Fahrenheit 451 is indeed one of the great classics. Not only as one of the most powerful arguments against censorship (together with, say, Nineteen Eighty-Four) and repressive societies that force people to conform to an extremely narrow norm (like Brave New World's classes/levels of people), but also as a book about the joy and the importance of reading, and as a persuasive argument for the need for individuals taking personal responsibility, rather than relying on the collective (be it state, church, or movie rating board) to know what's best for them.
One of the things that comes to my mind ponder AI and the web is smarter search engines: use the power of classification systems (say something like self-organising maps like WEBSOM in order to get something like useable semantic nets. For example, I'd love to see a web engine that, when searching for "Serpent" or "Blowfish" would ask me "Are you looking for an animal or an encryption algorithm". Also, this would make it possible for a search system to produce hits that don't use the literal search term(s), but only synonoyms.
Once again, I'm strengthened in my suspicion that one of the primary problems of western society is that while we're busy ridding ourselves of belief systems we consider outdated, we're replacing them with systems that still have the same fundamental fallacy: encouraging followers not to take individual responsibility for their actions, but to hide behind the beliefs and leaders of the collective.
In this case, Pinkerton's execs are hiding behind the great god Mammon. While we may feel moral outrage against them, they are by no means the only ones. Yes, we can promise them that they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, but that doesn't result in fundamental change. The question in this case is the same as in the Columbine case: how do we turn our society into one in which people will take their responsibility by making their own moral choices?
I don't claim to have an answer to this question. But I think I can at least recognise some wrong answers. Teaching kids to turn others in is definately one of them. Encouraging people to act on unverifiable anonymously reported accusations is another.
I'm curious to know the reasons behind the choice of Java as the programming language for FreeNet's development. I can think of some pros (reasonably nice language, cross-platform), but also of a big con for an Open Source software project: the standard Java development environment (the JDK) isn't free.
Do you plan to actively support the use of FreeNet using free Java tools (like kaffe, japhar, gcj)?
Some of the time, I think projects like Freenet are only for the extreme paranoid. (The Freenet technology would be a great way to distribute this type of information in a way that defeats attempts at censorship)
The rest of the time I read about Echelon, big company bully tactics, the great firewall of China and censoring Fahrenheit 451 and start to wonder if the paranoid aren't actually a cabal that tries to look ridiculous in order for us "normal" people not to notice that they're the only ones seeing the true situation.
I've been part of this Open Source revolution since it started 5 years ago. How about you?
Please consider revealing your identity. I'd simply love to nominate you for a net.kook award. And do tell if commander Spock has a beard in your reality.
Just to fill you in: in this reality the very definition of "Open Source" is based on the DFSG, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which were written in mid-1997.
How does one pronounce Debian and what does this word mean?
The project name is pronounced Deb'-ian, with a short e, and emphasis on the first syllable. This word is a contraction of the names of Debra and Ian Murdock, who founded the project. (Dictionaries seem to offer some ambiguity in the pronunciation of Ian (!), but Ian prefers ee'-an.)
if you use the unstable one you end up in a destroyed packaging system
Could you clarify that comment please? Plenty of people, myself included, have succesfully upgraded from 2.1 (aka "slink"), the current stable, to "potato", the current unstable, without any problems with the packaging system.
The APSL 1.0 was non-free; the APSL 1.1 was improved, and discussed on spi-general and license-discuss with postive responses, but I can't find a final judgement.
I sympathize with Red Hat on excluding the current KDE
Sure, but that still leaves the question why they didn't include Qt2.
Qt2 is under the QPL (see www.troll.no), which is a DFSG-free / Open Source license. Qt is best known for being the library upon which KDE is built, but it is a useful library for GUI development in and of itself.
``Open source software'' describes a category of software licenses, almost but not quite the same as ``free software.''
The OSD is essntially identical to the DFSG. The DFSG were created as a ruleset to decide whether a particular software's license should be considered free or not (disregarding dependency on non-free software).
In my opinion, the DFSG is still the closest thing we have to a definition of free software.
I agree with RMS that the way "Open Source" is used often downplays or ignores the freedom aspect, and that freedom aspect is very important.
Some argue that the DFSG needs to be tightened, but so far I'm unconvinced by the arguments I've seen.
I know for a fact that if you buy debian money goes to the FSF.
