Just read internet histories. There are so much out there.
In the time the internet developed it's community status was a time when it was dominated by educational and academic solidarity. And this is something that still values knowledgesearch and personal development higher than commercial and control issues.
The fact that it was missed so long by the "manager" type is, that this type of people mostly just have a lack of imagination. And there was a too small market until 1993.
And after that time the net was simply too fast and too big to control and keep track of. So it is very hard to keep a monopol or a dominanation on content (but it is possible).
And you can see that the big companies are handicapping themselves with the introduction of standardized control mechanisms. An interaction between companies with lawyers and contracts to standardize something is far too slow to be the first in the net. And the first in the net is the best known in the net, and until the first one doesn't make serious mistakes, he will stay the best known and the biggest.
So the "I just wanna do something, and I just don't care about money" will always be faster and more innovative than management driven efforts. Though they mostly have less continuity, but as long as the character of the net is a lack of continuity (with all advantages and disadvantages) there will be no instance that can control the net. Of course, there are several instaces that can seriously harm the usability of several services in the net, but there is always someone to fill the gap. The merely presence of some open standard protocols and the network lines are enough to enable anybody with access to the network to be potentially available to anyone.
So, that was enough of text you can read in any internet hype aricle.
Everybody here seems to be claiming the right for individuality and privacy. But you seem to confuse rights, abilities and qualities. Even worse, you don't seem to notice, that a right is worth nothing without the ability and the quality to enforce this right. Right seems to become the word everybody cries out, when he realizes that he has not the ability and the quality to do something somebody else can do ("Life of Brian" is so right). You can sum it up: there are no rights, there are only abilities and qualities. The best example is the right to eat and there is no food there.
So what's different with the right for privacy and dignity? You should notice that dignity is a very rare quality, not a right , and that privacy is an ability becoming rarer. Any word about individuality? Just read slashdot. Always the same. The trolls are always the same, and the mod5s are always the same. You could not only write write a slashdot article generator, you could also write an automated discussion thread generator and moderator. And if you want so I'll write one.
What of your privacy should be protected? Are you afraid of anybody could read in some file that you are laughing/barfing/wanking on goatse.cx? As long as you value your personal comfort and happiness higher than anything else you just should not complain about privacy issues. There is always the the way to be the one in a clay hovel. Or the one in the flat that is found after two weeks because it stinks.
Someone with the ability and the intention to do something cannot be prevented from doing so. He can only be prevented from doing so twice.
So the ability to know anything you want about a certain person is there, if you have the money. You just have to prevent the intention. And the best protection is worthlessness.
What about a series of the first Romulan-Federation war. It was told in the original series that they were not able to communicate, and that the war was very cruel. May be two plots, one federation side, one Romulan side and how they affect each other without ever knowing each other. Could be a quite claustrophobic series.
That seems likely, as I read somewhere in a TV mag, that one of the plans for the new series is a Star Fleet Academy setting. So young hip masses of Wesleys, Kims and Parises (and maybe a female Vulcan with big uns complaining about unreasonable beheaviour)will spread all the sceens.
Compiling can get complicated, as there are many system dependent and version conflicting libraries. Bash is bash, and it runs out of the box. Maybe slowly, but it runs. But you are right, a developer, who wants to make asm code, has a decent compiler, and can build an assembler. But there might be exceptions, and then bash asm enters the stage.
You have to point out, that assembler isn't necessarily programming on bare metal. Borlands Turbo Assembler 5.0 even provides some object oriented features as classes with one level of inheritance. And the IA64 assembler has a very nice syntax, and is close to high level languages as the entire platform was designed for better support of compiled languages. It seems paradox that this makes building good compilers for this platform harder, as it is a very complex instruction set that heavily relies on dependencies.
And I'm a big friend of embedded assembler code, as the main advantage of higher level languages is the organisation framework of the code. Writing some methods in assembler combines the structure of the higher level language and the control of the assembler. You can support different platforms by #ifdefs as it is done in the Linux Kernel, even for some normal C code lines.
For a lot of simple standard tools there should be an assembler version, as I cannot understand why a "one bitter" like true should take more than 4k.
And there are of course these low level system initialisation routines, device drivers and all those classical examples.
"Both have different limitations in software development."
