If you have no property rights, you have no human rights. If you do not own your own body, then you are subject to enslavement. If you do not own the food you eat, you are a slave, begging for scraps at your master's knee. If you do not own the land you live on (and yes, renting is a form of ownership -- not of property, but of a right to occupy), then you are a slave.
Lincoln should NOT be a hero of people who love freedom. At least not the thoughtful ones.
-russ
So why is {Free,Net,Open,Foobar}BSD able to use the same code for free? Is it somehow not free software? Obviously not. If BSDi paid for a license, then they did so for business reasons, not because the code wasn't free.
-russ
Why does RMS continue to decry the open source movement? We have the same goals as his: that people should be free to modify most software around them. We just lose the philosophy and politics surrounding his free software movement, and go straight to the code. If it's free code, it's Open Source. If it's not free, we won't certify it as Open Source. Period. End of discussion. Why does RMS want to keep talking about it?
-russ
So, it's a good thing to split the developer community? To divide already thin resources? Yes, choice is a good thing. People can already choose between Pocket Windoze and Linux. We could make Linux a stronger choice, or we could make the two Unices be weaker choices.
I just don't understand *BSD*. No part of it. Well, okay, I understand BSDi. Everybody wants to make money off free software. But I don't understand why we need more than one Unix. It's not like free software doesn't have enemies. Well-heeled enemies. Who have discovered the power of government the hard way. Fortunately, we have dodged a bullet in Maryland thanks to Redhat's lobbying efforts. But there will be many more legislative efforts thrown our way.
-russ
When I add anything to qmail.org, I put a "NEW" or "UPDATED" image on it along with a datestamp. I've got a script that grovels through the page and sucks out anything with a datestamp. Then I sort them and write them into new.html. I use a similar script to write news.rdf. So as long as I'm careful to add the datestamp, I'm covered on both sides.
-russ
No. "Bread" is a descriptive english word. You could no more get a trademark on "bread" as a baked wheat/yeast combination than you could for "Windows" as a trademark for a transparent section of a wall. You could get a trademark for "Bread" windows, or "Windows" bread, because neither of them is descriptive.
That's why we gave up on "Open Source" as a trademark. It's too descriptive.
"Secure Shell" is arguably descriptive, however SSH is not, and "SSH" is what is being claimed as a trademark.
-russ
Sorry, James, trademarks must be defended or they will be lost. And there is substantial value to USERS to know that a name has a meaning fixed by law. It is that value they wish to protect for their USERS. Or don't you care about users?
-russ
But wait, I thought the conspiracy theories all say that Jews run the big companies? Could it be that the conspiracy theories are wrong? But there is no such thing as a false conspiracy theory (anyone proving it false is obviously a part of the conspiracy).
-russ
It will never happen as long as equipment must be certified before it can legally be connected to the public telephone network. The barrier is not economic or technical. It is legal.
-russ
Every modem manufacturer I've talked to refuses to help with an Open Source driver because it's too easily modified. It's illegal to connect non-certified equipment to the public telephone network. These manufacturers don't want to participate in any way with something that's illegal. There's just no benefit to them.
-russ
They are uniformly afraid that their modems will not pass certification if they are seen to cooperate in any way with circumventing the certification process. And if a company helps people write non-certified software, that's what they're doing. Yeah, it sucks.
-russ
You're so expressive, so literate, so erudite. "it sucked", eh? If you're popping up windows through keyboard actions, you really DON'T want to have to switch to the mouse to transfer your keystrokes into the window.
Perhaps you're using click-to-focus? Some of us don't like click-to-focus. We use focus-follows-mouse. Hey, to each their own. That doesn't mean that it "sucks" (I love that word. Sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks. Do you use that word in polite company? Do you realize that it refers to the act of fellatio [look it up]?), it just means that your experience is inadequate to understand it.
-russ
p.s. sigh.
I see command line applications failing to take advantage of all the resources available to them. I'm not saying that we should abandon the CLI. I'm saying that CLI applications could give us more information than they do now. They could interact better with us than they do now. For example, try doing something on the command line to all files but one. For example, try tracking the progress of a long-lived pipe command. There's a LOT of value to knowing whether you should sit and wait for a command to finish, or if you should go read slashdot for ten minutes while it's working.
-russ
You have a good point, a very good point. If Unix is so good at pasting tools together, then there's no need for tar to be modified. Okay, how about this, then:
xprogress gzcat files.tar.gz | tar xf -
xprogress would stat stdin, fork the rest of its command line with stdout going through a pipe, and show a progress bar over the length of the file.
But that's just tar. There's a bunch of other things I'm wanting.