Check your facts:-). First of all, the Debian project doesn't sell CDs itself; we make CD images that are burned by CD vendors. Some of these vendors make it possible for buyers to donate to Debian's development.
The donations are handled by SPI (Software in the Public Interest), a non-profit Inc. created as the legal entity for all kinds of Debian stuff. Since its creation, SPI has expanded to support other projects besides Debian (Berlin, GNOME, LSB, Open Source, Open Hardware). While these include FSF projects (GNOME), SPI isn't currently donating directly to the FSF AFAIK.
We've had a triumvirate, authoritarian leadership, lassez-faire leadership / democracy and I've forgotten probably a few others.
However, it may be that the circumstances were different before, and it is time to try this experiment again with the benefit of previous experiences.
They were; the project was quite a bit smaller back then. I can only imagine that the burnout would occur quicker with the current number of developers to be managed.
Are you off the opinion that because I am not a developer, that my opinion isnt important?
Debian is a democracy of sorts, but is a democracy of developers (in the broad sense of the word - people who actively contribute to Debian's development - be it as maintainers, technical writers or submitters of useful bug reports).
Would I then have the "right" to "judge"?
I, like my fellow developers, welcome opinions of people interested in Debian, but ultimately what really counts are contributions. I've read one "dselect sucks" too many from people who aren't willing to work on it (or even just give constructive criticism).
What is it that makes your judgement superior to mine?
I'm not claiming my judgement is superior to yours. I am claiming it is more relevant though, as I am an active participant in Debian's development. In Dutch, there's an ironic saying that the best sailors are standing on solid land: it is easy to criticise people and organisations, but have you walked a mile in their shoes?
Most of the developers seem to find the current situation (flamewars and all) workable - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
a) Proper arbitration of arguments is being done
By whom? An authoritarian leader?
(b) People have become politer
The developers are polite, most of the time. But people do feel strongly about issues, and occasionally express themselves in less polite terms. I'm a big fan of polite conversation myself, but having an outlet in the form of e.g. cursing or flaming is necessary occasionally.
This is a truly specious argument on your part. My life is not open to the public, and I never claim so.
I'm trying to draw an analogy. There is a notion of privacy; that notion isn't restricted to individuals but applies to organisations as well. A better analogy would be a democratic government which still has a need for "black budgets", closed sessions and espionage agencies.
Debian, on the other hand supposedly welcomes the public to participate.
We do. That doesn't mean we have to do everything in the open. debian-private is like closed senate sessions: unavoidable, but only used when necessary.
and Debian had a 7 to 12 floppy disk installation.
But there are relatively few systems (mostly older ones) where you need to actually make them. On most systems, you can use a zero-floppy install (using a bootable CD) or a one-floppy install (when booting from CD isn't supported).
I feel that they really need a leader figure with the authority
Been there, done that, abandoned it. The last person to lead Debian (rather than guide it) described it as "herding kittens" and burned out. Authoritarian leadership doesn't work when you're dealing with volunteers.
Raging flamewars on the developer lists which contribute little or nothing to free software.
Who are you to judge? Personally, I'll start worrying the day there isn't a flamewar on the development list, because it'll mean that people have stopped caring.
There is atleast one private list [...] I question the necessity for existence of this list.
Yes, debian-private exists. It's one of life's necessary evils. Even in an open project there are sensitive issues. Consider e.g. the recent Corel beta licensing issue - how can you plot a course of action if you're totally open, and the other side is fairly closed? Consider other dealings with companies - they're big fans of testing the waters first.
What is it that Debian needs to discuss behind closed doors that it cannot discuss in the public eye
Why is it you're not publishing all your email on the web? Why is it you don't have a couple of webcams in your bedroom and bathroom?
Debian users value free software. Are they gonna run right out and buy this?
"free" is about freedom, not free beer. Also, I believe there are plenty of people who just pick a distribution, and then get enrolled in its culture. Debian is often chosen by people who already have prior Linux experience. This deal can help increase our mindshare with new users.
It has been said that many people choose their distribution on the basis of advice from their friendly neighbourhood Linux guru. I for one am recommending people packages like this.
This to me is a case of a few greedy companies trying to cash in on the name (if not the profits) of the coolest Linux distribution.
Out here, where net.access costs real money, it has always been difficult to get people to install Debian; the net option is too expensive, and most bookstores here have Red Hat (and perhaps SuSE as well). Having a nice shiny prepacked Debian with book is definite progress.
