Utopia is not an option. On the other hand, free markets and private property limit the negative effects of greed and turn it into a positive externality.
Which has been beaten up so much over the past decade that it's now (probably) pretty secure with most of the bugs worked out. Bugs are like cockroaches. When you stomp one, you know there are ten more like it. Thus, all the bugs found and fixed simply means that there are more bugs in bind that nobody has found yet.
Security is written into software. It's not added after the fact, and security lapses cannot be fixed.
DNS is one of the bottlenecks to come. For nearly every ISP, DNS traffic grows faster than the overall traffic. Martin, have you tried setting your TTL larger than ten seconds?
Why do you need updates? I think that's one of djb's point: that if the software is written well, it doesn't need to be updated, and thus you don't need to form a relationship with the author.
It's stupid for a Democrat to agree with Greenpeace, simply because they're wrong. It's doubly stupid for a Republican to agree with Greenpeace because you OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER.
The reason I say that it's stupid to agree with Greenpeace is that there is no shortage of landfill space in America, and plastic is very cheap and, well, plastic, whereas wood and steel are quite difficult to form into complicated shapes. The durability and strength of steel are usually not required, wood can be lightweight but is weak in one dimension, and both wood and steel do not tolerate water very well.
Look, I'm an old, angry, Republican, and not one of these tree hugging types, but I think Greenpeace has a really good point. If you want to say that you're stupid, you don't need to use all those words. You can just say "I'm stupid" and save us all that reading.
Consumers aren't aware enough about the need to recycle electronics, What need? Why shouldn't we landfill electronics? Modern sanitary landfills are quite safe, especially compared to the old "dumps".
You say it's sad that third-world people can make money recycling first-world electronics, but you should consider that they're choosing to do this OVER THEIR OTHER CHOICES. If you don't want them to pick the choice you don't like, then give them better choices. Don't try to take away the one thing out of all their choices that they DID choose.
Greenpiece has jumped the shark. When you start to worry about how pristine your garbage is, you ought to find more serious things to worry about (like peace rather than pieces).
"nothing"? We could call up Guido and Larry, and send them by your place of business. "Nice computer ya got there. You wouldn't want any rootkits installed there, would ya?"
No, but seriously, there are many more laws than are legislated. If you don't know these laws, you're going to make a fool of yourself.
And that's even assuming that we don't have a trademark, which is not proven to be not be untrue.
You mistake how trademarks work. A trademark that is ruled generic can acquire a secondary meaning over time. So, Open Source is a stronger trademark today than ten years ago.
the sooner that people stop using the phrase "open source" and correct people - repeatedly - to use the phrase "free software" the better. You lost that battle at least nine years ago. A more worthy goal would be to get people to again call computer technologists "hackers" and people who break into computers "criminals".
Traditionally, since only lawyers are allowed to practice law and give legal advice, Internet Lawyers say "IANAL". In your case, however, I would add "AIAC" (And I Am Clueless), cuz, well, cuz you are. Trademarks are established (in the US) by use, not by registration. I can sue you for trademark infringement if you start selling software under the name Crynwr even though I've never registered the name.
Any doubt as to whether the OSI owns Open Source? I thought not.
Your sig says "Don't feed the trolls - when an AC says something stupid, let it slide." What do you recommend when you say something stupid? Let it slide? Unfortunately, we can't do that. A trademark holder has to defend their trademark or they'll lose it. So, once again, with feeling: Open Source is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative regardless of what Mr. Poo (or can I call you Drinky) says.
anyone with a full brain (rather than just half) equates "open source" with being able to view the source code, And we know this to be a fact because Anonymous Coward says it.
yeah, yeah, yeah, and free software is zero-cost software, we all know that. There is no perfect term, but everybody except a few people living in Boston seem to have accepted Open Source as the standard name for software you can use, modify, and share freely.
I love it when the Trademark Non-Lawyers poke their heads up and redefine the workings of the trademark system. Hint: go read up on trademark classes. If you wanted to create some software called International Harvester, you (probably) could even though that's also the name of a brand of farm equipment. Next you'll be telling us that because the building products industry created Windows, that Microsoft doesn't have a trademark on Windows. Fortunately, nobody will believe you then, just as nobody believes you now.
