For years I've spent too much time on my computer or outside (huh? whassat?) to bother with watching much TV. I've watched ST:NG, DS9 and various other sci-fi/fantasy shows on and off. B5 was the one that pulled me into regular watching, but that was about all I watched. Once I discovered Farscape I was hooked again, but didn't get to watch it regularly until cable modem service was available in my area and I got free basic cable with it. Needless to say, I was excited to have a whole channel devoted to science fiction programming! I also was interested in Discovery, History, Animal Planet, and Cartoon Network, too, but still don't watch them much.
To get down to it, Sci-Fi has been a disappointment in the extreme. I thought it would have lots of quality original programming and a lot of sci-fi movies and worthwhile re-runs of 'classic' sci-fi TV series. But all they seem to have are B-movie horror/thriller movies and middling TV series. And what's up with 'Crossing Over'? Not sci-fi in my opinion.
The only bright spots were Farscape, the occasional special like the Star Wars Fan Film awards, and that program with the weird girl host that showcased independent just-out-of-film-school short movies. I also tape Stargate along with Farscape, but it's not nearly as interesting, though entertaining enough. I loved the one about the scientist geeks that save the team - did anyone notice one of them was the alien doctor from Enterprise.
It certainly would have been nice of sci-fi to give some advance notice to the show's writers so they could have tied up some loose ends before canceling the show. It was great that Babylon 5 got to the end before leaving the air, and that JMS (the writer/creator) wrote each season as if it were the last, but still managed to put them all together as a cohesive whole. Because of these lousy 'economic realities' I think no show that features an ongoing storyline should leave any major plotlines dangling at the end of the season. Cliffhangers only work from week-to-week, not season-to-season. I also think we need more Farscape/B5 type programming out there where things are more complicated, layered, and ongoing, rather than a simple ongoing plotline that only has an adventure-of-the-week.
Last note regarding economics - Sci-Fi definitely could have picked a better timeslot. Works for me in that it runs at 8pm my time. They also could have better provided re-runs to allow new viewers to 'get into' the show before each season (or even during the season). Also, if you have more quality original programming, especially lumped together instead of too spread out, you draw more viewers, and each show gains viewers from the ones before/after it, propping each other up. That's why slots like before/after Friends, X-Files, Simpsons, whatever were all coveted. Well, enough said on this. Comments?
I like the idea of the database-aware widgets and using an API supporting ODBC, but there really needs to be more native-mode drivers. Leaving out a few biggies like MS SQL Server and DB2 will really slow down adoption of Qt3.0 in companies using those environments. I'm sure that if they worked with IBM, they'd get a DB2 drivers PDQ.
As for Microsoft, *somebody* needs to write it. There are so many people out there running SQL Server it's just not funny, and being able to drop in a Qt-based desktop environment in a primarily Microsoft shop would really help establish an outpost to prepare for invasion of Microsoft's turf. I don't know if they have any plans for it, but supporting SOAP would be great, too.
The more MS protocols that are supported, the better, allowing nearly 'Drag & Drop' replacement of MS Desktops with more acceptable ones.
"The design of KDE was based on a fundamental mistake: use of the Qt library..." I think that RMS intends to say that the decision to base KDE on a non-free library was a mistake, not that the design of KDE was a bad programming decision because of it's use of Qt. If the design of KDE is based on a mistake and Qt is bad, why does it work so well and so many people use it and write for it?
I think that the fundamental mistake is for anyone to promote commercial over free or free over commercial. Or even one type of free over another. In my mind, one should promote what is better - efficient, high quality, flexible, and easy to use. Promoting competition is important, too, so that something that might become better has a chance to. Promoting software with one type of licensing over another is silly because it has very little to do with which whether the software is better.
It disturbs me to think that anyone would support a smear campaign against software just because it is not properly licensed as the 'only' free license (GPL). In stating that KDE "posed a risk to the progress of free software", I think that something even worse is happening - RMS poses a risk to the progress of good software and real competition. In many respects, RMS is the Bill Gates the open-source movement - a monopolist who wishes to control software development and the people that practice it. If it's not GPL, it's not free. If it's not GPL, it's not good. If it's not GPL, you shouldn't use it. Sounds like FUD to me, and that's scary.