[SPI] have been affiliated with Debian for a while.
SPI was founded as a legal representative for Debian (e.g. for the purpose of receiving donations, acquire hardware etc.), and has now broadened its scope to include other projects.
It ships with demoware?? Isn't that totally going against what GNU stands for?
Not really. Note that the "GNU" in "Debian GNU/Linux" is part of "GNU/Linux", i.e. the operating environment based around the Linux kernel. Debian is not a part of the FSF, although we maintain strong ties to the FSF (see e.g. Debian GNU/Hurd).
The Debian project has always encouraged others to use Debian GNU/Linux as a basis for building distributions as Corel has been doing, and SGI, O'Reilly and VA are doing now.
Debian proper ("main") is and will continue to be 100% pure software, but the Debian Social Contract is pragmatic enough to acknowledge that our users may want to use non-free software.
Will the 68k, PPC and other ports be available to buy in shops,
I doubt it; the product is aimed at commodity hardware.
or is Debian going to be concentrating on the x86 version of the distribution?
No. "Debian in a Box" is a product of SGI, O'Reilly and VA, not of the Debian project. While SGI &co may be focussing on a commercially supported Debian package for commodity hardware, the Debian project is actively working on several architecture ports, some of which have already been released.
Therefore, Singer's position is quite similar to the Nazis, we've just changed the definition of who is untermenschen.
[Side note: "Untermenschen" is plural; the singular is "Untermensch"]
Eugenetics (which is one label that some might find applicable for Singer's views) wasn't invented by the Nazis. I'm not an expert on history, and my memory is notoriously flakey, but I seem to recall eugenetics originating in the USA - can someone please provide details?
[...] but then it never defines where or when (or, for that matter, why) humanity begins. There are people who would push that age further and further forward, to justify killing for just about any reason.
Well, morals derived from a religion tend to be phrased rather absolutely ("Thou shalt not kill") and do not allow for leniency. Thus they take away the responsibility of decisions from individuals and placing it on an infallible deity or earthly representative thereof.
In my opinion, that is both their strength (they make decisions real easy) and their weakness (the world is much to complex to be captured in easy rules).
People who don't hand over responsibility for their decisions in this way face the difficulty of having to do some hard thinking and soul-searching; the process of philosophy. It is easy to critizise them because they don't have the handbook ready to tell them what to do in every situation, but I think they deserve respect for it in the same way that all people who continuously question the assumptions of their worldview do.
Are you sure you're not inflating the meaning of "Nazi" here? AFAIK, the KKK are white supremacists and justify their believes through a warped version of Christianity. IMO, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe in a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (WordNet's definition of fascism, which is the closest term to Nazism I can find a usable definition of using dict).
Slashdot Mirror
Fahrenheit 451 is indeed one of the great classics. Not only as one of the most powerful arguments against censorship (together with, say, Nineteen Eighty-Four) and repressive societies that force people to conform to an extremely narrow norm (like Brave New World's classes/levels of people), but also as a book about the joy and the importance of reading, and as a persuasive argument for the need for individuals taking personal responsibility, rather than relying on the collective (be it state, church, or movie rating board) to know what's best for them.
One of the things that comes to my mind ponder AI and the web is smarter search engines: use the power of classification systems (say something like self-organising maps like WEBSOM in order to get something like useable semantic nets. For example, I'd love to see a web engine that, when searching for "Serpent" or "Blowfish" would ask me "Are you looking for an animal or an encryption algorithm". Also, this would make it possible for a search system to produce hits that don't use the literal search term(s), but only synonoyms.
In this case, Pinkerton's execs are hiding behind the great god Mammon. While we may feel moral outrage against them, they are by no means the only ones. Yes, we can promise them that they'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, but that doesn't result in fundamental change. The question in this case is the same as in the Columbine case: how do we turn our society into one in which people will take their responsibility by making their own moral choices?
I don't claim to have an answer to this question. But I think I can at least recognise some wrong answers. Teaching kids to turn others in is definately one of them. Encouraging people to act on unverifiable anonymously reported accusations is another.
Do you plan to actively support the use of FreeNet using free Java tools (like kaffe, japhar, gcj)?