M$ style has limitations as they have to make cash decisions as being 16bit DOS compatible for years and valuing eye candy over stability. This prevents innovation. And there is always an instance to make a decision that may have no clue on the topic.
Open Source Community has limitations as there is nobody really able to make a decision on its own and make hundreds of coders work on that. Everybody works here on what he thinks is important. But if he wants to make a complicated
tool interacting with other complicated tools (something like an office application), he has to read a lot of source to make it work. There is no single instance that can force an interface to be standard. It can work out in use as a standard, but often it doesn't. And there is still a lack of money for development. They cannot use money as an instrument of power.
Although this should be obvious. But remote administration is to do fix those screwed up file systems without needing to say you clients how stupid they were. You fix it, and send them a mail of success with the note, not to do this again, and all are happy.
"Assembler is machine dependent, so why make it portable?" was my fist thougt. But then! Now it is possible to create x86 executeables from any system with a bash! Quite important for a new boot code or similar low level tasks. Especially when you dont have a working system on a destination machine type. And a bash is available on rather more systems than Java!
Nice hack! Should be done for more processor types, as it is more important for less widespread and new types as IA64 or PPC.
ShyDaisy: Hi, I'm new here.
MonsterDick: I'd guess so. Female?
BigJerk: WAHOOOOOOOO!
k3wlk1dd: I'm your man.
...
...
...
...
ShyDaisy:
ShyDaisy: You are all so nice.
Sorry for requiring you to change your product name from OpenBread to something that doesn't confuse with my high quality Bread products trademark. Everybody is welcome to use the open available recipe for for their products, but just don't call them Bread. I had a lot of work making my company well known as a Bread Baker.
I just wanted to point out, how hard it is to understand complex systems.
Even though we created it, we are not able to completely understand things like market, traffic dynamics or the American elections. We are only able to give some rules of thumb, which often apply, but regularly fail.
I don't think all influences are already even thought of. Or can the influence of slight changes in the gravitation field of the earth by the rotation of the moon be excluded as a trigger of some genes? And I don't mean as the single trigger for a special gene. Or maybe not a trigger but a increase in likelyhood of a gene being triggered?
When data representation is that complicated, what about code?
Assumed the sequence is known. Then we have the full.data section of a program which.text and.bss sections are almost unknown, of a machine which instruction set is almost completely unknown, with very varying and hard to analyse input and very varying and even harder to analyze output. And it is very likely, that there are no real sections, but a huge bunch of self modifying code, where it is not clear what share the DNA has. Guess there was some sort of Mel at work.
Guess they'll need a circulating supply of liquid nitrogen. So the electric infrastructure will be some isolated hose. And I think they'll have to bury it, as a broken hose in the earth will freeze ground life and make it hard to dig a hole to reach the defect, but a broken hose in the air will cause serious harm to any passing creature. I dont like the idea of trickling liquid nitrogen above me.
The full horror, you have a fabber next to you Fax, and everytime you come home you have to throw away the faxes of all pizzerias of the town, clear your mail from insurance and investments and AOL offers, clear your smtp mailbox from insurance, investment and AOL offers, and you have to throw away all those dildos from porn ad fabber spammers!
Is linux the operating system we want it to be? Is it possible for it, to be the only one every private computer. Then it still needs a lot of things:
a unified and easy to use package format (I like.debs best, but they mostly need perl for the scrips, so you have to have perl on the disc, they are only secondary supported and dselect is hell to use).
a full featured browser
a lot(or at least on extremely good) of (mainly 3D) Graphics Applications
far easier an wide spreaded sound support
proper printer support for other than postscript printers or at least cheap postscript printers
lotta (commercial quality) games
better interaction of all programs, wich needs the linux standard base to get ready
gcc 3.0 soon ready
all those standard office applications ready, not beta
That may sound arrogant and and pessimistic, but you need this to completely replace Win* or MacOS on your machine. And all this is something you can only do in full time efford. There may be some men of genius who might do this as a side show, but there are never enough of them.
Yep. You're right. But you missed one thing. Linux is big now and needs some full time developers, to keep track.
And unless you have already some money, you cannot do this without being paid for. I cannot imagine, that there are so many qualified people, with enough money to provide and maintain the technical equipment, and having the desire and the time to dedicate a main part of their life to the development and connected aspects of free software.
