Sir, I would like to respond to your post seriously, since you do make some points. But I don't think it would do any good. Your harsh response seems to show contempt for any responses that you disagree with. And I won't continue a thread with you if are unwilling to make any concessions. There's really no point in that.
But, in the end, it is the layout that matters, is it not?
Don't worry, I was like you too once. I beleived that it was possible to define a document format so that I could separate the "look" of the document with the actual information that I was trying to convey. But it turns out that this only works with simple documents. As your document increases in complexity, you shouldn't need to define new markup to make the document truly structured and portable. So what has to happen, and it does happen all the time, is that the document author goes beyond the markup and considers the presentation of the document.
You don't believe me? Take a simple example, I'm rewriting my homepage. On the first page, I want to put my email address and I want it to be set apart from the rest of the page. This is what I have in html:
Div is a generic tag used for block elements. Why did I use it? Its definitely against the structured document approach. Otherwise I could simply use div tags for the entire document. Well, the above is certainly not a paragraph. Even if I was defining my own markup language for XML, there is no word to describe it. I could create a specific tag <email-heading>, but again this goes against the structured document approach. Specific tags are not generally useful.
The problem is that for structured documents to work, you need to *write* in a structured fashion. You have to keep track of what the semantics of each part of the document is called and be sure to limit yourself to these semantics.
Any writer would know that this would be far too limiting. Writing, inevitably, is a right-brain activity and is fundamentally unstructured. Technical documentation has to more structured than most since it needs to be easily referenced but inevitably the technical writer is plagued with the same problems that what is natural to write is not structured well to markup.
Then, when you leave the arena of technical documentation structured writing becomes almost pointless. Newspaper columns and magazine articles are really just a sequence of paragraphs written after each other. There is really no need for markup at all. Markup is barely useful for writing fiction since it comes in so many forms. And if the author chooses a new form you can't say "Wait now, we need to write markup for that." When in the end, the author is writing to a reader and not to a computer. Presentation is important. And if you intend on using a structured editor for typesetting poetry, I think even the most stringent holdouts would agree that this is a hopeless cause.
When you define a markup with a DTD or XML schema, you are saying that these are the only things you may write. To write new semantics, the writer must in his head determine the presentation.
If the developer had the condition that all women may not use the software, do you think we would be ethically obliged to respect these terms? Or would you say, as I do, that the developer is simply being an ass?
I don't know about your country but my countries constitution has this wording in its Preamble:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In other words, rights aren't earned--they are defended.
Your post isn't so much a response to what I said as it is a diatribe on what you feel makes an acceptable license.
No. I was replying to your ethical arguments. At the end I said that I wouldn't use the software because I couldn't legally distribute the software. But a great majority of the point of my post was that ethically there is nothing preventing me from distributing any software. This is in stark contrast from your post.
do you agree with my assertion that the end user must either respect the terms with which a developer has released her work or not use that work at all?
I will not respect any terms common for shareware software but legally, we have no choice, do we?
I think a part of the problem with your argument is that you confuse your legal points with your ethical points and vice-versa. Such as a legal right isn't the same as an ethical right. And the difference between ethically not distributing software and legally not being allowed to. Separating these concerns, I think your argument falls apart.
Let's agree on the assumption that software is sellable, just like any merchandise. Then, there must be some way to maintain the "scarcity".
First, software isn't scarce. Therefore your argument is unsound either because a) your assumption "software is sellable" is false or b) your argument is invalid "you need scarcity for something to be sellable". This is just simple logic.
Fact is, we don't create scarcity to satisfy business models. We don't write laws so that software developers can make money. We only write laws for the public good. A good topic for debate is whether allowing software developers to make money is for the public good. I wouldn't jump to conclusions however if allowing software developers to make money means restricting the rights of end users. Then, the public must decide, which is more important.
Let's say, because the author owns the software.
Ownership, naturally, means possession. If I own a chair is because I possess it. I have it in my hands or in my property. However, if the software is in my hard drive (in my possession), how can the author still own it?
Of course not. However, your example is scewed. [...] Please don't try to muddle up your own arguments to make them seem correct.
I think you have it upside down. Its his license forbidding you from redistributing the software. That when he distributes the software, he still controlls it. That is wrong.