The rest of the time I read about Echelon, big company bully tactics, the great firewall of China and censoring Fahrenheit 451 and start to wonder if the paranoid aren't actually a cabal that tries to look ridiculous in order for us "normal" people not to notice that they're the only ones seeing the true situation.
Please consider revealing your identity. I'd simply love to nominate you for a net.kook award. And do tell if commander Spock has a beard in your reality.
Just to fill you in: in this reality the very definition of "Open Source" is based on the DFSG, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which were written in mid-1997.
How do you keep in touch with the various communities on the net and what has the "Open Source" issue taught you in this regard?
How does one pronounce Debian and what does this word mean?
The project name is pronounced Deb'-ian, with a short e, and emphasis on the first syllable. This word is a contraction of the names of Debra and Ian Murdock, who founded the project. (Dictionaries seem to offer some ambiguity in the pronunciation of Ian (!), but Ian prefers ee'-an.)
Could you clarify that comment please? Plenty of people, myself included, have succesfully upgraded from 2.1 (aka "slink"), the current stable, to "potato", the current unstable, without any problems with the packaging system.
The APSL 1.0 was non-free; the APSL 1.1 was improved, and discussed on spi-general and license-discuss with postive responses, but I can't find a final judgement.
Sure, but that still leaves the question why they didn't include Qt2.
Qt2 is under the QPL (see www.troll.no), which is a DFSG-free / Open Source license. Qt is best known for being the library upon which KDE is built, but it is a useful library for GUI development in and of itself.
The OSD is essntially identical to the DFSG. The DFSG were created as a ruleset to decide whether a particular software's license should be considered free or not (disregarding dependency on non-free software).
In my opinion, the DFSG is still the closest thing we have to a definition of free software.
I agree with RMS that the way "Open Source" is used often downplays or ignores the freedom aspect, and that freedom aspect is very important.
Some argue that the DFSG needs to be tightened, but so far I'm unconvinced by the arguments I've seen.
Check your facts :-). First of all, the Debian project doesn't sell CDs itself; we make CD images that are burned by CD vendors. Some of these vendors make it possible for buyers to donate to Debian's development.
The donations are handled by SPI (Software in the Public Interest), a non-profit Inc. created as the legal entity for all kinds of Debian stuff. Since its creation, SPI has expanded to support other projects besides Debian (Berlin, GNOME, LSB, Open Source, Open Hardware). While these include FSF projects (GNOME), SPI isn't currently donating directly to the FSF AFAIK.
We've had a triumvirate, authoritarian leadership, lassez-faire leadership / democracy and I've forgotten probably a few others.
However, it may be that the circumstances were different before, and it is time to try this experiment again with the benefit of previous experiences.
They were; the project was quite a bit smaller back then. I can only imagine that the burnout would occur quicker with the current number of developers to be managed.
Are you off the opinion that because I am not a developer, that my opinion isnt important?
Debian is a democracy of sorts, but is a democracy of developers (in the broad sense of the word - people who actively contribute to Debian's development - be it as maintainers, technical writers or submitters of useful bug reports).
Would I then have the "right" to "judge"?
I, like my fellow developers, welcome opinions of people interested in Debian, but ultimately what really counts are contributions. I've read one "dselect sucks" too many from people who aren't willing to work on it (or even just give constructive criticism).
What is it that makes your judgement superior to mine?
I'm not claiming my judgement is superior to yours. I am claiming it is more relevant though, as I am an active participant in Debian's development. In Dutch, there's an ironic saying that the best sailors are standing on solid land: it is easy to criticise people and organisations, but have you walked a mile in their shoes?
Most of the developers seem to find the current situation (flamewars and all) workable - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
a) Proper arbitration of arguments is being done
By whom? An authoritarian leader?
(b) People have become politer
The developers are polite, most of the time. But people do feel strongly about issues, and occasionally express themselves in less polite terms. I'm a big fan of polite conversation myself, but having an outlet in the form of e.g. cursing or flaming is necessary occasionally.
This is a truly specious argument on your part. My life is not open to the public, and I never claim so.
I'm trying to draw an analogy. There is a notion of privacy; that notion isn't restricted to individuals but applies to organisations as well. A better analogy would be a democratic government which still has a need for "black budgets", closed sessions and espionage agencies.
Debian, on the other hand supposedly welcomes the public to participate.
We do. That doesn't mean we have to do everything in the open. debian-private is like closed senate sessions: unavoidable, but only used when necessary.
