Wow. I agree. The new gnome site is impressive. I wonder who the designer is because they really must understand design! Which seems to be rather rare in our community. No offense.
"This is the Microsoft Seal of Authenticity. If you suspect that this memo is not an authentic copy, call 1-800-PIRATER and we'll arrest you."
Has anyone else found them notices in Microsoft Products kind of funny? Here's an excerpt from the Windows 95 Help File:
"What should I do if I suspect I have unknowingly purchased illegal Microsoft software product(s)?
...
Any consumers or resellers having questions about the legitimacy of Microsoft products should contact the Microsoft Piracy Hotline at 1-800-RU-LEGIT, accessible in the U.S. or Canada, or write to the nearest Microsoft legal department to tell us of your concerns:"
"The penalty phase of the Microsoft trial is just that: the penalty phase. Not the throw-a-bone-to-the-victim stage. Not the cripple-the-big-company-so-all-the-little-people-c an-have-a-chance stage. This is the point where we decide how to castigate Microsoft so that it does not repeat its behaviour in the future."
Penalty?
"Bad Microsoft, Bad. Go to your room while we split you into three companies. When you come out, we will tell you what we have decided and how you will be split. Furthermore, we will watch you do it again."
Hmm. Doesn't sound like a good plan. I like RMS's better.
Richard Stallman has his own views on what should happen to Microsoft, which seem a lot more reasonable than simply splitting up the company.
What needs to be done is to get beyond the "We must *hurt* Microsoft" mentality into the "How will doing this to Microsoft effect the industry in the long-term?" mentality. Splitting the company up just seems like an appealing way of hurting them. It doesn't seem like it is doing anything constructive.
Splitting seems like changing one successful company with popular products into three.
As far as I can tell, this is another Free OS. This is very good. The fact that they have both infrastructure and GUI, this has to be good news. Hopefully, they can optimize everything they want.
Ayeee! I have already been moderated down for having an opinion.
Look. Your post doesn't prove nothing. When you sell something, that is a product. The Hurd isn't sold and GNU isn't sold. But he has sold Emacs in the past so it was a product.
But what does this say? Nothing. I think you were trying to show how RMS is against comercial software. But you didn't! You just choose an excerpt that shows RMS defining terms (mostly because he knows how carefully the naysayers pick apart his words). "News at 6: RMS defines the word product and establishes his Communist agenda!" PLEASE!
And why does everyone pick on RMS anyway? If you have something against Free Software principles, fine. You don't like GNU, fine. That would make a fine discussion. But why must you people personalize everything. It's not just RMS, either. If you don't like Apple, bring up Steve Jobs; if you don't like Microsoft, make fun of Bill Gates. If Open Source is evil, so is Eric Raymond.
I know *exactly* why people personalize the issues. Because it is easy. People are easy to pick on. And when you make an argument against a leader of a movement, your implication is with the movement. And then you feel your point has been made. But it is a fallacy.
I would like you to know that there is more to GNU than RMS. Don't equate the two.
"The so-called ethics of free software are nothing new, just a retake of socialism applied to the software industry. And they have no real justification, just RMS's irrational hatred of the capitalist system as applied to software. This article specifically states this, saying the following:"
Wrong. RMS sells software.
"Yet again we see a cogent argument saying that the whole "free software" argument is based upon nothing more than some outdated and irrational views held by RMS, an individual who, like many "great" leaders, has become bitter over something, real or imagined.
I find it funny that so many people are willing to follow his every word proclaiming how free software and open source gives the user more choices despite the fact that his arguments itself are anti-choice and closed in nature. But this inherent hypocracy is overlooked in the frenzy to attack anything that doesn't conform to RMS's "free" ideal."
I find it funny at how people would even lie, intentionally or not, to dismiss RMS. Your last paragraph is almost completely untrue.
The GNU/Linux operating system has an attribute that few other OSs share. It isn't the most stable OS. There are others that are more stable---heck my Gnome setup has failed on me. There are others with faster performance, perhaps BeOS. There are certainly OSs with better usability. But GNU/Linux and the BSDs have permissive licenses and source code. But it goes farther.
When you are allowed to change software, someone somewhere does. In addition, there exists an entire community where volunteer contribution is encouraged. If you want your OS as fast as BeOS, it is possible.
But with free-beer software, all of this goes away. You are again waiting for Company X to release version <current+1> of its software. Because you are not allowed to change it.
