"UNIX/Linux/BSD is neato, but I failed math, suck at logic, and can't grep to save my life. I'd like to play around with it and learn it, but I have no real reason to- and my experience with Free Software has been pretty nasty- I bitch about nonexistant intallers, suck-ass window managers, poor hardware support, and I'm told "FIX IT YOURSELF!"... and as a non programmer, I'd rather stick with something that already works for me to begin with.
Call this a huge change in perspective from you to me. But this paragraph makes me sad. You say you failed math and logic. Yet isn't this what a computer is meant to do? Its called a computer because it computes things. There is an entire field called computer science. Ever wonder what this kind of science is about? From the name you might think its about the science of computers. Yet this is rather far from the truth. Its about how to compute things.
You compute things every day. Many of us rely upon calculators but most of us know how to add and divide numbers by hand. You know how to sort a list of names and addresses. You know how to draw shapes and circles. The computer simply does that for us. A computer program is simple a notation for this computation.
You mention grep only to say how you are afraid of it. It simply writes a text file containing every line of another file that has a certain pattern of text. I don't even know regular expressions very well (again, just a notation for specifying patterns of text), I just match words. You don't need grep to do this. But grep makes it quite a bit easier.
After rereading your post, I realize you are trolling. If I am mistaken, then let us know who told you to fix it yourself. But I'll continue because you are moderated highly and others seem to agree with you.
If you truly are an idiot, then what use is a computer for you? You want to draw pictures, you want to make web sites. Yet to do any of these things correctly you need to be smart and you need to learn how. Perhaps you have backed yourself into a corner hoping that these reputable software packages will allow you to get away with not understand how the technology works. If you do understand the technology then the software ends up being only a conveniance over other less-reputable alternatives.
Let me tell you something. I grep; I program; I play with Unix configs. Yet I don't like Unix. It can be a pain to use. Its redeeming feature is that you can customize it away to make it less of a pain. But I stick with it because of the amount of quality free software that comes with free operating systems (free as in freedom, of course).
Oh, less me forget: you don't want to program. You think it is hard. You're afraid of it. But I think a part of computer literacy should be a minimal amount of programming simply because high-level programming gives you another skill in case you need it. Just like a proficient Windows user knows how to use defrag, notepad and MS Paint not because it is the software they'll spend most of their time using but because its handy at times.
I should stop this post here but as an example to the programming neophyte, lets say you want to write a message encrypted (loosely:) by rot13. All it does is take each character of the message and replaces it with the character 13 times upward in the alphabet. I just wrote this script in ten minutes:
(sorry for some dangling 's in there...can't figure out how to get them out)
This is just a sample of what you can do with a minimal amount of programming know how. Dreamweaver won't do the above; neither will Photoshop. There are packages that will do this. But what about the thousands of monotonous computations that you may have to spend a lot of time doing that the computer could do for you!
I have strayed off topic, I know. This has little to do with Mac OS X or any other operating system but rather I am speaking about the programming spirit. This exists on all operating systems on whatever system a hacker might use. True computational power comes not from the operating system or the applications you use but from whoever is in front of the keyboard.
Its at the point now that we have a choice between proprietary and free software. I'll choose the free software everytime.
If you are going under a proprietary license anyway, take care in the license you are going to use. Try to give your users some concept of rights to the software they license from you. Such as being allowed to run on a multi-processor machine or being allowed to modify some of the files bundled with it (graphics, text files, etc.). You can even publish the source code while retaining propriety of the software.
Its comfortable being able to know how the software I rely on works and the ability to make changes (hopefully legal) if its broke.
Also...it should never crash and be completely bug free:)
You can wail on about this average user but you must be careful about this cliche. Because the implicit fallacies is that there is an average user of these systems, that they have far less experience than you or I do, and that they aren't already happy with what they are using now. If there is anything more certain that can be said at all about these average computer users is that they probably don't want to change operating systems right now. In fact, not only would there quite possible be no reason for them to switch operating systems right now but it would mean erasing the skills they have learned using the current operating system. Its no coincidence that those who do migrate to other platforms have little to loose. If you think that these so-called average users spend all their time surfing web pages and sending email then there would probably be a lot more migrators to other operating systems.
I think it is useful to consider a few things I learned in a Cultural Geography class last semester. I know these things are pretty much common sense but I think its not only useful to consider these ideas but to introduce some new terms when dealing with these things (rather than using impoverishments like average user). When people migrate from one region of a country to another, they do so for a number of reasons. There are push factors and pull factors.
So why would someone move to a Free operating system? It seems that freedom itself isn't much of pull factor (but this would change, surely, once many of these software laws and licenses are really enforced against end users, not just distributors).
Let me say something about ease-of-use. While it would seem to be an obvious pull factor--the days of easy to use general-purpose operating systems are long over, I think. Perhaps the first Macintoshes were among the easiest systems to use and the reason for this is quite simple. The needs and expectations of users have gone up quite a bit since then. While I have never used these early computers nor do I know the intentions of the Apple staff (these things are probably clearly documented somewhere...I'm too lazy to look right now), I would suspect that they were trying to make as easy as possible to type out documents with relatively sophisticated typessetting (compared to typewriters!) and then to file these documents into a filing system.
Today's systems are expected to require quite a bit more. Many of the posters here on slashdot carrying-on on what these operating systems need to be successful (in what ever definition of success, most do not say) give examples:
Easy to use GUI
Nice aesthetics (theming, skins)
Compatibility for all the Xs, Ys, and Zs
High Performance...it seems that it isn't important that the system performs faster but rather that the interface is responsive
Stability...the system should never crash or rarely crash
Device support...it has to support everything or it isn't any good
Not made by an overwhelming tyrant
Licensed under a correct license...also, even with all of the above, the OS must not cost a penny
A nice web browser. It must support all the standards and be better than any other browser on any other platform
It must have all the applications that slashdotters believe that this average user spends all his or her time doing. Whether this an office suite or a PhotoShop clone or 3D games depends upon the slashdotters mood, the time of day, and the phase of the moon.
The paradox is that this average user needs all of this. This seems extremely unfair to anyone trying to implement an operating system...nowadays to any team of programmers or consortium of developers contributing to an existing free software project.
Now lets consider what relevent about talking about the average user. Like I said before, I doubt this user would switch his or her operating system for any reason. This is because for everyday this user masters his/her OS, the push factor from every other OS becomes stronger and stronger. Unless there exists a push factor from the OS he is currently using, he's gonna stay.
So lets forget this average user since it isn't relevent or even interesting. Lets consider, instead, a different class of users. Lets just create a class of users who might or will definitely switch to another operating system. Now, awaiting to be smacked around with a stack of statistics proclaiming otherwise, I would guess that this set of users would have the following things more or less in common:
More experienced with computers
More likely to be computer literate, even more likely to be a power user
Is curious what else is out there
Finds himself reading up on operating systems on the internet
Condenses each OS into a strict list of must have features.
And where would you find this average set of OS migrators? Probably on the internet: in newsgroups and web forums. Specifically, you would find that many of these people read and post to slashdot regularly.