Open source means... No, Open Source means what WE say it means. You can say it means WTF you want, but the question is who believes mrsteveman1 versus who believes the Open Source Initiative? I think a lot more people are going to believe us than J. Random Slashdot Poster who can't even stand behind his opinions with his real name.
You should have read the comment I just submitted to the grandparent of your comment, but I'd guess that your time machine must be flaking out. Errr, was flaking out. Does the past tense even APPLY when you're talking about a time machine?
Slashdot Mirror
Utopia is not an option. On the other hand, free markets and private property limit the negative effects of greed and turn it into a positive externality.
Security is written into software. It's not added after the fact, and security lapses cannot be fixed.
Why do you need updates? I think that's one of djb's point: that if the software is written well, it doesn't need to be updated, and thus you don't need to form a relationship with the author.
Don't blame me -- I vote Libertarian.
It's stupid for a Democrat to agree with Greenpeace, simply because they're wrong. It's doubly stupid for a Republican to agree with Greenpeace because you OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER.
The reason I say that it's stupid to agree with Greenpeace is that there is no shortage of landfill space in America, and plastic is very cheap and, well, plastic, whereas wood and steel are quite difficult to form into complicated shapes. The durability and strength of steel are usually not required, wood can be lightweight but is weak in one dimension, and both wood and steel do not tolerate water very well.
You say it's sad that third-world people can make money recycling first-world electronics, but you should consider that they're choosing to do this OVER THEIR OTHER CHOICES. If you don't want them to pick the choice you don't like, then give them better choices. Don't try to take away the one thing out of all their choices that they DID choose.
Greenpiece has jumped the shark. When you start to worry about how pristine your garbage is, you ought to find more serious things to worry about (like peace rather than pieces).
Can we get a new build system as well? None of other ones are up to the task: Ubuntu/Debian's / Red Hat's / Gentoo's (oobvioously) / OpenEmbedded.
The OLPC was designed to be an Einstein detector, IMHO.
"intuitive" in the computer context means "familiar". Or so said Jef Rasking.
Ya see, that doubt is exactly why we have a written definition of Open Source. Open Source requires all the freedoms that you get from Free Software.
"nothing"? We could call up Guido and Larry, and send them by your place of business. "Nice computer ya got there. You wouldn't want any rootkits installed there, would ya?"
No, but seriously, there are many more laws than are legislated. If you don't know these laws, you're going to make a fool of yourself.
And that's even assuming that we don't have a trademark, which is not proven to be not be untrue.
You mistake how trademarks work. A trademark that is ruled generic can acquire a secondary meaning over time. So, Open Source is a stronger trademark today than ten years ago.
Traditionally, since only lawyers are allowed to practice law and give legal advice, Internet Lawyers say "IANAL". In your case, however, I would add "AIAC" (And I Am Clueless), cuz, well, cuz you are. Trademarks are established (in the US) by use, not by registration. I can sue you for trademark infringement if you start selling software under the name Crynwr even though I've never registered the name.
Any doubt as to whether the OSI owns Open Source? I thought not.
Your sig says "Don't feed the trolls - when an AC says something stupid, let it slide." What do you recommend when you say something stupid? Let it slide? Unfortunately, we can't do that. A trademark holder has to defend their trademark or they'll lose it. So, once again, with feeling: Open Source is a trademark of the Open Source Initiative regardless of what Mr. Poo (or can I call you Drinky) says.
Mr. Poo. Yeah, that about sums up his postings.
Or not.
I recommend the use of the term "Source Available". The source is available, but not open for all uses.
yeah, yeah, yeah, and free software is zero-cost software, we all know that. There is no perfect term, but everybody except a few people living in Boston seem to have accepted Open Source as the standard name for software you can use, modify, and share freely.
I love it when the Trademark Non-Lawyers poke their heads up and redefine the workings of the trademark system. Hint: go read up on trademark classes. If you wanted to create some software called International Harvester, you (probably) could even though that's also the name of a brand of farm equipment. Next you'll be telling us that because the building products industry created Windows, that Microsoft doesn't have a trademark on Windows. Fortunately, nobody will believe you then, just as nobody believes you now.
No, they do not.
Yes, we do, neener, neener. Do you really think you'll get away with disparaging our trademark forever?
You should have read the comment I just submitted to the grandparent of your comment, but I'd guess that your time machine must be flaking out. Errr, was flaking out. Does the past tense even APPLY when you're talking about a time machine?