The same happens with all proprietary software. Look at the number of Windows installations, look at how many people's computers they controll by their license agreement. That is also wrong.
While an attempt at a troll, I actually think that is a remarkably concise statement on the software industry. However, I fail to see the "communist" relation but I suppose you needed that there to be called a troll.
...so you're suggesting that a software developer hasn't 'earned' the right to distribute her own creation as she sees fit?
Rights aren't earned. I haven't had to earn my right to speak freely, to vote, or any other rights I have as a citizen of my country. You don't have to earn the right to distribute software either.
If a developer spends 1200 hours of her life making a game, is it your right to disregard her terms?
What gives her the right to forbid anyone from distributing a game or any other software? If she spent 1200 hours writing legislation trying to forbid people from speaking freely, do you think it is ethical and right to allow her?
The DEVELOPER is the OWNER of her own product. She does indeed have exclusive rights to her own creation; if she kept the only copy of the software encrypted on a CD and locked in a filing cabinet, you have absolutely no right to tell her that she must give it to you. If she gives it to you on the condition that you don't give it to anybody else, you have absolutely no right to give it to other people. She can choose to develop and distribute it however she sees fit, and she gets FINAL SAY in this matter. It doesn't matter if you don't want to cough up ten dollars; it doesn't matter if she wants to set up a registration scheme that forces you to call a 900 number every time you want to use the program. The terms are completely up to the DEVELOPER, not the consumer.
Copyright was established in the days of the printing press. It isn't a natural right by any means, simply meant to require journal publishers to get permission before they published.
Now look what we get now. People like you who think users of software should get no actual rights with the software they use. And that developers of software retain control over the software after they give it away.
Here's the rule. If you give something away, it isn't yours anymore. Its like that annoying uncle who gives you a christmas present on the condition that you use it in such a way.
You the end user, on the other hand, did exactly jack shit to create said software.
Really? If you chose to not forbid the end user of all rights, he or she may have decided to make changes to the software and redistribute these changes--creating a software sharing community (any irony in the word "shareware" here?). The reason the end user did "jack shit" is because you already forbid him to make any changes to software. You lock up the source code and take power over the users of the software they now use. For what? Your business model?
If you disagree with a developer's terms, them do not use the software. Period. (big bold emphasis deleted)
If you don't want people to distribute software, then don't distribute it at all. Period.
There are precious few ways to keep people from pirating software, but damned if I'm going to let you claim that it's the right thing to do.
Real pirates steal, they do not copy. The analogy is false and is part of the reason the entire software industry is so screwed up.
The fact is, you're wrong. Your ethics is screwed up and your business model is flawed. The only real binding thing in the whole shareware model is that legal license or end user agreement telling people what they can or can not do with the software now on their computers, not yours.
Myself, I will simply disagree with the end user license agreement. I will not use the software. Chances are your thousands of hours of work has created an unstable low-quality piece of software that I would be helpless to make any changes to. Even if it worked without a flaw, I would still be helpless to make any changes to it. In the end, I will not use your shareware software not because I dislike the software but because I disagree with your terms. So help me if I am ever forced to use such software. I would not be a happy man.
Shareware is perhaps the largest abuse of the legal system. Not only does the software developer retain most rights to the software, they forbid their customer the right to use the software for any purpose. Whether by locking out certain functionality ("crippleware") or by having a legal clause saying that the user must delete the software after a certain amount of time.
Shareware authors must have a distorted belief that software users deserve no rights at all without direct compensation. Then they might allow their customers the right to use the software and thats all. They still forbid rights to modify and distribute the software. This seems to me to be rather a large breach of ethics.
Good thing we have free software and can avoid all this crap.
I don't have a credit card and I don't have a CD burner so I just buy from WalMart. Its actually conveniant that way. I get quality Free Software for like twenty bucks. Otherwise I would probably waste that money on five milk shakes in the course of a week.
Does it help Mandrake? I don't know what their situation is. I buy software because I like it.
If linux is ever going to survive in its current form, it needs to be a viable competitor with Microsoft.
You almost sound serious about that statement. Mandrake Inc may not survive but they've given power of the software to you and anyone else who uses it by distributing and writing Free Software*. The Operating System is Free. It has no choice but to survive.