And thats the point to this entire post. I find it interesting to hear slashdotters condemn the intelligence of the average users, how they can't program, or they can't figure out the command line. This might be true, but they are revealing their own experiences more than anything else. They are their own breed of software users.
In the writer's ouline section he has a few bullet-points that scream "Lisp!" (I'm paraphrasing here):
A core system to handle parsing, verification, etc. -- If app configs were based around Lisp and symbolic expressions, you could you use any of the dozens of parsers/interpreters out there.
A configuration format description file. Of course, lisp functions that are not defined give errors.
OS-neutral. Lisp source code is just a text file and requires only an interpreter or sexp parser.
The nice thing about it is that you don't necessarily need a full lisp language. Even if that is desirable, the lisp derivative Scheme is quite minimal for the task.
It seems to me that you want a scalable format. By this I mean that complexity should only increase with need. Lets say the developer only needs a bunch of key/value pairs:
A little macro magic could turn that into any syntax you prefer.
If the needs of the software go up, lisp can be readily used as an extension language (see emacs, gimp, xchat, etc.)
The advantage over xml is that you don't get that horrible syntax (or we all don't have to get special XML editors that are useless for anything else), you don't have to have the pains of XML compliance (unicode, doctype declarations or schemas, and well formness), and I think this is far more straight-forward than XML parsing (with all of XML's little quirks such a them elements with a backslashes in them like <blah/> and attributes and character entities (& < etc)).
This is why we use Free Software
on
Read the Fine Print
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
This, of course, is why we use Free Software. This is why freedom is important. I will give it that perhaps the word 'freedom' has a slightly different meaning...it means no needless restrictions on software.
But these Microsoft threads we can safely ignore. I've already decided not to upgrade to another version of Windows (Windows 95 was the last one) on any of my computers. With GNU/Linux, we can safely click "I agree" (if we are ever prompted) without feeling like a hypocrite.
If you notice the trend is that not only is there more proprietary software but somehow it is becoming *more* proprietary. In that, there are becoming more restrictions and the developers are reigning more control over the software we use. From owning software to leasing it to soon we'll be renting it. Its the difference between buying a house and renting one. In the former, you just live there and pay taxes once a year. In the latter its like you're hiding from the land lord because you didn't tell her about your cat!
Okay since the outside thread is pretty boring I might as well go into off topic land.
That list is lame. I thought it would be a list of words and phrases that are improper and just plain dumb that we hear all the time. Instead, I guess people just nominate words that they are sick of hearing. For example:
Surgical Strike: Personally, I think this is a fine phrase that evokes a visual image. It means you are not being careless.
Friendly Fire: Again...the meaning is obvious. It means that the there is an attack but they are not attacking you! What other phrase would substitute so concisely?
Brainstorming: Okay...I'd like to see phrase go away. Its used to decieve...I can't think of an honest use of it. A word that I love but should never be used in a publication is "brainfart".
Killer App: The meaning to this is very concise and is almost necessary when talking about the history of computing. Of course, it is abused a lot but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a solid useful meaning.
So basically...a lot of the words I agree with should be banished (bleh, solutions:I ; many of the words are nice complements to the english language or associated jargons.
"Although many teenage Slashdotters seem to think that open source is necessarily good and commericial software is automatically evil, I believe the two paradigms can continue to exist side by side ad infinitum."
First, I can't help but see your implicit ad hominem argument relating teenagers and advocates of free software. We all know what you mean by this statement and as a teenager, I would really like it if you stop.
But even as a lowly teenager, I understand that part of being mature is understanding the views of those you don't agree with. But you fail this criteria of maturity when you think that free software advocates have something against commercial software. Oh, perhaps you truly mean those who have problems with business in general--if so, you are definitely preaching to the choir--so I will reject that interpretation.
I have nothing against commercial software. But I do have a problem when laws are made for economic reasons and that make performing simple copying and modification acts upon software illegal. Its the nature of software that it can be copied. Yet this is deemed illegal so that people can make more money off of it.
Perhaps this is seen as Not A Big Deal. I mean, few people are harmed by the laws. This will change, I am sure, if governments begin enforcing these laws. When people are fined and businesses shut down for copying software from a CD to their hard drives. Or for transferring software from over a network.
These simple acts are seen as illegal or even wrong by proprietary software developers. But free software advocates don't make such a conclusion. We believe that the copying and modification of software is fundamental to the value of computing and is a basic right of users of technology. The technology is there--what law can tell us not to use it?
So this, dear sir, is what we mean when we see proprietary software as wrong. Hopefully, in future writings, you can provide accurate concessions.
And don't worry, I don't think you're communist either. But you don't need to develop proprietary software to prove it.
I really don't see how almost any word processor can beat emacs unless it comes from not learning the emacs editor capabilities. Now...emacs isn't rocket science. But it does take longer than 30 seconds to learn. However, to make things easier fo you...I would like to share some emacs features you may not be aware of.
English Spelling Completion Yes...this means for them long words that you aren't sure of the spelling for you just need to type M-[tab] and emacs will complete the word for you.
Dynamic Abbreviation At any time in a buffer while typing in a word, you can hit M-/ and emacs will look for all the whitespace delimited words in all the open emacs buffers and complete it for you. I find this most useful when you have a path that you repeat all the time such as/usr/share/local/bin and you need to type it again, just hit/us and then M-/ and the entire path would be completed for you.
Excellent Documentation I think emacs has excellent online documentation--probably better than KWord and probably rivalling any program documentation in the free software world. When in emacs, just hit C-h i and cursor down to the word emacs and hit enter. From here you can learn about all these advanced text-editing and word processing features. Emacs, of course, has as-you-type spell checking M-x flyspell-mode, macros, and syntax highlighting.
Context Sensitive Help Perhaps not what you would expect, but emacs gives you documentation in almost anyway you may need it. C-h m tell you about the current mode; C-h k will tell you about what a certain key does; C-h a is like the apropos command at the shell and will search the emacs documentation for what you enter at the prompt.
iso-accents-mode Never quite know how to type in them European accents? This mode makes it easy. For resume (with accents over the e's) type in instead r'esum'e and emacs will make the change for you.
Of course, these are only some of the features of emacs. There is plenty there to be discovered. Each user may only want to memorize a subset of the features he or she uses and be productive with it. Keys can be rebinded and simple to complex customizations can be made in your.emacs.
Of course I don't have to tell you how many platforms emacs has been ported to or that emacs can be invoked from the GUI or from the command line.
Can anyone please explain what features emacs is missing and how KWord can compete with these powerful emacs commands?
This is a good article. I appreciate its depth and its honesty. The reasons for OSX become a real player (and better player) in the desktop market are distinct and clear. And perhaps this article is right. GNU/Linux may not be a real contender for a majority of desktop users.
But reading the article, behind every statement said is the assumption "popular; therefore good". Now don't get me wrong, its not a bad assumption. We all know what advantages being popular have. Popular platforms get better hardware support, get more software, are better supported, and typically get better press. It often means that using software is no longer an uphill battle.
But such an assumption has its flaws as well. Its of course important for owners of intellectual property to own popular propery. Like businesses such as Apple and Microsoft. So Apple users are constantly watching for Apple software to become more popular and thereby ensuring the livelyhood of the software they use.