Yes, we should be wary of free-beer software. Because it is so easy. It is easy to pick up on free-beer software and rely on it. But when you do, you are no longer in control. They are.
Now reading some of the other responses, including strange beer-analogies, I can't help but wonder: do you even understand what this is about? Let me list some things:
1. We do not fear commercial software. We fear propietary software.
2. To reiterate the above point, we do not fear making money with software. 3. **Sometimes** the software companies don't have our best interests at heart. If they are distributing Free Software, this doesn't matter.
4. Every commonly relied upon propietary package commonly used on GNU/Linux has a Free equivilent in development. This is a measure of the community's committment.
5. Once GNU/Linux begins to rely on propietary software, I will start looking somewhere else for my OS needs.
I can understand if you need certain software for compatibility and I think there is room for temporary compromise. If there wasn't, then I would be a hypocrite. I use Netscape until Mozilla comes out. I even have to Windows for my parents.
So if you are going to start relying free-beer software because it costs nothing and because it is useful, take a hard look at your great OS and understand what it is that makes it great. Then you will know what you are losing.
I wouldn't call it canned. I would give some examples but START is kind of slashdotted right now. But START has given me information about distances between two completely arbitrary cities on earth, simple math, and even the answer to the universe. If you are asking for actual *thought* on the part of START, then I am afraid not. I don't think you can ask it for the highest prime number or for it to perform logical deductions, although it would be cool.
Ahh, there's a good AI project (though not web related). Make an AI program that can find out how to figure out the highest prime number! Easier said than done right? Heh...
Even in this information age, where we see not race nor gender, we still must persue hostilities to those who we feel are responsible or are equivilant as their forebearers or perhaps a simple stereotype that propagates across vast oceans and large masses of land.
Beware. The countless entities that bear human form as they press their collective egos upon their world, with all their talents and actions, which as they are, are no more destructive than they are good.
So who are you to separate us into categories and to say that yours are greater than mine? I am proud of my country, but only as much to classify me as a patriot and far less than arrogance. My country has done great things and it will continue to do things that are great. But I will not delude myself in thinking that your country does not also do things that are great.
You think my comments are politically correct? Well they are. As they should be. Because it is the only way for us to coexist in peace. Even that can come to an extreme. As long as we know the truth about ourselves we would no longer be startled when we hear from strangers.
Everbody nowadays got something to say, But all that comes out when they open their lips, is a bunch gibberish, what the motha fuck is that, they forgot about Dre.
Sue the bastards, after all if the book flops because your post(s) is missing, then the best writing in the book WAS your post and you deserve a piece of the pie, whether you decide to give it to charity is your business.
That's a small pie with *many* pieces. Are you sure there's enough to go around?
Will you begin to demand that slashdot pay you for the priviledge of you posting here?
I say, let it be. No one is any worse off than they were before. No one was expecting any money when they first posted to slashdot, why should they expect payment now? Because their posting will be published in a book that will get sold? Do you realize that Andover gets money for selling banner ads? What is the difference, really?
This is a Web Forum. The Internet is very open. Posting here and expecting your words not to be echoed is hypocritical.
No harm has been done. No one is entitled to anything. Posts to slashdot are certainly not heavily rivised and edited. Getting paid for something means that you put a bunch of effort into it. I just don't see that happening.
Computers are a new thing yet. Especially people who are just hopping in now. Give them a few years and they will get it.
You not giving people enough credit. People are smart. If people are looking to find out about computers and technology, then AOL must comply. It is why Capitalism works. Businesses change based on the needs of the consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
When, again, does the 20th century start?
:)
Wow. I agree. The new gnome site is impressive. I wonder who the designer is because they really must understand design! Which seems to be rather rare in our community. No offense.
Is at the end:
"This is the Microsoft Seal of Authenticity.
If you suspect that this memo is not an authentic copy, call 1-800-PIRATER and we'll arrest you."
Has anyone else found them notices in Microsoft Products kind of funny? Here's an excerpt from the Windows 95 Help File:
"What should I do if I suspect I have unknowingly purchased illegal Microsoft software product(s)?
...
Any consumers or resellers having questions about the legitimacy of Microsoft products should contact the Microsoft Piracy Hotline at 1-800-RU-LEGIT, accessible in the U.S. or Canada, or write to the nearest Microsoft legal department to tell us of your concerns:"
And THAT is no parody. It's real.