* My regards to the former users of BeOS, may he rest in peace
When I say that XML isn't a silver bullet I am actually saying one size does not fit all. You say that all applications don't want a linked list organization. But I don't think all applications want an XML format either.
In my opinion, it is more important for the format to be simple than for it to be common. And really, I don't think you'll find XML as common as you might think.
As a developer, I would think that you would want to choose a higher-level programming language that would make the creation of parsers.
But really...all of this isn't useful unless you know what kind of software you'd like to write. There are perhaps some cases where XML is more ideal. But most of the time, it is not. But as always, use the best tool for the job.
I think the difference is that has time goes on, software is becoming more and more important. What rights Stallman may have been laughed at for defending before, I think average people will take more seriously now. I think it is more sensible to advocate free software and it becomes more sensible as time goes on.
The problem is that XML is a horribly format *and* it tries to be universal. It would be sane to try to make math to look like math and at least try to be as concise (and efficient, space wise) as math. But they wanted not just a format for displaying math on a web page they wanted an XML format for displaying math on a web page. This is the cause of insanity.
If you want a format that is simple to parse into an internal format, there are much easier ways. XML doesn't translate naturally to any internal data structure. It really is a mess. Better format for this kind of thing would be symbolic expression. The equation could look like this:
((exp x 2) + 4x + 4 = 0)
Which is quite simply a linked list after it is parsed. Any number of other non-proprietary formats could work as well as or better than XML. XML isn't a silver bullet and when you think it is, you end up shooting yourself in the foot.
"Microsoft makes me mad, and I'm too young, too American (And too entwined with LotR style strategizing) and I don't want to wait 10 years for a guilt free/opensource vision of a usable, stable operating system."
GNU/Linux is a usable stable operating system. And you get all the rights users of Free Software are entitled to. Whats the complaint?
It will be called GNU because it is a complete GNU system. The UI is GNU, the file system utilities are GNU, the text utilities are GNU, the text editor is GNU, and kernal will be GNU.
Isn't it sad how a completely free operating system was developed because some people were concerned that you weren't getting all the rights you should with the software you use and all you do complain about the stupid shit.
I would call a system like that degenerate. Because a system is really multiple pieces of software interoperating. With just one piece of software (Linux) running, you don't really have a system at all.
If you have a couple applications running...then you have a system but I would say it really isn't an operating system. An operating system has a programming library of some sort for code reuse, some sort of an interface, utilities to manipulate the file system (copy, delete, make directories) and in the case of Unix, utilities to manipulate text files. There is a lot more than this in a modern operating system. But of all the things that Linux needs to be a complete operating system, most of it is available as GNU software.
What sense is it to use Linux without GNU anyway? You're cutting your arm off...for what? GNU is freely available software with granted rights to use, copy, redistribute, and modify. You are also required to have access the source code by its license. In fact, thats the whole point of GNU's existance.
I say...enjoy it and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous your post reads? Do you?
Yes, I have an idea. But consider it a matter of perspective. I like trying to see the whole picture.
I don't need a "friend" out of Apple -- or Linus, for that mater -- I need a product that works.
A minor quibble. Surely any literate person would interpret "Apple is not your friend" as "Don't trust Apple" or perhaps this is too much of a right-brain activity. Perhaps it is all the poetry I am having to read right now:)
None of your points were helpful or useful. Rhetorical, yes, but academically only. For example, your assertion
UI science is little more than averaging out the preferences of many potential software users.
begs the question, "So GNOME is the result of a better method than UI science? Or would that be KDE? XFree? MidnightCommander? Emacs?"
I suppose I got lost in predicting possible responses to my post--something I've learned to do while communicating through the internet. But you bring up GNOME, KDE, XFree, MC, and Emacs and I don't think any real UI methodology was used in this case. The only real goal is that the user can customize their interface to the system. You see this prevalent throughout most free software projects. Again, I am not saying that this is a better method...
Come on... GNU isn't all about choice, either, it's a free implementation of a proprietary system that Worked (TM). GNU - which is available on my OS X, BTW, is an awesome acheivement whose time has come. But I won't use a tool for merely philosophical reasons. Nor will I reject it outright. In your world, any choice besides GNU/* is an invalid one.
