You're judging a kernel hacker by their personal web site? Sad. Very sad.
Who said I was judging him by his web site? My comment implied that I didn't like the site, not that the site made him less of a kernel developer. That said, I'm not convinced he's much of a kernel developer for other reasons...
Stilly running your mouth? I'm not going to bother with most of your whining, since I have real work to do.
I already mentioned that several of those products existed before there was a web and yet you seem to expect a web presence anyway.
Lots of products existed before the web, and have web presence anyway. The web exists as a medium for sharing information about non-web things. On the other hand, if people don't talk much about something, there's no need for anything on the web, but I guess that doesn't help your case.
If you'd made even the slightest effort to check, you would have seen that most of the products I named that were developed in the "web era" do in fact have web pages.
It's your responsibility to provide pointers to things you think are relevant. I'm not going to do research on you when I have code to write.
Here's another lesson about the real world. Some companies generate lots of white papers. Some companies generate lots of product.
Now you're picking nits. The point is that there are plenty of reasons to put product-related information on a web site. Provide a pointer to your Usenix paper. That might be interesting. (No, I'm not going to bother searching for it.)
Yes, I made those two statements...separately. Their juxtaposition, eliding a great deal of explanation of the connection between the two and thus taking them out of context, is yours.
Okay, so elaborate. Rather than complaining about my interpretation, provide a clear explanation of what you actually meant.
Bull. Nobody who reads this exchange would believe that. You obviously meant to start a pissing contest, and you lost badly. Now that you're all wet, yellow and smelly from pissing on yourself, you're trying to change your tune.
Ooh, that's colorful -- if a bit silly. Read the posts. I asked who you were to be making unsupported statements about other people's (Torvalds in this case) credibility. I'm still not convinced by your answer.
You who were the one who insisted on talking about background, not me.
True, but you've missed the point. Background in an argument is about establishing credibility. Putting forward some obscure projects and thumbing your nose at people for not being familiar with them is it's own double-bind, and it doesn't help you.
Translation: your claim is pure, unadulterated, total bullshit.
Actual Translation: I value about my privacy more than I your opinion of me. Of course, I value mouldy rocks more than your opinion of me, but that's neither here nor there. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.
You couldn't even find information about them, despite the fact that such information is readily available, and yet you feel comfortable judging their quality.
That's right. Deal with it.
...because you have nothing better to do with your time than troll on slashdot.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I've wasted enough time with
you already. I've given two examples of Linus's weird attitudes that explain why I say what I do about him.
I see nothing weird about those attitudes. You have repeatedly refused to elaborate on your statements, so I'll have to suppose you have nothing to back them up until you offer something substantive. I won't hold my breath.
I've described my background in great detail when asked (and not before). In general I've backed up everything that I say.
Hmmn... The first statement is true (though I certainly didn't ask for great detail) but the second is plainly false. You haven't backed up a single technical statement, and you have made little effort to provide pointers on your background.
The closest you've come to discussing anything honestly is a red herring about whether debuggers are in fact a good thing to have. You say they cause too much perturbation to the system, but I've implemented the kernel stubs for a couple and I've used them to debug thousands upon thousands of lines of kernel code so I know that claim is utterly false.
Aha! This is what I've been looking for. It's a little light on content but it seems that where logic is concerned I'll have to take what I can get from you.
Anyway, your claim is interesting, but anecdotal. Torvalds and company have debugged hundreds of thousands (around two hundred thousand in 2.2.14) lines of code without the benefit of such tools (see kernel-traffic) so they must know something you don't.
I've personally debugged a few hundred lines of kernel code without a debugger -- not a prodigeous amount, it must be admitted -- and I find that the hardest part is locating the section of the code that is misbehaving, which would have to be done with or without a debugger. It seems clear that the debugger would be faster, but the question of whether the time spent writing the debugger would be greater than the time saved remains unanswered.
For application level programming, the answer is obviously no (and I do use such tools there), but changes to the kernel can break the debugger, and the impact of running the debugger can squash timing issues, rendering it useless.
How do you answer these concerns? Based on your previous messages I suspect you won't, prefering instead to continue swapping insults instead of pages. Feel free to prove me wrong...
Have fun with your insult-laden content-free reply.
Try looking beyond my replies to you specifically. I replied to several other people, and everything you claim is missing is in those replies to others.