Part of the problem I'm seeing is people promoting rather than supporting. The open-source movement is great, and has done well because of the people supporting it, not because of the people promoting it. Zealotry in licensing is, in my opinion, hindering the development of good software. One of the reasons to have free software is to allow people to use tools and libararies without restriction - allowing programmers to build the best software they can. The license for one piece of software doesn't make it better than another - the programmers that support the software make it better.
RMS's statment that we should "help replace KDE/Qt with something entirely free" could have an effect that he doesn't want - people passing over his beloved GPL for something that really is 'entirely free'. By making a stink over 'tainted' licensing and illegal use of so called 'free' software, the whole reason for having free software is being dishonored. If you're going to make your software free, make it truly free - let anyone use for whatever they want to! The only software that is really 'free' is that which is not licensed, not copyrighted, not patented, and has no restrictions whatsoever. The term for this is generally called 'public domain'. If people can perform illegal acts by using 'free' GPL software, then it is not truly 'free'.
Until we live in a Star Trek society where currency means nothing and everyone's needs are met, products will exist that are not free or free with restrictions that are better than the free ones. Please consider the fact that people might want to choose 'better' over 'free', and don't call them evil for exercising their right to freedom of choice! And if somebody wants to use free software in a commercial product, let them. If the software is good, the product will be good, and that's what we truly want - good software!
When blanket statments like KDE "recruited helpers who shared their views" are made, it does a disservice to the people that choose to work on it because they believe that it provides them with something (technologically speaking) that another product (GNOME, CDE, Motif, etc.) does not. Not everyone is as obsessed with licensing as you are. Some people like C++ better than C. Some people think Qt is easier to work with and KDE is more stable to develop for than GNOME. Some people would rather do CORBA. Some people like ultra-customizable skins and fancy desktop decoration and personalization. At this time, I don't think one is really that much better than the other, and hey, different strokes for different folks. But don't dishonor other's choices because they choose differently. Don't tell them what to do. Just present the facts and let them decide!
Meditate on these questions and come up with your own opinion: What makes software free? How do I differentiate good software from bad software? If it's good, does it matter if it's free or not? If it's free, does it matter if it's good or not? Are freedom of choice and competition important?
I've been working for a company that writes internet applications for the insurance business and runs a world-class website, www.Education-World.com.
On my side of the business, the insurance applications are hosted on Unix servers, and we SSH in from our desks. We can also SSH in from home via low-cost cable modems, but the usability of the connection varies widely from time to time, making work slow at times when at home. If you have all the development tools you need and don't need to edit files online frequently, working from home can work quite well. The downside we've had is that we're in 'starup' mode, and while we're small and trying to figure out our business, there's a lot of impromptu meetings, not a lot of specifications for the programs we write, and the specs we do have change often - in other words, we need a lot of face time. But we still have our assignments and can work 10-20 hours a week from home (out of 60!). When I was sick this winter I worked for a whole week from home, and while frustrating at times, it was successful overall.
On the other side of the business, Education-World.com has been doing telecommuting for years very successfully. The webmaster and several of her assistants all live in Hawaii, the content editor and writers live in Conneticut and surrounding states on the East Coast, and the servers, administrators, artists, and programmers all live in Oklahoma City. For the most part there are defined roles, and each remote team is remotely connected and pretty much autonomous. They conference call weekly and get together for a week twice a year to discuss major changes and issues.
I think the keys to successful telecommuting from our experience are the connection speed/stability vs the type of work being done, communication with co-workers on a regular basis with at least some face-time every so often, and whether you have either a lot of autonomy or can be sent detailed design specs.
As somebody else mentioned, having your own office with no kids, family, or other distractions is extremely important. I don't know if your town has one or not, but I've heard of 'telecommute' offices where consultants or telecommuters who are in town for who knows how long can rent a cube or office in an office building for a pretty cheap price. If you have some money and are in a city, you might see if you can get some other people to see if they want to do it, then buy/rent some office space or a house and be the landlord of your own 'telecommute' office! The company you work for ought to be able to tell you how much it spends per worker on office space/cubicles/etc, and could pay you for space at wherever you work in your town, espcecially if it's cheaper.
