Ok. I'm a user and I want to run Mono. Figure that one out.
RMS would welcome you to do so, although he'd probably point out the reasons why it's a really poor idea.
Stallman's whole schtick is to promote freedom, but only after re-defining what the word "freedom" means.
Oh, yes, the evil man wants to restrict the freedom of other people to limit your freedom. That makes him a dictator right alongside... everyone who supports the job of policemen preventing and investigating crime. After all, aren't you against the freedom of a robber to take your stuff? If so, then you have a curiously flexible definition of "true freedom".
The allies I refer to are folks like Linus, Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly and everyone else that advocates the same ideas, but does not take marching orders from [RMS].
Miguel listed people who advocate Open Source (as opposed to Free Software), distinguishing them from people who "take marching orders from" RMS. Well, I'm a Free Software advocate because I've listened to Stallman's arguments and decided that he's more right than wrong. I'm not a blind follower who "takes marching orders" from anyone, and I recent the implied false dichotomy between agreeing with Miguel and being a mindless RMS drone.
However, he has a clear view that anything capitalistic or corporate is inherently against user freedom, and will fight against EVERYTHING involving commercial use of open source software.
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
That doesn't sound very anti-capitalist. Perhaps you could elaborate?
The allies I refer to are folks like Linus, Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly and everyone else that advocates the same ideas, but does not take marching orders from him.
So your world is divided into "people who agree with me" and "mindless zombies". You and I agree on probably 90% of issues, but I tend to side with RMS on the remaining 10%. That's because I've analyzed the respective arguments and have concluded that his positions are more reasonable. There are a lot of people of that mindset, and it's insulting to them (and your own public perception) to write us off as blind followers taking orders.
Do you really think it's that good to never change your mind anyway? Don't you think we learn from experience enough to change our minds a bit in time?
When it comes to your core principles, I think it's perfectly fine to stick with them. RMS's judgement criterion is always: "does this action increase or decrease a user's freedom?" If it increases it, he's vocally for it. If it takes something away, then he's vocally against it.
No, I don't want him to change his mind on something that fundamental. The day I hear him explaining why something freedom-limiting is OK because it's convenient is the day I stop considering his opinion. I can make my own prediction here: that day will never come.
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or.NET.
Neither have I, but I know what they are.
He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR,.NET, and Mono is.
So you disagree with RMS: fine. But you're doing yourself a grave disservice by dismissing him as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Love him or hate him, he's a sharp guy who knows his stuff.
And he has no idea of what the legal situation is.
I'm sure the founder of the FSF and the author of the first GPL is wholly ignorant of legal issues in software development.
Don't be stupid. Again, it's OK to disagree with the man. Just don't do it on the grounds of "he's old and doesn't know anything", because it's possible (in fact, certain) that he knows more about it than you do.
RMS is a lot of things his critics accuse him off: he's a radical hippy type who pisses people off and makes the most outlandish predictions. He's also one of the most principled people I know. You can pretty much tell where Stallman will fall on an issue before anyone thinks to ask him - he'll be on whichever side means the most freedom for users. Yeah, a lot of his conclusions initially sound crazy, but he starts with solid principles and makes logical arguments from there. If he follow is reasoning from start to end, it's kind of hard do disagree with him.
Contrast with de Icaza, whose main principle seems to be "short term convenience wins". Well, by that standard, I have a principled position on liking the taste of peanut butter.
When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy rivaling RMS's under his belt, I'll start to listen to what he says. Until then, he has no more credibility with me than any other random programmer.
A lot of people dislike Stallman and his positions, but even his biggest detractors have to admit that he's a principled man. You know where RMS stands on issues before he even comments on them because he's had a consistent message for a few decades now.
De Icaza's position seems to be that short-term convenience wins. Period. I just can't credit him with the same credibility or integrity as RMS. I mean, I guess he's at least consistent with his position, but I'm also consistent in liking the taste of peanut butter, and that doesn't win me any points.