(Side note...its nice to know that GNU is available on your system. Obviously it was ported by someone. How about that nice Aqua interface? can I port it to my system? Why not?)
GNU is its own system. Its derived from Unix quite a bit of design but I think there is enough new and interesting things added to the system to call it a new system but with compatibility. This is very subjective of course--and all beside the point.
Your point on not using a tool for its philosophy is well taken. I would agree if something really wrong isn't taking place. Its like if all the hammers were owned by one individual and the idea of the hammer was also owned. Then perhaps philosophy might become important. Sure...some will yield "Just give me a damn hammer!" but others might insist "You know, there is something wrong here."
In my world, there are no invalid choices. You must confuse me with some zealot. But if you want to make me into a zealot for sake of argument, of course I might have a problem with that:)Perhaps you might doubt me in this. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of the free software philosophy. For example, I think it is more important for software to be useful than for it to be free. But I think the freedom to use the software anyway you please is a great deal of the value of software. Many people are of the mindset that the only thing that matters is what the software does. But I think it is as important as to how it does it and what you can do with it, legally, under the law. Because I try to be a law abiding man.
So, are you really for *choice*?
(emphasis deleted)
You must really take me as insane. Of course I am for choice and my choice is to insist on certain rights on the software I use. I'm an OS advocate and this is what I advocate about GNU/Linux. Advocating an OS doesn't mean disallowing other people from making the choice for themselves. But rather it means letting other people know why you use the OS you use. In this case...I may have went a little far--openly attacking an alternative OS. You're right...only in this regard.
As an aside, I really like the moniker "GNU/Linux" - it warns me of the religion of the writer.
I wanted to reply to this last since I think it is least important. I use "GNU/Linux" because it makes the most sense to me. MacOS X, I've heard, has a BSD kernal. Do you find yourself usually calling it BSD? I actually read both ways and unlike some people, I don't correct people while they speak:) The only time I really care is when it is ambiguous whether they meant the entire OS or just the kernal.
Power is control. Its that simple. If you don't like your GNU/Linux system, you have the freedom to change it yourself. And then you can share these changes with others. Thats the spirit of cooperation. What you see right now (in the GNU/Linux system) is the result of this spirit.
Sure, you may not be a programmer. You don't write code. You want the software to be written for you--you want it already configured to your liking. Or maybe you don't know what exactly you want from your system. So you want someone else to make all the decisions for you and you want to like it. So you say you like Apple. They've done testing. UI science is little more than averaging out the preferences of many potential software users.
But what about the license? The end-user agreement? When you started up your OS, did you click "I agree" ? Did you read it? Do you agree with everything it said? None of the software on the system can be copied, shared, or modified. Okay...perhaps the BSD core.
Whats the big deal? you ask. Do you like Apple? Do you trust them? The users of BeOS did...look what happened to them. You don't own the operating system. They do. That nice interface of theirs is their property. Anything that looks like it is their property. All the software is theirs to. You just pay to use it.
If you wrote an operating system or designed the interface, what would you do? Would you choose to own it or choose to share it? Which promotes cooperation and which promotes your own interests? Whose interests do you think Apple is promoting?
The spirit of cooperation is a huge factor in software development. Its what made the GNU/Linux system what it is today. And all them command line programs that you like on your Apple system, where did they come from? Open cooperation. Open cooperationg is the spirit of free software. Thats why it exists. Hope you like your Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. Two of my favorite Lisp functions are as follows:
(define (next x) (+ x 1))
(define (prev x) (- x 1))
This, in my opinion, makes things like recursive functions easy to read and rather elegant. Such as:
(define (factorial n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(* n (factorial (prev n)))))
Sir, I would like to respond to your post seriously, since you do make some points. But I don't think it would do any good. Your harsh response seems to show contempt for any responses that you disagree with. And I won't continue a thread with you if are unwilling to make any concessions. There's really no point in that.
Best regards,
Kevin Holmes
But, in the end, it is the layout that matters, is it not?
.net</a></div>
Don't worry, I was like you too once. I beleived that it was possible to define a document format so that I could separate the "look" of the document with the actual information that I was trying to convey. But it turns out that this only works with simple documents. As your document increases in complexity, you shouldn't need to define new markup to make the document truly structured and portable. So what has to happen, and it does happen all the time, is that the document author goes beyond the markup and considers the presentation of the document.
