But the most important thing about installers is that they are run once. People base entire distribution reviews on the installer, which is just stupid.
Actually, they are run at most once. The users who can't even get through that first crucial install (many, in Debian's case) aren't likely to reap any of the other benefits of the distribution. Debian may be featureful and stable, and apt may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's all for nought if you can't get the darn thing installed and end up switching to a different distro.
Why don't they just call it "Debian"? As in, "Ever since Red Hat disowned the community distribution, I've been using Debian." I've heard people using it this way already, so it shouldn't be too hard to change. Just start using "Debian" instead of "Fedora".
Sure, we could flood the spammers with bogus responses. But then they could use Bayesian filtering to learn to filter out our fake responses, the same way we use it to filter out spam! Using our own tools against us... oh, the irony!
"I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says.
Way to get your priorities straight, Richard -- putting your pet semantics above the users' ability to use your software legally. For the love of god, someone call in ESR!:)
Can we get Charlton Heston to be the new Vi spokesman? I just wanna see him go to computer conferences, hold up the Vi source code printed on old style dot matrix printer paper and say "From my dead cold hands"
Perhaps you were thinking of Ben-Hur?. Sure, they're similar, but anyone who gets similar things like these confused should NOT use vi. You might end up trying to save a file and accidentally blow up a small village.
If you think the power grid argument is safe, then try these on for size:
The Internet is really one giant machine, so computer use and information exchange should be controlled by the government -- otherwise, there will be even more viruses and spam and piracy.
The economy is really one giant machine, so the government should control industry -- otherwise there will be even more recessions and labor strikes and market crashes. That would never happen in a centrally-planned economy.
The government should control speech, otherwise people might express ideas that are damaging to the "machine" of human society. Without regulation, we'll just have more dangerous ideas like racism, communism, and (insert your favorite religion here).
Issues of freedom and control aside, who really trusts the goverment to run something complicated and critical? They can barely get the simple things right. At least private industry has profit as a motive to keep the grid running. What's the government's motivation -- sheer good will? The grid already has too many single points of failure, and the last thing we ought to do is put it in the hands of a single authority.
The best solution is the same one a lot of geeks would support on any other issue: keep it open, keep it decentralized, and if there's more than one way to do it, let the user decide.
Wow, I think obfuscated code is pretty 1337 now (e.g. Perl code in the shape of a camel), but I'll be seriously impressed when someone writes a "Hello, World" program that converts to an audio file of them saying "Hello, World." Any takers?:)
Well, two problems with using DNA as a secret for identification purposes:
A. DNA is not unique -- consider identical twins, for example
B. DNA is not secret either; certainly no more secret than fingerprints. You leave piles of copies in the form of hair and shed skin cells whereever you go.
Wish I had some mod points for this one...oh well, I have karma to burn.
Whatever happened to descriptive naming? Who would instinctively associate "Cairo" with "vector graphics for XFree86"? Why not name it something sensible, like "XVector" (if that's not already taken)?
In all seriousness, I think that poor name choices hurt the adoption of free software. Think about "Photoshop" vs. "The GIMP," or "Internet Explorer" vs. "Mozilla." Rather than something simple, descriptive, and catchy, we usually opt for indecipherable codenames, stupid recursive acronyms, or lame in-jokes that few people but the developers themselves will get.
Poor naming limits the spread of the software meme to those who are already in the know, especially when the names are designed to enforce an only-the-anointed-get-it, us-vs-them mentality.
We're currently evaluating what distribution we want to use moving forward.
Well, you could install just about any distribution on a laptop and hook it up to one of those Evolution Robotics laptop robots. Those go forward (and backward, and sideways) quite easily. Oh, you meant in the future? Well, why didn't you say so?
Pointy-Haired Boss: "We need to do this on a going-forward basis!" Dilbert: "Thanks for ruling out time travel. You're usually not that helpful."
If this was a Linux worm, people would be telling everyone else that they should have patched to the latest versions of whatever. But, it's Windows, so it won't exactly happen that way...
There's a much different attitude and awareness about bugs perpetuated by Microsoft than by the free software community. I can't say it any better than Neal Stephenson did in In the Beginning... was the Command Line (emphasis mine):
Commercial OSes have to adopt the same official stance towards errors as Communist countries had towards poverty. For doctrinal reasons it was not possible to admit that poverty was a serious problem in Communist countries, because the whole point of Communism was to eradicate poverty. Likewise, commercial OS companies like Apple and Microsoft can't go around admitting that their software has bugs and that it crashes all the time, any more than Disney can issue press releases stating that Mickey Mouse is an actor in a suit....