But what happens when intellectual property doesn't mean much? Thats the idea behind the copyleft. And that is what happens with GNU/Linux. The assumption "popular; therefore good" isn't so easily applied. Look at the loss of Eazel? Its obviously sad what happened to such a noble business (and perhaps too noble) but their software is still being improved upon. Its still part of the greater whole.
Something the article mentioned that I'd like to offer a counterpoint to is the idea that when there are less users of open source software, development slows down. But if you look at the new users of GNU/Linux--often they aren't developers. Many of them don't know what channels to offer bug reports. The core developers often won't abandon their projects (or maybe I am wrong?). And if you haven't notice, it is still these core developers who put in the most significant work into a majority of free software projects.
Another fault of the axiom "popular; therefore good" is the qualification of desktop environment. A desktop is good if it is easy to use. It is easy to use if more people are able to be productive in the environment. If more people are able to be productive in the environment, its reasonable to say that more people would use the software and it becomes more populare. Popular; therefore good. And we come full circle.
So then you see numerous rants about the average user who typically means that if you appease this user, you would appease a majority of users. And this, in itself, is good. But it would be another rant altogether about the myth of the average user. But my point is that free software hackers perhaps shouldn't be so desperate for users. Perhaps it is enough that the software is good in other more technical ways like efficiency and interoperability. When you see people advocating GUIs around command-line tools you must imagine me thinking "what a warped perspective!" Somehow there is this belief that the interface of a program is more worthwhile than its function. And as we have already seen, this is from the axiom "popular; therefore good" !
So when you consider the greatness of operating systems, when you take away the assumption "popular; therefore good" you add a completely new dimension to its judgement.
But I just had an enlightenment...how this sort of follows ethics. While any sense of morality may seem inappropriate when talking about software, instead consider a judgement of merit. The axiom "popular; therefore good" could be said to follow the utilarian philosophy "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Consider cases of the egoist philosophy "satisfies my own needs; therefore good"; the virtue philosophy "allows for a better character (you can share it, copy it, make you a better programmer, cause you to think more); therefore good" -- perhaps there are more relations.
I should provide a conclusion to this ramble---after continuing to read from digression to digression. Even though I haven't made any real solid points here and my logic is perhaps flawed, hopefully I have successfully offered a different way of judging software systems. But not following "popular; therefore good" you learn that perhaps GNU/Linux may not be in such a bad position as you might think.
I think you've hit upon the fundamental problem with Open Source. It's not that Open Source is a bad thing, it can actually be quite good. But it's ridiculous to assume it will ever completely replace the commercial software market. Or even have a signifigant impact upon it because of consumer expectations.
Hmm...I am beginning to wonder if there is anyway of declaring fundamental problems and not trolling. Its just like declaring the fundamental problems of politics, capitalism, and anything else I can think of. Fundamental problems simply do not exist in reasonable arguments.
I've never used AbiWord and don't know what it's like. But imagine what these guys could do if instead of giving it away for free, they sold it for $15 off their website.
Okay, Moderators? If by now you can't tell this is a troll then you really shouldn't be moderating. Given that this post is rated +4, there needs to be a reworking on who gets moderator privilidges...
Okay...I'm done with this article. Its just not worth it.
Do a majority of proprietary software users actually pay attention to the licenses of the software packages they utilize?
If they did, I'd think we'd have a lot more converts to free software.
Hmm...here are some choice excepts from the Windows EULA:
"If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is not accompanied by a new computer system or computer system component, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
"The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be installed, accessed, displayed, run, shared or used concurrently on or from different computers, including a workstation, terminal or other digital electronic device ("Devices")."
"If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is Windows 98, you may additionally... and (ii) permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely to access the Internet using the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may not allow these connected COMPUTERS to use any other components of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, nor to invoke application sharing as described below. The five (5) connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections."
"Processor Limitation - The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used by no more than the maximum number of processors of the COMPUTER indicated at the top of this EULA." (Note: I see no number at the top of the EULA which I got from c:\windows\help\license.txt -- also this is a violation of RMS's freedom 0, the ability to use the software in any way)
"You may not rent, lease or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
"Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Manufacturer or MS may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts."
Here's another question, do a majority of the users of proprietary software actually agree to all of the EULA when they click "I Agree" ? What about the majority of free software users?
What, specifically, is the problem?
on
Homepage Usability
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Actually, one of the reasons slashdot is so popular is that it is so usable. I know Jakob made that point in his last book _Designing_Usability_ that the most popular websites are often the most usable.
Okay...lets try to use some of Jacob's principles on Slashdot. Look at the homepage. First of all, you got the Slashdot logo and text in the upperleft-hand corner. Its obvious where you are. This is a news site so the news should be the most obvious part of the page. It is. In fact the news takes what looks like 75% of the width of the page, probably more.
Next, Slashdot makes great use of what Jakob calls scanning. Jakob has noted that visitors don't often read all the text on the page but that they rather they scan for the information they want. So the important information should be underlined, italicized, bolded, or put in a different color. This happens on the Slashdot homepage. The headings are the most obvious in that they are white with a green background which contrasts with the text which is black on white. Then at the bottom of the news entries you have "Read More" (which is an active verb, BTW). And its highlighted.
Another principle that Jakob explains is that visiters like to have an idea of where they are going before they get there. At this, Slashdot seems to excel at. For instance, before the main body of the homepage loads, you already get an idea of what topics today's news covers by the icons in the upper right hand corner. Today I get an icon for The Internet, Linux, Microsoft, News, and Privacy. While it would be a little better for these icons to have titles the tooltips serve well for if you don't know what the icon is for. Also, these icons correspond directly to the icons next to the news items. In addition, each link in the news stories have relevant text underlined so you have an idea on where that link will take you.
Slashdot is also fast and for me takes under a second to load. It has little use of graphics and these graphics are cached to improve load time for other visits.
People who feel comfortable coming to this website have good reason, from Jakob's principles. To an online friend of mine I showed a post I made. Next thing I know, he replied to it. He told me he never used this website before.
So if there's a usability problem with this website, I would be interested in knowing what it is. Because I'm not finding anything.
(before posting this I notice a bold heading below the comment window that says "Important Stuff:" that says what comments should be like. These kinds of things make slashdot such a usable site)
Power and freedom are very hardy words that stand in much abuse yet stand again for the next debate. You can argue all you want about Freedom and Power and yet find you are arguing about nothing at all. If you can have wars against drugs and wars against terrorism, you can have the Freedom to have Power and the Power of Freedom. You can argue endless rhetoric on how the Power to not give other people the Freedom to have Power over other people's Freedom and then find the next reply to that is another twist on words that seems equally correct.
So to avoid this in a talk about software licenses, I ask you to believe only in real things. The words Power and Freedom don't decide arguments. We're talking about the words "software" and "can do" which are real. What can you do with your software and why can or can't you? And are the reasons just?
Yes...I suppose "just" is another trap in unreality. But its an opinion that I can't say how you answer. I guess Stallman has been asking you to ask yourself a question for a long time now. Is it okay to be fined for pirating software. Or should I say sharing software. Uh! the English language is such a mess. Don't trust your language to win arguments. You must depend on the reasoning of the reader to know what it is you are really talking about and not simply respond to rhetoric on vague words. The readers who do this are most probably not the same people who win arguments or who become President.