You don't believe me? Take a simple example, I'm rewriting my homepage. On the first page, I want to put my email address and I want it to be set apart from the rest of the page. This is what I have in html:
<div><b>Email:</b> <a href="mailto:kholmes@sedona.net">kholmes@sedona
Div is a generic tag used for block elements. Why did I use it? Its definitely against the structured document approach. Otherwise I could simply use div tags for the entire document. Well, the above is certainly not a paragraph. Even if I was defining my own markup language for XML, there is no word to describe it. I could create a specific tag <email-heading>, but again this goes against the structured document approach. Specific tags are not generally useful.
The problem is that for structured documents to work, you need to *write* in a structured fashion. You have to keep track of what the semantics of each part of the document is called and be sure to limit yourself to these semantics.
Any writer would know that this would be far too limiting. Writing, inevitably, is a right-brain activity and is fundamentally unstructured. Technical documentation has to more structured than most since it needs to be easily referenced but inevitably the technical writer is plagued with the same problems that what is natural to write is not structured well to markup.
Then, when you leave the arena of technical documentation structured writing becomes almost pointless. Newspaper columns and magazine articles are really just a sequence of paragraphs written after each other. There is really no need for markup at all. Markup is barely useful for writing fiction since it comes in so many forms. And if the author chooses a new form you can't say "Wait now, we need to write markup for that." When in the end, the author is writing to a reader and not to a computer. Presentation is important. And if you intend on using a structured editor for typesetting poetry, I think even the most stringent holdouts would agree that this is a hopeless cause.
When you define a markup with a DTD or XML schema, you are saying that these are the only things you may write. To write new semantics, the writer must in his head determine the presentation.
Presentation can not be separate from content.
If the developer had the condition that all women may not use the software, do you think we would be ethically obliged to respect these terms? Or would you say, as I do, that the developer is simply being an ass?
I don't know about your country but my countries constitution has this wording in its Preamble:
In other words, rights aren't earned--they are defended.
No. I was replying to your ethical arguments. At the end I said that I wouldn't use the software because I couldn't legally distribute the software. But a great majority of the point of my post was that ethically there is nothing preventing me from distributing any software. This is in stark contrast from your post.
I will not respect any terms common for shareware software but legally, we have no choice, do we?
I think a part of the problem with your argument is that you confuse your legal points with your ethical points and vice-versa. Such as a legal right isn't the same as an ethical right. And the difference between ethically not distributing software and legally not being allowed to. Separating these concerns, I think your argument falls apart.
First, software isn't scarce. Therefore your argument is unsound either because a) your assumption "software is sellable" is false or b) your argument is invalid "you need scarcity for something to be sellable". This is just simple logic.
Fact is, we don't create scarcity to satisfy business models. We don't write laws so that software developers can make money. We only write laws for the public good. A good topic for debate is whether allowing software developers to make money is for the public good. I wouldn't jump to conclusions however if allowing software developers to make money means restricting the rights of end users. Then, the public must decide, which is more important.
Ownership, naturally, means possession. If I own a chair is because I possess it. I have it in my hands or in my property. However, if the software is in my hard drive (in my possession), how can the author still own it?
You're right, that was a bad example.
I think you have it upside down. Its his license forbidding you from redistributing the software. That when he distributes the software, he still controlls it. That is wrong.
The same happens with all proprietary software. Look at the number of Windows installations, look at how many people's computers they controll by their license agreement. That is also wrong.
While an attempt at a troll, I actually think that is a remarkably concise statement on the software industry. However, I fail to see the "communist" relation but I suppose you needed that there to be called a troll.
Regards.
Shareware is perhaps the largest abuse of the legal system. Not only does the software developer retain most rights to the software, they forbid their customer the right to use the software for any purpose. Whether by locking out certain functionality ("crippleware") or by having a legal clause saying that the user must delete the software after a certain amount of time.
Shareware authors must have a distorted belief that software users deserve no rights at all without direct compensation. Then they might allow their customers the right to use the software and thats all. They still forbid rights to modify and distribute the software. This seems to me to be rather a large breach of ethics.
