, we're pretty sure there isn't a planetary system around proxima centauri. So we have to look farther out. But how long are we willing to wait for a round of communication from us to them? One hundred years? One thousand years? A hundred-thousand years?
Okay, as a second consideration, how long does a civilization last once it discovers radio? We've only had radio technology for a relatively little time. How much longer will we continue to exist? Take HG Wells Time Machine. Will we unlearn our technology and instead progress towards a native happiness? What about other civilizations?
In all, what are the odds that not only life exists in the universe, but that it is close enough and that it is in their technological prime?
I'd fashion that the odds are astronomical against us.
Slashdot Mirror
"Like changing your Resolution and RefreshRates on the fly might be a nice option."
The resolution thing has been supported for years with a simple key-combo.
How about a spam-assasin-like system?
Where if enough people use it, it gets better -- but never perfect mind you.
Instead of some kind of automatic keyword system, schools and people go through the internet and start black-listing web sites. Of course all USENET and chat should be blocked for all but the oldest kids.
And then when an inappropriate web site is found by anyone using the system, it gets black listed. Of course, black-listed sites should go into a queue to be verified.
But thats basically it.
Why do you think we have filtering software? To give slashdotters a reason to rant and rave and ultimately do nothing?
There are legitamate uses of filtering software. And in some places (elementary schools, unsupervised children) where its a choice between filtered internet or no internet.
Just like 12-year old Kenny can't go into Wal-Mart by himself and by the latest Eminem CD.
And guess what? My internet isn't filtered and neither is yours (you are reading a slashdot forum after all), and I don't think anyone is interested in filtering you net usage anyways.
So please, keep the desk-chair militias at bay.
Just a few responses to what seems to be a very honest message.
Of course the solution isn't for the system to use what you consider standard keybindings. People like me adore the traditional GNU keybinidngs. I think there should be a switch somewhere that toggles between the Windows keys and the GNU keys, probably defaulting with the GNU keys (since it is a GNU system afterall :-)
Well, both Red Hat and Mandrake have their own software management applications that use a graphical user interface. But, yeah, RPMs are a hassle. I've heard good things about the Debian system.
Stability is very important to me also. But I think your ease-of-use worries can be solved with proper documentation. I don't think you should have to go wondering around internet to learn how to configure your hardware and software on the system. Also it would be nice if all documentation on the sytem can be converted into the info format so that it can be accessed both from the command line as well as from the help viewer in GNOME and KDE. Personally, I hate trying info, man, looking for docs in /usr/share/doc and then doing a search on the web as well as on USENET to find information. I think this is a problem you elaborated on in your point #5.
It's going to be a while before I get my own computers working properly but once I do, this is something I want to work on.
Hey, if you consider the web a game, then you win. People do buy computers to surf the web.
But I am tired of the "games move the industry forward" nonsense.
"As long as Windows is the primary gaming platform of x86, Linux will never become the dominant home OS."
Come on. Most people don't give a fsck about games or the latest version of flight simulator.
Most people don't buy computers to play games. They buy gaming consoles to play games. They buy computers to do that four letter word that begins with a "W" and ends with an "ork".
"Yes, it's true that, if I had all the time in the world and was being paid 200% more, I could download each of these products, set up a staging environment, and try to hammer out the bugs myself."
This is amusing. You make it sound as if trying software is a chore. Are they not paying you enough? If not, then what are they paying you to do? buy stuff that your friends tell you is corporate accepted?
If you quit, can I have your job?
My point is, take chances. Take responsibility. Don't be such a yellow-belly.
"One more thing: I would like to remind all die-hards here that corporate profits are the *only* thing supporting Linux development right now. Every developer who works on any open source project gets his beer/rent money from a job someplace; even though he doesn't get paid (most of the time) for the time he spends on a project, he only has the luxury of spending spare time because he has a job to cover the expenses."
First of all, this isn't true in the specific sense. There are many developers who aren't employed at all--many who are employed by local businesses. A lot minors and college students develop the GNU/Linux operating system.
Second, the rest of what you said is, frankly, a crock of shit. If I wanted to bullshit a little, I could say that developers are the only thing fueling technical corporations. But that would be complete and utter bullshit.
That kind of logic gets us no where.
"There's a reason that there's more MBA's than engineering degrees out there -- more people think in a management/marketing perspective than an engineering one."
I honestly thought that reason is because any business degree is a couple order of magnitudes easier to get than an engineering degree.
"It still doesn't change the reality that Linux is still far, far away from serious corporate acceptance."