No, as I said, I don't have time to hunt through all of your whining missives. I did follow the "pointer" you gave, but all that was there was some moaning and groaning about real time operating systems filled with more unsubstantiated claims. I even went to your little web site. It was... well, I can't say anything nice, so I won't say anything at all.
None of these products were done in an environment where publishing web sites is considered a major part of the work.
Hmmn... That's a bit dodgy. You see, when companies make products -- products they intend to sell -- they advertise those products, usually making altogether too much noise. Usually programmers are not asked to create the web site, but they do provide white papers and the like. Unless, of course, you are working on an irrelevant or commercially failed project. Those are the sort of things that most people have never heard of and... well I'll let you connect the dots yourself.
All of a sudden, when you're the one who has to back up what you say, it's not so important, eh? Hypocrite.
Alright, you've had your fun. Now I suggest you blink a few times to get rid of that tunnel vision. I'll spell this out for you using small words so that you have a chance of understanding.
When you say something that you would like other people two believe, you have a few options. One is to back it up with reasoning and relevant facts. Another is to demonstrate that you are someone with considerable knowledge of the domain in question. You haven't done either, unless you count the trotting out of obscure projects without providing the means for anyone to verify your claims -- which I don't.
So far, you've said, "Torvalds doesn't like debuggers even though other people do. He should set a better example." I replied by noting that for kernel development, a debugger could be more trouble than it's worth because of the impact it can have on the system. You replied... actually, I'm still waiting for you to address that point. All you've done since then is brag about your experience, and unconvincingly at that.
Convenient how you focus on parts of what I've said, ignoring the larger picture. I'll let you in on a little secret: my remark about "street-cred" was meant to draw you into a techinical discussion of the issues you raised -- a discussion you have studiously avoided -- by showing you that I would not be intimidated by your chest pounding. Anytime you get tired of name calling and want to start talking about kernel development, instead of what a studly kernel developer you must be since you worked on some obscure projects, I'm game.
OK, so what shipping products have you been involved in?
I have contributed to the development of shipping products, both open and closed source. I don't care to name names, though I'm sure you would be about as impressed with them as I am with your examples, which of course is not much.
I'll settle for completed open-source projects, even though those all too often fail to meet the same quality goals as commercial products.
Oooh, how generous of you. I've got some news for you: most "commercial" (by which you really mean closed source; RedHat is commercial) products fail to meet the quality goals of commercial products. The projects you mentioned are probably excellent examples.
It's a shame that forums like slashdot encourage people who've learned to flame before they learn to code - or, too often - learn to think.
Here we agree completely. Now, are you ready to stop flaming and start thinking? No? Well, come back when you are. I'll be here.
Hmmn... how did you become such a bitter little fellow? Here we go...
You're a lying little turd. How can you say "I notice..." when you obviously didn't bother to check? In point of fact I did address your earlier objection, and also provided a second more detailed example of Torvalds's arrogance.
Okay, let's go to the instant replay:
However, some of his other ideas are stupid, and by refusing even to acknowledge other views he sets a bad example for people who look up to him. Whether he likes it or not, he is in a position to influence the quality of work produced by a whole generation of programmers.
Nope. No mention of why my comment about debuggers and kernel development is wrong and no example of arrogance on the part of anyone but yourself. Perhaps you've done more frothing at the mouth about these points in other threads, but I don't have the time to hunt down all your nasty little messages.
You won't assume that I do...but you'll gladly assume that I don't. Why is one assumption preferable to the other? What distinguishes them at all...except that one represents a view you came into this conversation already favoring?
I haven't assumed that you don't know what you're talking about; I've simply asked you to prove it. You have even attempted to do so by quoting a pile of obscure acronyms that (as you correctly surmised) I haven't heard of. Your claim to have created thousands of satisfied users is just not credible without more information (perhaps a link to a few of these project web sites). Until then, sorry, but I'm just not impressed.
What do you have to offer, [...] A little bit of Javascript, perhaps?
Without getting into a pissing contest about coding experience (for example, I'm not going to spit acronyms at you), I will say that I have done systems programming in C and a few flavors of assmebly, and application programming in C++ and Java. Sorry, but I don't know much Javascript.
The point, of course, is not that I'm some sort of programming deity (which is not to say that it isn't true;-) but that you have made unsupported accusations against public figures, and that without either offering actual evidence or demonstrating some credibility you're not going to get anywhere.