George Orwell warned us about this as well. He said "Political language [...] is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." This is about political language but it applies equally here.
However you believe, believe only in real things. Honesty is greater than wit
Some moral codes are universal. Just like the Golden rule that do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is called the fair treatment of man and implies an equal regard for all man. Beyond this, all man must be free with regard to the golden rule.
Our moral code is not just written in the law, but is held by social constraints. We are nice to each other partly because others look kindly upon nice people and it is an ideal we hold.
"What Stallman is trying to do is ram his ideology (good aspects notwithstanding) down everyones throat in much the same way that Microsoft tries to ram their ideology down our throats. "
Whoa there. That statement is full of venom. So lets step back, breathe deeply, and let the leeches suck on that wound.
RMS is running to be part of the Board of the GNOME Foundation. This does not constitute ramming any ideology down anyone's throats. When running for the GNOME Foundation, he doesn't have to convert anyone. Because they already agree. Read the charter (http://foundation.gnome.org/charter.html). In fact, I will copy an excerpt for you:
"GNOME is part of the GNU project and supports the goals of the GNU project as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Free software licensing has always been a mainstay of GNOME, and we must ensure that this tradition continues. GNOME will include only Free software."
Now, I don't know what you think GNOME is but its always been a GNU Project. Its always been free software and fits nicely with RMS's ideology. Because it is his ideology.
Thats what free software is. Its a philosophy. Now...you can have a different vantage on the philosophy. You can think that it would be okay to mix proprietary ("change this program and I'll sue") and free software and include it all as part of GNOME. But you wouldn't be elected as part of the GNOME Board of Directors. If you ran for the position, there would probably be someone on slashdot complaining that you were ramming your ideology down everyone's throats.
Power and freedom are very hardy words that stand in much abuse yet stand again for the next debate. You can argue all you want about Freedom and Power and yet find you are arguing about nothing at all. If you can have wars against drugs and wars against terrorism, you can have the Freedom to have Power and the Power of Freedom. You can argue endless rhetoric on how the Power to not give other people the Freedom to have Power over other people's Freedom and then find the next reply to that is another twist on words that seems equally correct.
So to avoid this in a talk about software licenses, I ask you to believe only in real things. The words Power and Freedom don't decide arguments. We're talking about the words "software" and "can do" which are real. What can you do with your software and why can or can't you? And are the reasons just?
Yes...I suppose "just" is another trap in unreality. But its an opinion that I can't say how you answer. I guess Stallman has been asking you to ask yourself a question for a long time now. Is it okay to be fined for pirating software. Or should I say sharing software. Uh! the English language is such a mess. Don't trust your language to win arguments. You must depend on the reasoning of the reader to know what it is you are really talking about and not simply respond to rhetoric on vague words. The readers who do this are most probably not the same people who win arguments or who become President.
George Orwell warned us about this as well. He said "Political language [...] is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." This is about political language but it applies equally here.
My opinion is this. I think RMS has a problem with tripping over the rhetoric. The token "Free Software" is definitely an abuse of the word. But I am certain there is something real here. You all can imagine how bad it can be where software is owned. What power can an owner not have when he can write in the beginning of the software "You will be fined if you don't follow my rules". And this is software we can't do without.
But however you believe, believe only in real things. Honesty is greater than wit.
All time since September 1993. One of the seasonal rhythms of the Usenet used to be the annual September influx of clueless newbies who, lacking any sense of netiquette, made a general nuisance of themselves. This coincided with people starting college, getting their first internet accounts, and plunging in without bothering to learn what was acceptable. These relatively small drafts of newbies could be assimilated within a few months. But in September 1993, AOL users became able to post to Usenet, nearly overwhelming the old-timers' capacity to acculturate them; to those who nostalgically recall the period before hand, this triggered an inexorable decline in the quality of discussions on newsgroups. See also AOL!.
Unfortunately, this author forgot to throw the rules of business sense out the window before writing about our favorite OS. From here...you guys can finish writing what I am about to say...you've already heard the arguments. You know...programming for the challenge...money doesn't really matter...without a centralized organization, the community can't loose money---MS can.
Now for the meat. This article mentions focus quite a lot. Developers should focus on servers...developers shouldn't focus on Microsoft...blah blah. Again, he doesn't understand how things work in the Free Software Community...or ignores it.
He thinks the way people have been trained to think since computers became commercially viable. Computers are new...still new. And any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. People worship their computers for the good they do and when the computer messes up, they are willing to sacrifice anything to the gods to make it better again. Metaphor--of course. So over the years big companies like Microsoft and AOL (and IBM) have taken the role of information gods they have decreed certain assumptions that computer users take for granted today.
Users take it for granted that they need a fast computer to everything they need to do. They go into a computer sales place and the salesman constantly tries to get the customer to buy a more expensive (faster) computer. The customer does this thinking that the computer is some how enhanced in a meaningful way. When a computer messes up...they think its because the computer is choking because it isn't fast enough. This usually comes from the tech guy is supposed to know all about computers so makes up a reasonable reason for it messing up. He can't say the software is bad because everyone else is using the software and the user won't believe him anyway because the software was made by the computer gods and they are never wrong.
Users think they have to upgrade all the time or face incompatibility. This is the belief that eventually there is going to be software they need that will break if they don't upgrade. This used to be true but for the most part, isn't true anymore.
You have to keep up to day or be left behind. This usually means keeping up with the mainstream or something disasterous will happen. This means use Windows, Photoshop, Word, etc. Since most users have no idea what the difference between most software is they feel secure in using what everyone else uses. And they get used to using it so using any other kind of software feels strange to them and they like whichever software they use first. If Microsoft wrote another word processor that isn't called Word, I don't think a lot of people would buy it. But if they made this new word processor into an upgrade...a lot more people would use it.
A lot of people won't use GNU/Linux because it doesn't have a god. Red Hat tries but fails. I would like to the whole Free Software Community become these computer gods that people rely on to make them feel comfortable using the software. But we often contradict each other and are not as inviting as the other gods.
But the idea that companies are very big doesn't deter them. In fact, it makes them feel safe because bigger gods makes them feel safer and the gods won't go away.
So this is my explanation about GNU/Linux on the desktop. They aren't interested so much to get their work done but rather they want to feel safe using the computer. So saying "Linux is stable" isn't nearly as effective as saying "Linux is nice". Even when their computers crash or their files don't open up, they will still stick with it because they believe the gods know of their struggles and will fix it in the next upgrade.
This author and many tech writers have the same problem with computer gods. When they are talking about business sense they are saying how GNU/Linux doesn't have a big enough god. And when they use the software, they are aware that few people use this software for the desktop. So they come in not feeling secure. The warps their perceptions from the beginning.
Stallman types into text editors too! In fact, he wrote one. I don't know if you've heard of it but its called emacs and is pretty good. If you've not heard of it, you're not much of a geek.
Torvalds isn't a philosopher
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Plato: Linus, do you agree there is a human nature?