Caldera may be begging for corporate dollars but I don't want anything. Corporations are strange things that I don't think geeks understand. Not because they are efficient beasts but because when they fall, they tend to land in the strangest positions.
And because of ESR and Friends, Macromedia probably isn't aware of the GNU project or its grand vision for the future.
Sad. Very sad.
"clarify that if Macromedia includes its own open source in its products, Macromedia
does not have to state in its documentation where the source code version of the open
source material is made available,"
Since when is Open Source a noun?
Anyway, anyone have any idea what they are planning?
"Duh"
"Pig twottle."
Please, give me examples of people using "open source" before raymond began using it.
The only argument that Open Source and Free Software are not synonymous is that they have different definitions. The Free Software definition is a concise statement of four principles. The Open Source definition is more of a legalese definition. But they mean the same thing.
First, we know that the term Free Software has existed for a long time before the term "Open Source" even existed. In fact, the "Open Source" movement was actually a rebranding of what was known then as Free Software. Stallman and the FSF disagreed that a new term was necessary and thats where the split began.
The Open Source definition, which I'm sure you would link me to otherwise, derived pretty much exactly from the Debian Free Software Guidelines. And the DFSG was based upon the social contract based on the Free Software Principles.
So when you say that a certain software package is Free Software but not Open Source, or vice-versa -- you're making a distinction that doesn't really exist since one is just another name for the other. Because both wordings are really just a name for a set of principles. If the definition doesn't meet the principle, then the definition changes or is reinterpreted--not the principle. Its a lot like the US Constitution in this regard. What matters is the spirit of Free Software and Open Source, not the definitions themselves.
Darwin is part of Mac OS X.
Mac OS X isn't Free Software (aka Open Source). Period. There is no halfway free or kind of free. So please don't spread around such a misconception.
"One could ask the same thing of the GPL. What if I distribute your work without disclosing the source? Will you fine me? Will you put me in jail?"
Aye. That was the other half of the argument I didn't have time to write down. And its important.
The difference is that the GPL is a community license. Everyone who gets GPLed software gets the same rights to it. But with proprietary software, only the proprieter gets the right to copy, modify, and redistribute the software.
It could be said that one way in that free software means freedom is in fairness. How everyone gets the same rights to the software. No one is master of anyone else.
"Free Software is almost invariably copycat software. They are clones of existing products. Sure, sometimes they become better than the original (Apache has passed the original HTTPd), but there's no innovation there. Linux users complaining about Microsoft's lack of innovation are the pot calling the kettle black."
There is innovation, but you can't see it in the clouds. They are more engineering innovations rather than "Whoa, look -- a new interface". The gems of the free software movement are usually overlooked. Such as the emacs editor -- written completely in the free software community and often duplicated both by other hackers and corporations. And guile, which I've been investigating recently. Its a scheme interpreter that tries to make interoperation seamless between the scheme world and the C world and is the official GNU scripting language.
In truth, there's a lot out there that I haven't looked at yet. That's one of the things that makes free software exciting. Look at fresco and the hurd. These emerging projects may or may not make a huge difference in the free software landscape.
The problem I see is that there's a lot of outside demand for software to work a certain way. Eventually the hackers seem to oblige this demand.
"You can make loony rantings about 'transcending' the market, but the market isn't the issue. Pushing the state of art is. Free Software, by and large, does not push the state of the art."
I'm serious about transcending the market--its not luny at all. I was replying to the idea that the market is important.
I've been running wholly free software for a while now. A lot of people think that we use it because its cheap. Well, anymore, I don't even think about cost anymore. I'll buy a new distribution when I think its ready, but for the most part I download software off the internet. As long as it has an acceptable license, I'll run it if I find it useful. And I'm continueing to look for ways to contribute back.
It really is an ecosystem not based on money or a market at all. A lot of it is people curious about the technology they and wanting to learn more about and extending it. I believe thats what free software is all about. Where as proprietary software corporations see that as infringing on intellectual property. So they rather make their end-users helpless users of technology. Free software is about empowerment.
As far as the state of the art goes--we'll see. It ain't over yet.
(* now this is a rant, my previous post was not)
"In my example I was using contract law. In a way, contract law is the foundation of civilization and a key component of property. I sure hope you're not arguing that contracts are immoral beasts."
They can be--it depends on the contract. But with software, its controlled by copyright and licensing. I don't know anything about contract law really, but I can't see any contract being legal that would forbid fair use.