If I had to pick a side - and I think it's becoming apparent that we do - then I'd have to go with RMS. Some of his conclusions are a bit... out there... but he solidly argues them from solid principles and it's kind of hard to disagree with him. Finally, he has a track record of making some pretty bold predictions that turn out to be dead on many years later. The Right to Read, anyone? When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy behind him, I'll start paying more attention to his words.
I guess you've never heard of SSL-protected POP3/IMAP? Or even HTTPS for webmail?
I guess you've never heard of keyloggers? With OTP, you could literally stand next to me and write down my username and password as I enter it, but that would get you nothing.
It's not my goal to convert you to OTP. I just wanted to point out that there are good compromises between password authentication and secure keys.
I said, for you to access a server without carrying around a USB drive. There's no way I'd have customers try it.
The huge bonus is that a lot of apps can use the same OTP system. Imagine getting to check your webmail from a dodgy Internet cafe and knowing that the login will only work that one time.
I work with several incredibly bright people who are in their mid 70's who still travel the world.
My next-door neighbors are in their mid-80s. He just recently gave up farming, and she's having a great time writing articles for travel magazines. They go to their condo in Hawaii for a couple of months each year, and just left to take an RV cross-country.
My other next-door neighbors recently passed away. Their minds were sharp, but your body tends to give out when you're in your late 90s.
I'm really hoping that it's something in the water.
Because some of us want to be able to log in from anywhere without having to carry a flash drive around containing our ssh keys.
You're posting about SSH on Slashdot. You are a geek. Take it all the rest of the way and configure one-time passwords for your SSH server. I have a little wallet-sized printout of the next 25 valid passwords to my home and work servers. Whenever I use one, I cross it out.
Lots of people gave Vista a bad rep because -- get this -- they didn't know how to use their damned computers!
I'm sure that must be it. I've only personally owned computers since 1982, taught myself assembler to write faster games on a C=64, hacked hardware on an Amiga, switched to Linux in '98 or so, got a Slashdot login some time the same week, picked up FreeBSD a few months later, snagged a degree in CompSci, built the home server sitting next to me from Newegg parts, and turned an HP Mini into a Hackintosh last month. That must be why my wife's dual-core laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista ran like crap from the day we bought it, even after I stripped out the OEM junk and have almost nothing running at startup: because I'm a technophobic newbie who doesn't know how to use my damned computers.
If a politician want to be elected, he needs to raise vast sums of money (mostly to pay for the television commercials). Does that mean a politician should, as a condition of receiving that money, accept those "private obligations"?
That's an interesting point, but irrelevant. In the example of this article, the government takes money from me, ultimately at the barrel of a gun, and turns it over to a private enterprise. Then, I have to give that company more money if I want the benefits of my tax funding. There are some fundamental differences between this case and yours.
Exactly! GM accepted bailout money and became Government Motors. Ford didn't like the conditions and didn't accept the money. That funding might look attractive, but don't take the gift if you dislike the strings attached to it.
Will a bill such as this endanger publishing companies in the same way Internet journalism endangers traditional journalism?
If you accept public money, you have to accept public obligations. I'd have no sympathy for a publisher that received federal funding but disliked the conditions put on it.
What physical effects does software make? It causes photons to be moved about and influenced by a magnetic field in different ways, it causes printers to spit ink in certain patterns onto paper, it causes a transducer to make blooping and bleeping noises, etc. None of those effects are merely math.
And "2+2" just caused the flow of neurotransmitters in your brain. Your idea reduces to a logical absurdity and is, bluntly, idiotic.
Speaking as a biomedical engineer, there are no significant systems that we know of that require a varying pressure of blood to function correctly. The pulse as the blood gets pumped stretches the arterial and capillary walls slightly, but that's about it.
None? Because I could imagine arteries being optimized for BP(diastolic) with short elastic deformation during BP(systolic), but plastic deformation during BP(mean) for extended periods.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. I'm a user and I want to run Mono. Figure that one out.
RMS would welcome you to do so, although he'd probably point out the reasons why it's a really poor idea.
Stallman's whole schtick is to promote freedom, but only after re-defining what the word "freedom" means.
