I just discovered how to see how my original comment was demoted, and it was marked as a "Troll". I've been involved in Usenet for many years, so I know what that means. Sorry, folks, but this ain't a troll. It's just an honest difference of opinion with the prevailing orthodoxy here. Yes, I hoped to get a response, but who doesn't?
As an old lurker here, I'm fully aware of the Slashorthodoxy. I just didn't realize that honest disagreement stimulating the discussion with a new point of view wasn't appreciated. Sorry if I offended anyone. See ya later.
BTW, did anybody pick up on the use of the phrase "embrace and extend", which used to be associated with the evil Microsoft and Bill Gates? For those of you who still don't get it, I was implying that Stallman is no better than Gates if he uses the same deceptive method to promote his agenda. QED.
Ouch. Looks like this one went from a score of 1 to 2 to 0. Silly me, I thought it brought a new dimension to an otherwise rather predictable discourse. Now my Slashdot Karma is negative. (I'm new at posting, so every little thing evidently has a big effect on my Karma.)
I suspected that any form of disagreement with the Holy Religion of Free Software might work against me here at Slashdot. However, I had read the moderator guidelines carefully and thought they might apply. For example: - "Good Comments are insightful. You read them and are better off having read them. They add new information to a discussion. They are clear, hopefully well written, or maybe amusing." I thought my comment above was clear, well written, and somewhere between "insightful" and "funny". Or at least it was "new information" - who else was talking about Stallmanisms like "Service as a Software Substitute"? - "Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down." I knew that more would disagree than agree, but call me a bit of an idealist - I thought this guideline might save me. But you folks probably thought my comment was flamebait or trolling rather than a genuine thought.
I've been reading Slashdot for many years, but only recently created an account and began to comment with it. I have commented a few times over the years as an "Anonymous Coward" but the comments for that never came through so I stopped bothering. Now that I understand a little how the moderation system works, I can see why. Why spend your precious mod points on a lowly Anonymous Coward?
I'll keep trying for awhile, but if you people really don't find stuff like the post above to have any merit (presumably because it disagrees with Slashdot readers' obvious groupthink on this subject), I can save you the trouble and go back to being a lurker.
Alternatively, I could try sucking up here for awhile to raise my Karma. One can think of this as a MMOG in which Karma is the game's "gold". OK, I'll play. Here are some avenues I might explore: - "RMS is a genius/visionary/prophet/god." (I'll leave out the part about him reportedly smelling bad - I don't know any other religious figures who are known for that.) - "Bill Gates is the personification of Evil." (I'll leave out the part about him spending lots of money/time/energy trying to save the lives of poor people on a large scale rather than spouting self-importantly about the vital importance of some sort of abstract "freedom" that revolves around software.) - "Software patents are Evil." (I'll leave out the fact that I have one myself - though it doesn't actually amount to much.) - "Proprietary software is Evil." (I'll leave out the fact that I sell it on the side and get paid to write it as my job.) - "Linux is The One and Only True Operating System." (I'll leave out the fact that I've tried it multiple times and have gone back to Windows due to the fact that Windows "just works" whereas Linux is far too hard for the casual user to administer. What part of "plug and play" hasn't Linus understood since Windows 95?) - This is the year of the Linux Desktop. (I'll leave out that fact that last year wasn't - and next year won't be either; see above)
Ain't it silly how RMS embraces and extends acronyms? I was already familiar with "Digital Restrictions Management" for "Digital Rights Management", but "Service as a Software Substitute" for "Software as a Service" was new to me.
I can't hope to be as good at this sort of thing as Stallman, but let's give it a try. How about "GNU Pollution License" for "GNU Public License"? This recognizes the fact that the GPL pollutes your right to distribute software freely under any terms you like, notably by preventing you from distributing it in compiled form without source code. Then again, maybe that should be "GNU Prevention License".
Or maybe it should be "GNU Proselytizing License", because once your software has been proselytized into the GPL fold, it gets bundled with your software, presumably to go off and make other converts. May the Borg be with you.
And what about the "Free Software Foundation"? Let's turn that into the "Fear Software Foundation", since fear mongering seems to be the foundation of the movement.
Every movement needs a zealot, and every zealot needs a mantra. But RMS's new favorite form of zealotry, embracing and extending acronyms, seems a bit juvenile to me.