Torvalds: You know, I could care less. I don't think anything is going to really change if we discover there is indeed a human nature.
Hobbes: But surely you must account that people do what they do to serve their own ends?
Torvalds: Again, see my answer to human nature. It just doesn't matter to me.
[end philosopher round robin]
The thing is that there is an incredible difference between Torvalds and Stallman. Torvalds told us he isn't a big thinker. Stallman is. Insert Stallman in the above conversation he would definitely give the big thinkers something to argue about.
The reason there so much more contraversy over Stallman than Torvalds is because Stallman allows us to disagree with him. You can't disagree with Torvalds point of view because he doesn't have one. Stallman's view of human nature is directly involved in what we consider today free software. Just like the US Fathers of Constitution view of democracy is directly involved in what is today the United States.
I argue that those of you tuned to your computing terminals without thinking of the big picture--the so called pragmatists--that you have no way of arguing against those who do. And I plead you to not argue when you really don't know what you are talking about.
I agree with your statement that they shouldn't focus on the "average user" who just wants to check email, write documents, and browse the web. If that was all users wanted to do, they could make GNU/Linux extremely simple to use. But for some reason the powers that be wanted a general purpose operating system rather than an expensive gameboy and so that implies more complexity. There is no way you can get away with a dirt-easy general purpose OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Call this a huge change in perspective from you to me. But this paragraph makes me sad. You say you failed math and logic. Yet isn't this what a computer is meant to do? Its called a computer because it computes things. There is an entire field called computer science. Ever wonder what this kind of science is about? From the name you might think its about the science of computers. Yet this is rather far from the truth. Its about how to compute things.
You compute things every day. Many of us rely upon calculators but most of us know how to add and divide numbers by hand. You know how to sort a list of names and addresses. You know how to draw shapes and circles. The computer simply does that for us. A computer program is simple a notation for this computation.
You mention grep only to say how you are afraid of it. It simply writes a text file containing every line of another file that has a certain pattern of text. I don't even know regular expressions very well (again, just a notation for specifying patterns of text), I just match words. You don't need grep to do this. But grep makes it quite a bit easier.
After rereading your post, I realize you are trolling. If I am mistaken, then let us know who told you to fix it yourself. But I'll continue because you are moderated highly and others seem to agree with you.
If you truly are an idiot, then what use is a computer for you? You want to draw pictures, you want to make web sites. Yet to do any of these things correctly you need to be smart and you need to learn how. Perhaps you have backed yourself into a corner hoping that these reputable software packages will allow you to get away with not understand how the technology works. If you do understand the technology then the software ends up being only a conveniance over other less-reputable alternatives.
Let me tell you something. I grep; I program; I play with Unix configs. Yet I don't like Unix. It can be a pain to use. Its redeeming feature is that you can customize it away to make it less of a pain. But I stick with it because of the amount of quality free software that comes with free operating systems (free as in freedom, of course).
Oh, less me forget: you don't want to program. You think it is hard. You're afraid of it. But I think a part of computer literacy should be a minimal amount of programming simply because high-level programming gives you another skill in case you need it. Just like a proficient Windows user knows how to use defrag, notepad and MS Paint not because it is the software they'll spend most of their time using but because its handy at times.
I should stop this post here but as an example to the programming neophyte, lets say you want to write a message encrypted (loosely :) by rot13. All it does is take each character of the message and replaces it with the character 13 times upward in the alphabet. I just wrote this script in ten minutes:
(sorry for some dangling 's in there...can't figure out how to get them out)
This is just a sample of what you can do with a minimal amount of programming know how. Dreamweaver won't do the above; neither will Photoshop. There are packages that will do this. But what about the thousands of monotonous computations that you may have to spend a lot of time doing that the computer could do for you!
I have strayed off topic, I know. This has little to do with Mac OS X or any other operating system but rather I am speaking about the programming spirit. This exists on all operating systems on whatever system a hacker might use. True computational power comes not from the operating system or the applications you use but from whoever is in front of the keyboard.
Its at the point now that we have a choice between proprietary and free software. I'll choose the free software everytime.
:)
If you are going under a proprietary license anyway, take care in the license you are going to use. Try to give your users some concept of rights to the software they license from you. Such as being allowed to run on a multi-processor machine or being allowed to modify some of the files bundled with it (graphics, text files, etc.). You can even publish the source code while retaining propriety of the software.
Its comfortable being able to know how the software I rely on works and the ability to make changes (hopefully legal) if its broke.
Also...it should never crash and be completely bug free
You can wail on about this average user but you must be careful about this cliche. Because the implicit fallacies is that there is an average user of these systems, that they have far less experience than you or I do, and that they aren't already happy with what they are using now. If there is anything more certain that can be said at all about these average computer users is that they probably don't want to change operating systems right now. In fact, not only would there quite possible be no reason for them to switch operating systems right now but it would mean erasing the skills they have learned using the current operating system. Its no coincidence that those who do migrate to other platforms have little to loose. If you think that these so-called average users spend all their time surfing web pages and sending email then there would probably be a lot more migrators to other operating systems.
I think it is useful to consider a few things I learned in a Cultural Geography class last semester. I know these things are pretty much common sense but I think its not only useful to consider these ideas but to introduce some new terms when dealing with these things (rather than using impoverishments like average user). When people migrate from one region of a country to another, they do so for a number of reasons. There are push factors and pull factors.
So why would someone move to a Free operating system? It seems that freedom itself isn't much of pull factor (but this would change, surely, once many of these software laws and licenses are really enforced against end users, not just distributors).
Let me say something about ease-of-use. While it would seem to be an obvious pull factor--the days of easy to use general-purpose operating systems are long over, I think. Perhaps the first Macintoshes were among the easiest systems to use and the reason for this is quite simple. The needs and expectations of users have gone up quite a bit since then. While I have never used these early computers nor do I know the intentions of the Apple staff (these things are probably clearly documented somewhere...I'm too lazy to look right now), I would suspect that they were trying to make as easy as possible to type out documents with relatively sophisticated typessetting (compared to typewriters!) and then to file these documents into a filing system.
Today's systems are expected to require quite a bit more. Many of the posters here on slashdot carrying-on on what these operating systems need to be successful (in what ever definition of success, most do not say) give examples:
The paradox is that this average user needs all of this. This seems extremely unfair to anyone trying to implement an operating system...nowadays to any team of programmers or consortium of developers contributing to an existing free software project.
Now lets consider what relevent about talking about the average user. Like I said before, I doubt this user would switch his or her operating system for any reason. This is because for everyday this user masters his/her OS, the push factor from every other OS becomes stronger and stronger. Unless there exists a push factor from the OS he is currently using, he's gonna stay.
So lets forget this average user since it isn't relevent or even interesting. Lets consider, instead, a different class of users. Lets just create a class of users who might or will definitely switch to another operating system. Now, awaiting to be smacked around with a stack of statistics proclaiming otherwise, I would guess that this set of users would have the following things more or less in common:
And where would you find this average set of OS migrators? Probably on the internet: in newsgroups and web forums. Specifically, you would find that many of these people read and post to slashdot regularly.