All you've done is prove my point about too many Linux zealots being asinine little punks with a hundred times more attitude than ability. Go read the advocacy how-to before you presume to defend anyone from the evil outsiders.
This is really quite funny. You pepper you text with insults ("lying little turd", "little boy", "asinine punk", "more attitude than ability") based on assumptions you couldn't possibly verify (for all you know I could be an eighty year old woman who writes NT driver code for a living) and then you have the nerve to whine about my "assumptions" and to call me a zealot. Maybe you should spend a little time reading that HOWTO yourself.
Actually, I think you should calm down and read this thread from beginning to end. You might be able to save some face by offering an appology before you make a fool of yourself again with another rabid missive.
Anyway, try "netstat -pleA inet". This will display only listening sockets, in addition to the user and process id responsible for each. Unfortunately, this uses service names instead of port numbers, but that can be fixed by adding `n' (ie, "netstat -plenA inet").
I'm working on a way to run X without listening on TCP sockets, which would make it safe for a firewall. (Obviously "startx -- -nolisten tcp" works, but I want to cover gdm use as well). Why? Because it's there...
It saddens me to see how quick people are to assume [...] that I do not read k-t, that I am not a kernel programmer, etc.
Take a deep breath, man. When you calm down you'll realize that my comment was meant, in a good natured way, to point you at a resource you (and other people reading) might have missed. I can't read your mind, and I don't have the CIA at my disposal to determine what you know and what you don't. Getting huffy about that doesn't impress me.
However, some of his other ideas are stupid, and by refusing even to acknowledge other views he sets a bad example for people who look up to him.
What sanctimoneous tripe! First of all, the burden is on you to demonstrate that statement. The only example you've offered so far, debuggers, is clearly debatable on the grounds I mentioned -- and I notice you didn't bother to address.
I'm not going to `assume without basis' that you know the first thing about what you are talking about until you show me some code that you designed that has thousands of satisfied users. Until you earn some street cred, your time is better spend arguing that this or that idea in particular is wrong rather than calling people names. (And even then...)
Second, as far as setting examples are concerned, who are you to talk? What sort of example are you setting by whining about other people setting examples?
Okay, okay. Gtk+/Gnome doesn't have the prettiest coding interface. This is actually an architectural advantage in the long run, for two reasons.
1) Portability: C has been around a long time. The tools for working with it are stable and mature. The desktop can reach more platforms, and that means applications can be written once. That's a powerful incentive for standardization.
2) Wrappers: the disadvantage of working with C (nasty, unsafe interfaces) can be corrected with wrappers for C++/ObjectiveC/Java/Python/Perl and so on. No, these are not mature at the moment, but over the next few years they are likely to improve enough to make the difference unimportant.
This "bad culture" is directly related to the bad example set by Linus himself, who has some attitudes that most serious software engineers would regard as eccentric at best (e.g. his well-publicized disdain for debuggers).
You should try reading kernel-traffic (http://kt.linuxcare.com) sometime. Torvalds is extremely sharp, and some of his ideas about software development are quite good. As for debuggers, sure they are great tools for system and application programs, but for kernel development one is likely to spend as much time debugging a debugger than the kernel itself.
This black-and-white world of yours sounds quite comfortable, but here in the real world things are a little more complicated. The issue here is not whether it costs money to make music, or whether artists and programmers need to eat, but rather how they get their daily bread. The pay-per-copy scheme currently in place just doesn't work. It impedes innovation and creates a great many more wealthy middle-men (like record company executives) than wealthy artists.
The idea that you don't have the right to listen to music until you've paid is a little like saying you don't have the right to breathe until you've paid the air tax -- both are a little twisted. Fortunately, though it costs money to keep the air clean, we structure the payments a little differently. We can do the same with music and software.
For example, technical support can partially fund software development, and the street performer protocol (mentioned by some other posts and used by the likes of Stephen King and Prince) can be used to fund some artistic works. These are pieces of a solution that is not quite complete, but people continue to work on the problem. You need to come to terms with the fact that there is a problem and start thinking about how to solve it. That's much more productive than making snide remarks about people who don't share the opinions of `enlightened' kurmdgeons like you.
You're right. What I meant to say was "cryptography would help" -- where cryptography includes the zero knowledge proof that you mentioned. I came to the same conclusion you did (that it would be impractical). Actually, encryption wouldn't even prevent a determined attacker from altering the game since the key must be stored on disk somewhere.