Somewhere the money for the thousands of developers has to come from. So some business wiling to spend their money in Linux and other free software are necessary. I don't like it, too.
But if you want to make free software really independant from business and/or donations, you have to make business and industy for money unnecessary at all. And we all know the "bad" word for this.
The market is the new God. And we need a new Atheism
First, the spreadsheet example is a bead one: You have some x^y numbers, and you want a median. You send all the numbers to a server, that computes the median, and sends the result back. This means, you send some MB of data to a server instead of downloading some bytes of the formula. The server may examin your data, that may be sensible data, and you cannot control that and the server may be overloaded, as it may do the number crunching for several packets of multiple MB od data.
Second, the ability to make money from proprietary software depends on the ability to make money from intelectual property without further development on that technology and preventing others from further development. So needing closed source is just a sign of a bad development section. When you make a great piece of software and realease it open source, your technological knowledge advance should be big enough to compete and make further development, as all others first have to read and understand the source and the concepts.
Third, the bad support is just wrong. There are almost never solutions from just one company (maybe except a full IBM server solution), and you always have to phone several companies to get support. But in open source, all information you need can be found on the net, for free. Of course you need a skilled maintainer in your own house for that, but someone with a serious project should always have a maintainer in the house.
But insurances are not interested in accidents/km. They are interested in accidents/time. Somebody driving 200,000km a year may have 2 accidents in 4 years, somebody with who drives 10000km a year may have only 1 accident in this time. Who will cost more?
So insurances are unfair.
And dying of cancer is unfair, too.
But incurances are willingly unfair, and make profits from it.
Cancer isn't willingly at all, and thus cannot be unfair, and dosn't make profit from it.
An life (or health) insurance cannot prevent you from getting cancer, but make profits either.
So the choice is to have either:
some people dying of cancer
or
people getting cancer and people not getting cancer both paying a big fat insurance industry, people with cancer getting treatment, living longer with treatment, but regardless dying of cancer in the end
Slashdot Mirror
I am an East-German White. But to appease your concerns, I don't have any spawnling, yet.
In the time the internet developed it's community status was a time when it was dominated by educational and academic solidarity. And this is something that still values knowledgesearch and personal development higher than commercial and control issues.
The fact that it was missed so long by the "manager" type is, that this type of people mostly just have a lack of imagination. And there was a too small market until 1993.
And after that time the net was simply too fast and too big to control and keep track of. So it is very hard to keep a monopol or a dominanation on content (but it is possible).
And you can see that the big companies are handicapping themselves with the introduction of standardized control mechanisms. An interaction between companies with lawyers and contracts to standardize something is far too slow to be the first in the net. And the first in the net is the best known in the net, and until the first one doesn't make serious mistakes, he will stay the best known and the biggest.
So the "I just wanna do something, and I just don't care about money" will always be faster and more innovative than management driven efforts. Though they mostly have less continuity, but as long as the character of the net is a lack of continuity (with all advantages and disadvantages) there will be no instance that can control the net. Of course, there are several instaces that can seriously harm the usability of several services in the net, but there is always someone to fill the gap. The merely presence of some open standard protocols and the network lines are enough to enable anybody with access to the network to be potentially available to anyone.
So, that was enough of text you can read in any internet hype aricle.
Everybody here seems to be claiming the right for individuality and privacy. But you seem to confuse rights, abilities and qualities. Even worse, you don't seem to notice, that a right is worth nothing without the ability and the quality to enforce this right. Right seems to become the word everybody cries out, when he realizes that he has not the ability and the quality to do something somebody else can do ("Life of Brian" is so right). You can sum it up: there are no rights, there are only abilities and qualities. The best example is the right to eat and there is no food there.
So what's different with the right for privacy and dignity? You should notice that dignity is a very rare quality, not a right , and that privacy is an ability becoming rarer. Any word about individuality? Just read slashdot. Always the same. The trolls are always the same, and the mod5s are always the same. You could not only write write a slashdot article generator, you could also write an automated discussion thread generator and moderator. And if you want so I'll write one.
What of your privacy should be protected? Are you afraid of anybody could read in some file that you are laughing/barfing/wanking on goatse.cx? As long as you value your personal comfort and happiness higher than anything else you just should not complain about privacy issues. There is always the the way to be the one in a clay hovel. Or the one in the flat that is found after two weeks because it stinks.