And thats the point to this entire post. I find it interesting to hear slashdotters condemn the intelligence of the average users, how they can't program, or they can't figure out the command line. This might be true, but they are revealing their own experiences more than anything else. They are their own breed of software users.
In conclusion, You Are the Average User.
In the writer's ouline section he has a few bullet-points that scream "Lisp!" (I'm paraphrasing here):
The nice thing about it is that you don't necessarily need a full lisp language. Even if that is desirable, the lisp derivative Scheme is quite minimal for the task.
It seems to me that you want a scalable format. By this I mean that complexity should only increase with need. Lets say the developer only needs a bunch of key/value pairs:
A little macro magic could turn that into any syntax you prefer.
If the needs of the software go up, lisp can be readily used as an extension language (see emacs, gimp, xchat, etc.)
The advantage over xml is that you don't get that horrible syntax (or we all don't have to get special XML editors that are useless for anything else), you don't have to have the pains of XML compliance (unicode, doctype declarations or schemas, and well formness), and I think this is far more straight-forward than XML parsing (with all of XML's little quirks such a them elements with a backslashes in them like <blah/> and attributes and character entities (& < etc)).
This, of course, is why we use Free Software. This is why freedom is important. I will give it that perhaps the word 'freedom' has a slightly different meaning...it means no needless restrictions on software.
But these Microsoft threads we can safely ignore. I've already decided not to upgrade to another version of Windows (Windows 95 was the last one) on any of my computers. With GNU/Linux, we can safely click "I agree" (if we are ever prompted) without feeling like a hypocrite.
If you notice the trend is that not only is there more proprietary software but somehow it is becoming *more* proprietary. In that, there are becoming more restrictions and the developers are reigning more control over the software we use. From owning software to leasing it to soon we'll be renting it. Its the difference between buying a house and renting one. In the former, you just live there and pay taxes once a year. In the latter its like you're hiding from the land lord because you didn't tell her about your cat!
Okay since the outside thread is pretty boring I might as well go into off topic land.
:I ; many of the words are nice complements to the english language or associated jargons.
That list is lame. I thought it would be a list of words and phrases that are improper and just plain dumb that we hear all the time. Instead, I guess people just nominate words that they are sick of hearing. For example:
Surgical Strike: Personally, I think this is a fine phrase that evokes a visual image. It means you are not being careless.
Friendly Fire: Again...the meaning is obvious. It means that the there is an attack but they are not attacking you! What other phrase would substitute so concisely?
Brainstorming: Okay...I'd like to see phrase go away. Its used to decieve...I can't think of an honest use of it. A word that I love but should never be used in a publication is "brainfart".
Killer App: The meaning to this is very concise and is almost necessary when talking about the history of computing. Of course, it is abused a lot but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a solid useful meaning.
So basically...a lot of the words I agree with should be banished (bleh, solutions
"Although many teenage Slashdotters seem to think that open source is necessarily good and commericial software is automatically evil, I believe the two paradigms can continue to exist side by side ad infinitum."
First, I can't help but see your implicit ad hominem argument relating teenagers and advocates of free software. We all know what you mean by this statement and as a teenager, I would really like it if you stop.
But even as a lowly teenager, I understand that part of being mature is understanding the views of those you don't agree with. But you fail this criteria of maturity when you think that free software advocates have something against commercial software. Oh, perhaps you truly mean those who have problems with business in general--if so, you are definitely preaching to the choir--so I will reject that interpretation.
I have nothing against commercial software. But I do have a problem when laws are made for economic reasons and that make performing simple copying and modification acts upon software illegal. Its the nature of software that it can be copied. Yet this is deemed illegal so that people can make more money off of it.
Perhaps this is seen as Not A Big Deal. I mean, few people are harmed by the laws. This will change, I am sure, if governments begin enforcing these laws. When people are fined and businesses shut down for copying software from a CD to their hard drives. Or for transferring software from over a network.
These simple acts are seen as illegal or even wrong by proprietary software developers. But free software advocates don't make such a conclusion. We believe that the copying and modification of software is fundamental to the value of computing and is a basic right of users of technology. The technology is there--what law can tell us not to use it?
So this, dear sir, is what we mean when we see proprietary software as wrong. Hopefully, in future writings, you can provide accurate concessions.
And don't worry, I don't think you're communist either. But you don't need to develop proprietary software to prove it.
Emacs interface is ugly? gee thats subjective, isn't it?
KWord doesn't interface with my other GNU apps either...
and what do you think a word processor is other than "something like MSWord" ?
I really don't see how almost any word processor can beat emacs unless it comes from not learning the emacs editor capabilities. Now...emacs isn't rocket science. But it does take longer than 30 seconds to learn. However, to make things easier fo you...I would like to share some emacs features you may not be aware of.
English Spelling Completion Yes...this means for them long words that you aren't sure of the spelling for you just need to type M-[tab] and emacs will complete the word for you.
Dynamic Abbreviation At any time in a buffer while typing in a word, you can hit M-/ and emacs will look for all the whitespace delimited words in all the open emacs buffers and complete it for you. I find this most useful when you have a path that you repeat all the time such as /usr/share/local/bin and you need to type it again, just hit /us and then M-/ and the entire path would be completed for you.
Excellent Documentation I think emacs has excellent online documentation--probably better than KWord and probably rivalling any program documentation in the free software world. When in emacs, just hit C-h i and cursor down to the word emacs and hit enter. From here you can learn about all these advanced text-editing and word processing features. Emacs, of course, has as-you-type spell checking M-x flyspell-mode, macros, and syntax highlighting.
Context Sensitive Help Perhaps not what you would expect, but emacs gives you documentation in almost anyway you may need it. C-h m tell you about the current mode; C-h k will tell you about what a certain key does; C-h a is like the apropos command at the shell and will search the emacs documentation for what you enter at the prompt.
iso-accents-mode Never quite know how to type in them European accents? This mode makes it easy. For resume (with accents over the e's) type in instead r'esum'e and emacs will make the change for you.
Of course, these are only some of the features of emacs. There is plenty there to be discovered. Each user may only want to memorize a subset of the features he or she uses and be productive with it. Keys can be rebinded and simple to complex customizations can be made in your .emacs.
Of course I don't have to tell you how many platforms emacs has been ported to or that emacs can be invoked from the GUI or from the command line.
Can anyone please explain what features emacs is missing and how KWord can compete with these powerful emacs commands?
This is a good article. I appreciate its depth and its honesty. The reasons for OSX become a real player (and better player) in the desktop market are distinct and clear. And perhaps this article is right. GNU/Linux may not be a real contender for a majority of desktop users.
But reading the article, behind every statement said is the assumption "popular; therefore good". Now don't get me wrong, its not a bad assumption. We all know what advantages being popular have. Popular platforms get better hardware support, get more software, are better supported, and typically get better press. It often means that using software is no longer an uphill battle.
But such an assumption has its flaws as well. Its of course important for owners of intellectual property to own popular propery. Like businesses such as Apple and Microsoft. So Apple users are constantly watching for Apple software to become more popular and thereby ensuring the livelyhood of the software they use.