As a security system architect, allow me to point out that you are dead wrong. The security a game gets from not releasing source code is an illusion. There used to be an army of people with mediocre debugging skills who made a sport of shredding copy protection for closed source programs -- until game companies got tired of running in circles and stopped trying. For multiplayer games, the problem is even worse because all one needs to do is examine the network traffic and create a filter (to improve aim, reveal hidden enemies, and so on). If you understand graphics and can program in C (and you would need to in order to cheat using GPL'd code) then you shouldn't have a hard time using these techniques.
Encryption would help, but the reason servers trust clients is to improve performance and cryptographic operations are expensive. The difficulty here comes not from open or closed source, but from the hoards of skillful people with too much time on their hands beating on a fragile system. Consider this Eric Raymond essay, which discusses this issue in more depth and points out that cheat programs have been developed for Quake without using the source code.
Well said. (I do think Lessig is smart, and I also agree with his opinions, but these are two separate statements. The Slashdot editorial staff needs a little education...)
Like everyone else who has replied so far, I disagree with your perception of Microsoft, but damn I admire what you wrote. You have stood up to the angry mob, and done it in a fair and even handed manner. This has got to be the most courageous and articulate post I've ever seen on Slashdot. Microsoft doesn't deserve you.
What? Proprietary software is the most effective way to make money? I think I've heard that before... from RMS. Sorry, but you've completely missed the point of everything the FSF has to say. Check out their website and do some reading. Maybe you will figure out that selling proprietary software has consequences for everyone's freedom. And how exactly are free software advocates denying you the ability to exploit copyright law for your own profit? Presenting you with a potentially pursuasive argument and some high quality software is a little different from putting a gun to your head.
Suppose the law were made by people who were informed and interested in protecting the public above other considerations. Wouldn't they simply codify what is right and wrong? Sure, this isn't an ideal world, so we have things like DMCA, but we can dream...
Slashdot Mirror
It's a trap, designed to look like something at RedHat. It actually resolves to 209-209-49-202.oakinreach.inreach.net
If you clone an infertile parent, don't you end up with someone infertile? Seems a bit depressing.
So, an anonymous coward is telling me I should give more details about my life in public. Interesting...
I stand corrected.
You're judging a kernel hacker by their personal web site? Sad. Very sad.
Who said I was judging him by his web site? My comment implied that I didn't like the site, not that the site made him less of a kernel developer. That said, I'm not convinced he's much of a kernel developer for other reasons...
Stilly running your mouth? I'm not going to bother with most of your whining, since I have real work to do.
...because you have nothing better to do with your time than troll on slashdot.
I already mentioned that several of those products existed before there was a web and yet you seem to expect a web presence anyway.
Lots of products existed before the web, and have web presence anyway. The web exists as a medium for sharing information about non-web things. On the other hand, if people don't talk much about something, there's no need for anything on the web, but I guess that doesn't help your case.
If you'd made even the slightest effort to check, you would have seen that most of the products I named that were developed in the "web era" do in fact have web pages.
It's your responsibility to provide pointers to things you think are relevant. I'm not going to do research on you when I have code to write.
Here's another lesson about the real world. Some companies generate lots of white papers. Some companies generate lots of product.
Now you're picking nits. The point is that there are plenty of reasons to put product-related information on a web site. Provide a pointer to your Usenix paper. That might be interesting. (No, I'm not going to bother searching for it.)
Yes, I made those two statements...separately. Their juxtaposition, eliding a great deal of explanation of the connection between the two and thus taking them out of context, is yours.
Okay, so elaborate. Rather than complaining about my interpretation, provide a clear explanation of what you actually meant.
Bull. Nobody who reads this exchange would believe that. You obviously meant to start a pissing contest, and you lost badly. Now that you're all wet, yellow and smelly from pissing on yourself, you're trying to change your tune.
Ooh, that's colorful -- if a bit silly. Read the posts. I asked who you were to be making unsupported statements about other people's (Torvalds in this case) credibility. I'm still not convinced by your answer.
You who were the one who insisted on talking about background, not me.
True, but you've missed the point. Background in an argument is about establishing credibility. Putting forward some obscure projects and thumbing your nose at people for not being familiar with them is it's own double-bind, and it doesn't help you.
Translation: your claim is pure, unadulterated, total bullshit.