Good thing we have free software and can avoid all this crap.
I don't have a credit card and I don't have a CD burner so I just buy from WalMart. Its actually conveniant that way. I get quality Free Software for like twenty bucks. Otherwise I would probably waste that money on five milk shakes in the course of a week.
Does it help Mandrake? I don't know what their situation is. I buy software because I like it.
Strange idea, isn't it?
You almost sound serious about that statement. Mandrake Inc may not survive but they've given power of the software to you and anyone else who uses it by distributing and writing Free Software*. The Operating System is Free. It has no choice but to survive.
* My regards to the former users of BeOS, may he rest in peace
Free as in Freedom. Its Free speech, not Free Beer.
You gotta pay if you wanna play.
Granted, what you say is true.
When I say that XML isn't a silver bullet I am actually saying one size does not fit all. You say that all applications don't want a linked list organization. But I don't think all applications want an XML format either.
In my opinion, it is more important for the format to be simple than for it to be common. And really, I don't think you'll find XML as common as you might think.
As a developer, I would think that you would want to choose a higher-level programming language that would make the creation of parsers.
But really...all of this isn't useful unless you know what kind of software you'd like to write. There are perhaps some cases where XML is more ideal. But most of the time, it is not. But as always, use the best tool for the job.
I think the difference is that has time goes on, software is becoming more and more important. What rights Stallman may have been laughed at for defending before, I think average people will take more seriously now. I think it is more sensible to advocate free software and it becomes more sensible as time goes on.
XML can be usually distributed as PostScript too. You make up all the problems you want.
The problem is that XML is a horribly format *and* it tries to be universal. It would be sane to try to make math to look like math and at least try to be as concise (and efficient, space wise) as math. But they wanted not just a format for displaying math on a web page they wanted an XML format for displaying math on a web page. This is the cause of insanity.
If you want a format that is simple to parse into an internal format, there are much easier ways. XML doesn't translate naturally to any internal data structure. It really is a mess. Better format for this kind of thing would be symbolic expression. The equation could look like this:
((exp x 2) + 4x + 4 = 0)
Which is quite simply a linked list after it is parsed. Any number of other non-proprietary formats could work as well as or better than XML. XML isn't a silver bullet and when you think it is, you end up shooting yourself in the foot.
"Microsoft makes me mad, and I'm too young, too American (And too entwined with LotR style strategizing) and I don't want to wait 10 years for a guilt free/opensource vision of a usable, stable operating system."
GNU/Linux is a usable stable operating system. And you get all the rights users of Free Software are entitled to. Whats the complaint?
It will be called GNU because it is a complete GNU system. The UI is GNU, the file system utilities are GNU, the text utilities are GNU, the text editor is GNU, and kernal will be GNU.
Isn't it sad how a completely free operating system was developed because some people were concerned that you weren't getting all the rights you should with the software you use and all you do complain about the stupid shit.
Damn you. You trolls make me angry sometimes.
What good is a proprietary device driver when the next version of the Hurd is released which will probably make it incompatible?
There's a lot of reason behind the philosophy. Get your mind out of the box, please.
I would call a system like that degenerate. Because a system is really multiple pieces of software interoperating. With just one piece of software (Linux) running, you don't really have a system at all.
If you have a couple applications running...then you have a system but I would say it really isn't an operating system. An operating system has a programming library of some sort for code reuse, some sort of an interface, utilities to manipulate the file system (copy, delete, make directories) and in the case of Unix, utilities to manipulate text files. There is a lot more than this in a modern operating system. But of all the things that Linux needs to be a complete operating system, most of it is available as GNU software.
What sense is it to use Linux without GNU anyway? You're cutting your arm off...for what? GNU is freely available software with granted rights to use, copy, redistribute, and modify. You are also required to have access the source code by its license. In fact, thats the whole point of GNU's existance.
I say...enjoy it and don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
MathML on by default! That is great!
The old notation for math is so boring and obsolete:
x^2 + 4x + 4 = 0
I much prefer:
<mrow>
<mrow>
<msup>
<mi>x</mi>
<mn>2</mn>
</msup>
<mo>+</mo>
<mrow>
<mn>4</mn>
<mo>⁢</mo>
<mi>x</mi>
</mrow>
<mo>+</mo>
<mn>4</mn>
</mrow>
<mo>=</mo>
<mn>0</mn>
</mrow>
because it is XML and standardized and non-proprietary and cool. I want my <elite>XML</elite>!