Someone with the ability and the intention to do something cannot be prevented from doing so. He can only be prevented from doing so twice.
So the ability to know anything you want about a certain person is there, if you have the money. You just have to prevent the intention. And the best protection is worthlessness.
What about a series of the first Romulan-Federation war. It was told in the original series that they were not able to communicate, and that the war was very cruel. May be two plots, one federation side, one Romulan side and how they affect each other without ever knowing each other. Could be a quite claustrophobic series.
That seems likely, as I read somewhere in a TV mag, that one of the plans for the new series is a Star Fleet Academy setting. So young hip masses of Wesleys, Kims and Parises (and maybe a female Vulcan with big uns complaining about unreasonable beheaviour)will spread all the sceens.
Compiling can get complicated, as there are many system dependent and version conflicting libraries. Bash is bash, and it runs out of the box. Maybe slowly, but it runs. But you are right, a developer, who wants to make asm code, has a decent compiler, and can build an assembler. But there might be exceptions, and then bash asm enters the stage.
You have to point out, that assembler isn't necessarily programming on bare metal. Borlands Turbo Assembler 5.0 even provides some object oriented features as classes with one level of inheritance. And the IA64 assembler has a very nice syntax, and is close to high level languages as the entire platform was designed for better support of compiled languages. It seems paradox that this makes building good compilers for this platform harder, as it is a very complex instruction set that heavily relies on dependencies.
And I'm a big friend of embedded assembler code, as the main advantage of higher level languages is the organisation framework of the code. Writing some methods in assembler combines the structure of the higher level language and the control of the assembler. You can support different platforms by #ifdefs as it is done in the Linux Kernel, even for some normal C code lines.
For a lot of simple standard tools there should be an assembler version, as I cannot understand why a "one bitter" like true should take more than 4k.
And there are of course these low level system initialisation routines, device drivers and all those classical examples.
"Both have different limitations in software development."
M$ style has limitations as they have to make cash decisions as being 16bit DOS compatible for years and valuing eye candy over stability. This prevents innovation. And there is always an instance to make a decision that may have no clue on the topic.
Open Source Community has limitations as there is nobody really able to make a decision on its own and make hundreds of coders work on that. Everybody works here on what he thinks is important. But if he wants to make a complicated tool interacting with other complicated tools (something like an office application), he has to read a lot of source to make it work. There is no single instance that can force an interface to be standard. It can work out in use as a standard, but often it doesn't. And there is still a lack of money for development. They cannot use money as an instrument of power.
Although this should be obvious. But remote administration is to do fix those screwed up file systems without needing to say you clients how stupid they were. You fix it, and send them a mail of success with the note, not to do this again, and all are happy.
Yep, me. From Germany.
"Assembler is machine dependent, so why make it portable?" was my fist thougt. But then! Now it is possible to create x86 executeables from any system with a bash! Quite important for a new boot code or similar low level tasks. Especially when you dont have a working system on a destination machine type. And a bash is available on rather more systems than Java!
Nice hack! Should be done for more processor types, as it is more important for less widespread and new types as IA64 or PPC.
Is even worse than slashtotted http. Never,never, do this again, or provide mirrors. Is there a mirror anywhere?
ShyDaisy: Hi, I'm new here.
MonsterDick: I'd guess so. Female?
BigJerk: WAHOOOOOOOO!
k3wlk1dd: I'm your man.
...
...
...
...
ShyDaisy:
ShyDaisy: You are all so nice.
That really should make you jealous!
Sorry for requiring you to change your product name from OpenBread to something that doesn't confuse with my high quality Bread products trademark. Everybody is welcome to use the open available recipe for for their products, but just don't call them Bread. I had a lot of work making my company well known as a Bread Baker.
Did I sum it up correctly ?
I just wanted to point out, how hard it is to understand complex systems.
Even though we created it, we are not able to completely understand things like market, traffic dynamics or the American elections. We are only able to give some rules of thumb, which often apply, but regularly fail.
I don't think all influences are already even thought of. Or can the influence of slight changes in the gravitation field of the earth by the rotation of the moon be excluded as a trigger of some genes? And I don't mean as the single trigger for a special gene. Or maybe not a trigger but a increase in likelyhood of a gene being triggered?