Oh, yes, the evil man wants to restrict the freedom of other people to limit your freedom. That makes him a dictator right alongside... everyone who supports the job of policemen preventing and investigating crime. After all, aren't you against the freedom of a robber to take your stuff? If so, then you have a curiously flexible definition of "true freedom".
The allies I refer to are folks like Linus, Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly and everyone else that advocates the same ideas, but does not take marching orders from [RMS].
Miguel listed people who advocate Open Source (as opposed to Free Software), distinguishing them from people who "take marching orders from" RMS. Well, I'm a Free Software advocate because I've listened to Stallman's arguments and decided that he's more right than wrong. I'm not a blind follower who "takes marching orders" from anyone, and I recent the implied false dichotomy between agreeing with Miguel and being a mindless RMS drone.
However, he has a clear view that anything capitalistic or corporate is inherently against user freedom, and will fight against EVERYTHING involving commercial use of open source software.
From the GPL FAQ:
That doesn't sound very anti-capitalist. Perhaps you could elaborate?
The allies I refer to are folks like Linus, Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly and everyone else that advocates the same ideas, but does not take marching orders from him.
So your world is divided into "people who agree with me" and "mindless zombies". You and I agree on probably 90% of issues, but I tend to side with RMS on the remaining 10%. That's because I've analyzed the respective arguments and have concluded that his positions are more reasonable. There are a lot of people of that mindset, and it's insulting to them (and your own public perception) to write us off as blind followers taking orders.
Do you really think it's that good to never change your mind anyway? Don't you think we learn from experience enough to change our minds a bit in time?
When it comes to your core principles, I think it's perfectly fine to stick with them. RMS's judgement criterion is always: "does this action increase or decrease a user's freedom?" If it increases it, he's vocally for it. If it takes something away, then he's vocally against it.
No, I don't want him to change his mind on something that fundamental. The day I hear him explaining why something freedom-limiting is OK because it's convenient is the day I stop considering his opinion. I can make my own prediction here: that day will never come.
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET.
Neither have I, but I know what they are.
He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is.
So you disagree with RMS: fine. But you're doing yourself a grave disservice by dismissing him as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Love him or hate him, he's a sharp guy who knows his stuff.
And he has no idea of what the legal situation is.
I'm sure the founder of the FSF and the author of the first GPL is wholly ignorant of legal issues in software development.
Don't be stupid. Again, it's OK to disagree with the man. Just don't do it on the grounds of "he's old and doesn't know anything", because it's possible (in fact, certain) that he knows more about it than you do.
Sorry for posting on the same theme twice. Slashdot did its best impression of eating my first post and it didn't show up when I reloaded the page.
RMS is a lot of things his critics accuse him off: he's a radical hippy type who pisses people off and makes the most outlandish predictions. He's also one of the most principled people I know. You can pretty much tell where Stallman will fall on an issue before anyone thinks to ask him - he'll be on whichever side means the most freedom for users. Yeah, a lot of his conclusions initially sound crazy, but he starts with solid principles and makes logical arguments from there. If he follow is reasoning from start to end, it's kind of hard do disagree with him.
Contrast with de Icaza, whose main principle seems to be "short term convenience wins". Well, by that standard, I have a principled position on liking the taste of peanut butter.
When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy rivaling RMS's under his belt, I'll start to listen to what he says. Until then, he has no more credibility with me than any other random programmer.
A lot of people dislike Stallman and his positions, but even his biggest detractors have to admit that he's a principled man. You know where RMS stands on issues before he even comments on them because he's had a consistent message for a few decades now.
De Icaza's position seems to be that short-term convenience wins. Period. I just can't credit him with the same credibility or integrity as RMS. I mean, I guess he's at least consistent with his position, but I'm also consistent in liking the taste of peanut butter, and that doesn't win me any points.
If I had to pick a side - and I think it's becoming apparent that we do - then I'd have to go with RMS. Some of his conclusions are a bit... out there... but he solidly argues them from solid principles and it's kind of hard to disagree with him. Finally, he has a track record of making some pretty bold predictions that turn out to be dead on many years later. The Right to Read, anyone? When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy behind him, I'll start paying more attention to his words.
That whole "meter" thing kicked your butt in high school, didn't it?