Good luck and I hope it works out for you!
Paranoid notions and Iceland research
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
Let me start with the Iceland research. I saw a TV special (Nova? PBS is waaayyyy better than network TV these days;-) a few years back with Alan Alda hosting that went to Iceland to talk about the research being done there. They've been doing research for YEARS there - it's not like they're just starting. Also the reason they're there is because the population doesn't move around the world or anything very much, and they can trace their ancestors back to the very first Norse boats that landed on the island, and even back to the mainland. Not just some of the Icelandic population - ALL of them! Geneaolgoy (sp?) is a big part of their culture. Because they can trace back so far, they make ideal subjects for tracing genes in order to help find cures for many diseases, cancer, and genetic disorders. Apparently the research has been going well and is among the most promising out there.
The vague paranoid notions that doing such research will lead to a Gattaca-esque world is very hard to imagine. Yes, I do think that genetic research, cloning, and genetic manipulation should be monitored and regulated, but in and of itself it's not bad. I personally don't think cloning should occur, even of animals, and would push for legislation outlawing it for any commercial or government use, but doing some research to help understand how animals (and therefore us) work isn't the end of life as we know it.
I think you went a bit overboard Jon. You would make a wonderful fiction author, should you decide to write novels like Shelley's or Wells' books that you mention. I think your thoughts on the subject would be better presented in that fashion, rather than a sky-is-falling article.
Does the Artistic License, or any other license, allow for commercial forks that must be free for personal/educational use, but puts a cap on the price of the commercial product? If a piece of software is tooling along and suddenly several vendors decide to grab it for commercial forks, all but one go belly up, and the last one turns out to be really really good, I'd hate for them to gouge the rest of the world by charing $1K+ fees for the software. How to set the cap would be the question.
Another license restriction that would be interesting for commercial forks is for each major release, the vendor must relase one major feature back into the open-source foundation, to make sure it doesn't lag too far behind.
Slashdot Mirror
For years I've spent too much time on my computer or outside (huh? whassat?) to bother with watching much TV. I've watched ST:NG, DS9 and various other sci-fi/fantasy shows on and off. B5 was the one that pulled me into regular watching, but that was about all I watched. Once I discovered Farscape I was hooked again, but didn't get to watch it regularly until cable modem service was available in my area and I got free basic cable with it. Needless to say, I was excited to have a whole channel devoted to science fiction programming! I also was interested in Discovery, History, Animal Planet, and Cartoon Network, too, but still don't watch them much.
To get down to it, Sci-Fi has been a disappointment in the extreme. I thought it would have lots of quality original programming and a lot of sci-fi movies and worthwhile re-runs of 'classic' sci-fi TV series. But all they seem to have are B-movie horror/thriller movies and middling TV series. And what's up with 'Crossing Over'? Not sci-fi in my opinion.
The only bright spots were Farscape, the occasional special like the Star Wars Fan Film awards, and that program with the weird girl host that showcased independent just-out-of-film-school short movies. I also tape Stargate along with Farscape, but it's not nearly as interesting, though entertaining enough. I loved the one about the scientist geeks that save the team - did anyone notice one of them was the alien doctor from Enterprise.
It certainly would have been nice of sci-fi to give some advance notice to the show's writers so they could have tied up some loose ends before canceling the show. It was great that Babylon 5 got to the end before leaving the air, and that JMS (the writer/creator) wrote each season as if it were the last, but still managed to put them all together as a cohesive whole. Because of these lousy 'economic realities' I think no show that features an ongoing storyline should leave any major plotlines dangling at the end of the season. Cliffhangers only work from week-to-week, not season-to-season. I also think we need more Farscape/B5 type programming out there where things are more complicated, layered, and ongoing, rather than a simple ongoing plotline that only has an adventure-of-the-week.
Last note regarding economics - Sci-Fi definitely could have picked a better timeslot. Works for me in that it runs at 8pm my time. They also could have better provided re-runs to allow new viewers to 'get into' the show before each season (or even during the season). Also, if you have more quality original programming, especially lumped together instead of too spread out, you draw more viewers, and each show gains viewers from the ones before/after it, propping each other up. That's why slots like before/after Friends, X-Files, Simpsons, whatever were all coveted. Well, enough said on this. Comments?
