Engineering (except for the software kind) is constrained by physics whose primitives (e.g., atoms) are pretty well-defined with well-known aggregate behaviors. Also, there is substantial agreement on the language and analysis of physical design.
OTOH, programming is constrained by computability and computational complexity with no fixed primitives (e.g., different processors have different instruction sets, different OSes have different APIs) and where the main analysis technique for large programs is trial and error (I would say testing is at best a disciplined way of performing trial and error). Also, there is no agreement on instruction sets, OSes, or languages (yes there is much similarity, but even Linux needs an LSB). E.g., in US high schools, C++ is currently required for college advanced placement tests. Can you imagine the howling if C++ were required for certification tests?
Sounds like Sun wants ISO to bless Java as an "open" standard, but also wants to retain complete control. It's not much of a standard if Sun can change it unilaterally. Not very open, either.
1. As many have already mentioned, you don't need a college degree if you already have the skills, and for missing skills, O'Reilly has excellent books. Especially, you don't need a MS or a PhD to get a better job. However, many foreign students want a US graduate degree because they want to become permanent residents.
2. High schools are preparing students badly for technical careers. From the response to Katz's articles, it appears the schools are also treating potential computer students badly.
2a. Most beginning college students cannot think well enough and/or do not want to work hard enough to become CS students. With a poor background, it takes tremendous effort and not many students can hack it.
3. From other comments, it appear that a lot of schools are substitute Microsoft certifiers, instead of teaching general principles. Who wants a dumbed-down education like that?
more peace or fewer teens?
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Not sure why I'm replying. Who's going to read this at this point?
Anyway, I would agree that Katz is playing fast and loose with the statistics. What are are real numbers, Jon, and let us decide if the teenage crime rate is plummeting?
I also think that TV, movies, games desensitize us to violence and glorify violence. If you watch violence or do violent games a lot, I find it hard to believe that that there is no effect. It is like an endless commercial for violence, and we know very well that (some) commercials are very effective.
I wonder how many NT workstations (came with NT preloaded) are doing mainly Linux or *BSD. I bet this inflates Microsoft's figures, too. One of the reasons that Dell and the others are now preloading Linux is because a lot of their customers (myself included) were using Linux instead of NT. Anyone have any clue as far as the percentages?
Many scientists and philosophers study the mind by looking at what people do, but not understanding how that behavior arises from the brain. My impression is that, currently, neurobiology cannot explain how your memory is stored in the brain. For example, how is the information that "ls" means "list files" stored in the brain? If we can't explain "simple" phenomena like this, how can we hope to understand the mind as a whole?
The situation is somewhat like trying to explain what a computer does by playing with the GUI, but no clue about the implementation levels underneath. There would be a lot of guesses you would have to make, and a substantial number would likely be wrong.
My opinion then is that Pinker and others probably have very bad theories about how the mind works, but they are best ones we have until the mapping from neurons to mind is better understood. For those of us who are not strugging with the scientific or the philosophical problems, these books are best viewed as entertainment, not as firmly grounded theory to explain teenage shootings or ethnic cleansing.
Any way you look at it, developing software has costs. The free software movement doesn't seem to acknowledge this.
To get good software, someone has to put in the time and effort to develop and maintain it. If someone wants to do this for free, that's fine. However, if someone wants to do this for a living, that means selling software for money. Once the software is free, the software developer doesn't have much of an advantage over competitors for selling service, books, or whatever. In fact, the software developer has one big disadvantage, i.e., the competitors didn't incur the cost of development.
So the point of the articles, though they don't say it very well, is that free software is not a very good business model for software development. To make it work, the software developer needs to be able to sell something that no one else has. However, once the software is free, everyone has the software.
The third proposal is silly. MS doesn't build any hardware. Why should hardware companies comply with such an order? The first and second proposal are ok, but would seem to punish MS by giving it a big disadvantage with competitors. There should only be enough of a remedy to level the playing field. Let a big fine be MS's punishment.
So first, I think MS should be fined a sufficient amount to make them think twice before trying their tricks again.
Second, MS's unfair practices seem to be mainly focused on leveraging their OS advantage. They should open up (and clean up) two things: pricing of their OS and a specification of the API. That is, everybody gets the same price, allowing discounts for volume. The spec should include at the very least a full set of the function calls and documentation and examples of their behavior. A technically-capable independent party should be assigned to ensure compliance (backed up by fines for noncompliance).
Reminds me of Doonesbury
on
Generations
·
· Score: 1
Didn't Doonesbury have a couple strips on this? I recall some computer guy who falls way behind the competition because he went on vacation.
My understanding is that we are burning fossil fuels at a much higher rate (orders of magnitude) than they are being produced (which takes geologic time). At some point in the future, fossil fuels will become scarce. The only question is when. Unfortunately, no one has a good answer here.