There's a lesson here: if you're a CEO, your customers are your partners, so don't make saucy remarks about them. Otherwise, you'll have to man-up, put your money where your mouth is, and eat your words if you want to continue making a lot of dough.
Well, it sure is nice to hear that my PDP-11 can run GCC. But when will I be able to run a "complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU" on it?
I'm beginning to get the idea that Mr. Stallman - remarkable though his accomplishments are - somehow can't push the hardest part of the job over the Finnish line. Then again, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie successfully created the Unix system and its programming language from scratch, but I don't think either one of them ever wrote a software license or a text editor. Hats off to Mr. Stallman!
"One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will run on them at an early date." So, exactly how many PDP-11's have *you* donated?...
OK, I'll spell it out. (Warning: loss of subtlety ensues.) There is no natural reason for lights to cluster along beaches at night. However, an intelligent species both would have a preference for living along beaches and would light them at night with artificial light, if for no other reason than to protect its valuable beachfront property - think Johnny Carson in Malibu.
A slightly less intelligent species, finding itself born in that Garden of Eden we call Earth, which is by far the best known place in the galaxy for life to live, would proceed to systematically ruin that garden via global warming. Then, to escape rising tides, it would intelligently retreat from the beaches, which (here's the ironic part - wait for it...) it made dangerous with the very intelligence that allowed it to be attracted there and power artificial lights in the first place.
I've always appreciated Guido's positive and professional tone. Python's primary apostle, Tim Peters, is equally pleasant (and no less professional [wink]). Without that all pleasantness, Guido would lose the "B" and just be left with "DFL". Then, he and Tim would need to form a Secret Police, erect giant posters of themselves, and - worst of all - grow moustaches.
I've always thought that the pleasant tone they set is a reflection of the pleasant tone of Python itself. Compare that to Perl's primary apostle, Tom Christiansen, who used to routinely make mincemeat of Perl newbies on comp.lang.perl, and you get a feeling of the personality of Perl. (That said, Larry Wall, Perl's inventor, seems to be a nice enough guy. Maybe he's just bewildered - like Perl.)
How about class decorators? How have I lived all these years without them? Anyway, all that trimming in Python 3 sure sounds good. I just hope they didn't carve out weak references in the process [wink]. Unfortunately, I mourn the loss of lambda and never warmed up to print-as-a-function. (See Machiavelli on change.) So, I'm sticking with Python 2.x for now. / one-man's-cruft-is-another-man's-treasure or you-can't-teach-an-old-luddite-new-tricks-ly yrs, -TC
No, nor do I have suggestions for solving the many other specific problems that the increasingly esoteric additions to Python over the last few years are directed at solving. I'm sure Guido has his reasons, I just think it should stop at some point.
I was originally attracted to Python (1.5.2) by its simplicity and elegance. I've welcomed simple changes since then such as the "+=" operator. And thanks to backwards compatibility, one can still use Python at a simple level, which I do. But an endless stream of esoteric features is a distinct disincentive to new users. Some Python books now are even tubbier than their C++ counterparts! (Maybe "Programming Python" should become a trilogy like "Lord of the Rings".)
I don't doubt that all the new features are useful to someone, just not to me. I even do without iterators, which address a *general*, not just "a certain" problem.
Even though Python 3.x (which I don't yet, and may never, use) may be objectively better, the fact that there are two Pythons to choose from also is a barrier to new users. Their first question must be, "Which one should spend a lot of time and effort to master?" Answering that question, and covering both versions, only makes the Python books fatter.
It seems to me that Python reached its logical conclusion several years ago, somewhere in the 2.x series. I have the greatest admiration and respect for Guido, but maybe it's time for him to "just say no".
luddite-ly yrs,
TC
When I started with Python, over a decade ago, it was relatively simple. However, as new features have been added, it has become increasingly complex, then complicated. For example, it now includes gems such as "weak references", and the book "Programming Python" now uses more than 1600 pages to explain it. Meanwhile, C, the language Python is implemented in, is nearly unchanged. When, if ever, will Python be complete?
Slashdot Mirror
Round up the usual "software patents are evil" suspects.
I just discovered how to see how my original comment was demoted, and it was marked as a "Troll". I've been involved in Usenet for many years, so I know what that means. Sorry, folks, but this ain't a troll. It's just an honest difference of opinion with the prevailing orthodoxy here. Yes, I hoped to get a response, but who doesn't?