I like the idea of the database-aware widgets and using an API supporting ODBC, but there really needs to be more native-mode drivers. Leaving out a few biggies like MS SQL Server and DB2 will really slow down adoption of Qt3.0 in companies using those environments. I'm sure that if they worked with IBM, they'd get a DB2 drivers PDQ. As for Microsoft, *somebody* needs to write it. There are so many people out there running SQL Server it's just not funny, and being able to drop in a Qt-based desktop environment in a primarily Microsoft shop would really help establish an outpost to prepare for invasion of Microsoft's turf. I don't know if they have any plans for it, but supporting SOAP would be great, too. The more MS protocols that are supported, the better, allowing nearly 'Drag & Drop' replacement of MS Desktops with more acceptable ones.
"The design of KDE was based on a fundamental mistake: use of the Qt library..." I think that RMS intends to say that the decision to base KDE on a non-free library was a mistake, not that the design of KDE was a bad programming decision because of it's use of Qt. If the design of KDE is based on a mistake and Qt is bad, why does it work so well and so many people use it and write for it?
I think that the fundamental mistake is for anyone to promote commercial over free or free over commercial. Or even one type of free over another. In my mind, one should promote what is better - efficient, high quality, flexible, and easy to use. Promoting competition is important, too, so that something that might become better has a chance to. Promoting software with one type of licensing over another is silly because it has very little to do with which whether the software is better.
It disturbs me to think that anyone would support a smear campaign against software just because it is not properly licensed as the 'only' free license (GPL). In stating that KDE "posed a risk to the progress of free software", I think that something even worse is happening - RMS poses a risk to the progress of good software and real competition. In many respects, RMS is the Bill Gates the open-source movement - a monopolist who wishes to control software development and the people that practice it. If it's not GPL, it's not free. If it's not GPL, it's not good. If it's not GPL, you shouldn't use it. Sounds like FUD to me, and that's scary.
Part of the problem I'm seeing is people promoting rather than supporting. The open-source movement is great, and has done well because of the people supporting it, not because of the people promoting it. Zealotry in licensing is, in my opinion, hindering the development of good software. One of the reasons to have free software is to allow people to use tools and libararies without restriction - allowing programmers to build the best software they can. The license for one piece of software doesn't make it better than another - the programmers that support the software make it better.
RMS's statment that we should "help replace KDE/Qt with something entirely free" could have an effect that he doesn't want - people passing over his beloved GPL for something that really is 'entirely free'. By making a stink over 'tainted' licensing and illegal use of so called 'free' software, the whole reason for having free software is being dishonored. If you're going to make your software free, make it truly free - let anyone use for whatever they want to! The only software that is really 'free' is that which is not licensed, not copyrighted, not patented, and has no restrictions whatsoever. The term for this is generally called 'public domain'. If people can perform illegal acts by using 'free' GPL software, then it is not truly 'free'.
Until we live in a Star Trek society where currency means nothing and everyone's needs are met, products will exist that are not free or free with restrictions that are better than the free ones. Please consider the fact that people might want to choose 'better' over 'free', and don't call them evil for exercising their right to freedom of choice! And if somebody wants to use free software in a commercial product, let them. If the software is good, the product will be good, and that's what we truly want - good software!
When blanket statments like KDE "recruited helpers who shared their views" are made, it does a disservice to the people that choose to work on it because they believe that it provides them with something (technologically speaking) that another product (GNOME, CDE, Motif, etc.) does not. Not everyone is as obsessed with licensing as you are. Some people like C++ better than C. Some people think Qt is easier to work with and KDE is more stable to develop for than GNOME. Some people would rather do CORBA. Some people like ultra-customizable skins and fancy desktop decoration and personalization. At this time, I don't think one is really that much better than the other, and hey, different strokes for different folks. But don't dishonor other's choices because they choose differently. Don't tell them what to do. Just present the facts and let them decide!