"The penalty phase of the Microsoft trial is just that: the penalty phase. Not the throw-a-bone-to-the-victim stage. Not the cripple-the-big-company-so-all-the-little-people-c an-have-a-chance stage. This is the point where we decide how to castigate Microsoft so that it does not repeat its behaviour in the future."
Penalty?
"Bad Microsoft, Bad. Go to your room while we split you into three companies. When you come out, we will tell you what we have decided and how you will be split. Furthermore, we will watch you do it again."
Hmm. Doesn't sound like a good plan. I like RMS's better.
Richard Stallman has his own views on what should happen to Microsoft, which seem a lot more reasonable than simply splitting up the company.
What needs to be done is to get beyond the "We must *hurt* Microsoft" mentality into the "How will doing this to Microsoft effect the industry in the long-term?" mentality. Splitting the company up just seems like an appealing way of hurting them. It doesn't seem like it is doing anything constructive.
Splitting seems like changing one successful company with popular products into three.
Thanks very much for the mirror!
As far as I can tell, this is another Free OS. This is very good. The fact that they have both infrastructure and GUI, this has to be good news. Hopefully, they can optimize everything they want.
I see great potential in this.
Do you know of any superior Unix to Unix, or heck, GNU/Linux to GNU/Linux protocals, for this?
Do you mean like pressing *Cancel* on the log-in screen? Or is it something less obvious that will make me feel like a fool? :)
You see, just as there is a True and a False, Left and a Right, On and an Off;
There is also a Right and a Wrong, and a Legal and Illegal.
It isn't Them against Us, it is Us against Them.
Do you think you have a Right to other people's music? No, you are Wrong!
If they wanted to give it to you, they would---but they don't. They only give to paying customers.
It hurts you not.
That is all I have to say. That is all that needs to be said.
Wow, excellent response.
You put it very elequently.
Ayeee! I have already been moderated down for having an opinion.
Look. Your post doesn't prove nothing. When you sell something, that is a product. The Hurd isn't sold and GNU isn't sold. But he has sold Emacs in the past so it was a product.
But what does this say? Nothing. I think you were trying to show how RMS is against comercial software. But you didn't! You just choose an excerpt that shows RMS defining terms (mostly because he knows how carefully the naysayers pick apart his words). "News at 6: RMS defines the word product and establishes his Communist agenda!" PLEASE!
And why does everyone pick on RMS anyway? If you have something against Free Software principles, fine. You don't like GNU, fine. That would make a fine discussion. But why must you people personalize everything. It's not just RMS, either. If you don't like Apple, bring up Steve Jobs; if you don't like Microsoft, make fun of Bill Gates. If Open Source is evil, so is Eric Raymond.
I know *exactly* why people personalize the issues. Because it is easy. People are easy to pick on. And when you make an argument against a leader of a movement, your implication is with the movement. And then you feel your point has been made. But it is a fallacy.
I would like you to know that there is more to GNU than RMS. Don't equate the two.
I wish you the best.
"The so-called ethics of free software are nothing new, just a retake of socialism applied to the software industry. And they have no real justification, just RMS's irrational hatred of the capitalist system as applied to software. This article specifically states this, saying the following:"
Wrong. RMS sells software.
"Yet again we see a cogent argument saying that the whole "free software" argument is based upon nothing more than some outdated and irrational views held by RMS, an individual who, like many "great" leaders, has become bitter over something, real or imagined.
I find it funny that so many people are willing to follow his every word proclaiming how free software and open source gives the user more choices despite the fact that his arguments itself are anti-choice and closed in nature. But this inherent hypocracy is overlooked in the frenzy to attack anything that doesn't conform to RMS's "free" ideal."
I find it funny at how people would even lie, intentionally or not, to dismiss RMS. Your last paragraph is almost completely untrue.
Isn't it past your bed time.
Well at least you act like it.
The GNU/Linux operating system has an attribute that few other OSs share. It isn't the most stable OS. There are others that are more stable---heck my Gnome setup has failed on me. There are others with faster performance, perhaps BeOS. There are certainly OSs with better usability. But GNU/Linux and the BSDs have permissive licenses and source code. But it goes farther.
When you are allowed to change software, someone somewhere does. In addition, there exists an entire community where volunteer contribution is encouraged. If you want your OS as fast as BeOS, it is possible.