Even if scarcity of fossil fuels doesn't happen until Y3K, the pollution caused by fossil fuels and political uncertainties (remember the OPEC embargo) imply that we should search for cleaner and more reliable alternatives. Fusion research (the hot kind) is exactly the kind of thing the government should sponsor. The end goal is too long-term and risky for corporations, but it has great potential if it can be made to work. The supply of deuterium and tritium [how come this word is not in my/usr/dict/words] is finite, but much, much larger than fossil fuels.
I think other alternatives should be investigated, too. It would be foolish not to.
I don't see how this sort of spat will hurt in the long run. Linux will work well, regardless.
Admittedly, this will make corporate types a little more leery of open source in the short term. But it is probably good for them to learn that this is part of the way we are. Once they see enough flame wars, they will realize this is one of the ways that we amuse ourselves. They will also realize that we are very independent and don't like to be manipulated.
That said, ESR and Perens (RMS, too) need to grow up a little bit. Certainly, they have the right to speak, but I wish they would stop pretending that they are speaking for me, and I wish they would get a little perspective. Proprietary software is not the work of the devil, and open source/free software is not the savior of mankind. Software is a tool, and tools are intrisically amoral. Morality comes in how we use the tools.
It would have been legal if the source code was printed on a piece of paper (e.g., PGP source code was legally exported out of the US in book form). So the current law appears to be that it is legal to distribute if it is printed on paper, but not if it is distributed electronically. Eventually, the courts will rule that electronic speech is protected just as much as paper speech.
Also, the courts will just add more confusion if they try to distinguish between natural language speech and source code. The division is not clear-cut. What about pseudocode? What about incomplete source code intermixed with comments describing what is left to be done? Given the paranoia about encryption, the courts will probably make a mess of it at first, but at the end of the argument (maybe a long, long way away), if something is encoded in bits, there is no good test to distinguish it from natural language speech.
That said, dangerous speech has always been held to be illegal, so maybe that could be an argument that will be used here.
I like "free beer", too, but it's not a very good ecomonic model. Somebody has to pay for it in some sense, whether it is in money or time or something else. "Free software" implies that the software developer pays for the software, not the user, unless the users donate out of the goodness of their hearts (like paying $50 for a distribution instead of paying $2 to Cheap Bytes). Maybe respect or entertainment value is enough for software developers who have some other means of support, but I bet a lot of software developers would like to make money, too. I don't see where this fits into the free software view of the world.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (level 2).
Can someone explain how this is not "free beer"?
I like free software/open source except for the fact that making software has costs (requires time and other resources), but the definition intentionally makes it difficult to recover those costs or maybe even profit a little bit. To ensure this, the author has to have exclusive rights on something connected with the software that can be sold. And don't tell me about making money on service or books or whatever. Once the software is free, anybody can provide service or write a book. There's nothing exclusive there.
I don't pretend to have a good answer, but at least the FSF ought to take their blinders off and admit that "free beer" is a part of free software. Then we could have a rational discussion of what, if anything, needs to be done.
I agree. The free speech/free beer distinction is bogus. Once the software is free, it is "free beer" because copying it costs next to nothing. So how does the programmer or software company make any money here? Supposedly support, but anybody with enough smarts can offer support for free software.
Slashdot Mirror
OTOH, programming is constrained by computability and computational complexity with no fixed primitives (e.g., different processors have different instruction sets, different OSes have different APIs) and where the main analysis technique for large programs is trial and error (I would say testing is at best a disciplined way of performing trial and error). Also, there is no agreement on instruction sets, OSes, or languages (yes there is much similarity, but even Linux needs an LSB). E.g., in US high schools, C++ is currently required for college advanced placement tests. Can you imagine the howling if C++ were required for certification tests?
Sounds like Sun wants ISO to bless Java as an "open" standard, but also wants to retain complete control. It's not much of a standard if Sun can change it unilaterally. Not very open, either.
1. As many have already mentioned, you don't need a college degree if you already have the skills, and for missing skills, O'Reilly has excellent books. Especially, you don't need a MS or a PhD to get a better job. However, many foreign students want a US graduate degree because they want to become permanent residents.
2. High schools are preparing students badly for technical careers. From the response to Katz's articles, it appears the schools are also treating potential computer students badly.
2a. Most beginning college students cannot think well enough and/or do not want to work hard enough to become CS students. With a poor background, it takes tremendous effort and not many students can hack it.
3. From other comments, it appear that a lot of schools are substitute Microsoft certifiers, instead of teaching general principles. Who wants a dumbed-down education like that?
Anyway, I would agree that Katz is playing fast and loose with the statistics. What are are real numbers, Jon, and let us decide if the teenage crime rate is plummeting?
I also think that TV, movies, games desensitize us to violence and glorify violence. If you watch violence or do violent games a lot, I find it hard to believe that that there is no effect. It is like an endless commercial for violence, and we know very well that (some) commercials are very effective.