Actual Translation: I value about my privacy more than I your opinion of me. Of course, I value mouldy rocks more than your opinion of me, but that's neither here nor there. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point.
You couldn't even find information about them, despite the fact that such information is readily available, and yet you feel comfortable judging their quality.
That's right. Deal with it.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I've wasted enough time with
you already. I've given two examples of Linus's weird attitudes that explain why I say what I do about him.
I see nothing weird about those attitudes. You have repeatedly refused to elaborate on your statements, so I'll have to suppose you have nothing to back them up until you offer something substantive. I won't hold my breath.
I've described my background in great detail when asked (and not before). In general I've backed up everything that I say.
Hmmn... The first statement is true (though I certainly didn't ask for great detail) but the second is plainly false. You haven't backed up a single technical statement, and you have made little effort to provide pointers on your background.
The closest you've come to discussing anything honestly is a red herring about whether debuggers are in fact a good thing to have. You say they cause too much perturbation to the system, but I've implemented the kernel stubs for a couple and I've used them to debug thousands upon thousands of lines of kernel code so I know that claim is utterly false.
Aha! This is what I've been looking for. It's a little light on content but it seems that where logic is concerned I'll have to take what I can get from you.
Anyway, your claim is interesting, but anecdotal. Torvalds and company have debugged hundreds of thousands (around two hundred thousand in 2.2.14) lines of code without the benefit of such tools (see kernel-traffic) so they must know something you don't.
I've personally debugged a few hundred lines of kernel code without a debugger -- not a prodigeous amount, it must be admitted -- and I find that the hardest part is locating the section of the code that is misbehaving, which would have to be done with or without a debugger. It seems clear that the debugger would be faster, but the question of whether the time spent writing the debugger would be greater than the time saved remains unanswered.
For application level programming, the answer is obviously no (and I do use such tools there), but changes to the kernel can break the debugger, and the impact of running the debugger can squash timing issues, rendering it useless.
How do you answer these concerns? Based on your previous messages I suspect you won't, prefering instead to continue swapping insults instead of pages. Feel free to prove me wrong...
Have fun with your insult-laden content-free reply.
This coming from you? Now *that* is amusing.
Blah, blah, blah.
Try looking beyond my replies to you specifically. I replied to several other people, and everything you claim is missing is in those replies to others.
No, as I said, I don't have time to hunt through all of your whining missives. I did follow the "pointer" you gave, but all that was there was some moaning and groaning about real time operating systems filled with more unsubstantiated claims. I even went to your little web site. It was... well, I can't say anything nice, so I won't say anything at all.
None of these products were done in an environment where publishing web sites is considered a major part of the work.
Hmmn... That's a bit dodgy. You see, when companies make products -- products they intend to sell -- they advertise those products, usually making altogether too much noise. Usually programmers are not asked to create the web site, but they do provide white papers and the like. Unless, of course, you are working on an irrelevant or commercially failed project. Those are the sort of things that most people have never heard of and... well I'll let you connect the dots yourself.
All of a sudden, when you're the one who has to back up what you say, it's not so important, eh? Hypocrite.
Alright, you've had your fun. Now I suggest you blink a few times to get rid of that tunnel vision. I'll spell this out for you using small words so that you have a chance of understanding.
When you say something that you would like other people two believe, you have a few options. One is to back it up with reasoning and relevant facts. Another is to demonstrate that you are someone with considerable knowledge of the domain in question. You haven't done either, unless you count the trotting out of obscure projects without providing the means for anyone to verify your claims -- which I don't.
So far, you've said, "Torvalds doesn't like debuggers even though other people do. He should set a better example." I replied by noting that for kernel development, a debugger could be more trouble than it's worth because of the impact it can have on the system. You replied... actually, I'm still waiting for you to address that point. All you've done since then is brag about your experience, and unconvincingly at that.
Convenient how you focus on parts of what I've said, ignoring the larger picture. I'll let you in on a little secret: my remark about "street-cred" was meant to draw you into a techinical discussion of the issues you raised -- a discussion you have studiously avoided -- by showing you that I would not be intimidated by your chest pounding. Anytime you get tired of name calling and want to start talking about kernel development, instead of what a studly kernel developer you must be since you worked on some obscure projects, I'm game.
OK, so what shipping products have you been involved in?