Yes, I have an idea. But consider it a matter of perspective. I like trying to see the whole picture.
A minor quibble. Surely any literate person would interpret "Apple is not your friend" as "Don't trust Apple" or perhaps this is too much of a right-brain activity. Perhaps it is all the poetry I am having to read right now :)
I suppose I got lost in predicting possible responses to my post--something I've learned to do while communicating through the internet. But you bring up GNOME, KDE, XFree, MC, and Emacs and I don't think any real UI methodology was used in this case. The only real goal is that the user can customize their interface to the system. You see this prevalent throughout most free software projects. Again, I am not saying that this is a better method...
(Side note...its nice to know that GNU is available on your system. Obviously it was ported by someone. How about that nice Aqua interface? can I port it to my system? Why not?)
GNU is its own system. Its derived from Unix quite a bit of design but I think there is enough new and interesting things added to the system to call it a new system but with compatibility. This is very subjective of course--and all beside the point.
Your point on not using a tool for its philosophy is well taken. I would agree if something really wrong isn't taking place. Its like if all the hammers were owned by one individual and the idea of the hammer was also owned. Then perhaps philosophy might become important. Sure...some will yield "Just give me a damn hammer!" but others might insist "You know, there is something wrong here."
In my world, there are no invalid choices. You must confuse me with some zealot. But if you want to make me into a zealot for sake of argument, of course I might have a problem with that :)Perhaps you might doubt me in this. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of the free software philosophy. For example, I think it is more important for software to be useful than for it to be free. But I think the freedom to use the software anyway you please is a great deal of the value of software. Many people are of the mindset that the only thing that matters is what the software does. But I think it is as important as to how it does it and what you can do with it, legally, under the law. Because I try to be a law abiding man.
(emphasis deleted)
You must really take me as insane. Of course I am for choice and my choice is to insist on certain rights on the software I use. I'm an OS advocate and this is what I advocate about GNU/Linux. Advocating an OS doesn't mean disallowing other people from making the choice for themselves. But rather it means letting other people know why you use the OS you use. In this case...I may have went a little far--openly attacking an alternative OS. You're right...only in this regard.
I wanted to reply to this last since I think it is least important. I use "GNU/Linux" because it makes the most sense to me. MacOS X, I've heard, has a BSD kernal. Do you find yourself usually calling it BSD? I actually read both ways and unlike some people, I don't correct people while they speak :) The only time I really care is when it is ambiguous whether they meant the entire OS or just the kernal.
Anyway...best regards.
Power is control. Its that simple. If you don't like your GNU/Linux system, you have the freedom to change it yourself. And then you can share these changes with others. Thats the spirit of cooperation. What you see right now (in the GNU/Linux system) is the result of this spirit.
Sure, you may not be a programmer. You don't write code. You want the software to be written for you--you want it already configured to your liking. Or maybe you don't know what exactly you want from your system. So you want someone else to make all the decisions for you and you want to like it. So you say you like Apple. They've done testing. UI science is little more than averaging out the preferences of many potential software users.
But what about the license? The end-user agreement? When you started up your OS, did you click "I agree" ? Did you read it? Do you agree with everything it said? None of the software on the system can be copied, shared, or modified. Okay...perhaps the BSD core.
Whats the big deal? you ask. Do you like Apple? Do you trust them? The users of BeOS did...look what happened to them. You don't own the operating system. They do. That nice interface of theirs is their property. Anything that looks like it is their property. All the software is theirs to. You just pay to use it.
If you wrote an operating system or designed the interface, what would you do? Would you choose to own it or choose to share it? Which promotes cooperation and which promotes your own interests? Whose interests do you think Apple is promoting?
The spirit of cooperation is a huge factor in software development. Its what made the GNU/Linux system what it is today. And all them command line programs that you like on your Apple system, where did they come from? Open cooperation. Open cooperationg is the spirit of free software. Thats why it exists. Hope you like your Apple.
Conclusion: Apple is not your friend.