When data representation is that complicated, what about code?
Assumed the sequence is known. .data section of a program which .text and .bss sections are almost unknown, of a machine which instruction set is almost completely unknown, with very varying and hard to analyse input and very varying and even harder to analyze output.
Then we have the full
And it is very likely, that there are no real sections, but a huge bunch of self modifying code, where it is not clear what share the DNA has.
Guess there was some sort of Mel at work.
Guess they'll need a circulating supply of liquid nitrogen. So the electric infrastructure will be some isolated hose. And I think they'll have to bury it, as a broken hose in the earth will freeze ground life and make it hard to dig a hole to reach the defect, but a broken hose in the air will cause serious harm to any passing creature. I dont like the idea of trickling liquid nitrogen above me.
The full horror, you have a fabber next to you Fax, and everytime you come home you have to throw away the faxes of all pizzerias of the town, clear your mail from insurance and investments and AOL offers, clear your smtp mailbox from insurance, investment and AOL offers, and you have to throw away all those dildos from porn ad fabber spammers!
You call it BSD? That's geeky!
Linux advertising buzz phrases:
"Come to where the EMACS is."
"Where you don't want to reboot today?"
"Always Tux."
"OOOOHHHH MYYYYYH GOOOOOD, this is deliciuos. You gotta try it!!"
- a unified and easy to use package format (I like
.debs best, but they mostly need perl for the scrips, so you have to have perl on the disc, they are only secondary supported and dselect is hell to use).
- a full featured browser
- a lot(or at least on extremely good) of (mainly 3D) Graphics Applications
- far easier an wide spreaded sound support
- proper printer support for other than postscript printers or at least cheap postscript printers
- lotta (commercial quality) games
- better interaction of all programs, wich needs the linux standard base to get ready
- gcc 3.0 soon ready
- all those standard office applications ready, not beta
That may sound arrogant and and pessimistic, but you need this to completely replace Win* or MacOS on your machine. And all this is something you can only do in full time efford. There may be some men of genius who might do this as a side show, but there are never enough of them.Yep. You're right.
But you missed one thing. Linux is big now and needs some full time developers, to keep track.
And unless you have already some money, you cannot do this without being paid for.
I cannot imagine, that there are so many qualified people, with enough money to provide and maintain the technical equipment, and having the desire and the time to dedicate a main part of their life to the development and connected aspects of free software.
Somewhere the money for the thousands of developers has to come from. So some business wiling to spend their money in Linux and other free software are necessary. I don't like it, too.
But if you want to make free software really independant from business and/or donations, you have to make business and industy for money unnecessary at all. And we all know the "bad" word for this.
The market is the new God. And we need a new Atheism
First, the spreadsheet example is a bead one: You have some x^y numbers, and you want a median. You send all the numbers to a server, that computes the median, and sends the result back. This means, you send some MB of data to a server instead of downloading some bytes of the formula. The server may examin your data, that may be sensible data, and you cannot control that and the server may be overloaded, as it may do the number crunching for several packets of multiple MB od data.
Second, the ability to make money from proprietary software depends on the ability to make money from intelectual property without further development on that technology and preventing others from further development. So needing closed source is just a sign of a bad development section. When you make a great piece of software and realease it open source, your technological knowledge advance should be big enough to compete and make further development, as all others first have to read and understand the source and the concepts.
Third, the bad support is just wrong. There are almost never solutions from just one company (maybe except a full IBM server solution), and you always have to phone several companies to get support. But in open source, all information you need can be found on the net, for free. Of course you need a skilled maintainer in your own house for that, but someone with a serious project should always have a maintainer in the house.
But insurances are not interested in accidents/km. They are interested in accidents/time. Somebody driving 200,000km a year may have 2 accidents in 4 years, somebody with who drives 10000km a year may have only 1 accident in this time. Who will cost more?
And dying of cancer is unfair, too.
But incurances are willingly unfair, and make profits from it.
Cancer isn't willingly at all, and thus cannot be unfair, and dosn't make profit from it.
An life (or health) insurance cannot prevent you from getting cancer, but make profits either.
So the choice is to have either:
- some people dying of cancer
or