I have contributed to the development of shipping products, both open and closed source. I don't care to name names, though I'm sure you would be about as impressed with them as I am with your examples, which of course is not much.
I'll settle for completed open-source projects, even though those all too often fail to meet the same quality goals as commercial products.
Oooh, how generous of you. I've got some news for you: most "commercial" (by which you really mean closed source; RedHat is commercial) products fail to meet the quality goals of commercial products. The projects you mentioned are probably excellent examples.
It's a shame that forums like slashdot encourage people who've learned to flame before they learn to code - or, too often - learn to think.
Here we agree completely. Now, are you ready to stop flaming and start thinking? No? Well, come back when you are. I'll be here.
Thanks. I'll try that.
You're a lying little turd. How can you say "I notice
Okay, let's go to the instant replay:
Nope. No mention of why my comment about debuggers and kernel development is wrong and no example of arrogance on the part of anyone but yourself. Perhaps you've done more frothing at the mouth about these points in other threads, but I don't have the time to hunt down all your nasty little messages.
You won't assume that I do...but you'll gladly assume that I don't. Why is one assumption preferable to the other? What distinguishes them at all...except that one represents a view you came into this conversation already favoring?
I haven't assumed that you don't know what you're talking about; I've simply asked you to prove it. You have even attempted to do so by quoting a pile of obscure acronyms that (as you correctly surmised) I haven't heard of. Your claim to have created thousands of satisfied users is just not credible without more information (perhaps a link to a few of these project web sites). Until then, sorry, but I'm just not impressed.
What do you have to offer, [...] A little bit of Javascript, perhaps?
Without getting into a pissing contest about coding experience (for example, I'm not going to spit acronyms at you), I will say that I have done systems programming in C and a few flavors of assmebly, and application programming in C++ and Java. Sorry, but I don't know much Javascript.
The point, of course, is not that I'm some sort of programming deity (which is not to say that it isn't true
All you've done is prove my point about too many Linux zealots being asinine little punks with a hundred times more attitude than ability. Go read the advocacy how-to before you presume to defend anyone from the evil outsiders.
This is really quite funny. You pepper you text with insults ("lying little turd", "little boy", "asinine punk", "more attitude than ability") based on assumptions you couldn't possibly verify (for all you know I could be an eighty year old woman who writes NT driver code for a living) and then you have the nerve to whine about my "assumptions" and to call me a zealot. Maybe you should spend a little time reading that HOWTO yourself.
Actually, I think you should calm down and read this thread from beginning to end. You might be able to save some face by offering an appology before you make a fool of yourself again with another rabid missive.
Any ideas on how to make this work for Xdm (actually, gdm would be more interesting...)?
Chai! How are things in the new life?
Anyway, try "netstat -pleA inet". This will display only listening sockets, in addition to the user and process id responsible for each. Unfortunately, this uses service names instead of port numbers, but that can be fixed by adding `n' (ie, "netstat -plenA inet").
I'm working on a way to run X without listening on TCP sockets, which would make it safe for a firewall. (Obviously "startx -- -nolisten tcp" works, but I want to cover gdm use as well). Why? Because it's there...
Be well.
Jeff
It saddens me to see how quick people are to assume [...] that I do not read k-t, that I am not a kernel programmer, etc.
Take a deep breath, man. When you calm down you'll realize that my comment was meant, in a good natured way, to point you at a resource you (and other people reading) might have missed. I can't read your mind, and I don't have the CIA at my disposal to determine what you know and what you don't. Getting huffy about that doesn't impress me.
However, some of his other ideas are stupid, and by refusing even to acknowledge other views he sets a bad example for people who look up to him.
What sanctimoneous tripe! First of all, the burden is on you to demonstrate that statement. The only example you've offered so far, debuggers, is clearly debatable on the grounds I mentioned -- and I notice you didn't bother to address.
I'm not going to `assume without basis' that you know the first thing about what you are talking about until you show me some code that you designed that has thousands of satisfied users. Until you earn some street cred, your time is better spend arguing that this or that idea in particular is wrong rather than calling people names. (And even then...)
Second, as far as setting examples are concerned, who are you to talk? What sort of example are you setting by whining about other people setting examples?
Okay, okay. Gtk+/Gnome doesn't have the prettiest coding interface. This is actually an architectural advantage in the long run, for two reasons.
1) Portability: C has been around a long time. The tools for working with it are stable and mature. The desktop can reach more platforms, and that means applications can be written once. That's a powerful incentive for standardization.