As an old lurker here, I'm fully aware of the Slashorthodoxy. I just didn't realize that honest disagreement stimulating the discussion with a new point of view wasn't appreciated. Sorry if I offended anyone. See ya later.
BTW, did anybody pick up on the use of the phrase "embrace and extend", which used to be associated with the evil Microsoft and Bill Gates? For those of you who still don't get it, I was implying that Stallman is no better than Gates if he uses the same deceptive method to promote his agenda. QED.
Ouch. Looks like this one went from a score of 1 to 2 to 0. Silly me, I thought it brought a new dimension to an otherwise rather predictable discourse. Now my Slashdot Karma is negative. (I'm new at posting, so every little thing evidently has a big effect on my Karma.)
I suspected that any form of disagreement with the Holy Religion of Free Software might work against me here at Slashdot. However, I had read the moderator guidelines carefully and thought they might apply. For example:
- "Good Comments are insightful. You read them and are better off having read them. They add new information to a discussion. They are clear, hopefully well written, or maybe amusing." I thought my comment above was clear, well written, and somewhere between "insightful" and "funny". Or at least it was "new information" - who else was talking about Stallmanisms like "Service as a Software Substitute"?
- "Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down." I knew that more would disagree than agree, but call me a bit of an idealist - I thought this guideline might save me. But you folks probably thought my comment was flamebait or trolling rather than a genuine thought.
I've been reading Slashdot for many years, but only recently created an account and began to comment with it. I have commented a few times over the years as an "Anonymous Coward" but the comments for that never came through so I stopped bothering. Now that I understand a little how the moderation system works, I can see why. Why spend your precious mod points on a lowly Anonymous Coward?
I'll keep trying for awhile, but if you people really don't find stuff like the post above to have any merit (presumably because it disagrees with Slashdot readers' obvious groupthink on this subject), I can save you the trouble and go back to being a lurker.
Alternatively, I could try sucking up here for awhile to raise my Karma. One can think of this as a MMOG in which Karma is the game's "gold". OK, I'll play. Here are some avenues I might explore:
- "RMS is a genius/visionary/prophet/god." (I'll leave out the part about him reportedly smelling bad - I don't know any other religious figures who are known for that.)
- "Bill Gates is the personification of Evil." (I'll leave out the part about him spending lots of money/time/energy trying to save the lives of poor people on a large scale rather than spouting self-importantly about the vital importance of some sort of abstract "freedom" that revolves around software.)
- "Software patents are Evil." (I'll leave out the fact that I have one myself - though it doesn't actually amount to much.)
- "Proprietary software is Evil." (I'll leave out the fact that I sell it on the side and get paid to write it as my job.)
- "Linux is The One and Only True Operating System." (I'll leave out the fact that I've tried it multiple times and have gone back to Windows due to the fact that Windows "just works" whereas Linux is far too hard for the casual user to administer. What part of "plug and play" hasn't Linus understood since Windows 95?)
- This is the year of the Linux Desktop. (I'll leave out that fact that last year wasn't - and next year won't be either; see above)
Ain't it silly how RMS embraces and extends acronyms? I was already familiar with "Digital Restrictions Management" for "Digital Rights Management", but "Service as a Software Substitute" for "Software as a Service" was new to me.
I can't hope to be as good at this sort of thing as Stallman, but let's give it a try. How about "GNU Pollution License" for "GNU Public License"? This recognizes the fact that the GPL pollutes your right to distribute software freely under any terms you like, notably by preventing you from distributing it in compiled form without source code. Then again, maybe that should be "GNU Prevention License".
Or maybe it should be "GNU Proselytizing License", because once your software has been proselytized into the GPL fold, it gets bundled with your software, presumably to go off and make other converts. May the Borg be with you.
And what about the "Free Software Foundation"? Let's turn that into the "Fear Software Foundation", since fear mongering seems to be the foundation of the movement.
Every movement needs a zealot, and every zealot needs a mantra. But RMS's new favorite form of zealotry, embracing and extending acronyms, seems a bit juvenile to me.
Darn, that one got downgraded. I was kindda proud of it. My son is reading this as I type. I hope he's still proud of me.
There's a lesson here: if you're a CEO, your customers are your partners, so don't make saucy remarks about them. Otherwise, you'll have to man-up, put your money where your mouth is, and eat your words if you want to continue making a lot of dough.
Yes. They plan to speed up its development by rewriting it in Perl 6.