I wonder how many NT workstations (came with NT preloaded) are doing mainly Linux or *BSD. I bet this inflates Microsoft's figures, too. One of the reasons that Dell and the others are now preloading Linux is because a lot of their customers (myself included) were using Linux instead of NT. Anyone have any clue as far as the percentages?
The situation is somewhat like trying to explain what a computer does by playing with the GUI, but no clue about the implementation levels underneath. There would be a lot of guesses you would have to make, and a substantial number would likely be wrong.
My opinion then is that Pinker and others probably have very bad theories about how the mind works, but they are best ones we have until the mapping from neurons to mind is better understood. For those of us who are not strugging with the scientific or the philosophical problems, these books are best viewed as entertainment, not as firmly grounded theory to explain teenage shootings or ethnic cleansing.
To get good software, someone has to put in the time and effort to develop and maintain it. If someone wants to do this for free, that's fine. However, if someone wants to do this for a living, that means selling software for money. Once the software is free, the software developer doesn't have much of an advantage over competitors for selling service, books, or whatever. In fact, the software developer has one big disadvantage, i.e., the competitors didn't incur the cost of development.
So the point of the articles, though they don't say it very well, is that free software is not a very good business model for software development. To make it work, the software developer needs to be able to sell something that no one else has. However, once the software is free, everyone has the software.
So first, I think MS should be fined a sufficient amount to make them think twice before trying their tricks again.
Second, MS's unfair practices seem to be mainly focused on leveraging their OS advantage. They should open up (and clean up) two things: pricing of their OS and a specification of the API. That is, everybody gets the same price, allowing discounts for volume. The spec should include at the very least a full set of the function calls and documentation and examples of their behavior. A technically-capable independent party should be assigned to ensure compliance (backed up by fines for noncompliance).
Didn't Doonesbury have a couple strips on this? I recall some computer guy who falls way behind the competition because he went on vacation.
Even if scarcity of fossil fuels doesn't happen until Y3K, the pollution caused by fossil fuels and political uncertainties (remember the OPEC embargo) imply that we should search for cleaner and more reliable alternatives. Fusion research (the hot kind) is exactly the kind of thing the government should sponsor. The end goal is too long-term and risky for corporations, but it has great potential if it can be made to work. The supply of deuterium and tritium [how come this word is not in my /usr/dict/words] is finite, but much, much larger than fossil fuels.
I think other alternatives should be investigated, too. It would be foolish not to.
Schools, churches, charities, etc., have lots of volunteers. Often these volunteers receive some sort of non-monetary compensation.
US Presidents have encouraged volunteerism (remember Bush's thousand points of light).
Even if a stupid judge (or jury) ruled that "volunteers" must be paid, this would be quickly overruled by Congress.
Admittedly, this will make corporate types a little more leery of open source in the short term. But it is probably good for them to learn that this is part of the way we are. Once they see enough flame wars, they will realize this is one of the ways that we amuse ourselves. They will also realize that we are very independent and don't like to be manipulated.
That said, ESR and Perens (RMS, too) need to grow up a little bit. Certainly, they have the right to speak, but I wish they would stop pretending that they are speaking for me, and I wish they would get a little perspective. Proprietary software is not the work of the devil, and open source/free software is not the savior of mankind. Software is a tool, and tools are intrisically amoral. Morality comes in how we use the tools.
Also, the courts will just add more confusion if they try to distinguish between natural language speech and source code. The division is not clear-cut. What about pseudocode? What about incomplete source code intermixed with comments describing what is left to be done? Given the paranoia about encryption, the courts will probably make a mess of it at first, but at the end of the argument (maybe a long, long way away), if something is encoded in bits, there is no good test to distinguish it from natural language speech.
That said, dangerous speech has always been held to be illegal, so maybe that could be an argument that will be used here.
I like "free beer", too, but it's not a very good ecomonic model. Somebody has to pay for it in some sense, whether it is in money or time or something else. "Free software" implies that the software developer pays for the software, not the user, unless the users donate out of the goodness of their hearts (like paying $50 for a distribution instead of paying $2 to Cheap Bytes).
Maybe respect or entertainment value is enough for software developers who have some other means of support, but I bet a lot of software developers
would like to make money, too. I don't see where this fits into the free software view of the world.
Can someone explain how this is not "free beer"?
I like free software/open source except for the fact that making software has costs (requires time and other resources), but the definition intentionally makes it difficult to recover those costs or maybe even profit a little bit. To ensure this, the author has to have exclusive rights on something connected with the software that can be sold. And don't tell me about making money on service or books or whatever. Once the software is free, anybody can provide service or write a book. There's nothing exclusive there.
I don't pretend to have a good answer, but at least the FSF ought to take their blinders off and admit that "free beer" is a part of free software. Then we could have a rational discussion of what, if anything, needs to be done.
I agree. The free speech/free beer distinction is bogus. Once the software is free, it is "free beer" because copying it costs next to nothing. So how does the programmer or software company make any money here? Supposedly support, but anybody with enough smarts can offer support for free software.