2) Wrappers: the disadvantage of working with C (nasty, unsafe interfaces) can be corrected with wrappers for C++/ObjectiveC/Java/Python/Perl and so on. No, these are not mature at the moment, but over the next few years they are likely to improve enough to make the difference unimportant.
Who cares why Sun switches to Gnome? Anything is better than the eyesore known as CDE.
This "bad culture" is directly related to the bad example set by Linus himself, who has some attitudes that most serious software engineers would regard as eccentric at best (e.g. his well-publicized disdain for debuggers).
You should try reading kernel-traffic (http://kt.linuxcare.com) sometime. Torvalds is extremely sharp, and some of his ideas about software development are quite good. As for debuggers, sure they are great tools for system and application programs, but for kernel development one is likely to spend as much time debugging a debugger than the kernel itself.
This black-and-white world of yours sounds quite comfortable, but here in the real world things are a little more complicated. The issue here is not whether it costs money to make music, or whether artists and programmers need to eat, but rather how they get their daily bread. The pay-per-copy scheme currently in place just doesn't work. It impedes innovation and creates a great many more wealthy middle-men (like record company executives) than wealthy artists.
The idea that you don't have the right to listen to music until you've paid is a little like saying you don't have the right to breathe until you've paid the air tax -- both are a little twisted. Fortunately, though it costs money to keep the air clean, we structure the payments a little differently. We can do the same with music and software.
For example, technical support can partially fund software development, and the street performer protocol (mentioned by some other posts and used by the likes of Stephen King and Prince) can be used to fund some artistic works. These are pieces of a solution that is not quite complete, but people continue to work on the problem. You need to come to terms with the fact that there is a problem and start thinking about how to solve it. That's much more productive than making snide remarks about people who don't share the opinions of `enlightened' kurmdgeons like you.
You're right. What I meant to say was "cryptography would help" -- where cryptography includes the zero knowledge proof that you mentioned. I came to the same conclusion you did (that it would be impractical). Actually, encryption wouldn't even prevent a determined attacker from altering the game since the key must be stored on disk somewhere.
As a security system architect, allow me to point out that you are dead wrong. The security a game gets from not releasing source code is an illusion. There used to be an army of people with mediocre debugging skills who made a sport of shredding copy protection for closed source programs -- until game companies got tired of running in circles and stopped trying. For multiplayer games, the problem is even worse because all one needs to do is examine the network traffic and create a filter (to improve aim, reveal hidden enemies, and so on). If you understand graphics and can program in C (and you would need to in order to cheat using GPL'd code) then you shouldn't have a hard time using these techniques.
Encryption would help, but the reason servers trust clients is to improve performance and cryptographic operations are expensive. The difficulty here comes not from open or closed source, but from the hoards of skillful people with too much time on their hands beating on a fragile system. Consider this Eric Raymond essay, which discusses this issue in more depth and points out that cheat programs have been developed for Quake without using the source code.
Some of us actually learned are shit to get it, instead of just memorizing study guides.
Clearly spelling and grammar are not part of the MSCE requirements... ;-)
Well said. (I do think Lessig is smart, and I also agree with his opinions, but these are two separate statements. The Slashdot editorial staff needs a little education...)
Why has this thread degenerated into GPL bashing session? Some people don't like seeing their code mixed with proprietary software. Deal with it.
Like everyone else who has replied so far, I disagree with your perception of Microsoft, but damn I admire what you wrote. You have stood up to the angry mob, and done it in a fair and even handed manner. This has got to be the most courageous and articulate post I've ever seen on Slashdot. Microsoft doesn't deserve you.
What? Proprietary software is the most effective way to make money? I think I've heard that before... from RMS. Sorry, but you've completely missed the point of everything the FSF has to say. Check out their website and do some reading. Maybe you will figure out that selling proprietary software has consequences for everyone's freedom. And how exactly are free software advocates denying you the ability to exploit copyright law for your own profit? Presenting you with a potentially pursuasive argument and some high quality software is a little different from putting a gun to your head.
Suppose the law were made by people who were informed and interested in protecting the public above other considerations. Wouldn't they simply codify what is right and wrong? Sure, this isn't an ideal world, so we have things like DMCA, but we can dream...
...yet there is method in it.
Solaris 7 == Solaris 2.7
Java 2 == Java 1.2