Well, it sure is nice to hear that my PDP-11 can run GCC. But when will I be able to run a "complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU" on it?
I'm beginning to get the idea that Mr. Stallman - remarkable though his accomplishments are - somehow can't push the hardest part of the job over the Finnish line. Then again, Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie successfully created the Unix system and its programming language from scratch, but I don't think either one of them ever wrote a software license or a text editor. Hats off to Mr. Stallman!
These things take time. But when it *does* show up, I hope it will be something professional like Linux.
"One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will run on them at an early date." So, exactly how many PDP-11's have *you* donated?...
OK, I'll spell it out. (Warning: loss of subtlety ensues.) There is no natural reason for lights to cluster along beaches at night. However, an intelligent species both would have a preference for living along beaches and would light them at night with artificial light, if for no other reason than to protect its valuable beachfront property - think Johnny Carson in Malibu.
A slightly less intelligent species, finding itself born in that Garden of Eden we call Earth, which is by far the best known place in the galaxy for life to live, would proceed to systematically ruin that garden via global warming. Then, to escape rising tides, it would intelligently retreat from the beaches, which (here's the ironic part - wait for it...) it made dangerous with the very intelligence that allowed it to be attracted there and power artificial lights in the first place.
So, is a lifeform like that truly "intelligent"?
They're made of gingerbread.
I sure hope the insects don't eat the seed money.
Fine, but will it clean my carpet?
We agree.
It's not too late for a sequel to "The Boys from Brazil". I feel bad for his mother, though.
Fascinating, Captain.
I've always appreciated Guido's positive and professional tone. Python's primary apostle, Tim Peters, is equally pleasant (and no less professional [wink]). Without that all pleasantness, Guido would lose the "B" and just be left with "DFL". Then, he and Tim would need to form a Secret Police, erect giant posters of themselves, and - worst of all - grow moustaches.
I've always thought that the pleasant tone they set is a reflection of the pleasant tone of Python itself. Compare that to Perl's primary apostle, Tom Christiansen, who used to routinely make mincemeat of Perl newbies on comp.lang.perl, and you get a feeling of the personality of Perl. (That said, Larry Wall, Perl's inventor, seems to be a nice enough guy. Maybe he's just bewildered - like Perl.)
no-analogy-is-perfect-ly yrs,
TC
OK, I'm sold. I withdraw the question. [wink]
How about class decorators? How have I lived all these years without them? Anyway, all that trimming in Python 3 sure sounds good. I just hope they didn't carve out weak references in the process [wink]. Unfortunately, I mourn the loss of lambda and never warmed up to print-as-a-function. (See Machiavelli on change.) So, I'm sticking with Python 2.x for now. / one-man's-cruft-is-another-man's-treasure or you-can't-teach-an-old-luddite-new-tricks-ly yrs, -TC
No, nor do I have suggestions for solving the many other specific problems that the increasingly esoteric additions to Python over the last few years are directed at solving. I'm sure Guido has his reasons, I just think it should stop at some point. I was originally attracted to Python (1.5.2) by its simplicity and elegance. I've welcomed simple changes since then such as the "+=" operator. And thanks to backwards compatibility, one can still use Python at a simple level, which I do. But an endless stream of esoteric features is a distinct disincentive to new users. Some Python books now are even tubbier than their C++ counterparts! (Maybe "Programming Python" should become a trilogy like "Lord of the Rings".) I don't doubt that all the new features are useful to someone, just not to me. I even do without iterators, which address a *general*, not just "a certain" problem. Even though Python 3.x (which I don't yet, and may never, use) may be objectively better, the fact that there are two Pythons to choose from also is a barrier to new users. Their first question must be, "Which one should spend a lot of time and effort to master?" Answering that question, and covering both versions, only makes the Python books fatter. It seems to me that Python reached its logical conclusion several years ago, somewhere in the 2.x series. I have the greatest admiration and respect for Guido, but maybe it's time for him to "just say no". luddite-ly yrs, TC
Are there any plans to replace the channel between you and Tim Peters with a chunnel?
When I started with Python, over a decade ago, it was relatively simple. However, as new features have been added, it has become increasingly complex, then complicated. For example, it now includes gems such as "weak references", and the book "Programming Python" now uses more than 1600 pages to explain it. Meanwhile, C, the language Python is implemented in, is nearly unchanged. When, if ever, will Python be complete?
A practical form of "micro"-payments