But even if contract law can be used as you described, its still unethical. Not the law, but the person making the demand. If I write software that employs a new algorithm, I might lend it to you and ask you not to give it to anyone else. This is okay since it is by the bond of friendship. But is it okay to ask the same of a stranger? And what if he disobeys you? Will you fine him? Put him in jail? Are you his master because of the information you gave him?
There is plenty more to this that I left out, but I think you get the jist.
You say that GNU/Linux won't move the market. Free Software transends the market. Apple moves the market. Free Software moves the world.
"Your neighbor wishes to see that information but you don't wish it to be widely disseminated beyond your neighbor."
With copyright, you don't "wish" it to be so, you demand it to be so. Not just with neighborly oath, but with the backing of the law. This is the fundamental moral problem. You are telling your neighbor that he can't share the information that you shared with him. Not very neighborly, I say.
To you, keeping information secret is the basis of your new property right. But the GNU way is the opposite, to publish broadly the information you have and hope people will make as much use of it as they can.
Note: I'm only speaking about software.
"no other program even approaches Excel in maturity and performance for my work and school applications"
Gnumeric?
"Anyways, after a searching the internet in vane for an OSX calendar/scheduling program, I came up empty handed."
Not sure what your needs are, but Emacs has a nice calendar application. Also GNOME has a PIM application.
Isn't this what the Hurd is for?
"The entire concept of an inalienable freedom only became popular in the last 500 years. Prior to the American revolution such freedoms did not exist."
:)
America has been around 500 years? And you're talking about understanding history...
"Free speech was not envisioned to be in opposition to basic property rights, the right to profit from the fruit of your labor. In approving copyright the constitution recognizes this right."
How is copyright a basic property right? When you make an intellectual work, you don't *own* that work but merely have the exclusive right to copy it for a limited amount of time for uses not considered fair use.
And there certainly isn't a "right to profit from the fruit of your labor". Businesses filled with hard working people fail all the time and at least where I work, the more money you make the less work you do. This is a silly excuse for the existance of software copyright.
"What you don't have with copyright law is the freedom to plagarize or to copy verbatum."
Sure. Plagarizing written works. But how do you plagarize software? Because I thought we were talking about copyright with respect to software.
"This asserts the existance of unalienable rights to copy, modify and disseminate the information created by others. I just don't see a natural right to disseminate your private diary, even if you have given it to me. That's the premise that GNU is founded on, but I have not seen to date any justification for it."
Its not a natural (aka human right) but its one of them things we should have the right to do if we have all of our basic natural rights. This is akin to property rights or the right to vote.
In fact, the courts have already agreed that copyright grants the creator of a work a limited monopoly over his creation. The limitation is important since after a certain period of time, the information becomes free to copy, modify, and distribute. Thats why you can get the works of Shakespeare over the net these days.
The problem with copyright with software is not only does it prohibit quite a bit of fair use (I can't use a snippet of the source code in my own works) but that once the artificial monopoly ends, the software isn't likely to work on anyone's machine. So the monopoly becomes unlimited, which is against the wording of the American Constitution.
Using the word "freedom" isn't bogus at all. "freedom" has several subtle different meanings, the one the FSF uses is as in "free of restrictions".
Not that any of this will prevent you from trolling this same topic again, mind you...
By now, I am readily convinced that there is other life in the universe. In fact, it seems that odds are greater that there isn't life in the universe.
But if I'm like most anyone else, the possibility of life on the western spiral of the Andromeda Galaxy just isn't useful. Its simply too far. We would never recieve a radio transmission from there and its too far to travel.
First, lets assume Einstein is correct and we can not travel faster than the speed of light. In addition, lets rid our minds of all this science-fiction crap like wormholes and warp-drive. While I am naive, I'm not *that* naive.
Lets take the nearest star. I've heard it is 4.3 light years away. That means a radio transmission originating their takes 4.3 years to travel here. Honestly, we could live with that. Of course that is not only assuming that that civilization has developed technology, but it also assumes that they haven't been exinct by some means.
But, we're pretty sure there isn't a planetary system around proxima centauri. So we have to look farther out. But how long are we willing to wait for a round of communication from us to them? One hundred years? One thousand years? A hundred-thousand years?
Okay, as a second consideration, how long does a civilization last once it discovers radio? We've only had radio technology for a relatively little time. How much longer will we continue to exist? Take HG Wells Time Machine. Will we unlearn our technology and instead progress towards a native happiness? What about other civilizations?
In all, what are the odds that not only life exists in the universe, but that it is close enough and that it is in their technological prime?
I'd fashion that the odds are astronomical against us.