Because Linux is not commercial--because it is, in fact, free, as well as rather difficult to obtain, install, and operate--it does not have to maintain any pretensions as to its reliability. Consequently, it is much more reliable. When something goes wrong with Linux, the error is noticed and loudly discussed right away. Anyone with the requisite technical knowledge can go straight to the source code and point out the source of the error, which is then rapidly fixed by whichever hacker has carved out responsibility for that particular program.
People are more likely to be diligent about applying Linux patches because they know that it isn't bug-free, that bugs are constantly being found and squashed, and this is stated upfront by the people who develop and sell it. Because Microsoft treats bugs like things to be swept quietly under the rug, people get surprised when something like this happens -- even people who should know better, like admins.
Don's Plum is, in the US at least, an illegal art film. It stars Tobey Maguire and Leonardo DiCaprio, and according to what I've heard (though I don't know anyone who's actually seen it -- please correct me if I'm wrong), it contains a lot of debauchery, drugs, homosexuality, a la Kids.
So why haven't you heard of it? Because Leo and Tobey decided the film would undermine their wholesome, teeny-bopper public image -- so they decided to throw their weight around and block the film from being released. The producer of the film sued the two stars, and as a settlement, they agreed that it would be banned from distribution in the US.
You have a choice. The [L]GPL is not a little bug trying to worm its way into your code. If you chose to use GPL code, then you follow the terms, or don't use the code. It's simple.
You seem to miss the entire point of the LGPL. The whole point is that you should be able to use LGPL code in a non-LGPL project. To quote from the website:
"The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."
So whereas the GPL is intended to be somewhat "viral" -- i.e. software using GPL code must also be GPL -- the LGPL is not supposed to. This is why the viral-ness of the LGPL is news, since it's contrary to much of the community's understanding and intent regarding the use of LGPL code.
Slashdot Mirror
But the most important thing about installers is that they are run once. People base entire distribution reviews on the installer, which is just stupid.
Actually, they are run at most once. The users who can't even get through that first crucial install (many, in Debian's case) aren't likely to reap any of the other benefits of the distribution. Debian may be featureful and stable, and apt may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but it's all for nought if you can't get the darn thing installed and end up switching to a different distro.
Cheers,
IT
Wow, you read Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science," too?
Cheers,
IT
After all, if the choices are
1) Skynet takes over by force
2) Skynet takes over by vote
I, for one, prefer the vote method. Besides, could it really do any worse than the current leaders ?
Don't blame me, I voted for HAL-9000!
Cheers,
IT
Ones/zeroes - please use numerically-advantaged/disadvantaged ...
physical/virtual - please use reality-enhanced/disenhanced.
Disadvantaged and disenhanced? That's differently advantaged and differently enhanced, you bigot!
Cheers,
IT
In Diebold America, the vote rocks YOU!
Cheers,
IT
So if Elmer Fudd used Lindows, would he call it "Windows"? That wascally wabbit ...
Cheers,
IT
Why don't they just call it "Debian"? As in, "Ever since Red Hat disowned the community distribution, I've been using Debian." I've heard people using it this way already, so it shouldn't be too hard to change. Just start using "Debian" instead of "Fedora".
Cheers,
IT
And IBM raises them organically, not pumping them full of antibiotics and growth hormones like Hardvard, Yale, Columbia and such.
... some of them go to Standford, too. :)
Not just Hardvard
Cheers,
IT
Sure, we could flood the spammers with bogus responses. But then they could use Bayesian filtering to learn to filter out our fake responses, the same way we use it to filter out spam! Using our own tools against us ... oh, the irony!
Cheers,
IT
"I am concerned about long-term entrenched confusions such as referring to a version of our GNU OS as 'Linux' and thinking that our work on free software was motivated by the ideas associated with 'open source.' These confusions lead users away from the basic issue: their freedom. By comparison, the events involving SCO are transitory and almost trivial," Stallman says.
:)
Way to get your priorities straight, Richard -- putting your pet semantics above the users' ability to use your software legally. For the love of god, someone call in ESR!
Cheers,
IT
You still have to be running Windows or MacOS to use Virtual PC.
... what a con$piracy!
Damn, now if only there were some way to emulate a Linux environment on my Linux box without using Virtual PC
Cheers,
Ari
I am disrespectful to Flash! Can you see that I am serious? Join me or die!
Cheers,
IT
Can we get Charlton Heston to be the new Vi spokesman? I just wanna see him go to computer conferences, hold up the Vi source code printed on old style dot matrix printer paper and say "From my dead cold hands"
Uh, dude? Kirk Douglas was Spartacus. RTFIMDB.