Most of the organisations producing shrinkwrapped CDs seem to prefer a relatively slow release cycle though.
But there are relatively few systems (mostly older ones) where you need to actually make them. On most systems, you can use a zero-floppy install (using a bootable CD) or a one-floppy install (when booting from CD isn't supported).
Been there, done that, abandoned it. The last person to lead Debian (rather than guide it) described it as "herding kittens" and burned out. Authoritarian leadership doesn't work when you're dealing with volunteers.
Raging flamewars on the developer lists which contribute little or nothing to free software.
Who are you to judge? Personally, I'll start worrying the day there isn't a flamewar on the development list, because it'll mean that people have stopped caring.
There is atleast one private list [...] I question the necessity for existence of this list.
Yes, debian-private exists. It's one of life's necessary evils. Even in an open project there are sensitive issues. Consider e.g. the recent Corel beta licensing issue - how can you plot a course of action if you're totally open, and the other side is fairly closed? Consider other dealings with companies - they're big fans of testing the waters first.
What is it that Debian needs to discuss behind closed doors that it cannot discuss in the public eye
Why is it you're not publishing all your email on the web? Why is it you don't have a couple of webcams in your bedroom and bathroom?
"free" is about freedom, not free beer. Also, I believe there are plenty of people who just pick a distribution, and then get enrolled in its culture. Debian is often chosen by people who already have prior Linux experience. This deal can help increase our mindshare with new users.
It has been said that many people choose their distribution on the basis of advice from their friendly neighbourhood Linux guru. I for one am recommending people packages like this.
This to me is a case of a few greedy companies trying to cash in on the name (if not the profits) of the coolest Linux distribution.
Out here, where net.access costs real money, it has always been difficult to get people to install Debian; the net option is too expensive, and most bookstores here have Red Hat (and perhaps SuSE as well). Having a nice shiny prepacked Debian with book is definite progress.
SPI was founded as a legal representative for Debian (e.g. for the purpose of receiving donations, acquire hardware etc.), and has now broadened its scope to include other projects.
Not really. Note that the "GNU" in "Debian GNU/Linux" is part of "GNU/Linux", i.e. the operating environment based around the Linux kernel. Debian is not a part of the FSF, although we maintain strong ties to the FSF (see e.g. Debian GNU/Hurd).
The Debian project has always encouraged others to use Debian GNU/Linux as a basis for building distributions as Corel has been doing, and SGI, O'Reilly and VA are doing now.
Debian proper ("main") is and will continue to be 100% pure software, but the Debian Social Contract is pragmatic enough to acknowledge that our users may want to use non-free software.
I doubt it; the product is aimed at commodity hardware.
or is Debian going to be concentrating on the x86 version of the distribution?
No. "Debian in a Box" is a product of SGI, O'Reilly and VA, not of the Debian project. While SGI &co may be focussing on a commercially supported Debian package for commodity hardware, the Debian project is actively working on several architecture ports, some of which have already been released.
Hmmm? It doesn't appear in that many places; most of the copyrights are still held by individuals (SPI discourage s copyright assignments to it).
[Side note: "Untermenschen" is plural; the singular is "Untermensch"]
Eugenetics (which is one label that some might find applicable for Singer's views) wasn't invented by the Nazis. I'm not an expert on history, and my memory is notoriously flakey, but I seem to recall eugenetics originating in the USA - can someone please provide details?
Well, morals derived from a religion tend to be phrased rather absolutely ("Thou shalt not kill") and do not allow for leniency. Thus they take away the responsibility of decisions from individuals and placing it on an infallible deity or earthly representative thereof.
In my opinion, that is both their strength (they make decisions real easy) and their weakness (the world is much to complex to be captured in easy rules).
People who don't hand over responsibility for their decisions in this way face the difficulty of having to do some hard thinking and soul-searching; the process of philosophy. It is easy to critizise them because they don't have the handbook ready to tell them what to do in every situation, but I think they deserve respect for it in the same way that all people who continuously question the assumptions of their worldview do.
Are you sure you're not inflating the meaning of "Nazi" here? AFAIK, the KKK are white supremacists and justify their believes through a warped version of Christianity. IMO, that doesn't necessarily mean they believe in a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (WordNet's definition of fascism, which is the closest term to Nazism I can find a usable definition of using dict).