It's easier to have one system for everyone than to special-case a one-time-password system for my username.
Depending on your OS, it can be pretty easy.
I guess you've never heard of SSL-protected POP3/IMAP? Or even HTTPS for webmail?
I guess you've never heard of keyloggers? With OTP, you could literally stand next to me and write down my username and password as I enter it, but that would get you nothing.
It's not my goal to convert you to OTP. I just wanted to point out that there are good compromises between password authentication and secure keys.
I said, for you to access a server without carrying around a USB drive. There's no way I'd have customers try it.
The huge bonus is that a lot of apps can use the same OTP system. Imagine getting to check your webmail from a dodgy Internet cafe and knowing that the login will only work that one time.
I work with several incredibly bright people who are in their mid 70's who still travel the world.
My next-door neighbors are in their mid-80s. He just recently gave up farming, and she's having a great time writing articles for travel magazines. They go to their condo in Hawaii for a couple of months each year, and just left to take an RV cross-country.
My other next-door neighbors recently passed away. Their minds were sharp, but your body tends to give out when you're in your late 90s.
I'm really hoping that it's something in the water.
Because some of us want to be able to log in from anywhere without having to carry a flash drive around containing our ssh keys.
You're posting about SSH on Slashdot. You are a geek. Take it all the rest of the way and configure one-time passwords for your SSH server. I have a little wallet-sized printout of the next 25 valid passwords to my home and work servers. Whenever I use one, I cross it out.
Lots of people gave Vista a bad rep because -- get this -- they didn't know how to use their damned computers!
I'm sure that must be it. I've only personally owned computers since 1982, taught myself assembler to write faster games on a C=64, hacked hardware on an Amiga, switched to Linux in '98 or so, got a Slashdot login some time the same week, picked up FreeBSD a few months later, snagged a degree in CompSci, built the home server sitting next to me from Newegg parts, and turned an HP Mini into a Hackintosh last month. That must be why my wife's dual-core laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista ran like crap from the day we bought it, even after I stripped out the OEM junk and have almost nothing running at startup: because I'm a technophobic newbie who doesn't know how to use my damned computers.
Yeah.
If a politician want to be elected, he needs to raise vast sums of money (mostly to pay for the television commercials). Does that mean a politician should, as a condition of receiving that money, accept those "private obligations"?
That's an interesting point, but irrelevant. In the example of this article, the government takes money from me, ultimately at the barrel of a gun, and turns it over to a private enterprise. Then, I have to give that company more money if I want the benefits of my tax funding. There are some fundamental differences between this case and yours.
Exactly! GM accepted bailout money and became Government Motors. Ford didn't like the conditions and didn't accept the money. That funding might look attractive, but don't take the gift if you dislike the strings attached to it.
Will a bill such as this endanger publishing companies in the same way Internet journalism endangers traditional journalism?
If you accept public money, you have to accept public obligations. I'd have no sympathy for a publisher that received federal funding but disliked the conditions put on it.
He's attending "a national DB conference". Voluntarily. Did you think they spend their time comparing DB2 version SQLite?
What physical effects does software make? It causes photons to be moved about and influenced by a magnetic field in different ways, it causes printers to spit ink in certain patterns onto paper, it causes a transducer to make blooping and bleeping noises, etc. None of those effects are merely math.
And "2+2" just caused the flow of neurotransmitters in your brain. Your idea reduces to a logical absurdity and is, bluntly, idiotic.
They're bad about.
MySQL is a "fix" in roughly the same way that what the vet to my cat's balls was a "fix".
Speaking as a biomedical engineer, there are no significant systems that we know of that require a varying pressure of blood to function correctly. The pulse as the blood gets pumped stretches the arterial and capillary walls slightly, but that's about it.
None? Because I could imagine arteries being optimized for BP(diastolic) with short elastic deformation during BP(systolic), but plastic deformation during BP(mean) for extended periods.
One is patentable because its build of components but the other is not because its a program that runs on a computer?
Close. The other is not patentable because software is algorithms, and algorithms are math, and math is explicitly not patentable.
This wasn't a stupid patent.
It's a software patent, and by definition stupid.