Perhaps you were thinking of Ben-Hur?. Sure, they're similar, but anyone who gets similar things like these confused should NOT use vi. You might end up trying to save a file and accidentally blow up a small village.
Cheers,
IT
Issues of freedom and control aside, who really trusts the goverment to run something complicated and critical? They can barely get the simple things right. At least private industry has profit as a motive to keep the grid running. What's the government's motivation -- sheer good will? The grid already has too many single points of failure, and the last thing we ought to do is put it in the hands of a single authority.
The best solution is the same one a lot of geeks would support on any other issue: keep it open, keep it decentralized, and if there's more than one way to do it, let the user decide.
Cheers,
IT
Wow, I think obfuscated code is pretty 1337 now (e.g. Perl code in the shape of a camel), but I'll be seriously impressed when someone writes a "Hello, World" program that converts to an audio file of them saying "Hello, World." Any takers? :)
Cheers,
IT
Wait ... this thread is about P2P? Ohhhhh, okay. P2P is dying!!!
Cheers,
IT
Well, two problems with using DNA as a secret for identification purposes:
A. DNA is not unique -- consider identical twins, for example
B. DNA is not secret either; certainly no more secret than fingerprints. You leave piles of copies in the form of hair and shed skin cells whereever you go.
Wish I had some mod points for this one...oh well, I have karma to burn.
Whatever happened to descriptive naming? Who would instinctively associate "Cairo" with "vector graphics for XFree86"? Why not name it something sensible, like "XVector" (if that's not already taken)?
In all seriousness, I think that poor name choices hurt the adoption of free software. Think about "Photoshop" vs. "The GIMP," or "Internet Explorer" vs. "Mozilla." Rather than something simple, descriptive, and catchy, we usually opt for indecipherable codenames, stupid recursive acronyms, or lame in-jokes that few people but the developers themselves will get.
Poor naming limits the spread of the software meme to those who are already in the know, especially when the names are designed to enforce an only-the-anointed-get-it, us-vs-them mentality.
Cheers,
IT
someone makes a worm that downloads and installs a Linux distro?
Hey, beats installing Debian.
Cheers,
IT
We're currently evaluating what distribution we want to use moving forward.
Well, you could install just about any distribution on a laptop and hook it up to one of those Evolution Robotics laptop robots. Those go forward (and backward, and sideways) quite easily. Oh, you meant in the future? Well, why didn't you say so?
Pointy-Haired Boss: "We need to do this on a going-forward basis!"
Dilbert: "Thanks for ruling out time travel. You're usually not that helpful."
Cheers,
IT
There's a much different attitude and awareness about bugs perpetuated by Microsoft than by the free software community. I can't say it any better than Neal Stephenson did in In the Beginning
People are more likely to be diligent about applying Linux patches because they know that it isn't bug-free, that bugs are constantly being found and squashed, and this is stated upfront by the people who develop and sell it. Because Microsoft treats bugs like things to be swept quietly under the rug, people get surprised when something like this happens -- even people who should know better, like admins.
Cheers,
IT
Maybe he meant the odds, which are p/(1-p). That would approach infinity as p->1. Yeah, I'm sure that's what he really meant. :)
Cheers,
IT
After hitting an ATM earlier today the amount of money in my pocket went from $1 to $40, a 4000% improvement!
I'm amazed you managed to get $39 out of an ATM.
Wow, me too. I'm amazed that his bank's ATM fee is only $1. I would have gotten $38.50.
Cheers,
IT
Don's Plum is, in the US at least, an illegal art film. It stars Tobey Maguire and Leonardo DiCaprio, and according to what I've heard (though I don't know anyone who's actually seen it -- please correct me if I'm wrong), it contains a lot of debauchery, drugs, homosexuality, a la Kids.
So why haven't you heard of it? Because Leo and Tobey decided the film would undermine their wholesome, teeny-bopper public image -- so they decided to throw their weight around and block the film from being released. The producer of the film sued the two stars, and as a settlement, they agreed that it would be banned from distribution in the US.
Cheers,
IT
You have a choice. The [L]GPL is not a little bug trying to worm its way into your code. If you chose to use GPL code, then you follow the terms, or don't use the code. It's simple.
You seem to miss the entire point of the LGPL. The whole point is that you should be able to use LGPL code in a non-LGPL project. To quote from the website:
"The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."
So whereas the GPL is intended to be somewhat "viral" -- i.e. software using GPL code must also be GPL -- the LGPL is not supposed to. This is why the viral-ness of the LGPL is news, since it's contrary to much of the community's understanding and intent regarding the use of LGPL code.
Cheers,
IT