Meditate on these questions and come up with your own opinion: What makes software free? How do I differentiate good software from bad software? If it's good, does it matter if it's free or not? If it's free, does it matter if it's good or not? Are freedom of choice and competition important?
I've been working for a company that writes internet applications for the insurance business and runs a world-class website, www.Education-World.com.
On my side of the business, the insurance applications are hosted on Unix servers, and we SSH in from our desks. We can also SSH in from home via low-cost cable modems, but the usability of the connection varies widely from time to time, making work slow at times when at home. If you have all the development tools you need and don't need to edit files online frequently, working from home can work quite well. The downside we've had is that we're in 'starup' mode, and while we're small and trying to figure out our business, there's a lot of impromptu meetings, not a lot of specifications for the programs we write, and the specs we do have change often - in other words, we need a lot of face time. But we still have our assignments and can work 10-20 hours a week from home (out of 60!). When I was sick this winter I worked for a whole week from home, and while frustrating at times, it was successful overall.
On the other side of the business, Education-World.com has been doing telecommuting for years very successfully. The webmaster and several of her assistants all live in Hawaii, the content editor and writers live in Conneticut and surrounding states on the East Coast, and the servers, administrators, artists, and programmers all live in Oklahoma City. For the most part there are defined roles, and each remote team is remotely connected and pretty much autonomous. They conference call weekly and get together for a week twice a year to discuss major changes and issues.
I think the keys to successful telecommuting from our experience are the connection speed/stability vs the type of work being done, communication with co-workers on a regular basis with at least some face-time every so often, and whether you have either a lot of autonomy or can be sent detailed design specs.
As somebody else mentioned, having your own office with no kids, family, or other distractions is extremely important. I don't know if your town has one or not, but I've heard of 'telecommute' offices where consultants or telecommuters who are in town for who knows how long can rent a cube or office in an office building for a pretty cheap price. If you have some money and are in a city, you might see if you can get some other people to see if they want to do it, then buy/rent some office space or a house and be the landlord of your own 'telecommute' office! The company you work for ought to be able to tell you how much it spends per worker on office space/cubicles/etc, and could pay you for space at wherever you work in your town, espcecially if it's cheaper.
Good luck and I hope it works out for you!
Let me start with the Iceland research. I saw a TV special (Nova? PBS is waaayyyy better than network TV these days ;-) a few years back with Alan Alda hosting that went to Iceland to talk about the research being done there. They've been doing research for YEARS there - it's not like they're just starting. Also the reason they're there is because the population doesn't move around the world or anything very much, and they can trace their ancestors back to the very first Norse boats that landed on the island, and even back to the mainland. Not just some of the Icelandic population - ALL of them! Geneaolgoy (sp?) is a big part of their culture. Because they can trace back so far, they make ideal subjects for tracing genes in order to help find cures for many diseases, cancer, and genetic disorders. Apparently the research has been going well and is among the most promising out there.
The vague paranoid notions that doing such research will lead to a Gattaca-esque world is very hard to imagine. Yes, I do think that genetic research, cloning, and genetic manipulation should be monitored and regulated, but in and of itself it's not bad. I personally don't think cloning should occur, even of animals, and would push for legislation outlawing it for any commercial or government use, but doing some research to help understand how animals (and therefore us) work isn't the end of life as we know it.
I think you went a bit overboard Jon. You would make a wonderful fiction author, should you decide to write novels like Shelley's or Wells' books that you mention. I think your thoughts on the subject would be better presented in that fashion, rather than a sky-is-falling article.
Does the Artistic License, or any other license, allow for commercial forks that must be free for personal/educational use, but puts a cap on the price of the commercial product? If a piece of software is tooling along and suddenly several vendors decide to grab it for commercial forks, all but one go belly up, and the last one turns out to be really really good, I'd hate for them to gouge the rest of the world by charing $1K+ fees for the software. How to set the cap would be the question.
Another license restriction that would be interesting for commercial forks is for each major release, the vendor must relase one major feature back into the open-source foundation, to make sure it doesn't lag too far behind.
I like Toshiba, too. I think a lot of people are going to be put off by this. Oh well, some other computer company will get their business..