But what happens when intellectual property doesn't mean much? Thats the idea behind the copyleft. And that is what happens with GNU/Linux. The assumption "popular; therefore good" isn't so easily applied. Look at the loss of Eazel? Its obviously sad what happened to such a noble business (and perhaps too noble) but their software is still being improved upon. Its still part of the greater whole.
Something the article mentioned that I'd like to offer a counterpoint to is the idea that when there are less users of open source software, development slows down. But if you look at the new users of GNU/Linux--often they aren't developers. Many of them don't know what channels to offer bug reports. The core developers often won't abandon their projects (or maybe I am wrong?). And if you haven't notice, it is still these core developers who put in the most significant work into a majority of free software projects.
Another fault of the axiom "popular; therefore good" is the qualification of desktop environment. A desktop is good if it is easy to use. It is easy to use if more people are able to be productive in the environment. If more people are able to be productive in the environment, its reasonable to say that more people would use the software and it becomes more populare. Popular; therefore good. And we come full circle.
So then you see numerous rants about the average user who typically means that if you appease this user, you would appease a majority of users. And this, in itself, is good. But it would be another rant altogether about the myth of the average user. But my point is that free software hackers perhaps shouldn't be so desperate for users. Perhaps it is enough that the software is good in other more technical ways like efficiency and interoperability. When you see people advocating GUIs around command-line tools you must imagine me thinking "what a warped perspective!" Somehow there is this belief that the interface of a program is more worthwhile than its function. And as we have already seen, this is from the axiom "popular; therefore good" !
So when you consider the greatness of operating systems, when you take away the assumption "popular; therefore good" you add a completely new dimension to its judgement.
But I just had an enlightenment...how this sort of follows ethics. While any sense of morality may seem inappropriate when talking about software, instead consider a judgement of merit. The axiom "popular; therefore good" could be said to follow the utilarian philosophy "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Consider cases of the egoist philosophy "satisfies my own needs; therefore good"; the virtue philosophy "allows for a better character (you can share it, copy it, make you a better programmer, cause you to think more); therefore good" -- perhaps there are more relations.
I should provide a conclusion to this ramble---after continuing to read from digression to digression. Even though I haven't made any real solid points here and my logic is perhaps flawed, hopefully I have successfully offered a different way of judging software systems. But not following "popular; therefore good" you learn that perhaps GNU/Linux may not be in such a bad position as you might think.
Thanks for poisoning the well...
Hmm...I am beginning to wonder if there is anyway of declaring fundamental problems and not trolling. Its just like declaring the fundamental problems of politics, capitalism, and anything else I can think of. Fundamental problems simply do not exist in reasonable arguments.
Okay, Moderators? If by now you can't tell this is a troll then you really shouldn't be moderating. Given that this post is rated +4, there needs to be a reworking on who gets moderator privilidges...
Okay...I'm done with this article. Its just not worth it.
Do a majority of proprietary software users actually pay attention to the licenses of the software packages they utilize?
."
... and (ii) permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely to access the Internet using the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may not allow these connected COMPUTERS to use any other components of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, nor to invoke application sharing as described below. The five (5) connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections."
If they did, I'd think we'd have a lot more converts to free software.
Hmm...here are some choice excepts from the Windows EULA:
"If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is not accompanied by a new computer system or computer system component, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
"The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be installed, accessed, displayed, run, shared or used concurrently on or from different computers, including a workstation, terminal or other digital electronic device ("Devices")
"If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is Windows 98, you may additionally
"Processor Limitation - The SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used by no more than the maximum number of processors of the COMPUTER indicated at the top of this EULA." (Note: I see no number at the top of the EULA which I got from c:\windows\help\license.txt -- also this is a violation of RMS's freedom 0, the ability to use the software in any way)
"You may not rent, lease or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT."
"Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Manufacturer or MS may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts."
Here's another question, do a majority of the users of proprietary software actually agree to all of the EULA when they click "I Agree" ? What about the majority of free software users?
Actually, one of the reasons slashdot is so popular is that it is so usable. I know Jakob made that point in his last book _Designing_Usability_ that the most popular websites are often the most usable.
Okay...lets try to use some of Jacob's principles on Slashdot. Look at the homepage. First of all, you got the Slashdot logo and text in the upperleft-hand corner. Its obvious where you are. This is a news site so the news should be the most obvious part of the page. It is. In fact the news takes what looks like 75% of the width of the page, probably more.
Next, Slashdot makes great use of what Jakob calls scanning. Jakob has noted that visitors don't often read all the text on the page but that they rather they scan for the information they want. So the important information should be underlined, italicized, bolded, or put in a different color. This happens on the Slashdot homepage. The headings are the most obvious in that they are white with a green background which contrasts with the text which is black on white. Then at the bottom of the news entries you have "Read More" (which is an active verb, BTW). And its highlighted.
Another principle that Jakob explains is that visiters like to have an idea of where they are going before they get there. At this, Slashdot seems to excel at. For instance, before the main body of the homepage loads, you already get an idea of what topics today's news covers by the icons in the upper right hand corner. Today I get an icon for The Internet, Linux, Microsoft, News, and Privacy. While it would be a little better for these icons to have titles the tooltips serve well for if you don't know what the icon is for. Also, these icons correspond directly to the icons next to the news items. In addition, each link in the news stories have relevant text underlined so you have an idea on where that link will take you.
Slashdot is also fast and for me takes under a second to load. It has little use of graphics and these graphics are cached to improve load time for other visits.
People who feel comfortable coming to this website have good reason, from Jakob's principles. To an online friend of mine I showed a post I made. Next thing I know, he replied to it. He told me he never used this website before.
So if there's a usability problem with this website, I would be interested in knowing what it is. Because I'm not finding anything.
(before posting this I notice a bold heading below the comment window that says "Important Stuff:" that says what comments should be like. These kinds of things make slashdot such a usable site)
Power and freedom are very hardy words that stand in much abuse yet stand again for the next debate. You can argue all you want about Freedom and Power and yet find you are arguing about nothing at all. If you can have wars against drugs and wars against terrorism, you can have the Freedom to have Power and the Power of Freedom. You can argue endless rhetoric on how the Power to not give other people the Freedom to have Power over other people's Freedom and then find the next reply to that is another twist on words that seems equally correct.
So to avoid this in a talk about software licenses, I ask you to believe only in real things. The words Power and Freedom don't decide arguments. We're talking about the words "software" and "can do" which are real. What can you do with your software and why can or can't you? And are the reasons just?
Yes...I suppose "just" is another trap in unreality. But its an opinion that I can't say how you answer. I guess Stallman has been asking you to ask yourself a question for a long time now. Is it okay to be fined for pirating software. Or should I say sharing software. Uh! the English language is such a mess. Don't trust your language to win arguments. You must depend on the reasoning of the reader to know what it is you are really talking about and not simply respond to rhetoric on vague words. The readers who do this are most probably not the same people who win arguments or who become President.
George Orwell warned us about this as well. He said "Political language [...] is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." This is about political language but it applies equally here.
However you believe, believe only in real things. Honesty is greater than wit
It has everything to do with ethics. I don't see how you can argue its like politics and social philosophy--what do you think ethics is?