But with free-beer software, all of this goes away. You are again waiting for Company X to release version <current+1> of its software. Because you are not allowed to change it.
Yes, we should be wary of free-beer software. Because it is so easy. It is easy to pick up on free-beer software and rely on it. But when you do, you are no longer in control. They are.
Now reading some of the other responses, including strange beer-analogies, I can't help but wonder: do you even understand what this is about? Let me list some things:
1. We do not fear commercial software. We fear propietary software.
2. To reiterate the above point, we do not fear making money with software.
3. **Sometimes** the software companies don't have our best interests at heart. If they are distributing Free Software, this doesn't matter.
4. Every commonly relied upon propietary package commonly used on GNU/Linux has a Free equivilent in development. This is a measure of the community's committment.
5. Once GNU/Linux begins to rely on propietary software, I will start looking somewhere else for my OS needs.
I can understand if you need certain software for compatibility and I think there is room for temporary compromise. If there wasn't, then I would be a hypocrite. I use Netscape until Mozilla comes out. I even have to Windows for my parents.
So if you are going to start relying free-beer software because it costs nothing and because it is useful, take a hard look at your great OS and understand what it is that makes it great. Then you will know what you are losing.
"It looked like something a teenager-turned-"web-consultant" would create."
Not that my personal page is anything great, but I resent the stereotype.
Maybe you can find another demographic to compare negatively with---or have you ran out?
Fuck off, Bastard.
I wouldn't call it canned. I would give some examples but START is kind of slashdotted right now. But START has given me information about distances between two completely arbitrary cities on earth, simple math, and even the answer to the universe. If you are asking for actual *thought* on the part of START, then I am afraid not. I don't think you can ask it for the highest prime number or for it to perform logical deductions, although it would be cool.
Ahh, there's a good AI project (though not web related). Make an AI program that can find out how to figure out the highest prime number! Easier said than done right? Heh...
Oh. You mean START? Ask it a serious question and will often give you the write answer. It can a few non-serious questions as well ;).
Even in this information age, where we see not race nor gender, we still must persue hostilities to those who we feel are responsible or are equivilant as their forebearers or perhaps a simple stereotype that propagates across vast oceans and large masses of land.
Beware. The countless entities that bear human form as they press their collective egos upon their world, with all their talents and actions, which as they are, are no more destructive than they are good.
So who are you to separate us into categories and to say that yours are greater than mine? I am proud of my country, but only as much to classify me as a patriot and far less than arrogance. My country has done great things and it will continue to do things that are great. But I will not delude myself in thinking that your country does not also do things that are great.
You think my comments are politically correct? Well they are. As they should be. Because it is the only way for us to coexist in peace. Even that can come to an extreme. As long as we know the truth about ourselves we would no longer be startled when we hear from strangers.
Best Regards,
Everyone.
How is it's development?
Me, I want a browser with support for HTML 4, CSS1, and perhaps XML.
It could happen with Lynx but will it?
Everbody nowadays got something to say,
But all that comes out when they open their lips,
is a bunch gibberish,
what the motha fuck is that,
they forgot about Dre.
Look the word "free" up in the dictionary. At least two (contrary) definitions are valid.
It's plain english. Not Supermarket Advertising English.
Sue the bastards, after all if the book flops because your post(s) is missing, then the best writing in the book WAS your post and you deserve a piece of the pie, whether you decide to give it to charity is your business.
That's a small pie with *many* pieces. Are you sure there's enough to go around?
Will you begin to demand that slashdot pay you for the priviledge of you posting here?
I say, let it be. No one is any worse off than they were before. No one was expecting any money when they first posted to slashdot, why should they expect payment now? Because their posting will be published in a book that will get sold? Do you realize that Andover gets money for selling banner ads? What is the difference, really?
This is a Web Forum. The Internet is very open. Posting here and expecting your words not to be echoed is hypocritical.
No harm has been done. No one is entitled to anything. Posts to slashdot are certainly not heavily rivised and edited. Getting paid for something means that you put a bunch of effort into it. I just don't see that happening.
Computers are a new thing yet. Especially people who are just hopping in now. Give them a few years and they will get it.
You not giving people enough credit. People are smart. If people are looking to find out about computers and technology, then AOL must comply. It is why Capitalism works. Businesses change based on the needs of the consumers.