Some moral codes are universal. Just like the Golden rule that do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is called the fair treatment of man and implies an equal regard for all man. Beyond this, all man must be free with regard to the golden rule.
Our moral code is not just written in the law, but is held by social constraints. We are nice to each other partly because others look kindly upon nice people and it is an ideal we hold.
Freedom of speech is universal.
"What Stallman is trying to do is ram his ideology (good aspects notwithstanding) down everyones throat in much the same way that Microsoft tries to ram their ideology down our throats. "
Whoa there. That statement is full of venom. So lets step back, breathe deeply, and let the leeches suck on that wound.
RMS is running to be part of the Board of the GNOME Foundation. This does not constitute ramming any ideology down anyone's throats. When running for the GNOME Foundation, he doesn't have to convert anyone. Because they already agree. Read the charter (http://foundation.gnome.org/charter.html). In fact, I will copy an excerpt for you:
"GNOME is part of the GNU project and supports the goals of the GNU project as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Free software licensing has always been a mainstay of GNOME, and we must ensure that this tradition continues. GNOME will include only Free software."
Now, I don't know what you think GNOME is but its always been a GNU Project. Its always been free software and fits nicely with RMS's ideology. Because it is his ideology.
Thats what free software is. Its a philosophy. Now...you can have a different vantage on the philosophy. You can think that it would be okay to mix proprietary ("change this program and I'll sue") and free software and include it all as part of GNOME. But you wouldn't be elected as part of the GNOME Board of Directors. If you ran for the position, there would probably be someone on slashdot complaining that you were ramming your ideology down everyone's throats.
Wow. What a twist in paradise.
Power and freedom are very hardy words that stand in much abuse yet stand again for the next debate. You can argue all you want about Freedom and Power and yet find you are arguing about nothing at all. If you can have wars against drugs and wars against terrorism, you can have the Freedom to have Power and the Power of Freedom. You can argue endless rhetoric on how the Power to not give other people the Freedom to have Power over other people's Freedom and then find the next reply to that is another twist on words that seems equally correct.
So to avoid this in a talk about software licenses, I ask you to believe only in real things. The words Power and Freedom don't decide arguments. We're talking about the words "software" and "can do" which are real. What can you do with your software and why can or can't you? And are the reasons just?
Yes...I suppose "just" is another trap in unreality. But its an opinion that I can't say how you answer. I guess Stallman has been asking you to ask yourself a question for a long time now. Is it okay to be fined for pirating software. Or should I say sharing software. Uh! the English language is such a mess. Don't trust your language to win arguments. You must depend on the reasoning of the reader to know what it is you are really talking about and not simply respond to rhetoric on vague words. The readers who do this are most probably not the same people who win arguments or who become President.
George Orwell warned us about this as well. He said "Political language [...] is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." This is about political language but it applies equally here.
My opinion is this. I think RMS has a problem with tripping over the rhetoric. The token "Free Software" is definitely an abuse of the word. But I am certain there is something real here. You all can imagine how bad it can be where software is owned. What power can an owner not have when he can write in the beginning of the software "You will be fined if you don't follow my rules". And this is software we can't do without.
But however you believe, believe only in real things. Honesty is greater than wit.
The question is "What was the final question?"
The answer is "What was the final question?"
It is soley this that allows the universe to endure.
From http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/Septe mber-that-never-ended.html
All time since September 1993. One of the seasonal rhythms of the Usenet used to be the annual September influx of clueless newbies who, lacking any sense of netiquette, made a general nuisance of themselves. This coincided with people starting college, getting their first internet accounts, and plunging in without bothering to learn what was acceptable. These relatively small drafts of newbies could be assimilated within a few months. But in September 1993, AOL users became able to post to Usenet, nearly overwhelming the old-timers' capacity to acculturate them; to those who nostalgically recall the period before hand, this triggered an inexorable decline in the quality of discussions on newsgroups. See also AOL!.
I don't care at all about karma...really.
Unfortunately, this author forgot to throw the rules of business sense out the window before writing about our favorite OS. From here...you guys can finish writing what I am about to say...you've already heard the arguments. You know...programming for the challenge...money doesn't really matter...without a centralized organization, the community can't loose money---MS can.
Now for the meat. This article mentions focus quite a lot. Developers should focus on servers...developers shouldn't focus on Microsoft...blah blah. Again, he doesn't understand how things work in the Free Software Community...or ignores it.
He thinks the way people have been trained to think since computers became commercially viable. Computers are new...still new. And any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. People worship their computers for the good they do and when the computer messes up, they are willing to sacrifice anything to the gods to make it better again. Metaphor--of course. So over the years big companies like Microsoft and AOL (and IBM) have taken the role of information gods they have decreed certain assumptions that computer users take for granted today.
A lot of people won't use GNU/Linux because it doesn't have a god. Red Hat tries but fails. I would like to the whole Free Software Community become these computer gods that people rely on to make them feel comfortable using the software. But we often contradict each other and are not as inviting as the other gods.
But the idea that companies are very big doesn't deter them. In fact, it makes them feel safe because bigger gods makes them feel safer and the gods won't go away.
So this is my explanation about GNU/Linux on the desktop. They aren't interested so much to get their work done but rather they want to feel safe using the computer. So saying "Linux is stable" isn't nearly as effective as saying "Linux is nice". Even when their computers crash or their files don't open up, they will still stick with it because they believe the gods know of their struggles and will fix it in the next upgrade.
This author and many tech writers have the same problem with computer gods. When they are talking about business sense they are saying how GNU/Linux doesn't have a big enough god. And when they use the software, they are aware that few people use this software for the desktop. So they come in not feeling secure. The warps their perceptions from the beginning.
Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off
(for the anti-stupid acronyms compaign)
Stallman types into text editors too! In fact, he wrote one. I don't know if you've heard of it but its called emacs and is pretty good. If you've not heard of it, you're not much of a geek.
Plato: Linus, do you agree there is a human nature?
Torvalds: You know, I could care less. I don't think anything is going to really change if we discover there is indeed a human nature.
Hobbes: But surely you must account that people do what they do to serve their own ends?
Torvalds: Again, see my answer to human nature. It just doesn't matter to me.
[end philosopher round robin]
The thing is that there is an incredible difference between Torvalds and Stallman. Torvalds told us he isn't a big thinker. Stallman is. Insert Stallman in the above conversation he would definitely give the big thinkers something to argue about.
The reason there so much more contraversy over Stallman than Torvalds is because Stallman allows us to disagree with him. You can't disagree with Torvalds point of view because he doesn't have one. Stallman's view of human nature is directly involved in what we consider today free software. Just like the US Fathers of Constitution view of democracy is directly involved in what is today the United States.
I argue that those of you tuned to your computing terminals without thinking of the big picture--the so called pragmatists--that you have no way of arguing against those who do. And I plead you to not argue when you really don't know what you are talking about.
I agree with your statement that they shouldn't focus on the "average user" who just wants to check email, write documents, and browse the web. If that was all users wanted to do, they could make GNU/Linux extremely simple to use. But for some reason the powers that be wanted a general purpose operating system rather than an expensive gameboy and so that implies more complexity. There is no way you can get away with a dirt-easy general purpose OS.
This is my offtopic rant of the day.