-russ
"switch"?? Who needs a switch. If you don't want a CLI program to use your GUI, unset your DISPLAY environment variable. With no display to display on, it doesn't display.
-russ
But we're already IN a GUI environment. Is there *anyone* who still uses Alt-F1, Alt-F2, etc as their "windowing" environment? I used to, but netscape is an essential tool. In fact, I'm soaking in it now.
-russ
No, you're adding a command into into a GUI. That's not what I want. I want my command-line applications to know that they've got the resources of a GUI.
-russ
Slashdot Mirror
If you have no property rights, you have no human rights. If you do not own your own body, then you are subject to enslavement. If you do not own the food you eat, you are a slave, begging for scraps at your master's knee. If you do not own the land you live on (and yes, renting is a form of ownership -- not of property, but of a right to occupy), then you are a slave.
Lincoln should NOT be a hero of people who love freedom. At least not the thoughtful ones.
-russ
paid for an AT&T source license
So why is {Free,Net,Open,Foobar}BSD able to use the same code for free? Is it somehow not free software? Obviously not. If BSDi paid for a license, then they did so for business reasons, not because the code wasn't free.
-russ
BSD has too many of its own schisms to accuse Linux of being the schism.
-russ
No explanation why anyone should believe you are correct. Who's the troll here?
-russ
Licensing problems. You know that. Why troll?
You know Windoze isn't free. Why troll?
-russ
Yeah, but *I* have hair on my chest.
-russ
Why does RMS continue to decry the open source movement? We have the same goals as his: that people should be free to modify most software around them. We just lose the philosophy and politics surrounding his free software movement, and go straight to the code. If it's free code, it's Open Source. If it's not free, we won't certify it as Open Source. Period. End of discussion. Why does RMS want to keep talking about it?
-russ
So, it's a good thing to split the developer community? To divide already thin resources? Yes, choice is a good thing. People can already choose between Pocket Windoze and Linux. We could make Linux a stronger choice, or we could make the two Unices be weaker choices.
I just don't understand *BSD*. No part of it. Well, okay, I understand BSDi. Everybody wants to make money off free software. But I don't understand why we need more than one Unix. It's not like free software doesn't have enemies. Well-heeled enemies. Who have discovered the power of government the hard way. Fortunately, we have dodged a bullet in Maryland thanks to Redhat's lobbying efforts. But there will be many more legislative efforts thrown our way.
-russ
When I add anything to qmail.org, I put a "NEW" or "UPDATED" image on it along with a datestamp. I've got a script that grovels through the page and sucks out anything with a datestamp. Then I sort them and write them into new.html. I use a similar script to write news.rdf. So as long as I'm careful to add the datestamp, I'm covered on both sides.
-russ
Did I sum it up correctly ?
No. "Bread" is a descriptive english word. You could no more get a trademark on "bread" as a baked wheat/yeast combination than you could for "Windows" as a trademark for a transparent section of a wall. You could get a trademark for "Bread" windows, or "Windows" bread, because neither of them is descriptive.
That's why we gave up on "Open Source" as a trademark. It's too descriptive.
"Secure Shell" is arguably descriptive, however SSH is not, and "SSH" is what is being claimed as a trademark.
-russ
Sorry, James, trademarks must be defended or they will be lost. And there is substantial value to USERS to know that a name has a meaning fixed by law. It is that value they wish to protect for their USERS. Or don't you care about users?
-russ
But wait, I thought the conspiracy theories all say that Jews run the big companies? Could it be that the conspiracy theories are wrong? But there is no such thing as a false conspiracy theory (anyone proving it false is obviously a part of the conspiracy).
-russ
It will never happen as long as equipment must be certified before it can legally be connected to the public telephone network. The barrier is not economic or technical. It is legal.
-russ
Every modem manufacturer I've talked to refuses to help with an Open Source driver because it's too easily modified. It's illegal to connect non-certified equipment to the public telephone network. These manufacturers don't want to participate in any way with something that's illegal. There's just no benefit to them.
-russ
They are uniformly afraid that their modems will not pass certification if they are seen to cooperate in any way with circumventing the certification process. And if a company helps people write non-certified software, that's what they're doing. Yeah, it sucks.
-russ
OSI *used* to stand for the Open Systems Interconnection. OSI is dead, long live the OSI!
-russ
You lack even the imagination to reply.
-russ
You're so expressive, so literate, so erudite. "it sucked", eh? If you're popping up windows through keyboard actions, you really DON'T want to have to switch to the mouse to transfer your keystrokes into the window.
Perhaps you're using click-to-focus? Some of us don't like click-to-focus. We use focus-follows-mouse. Hey, to each their own. That doesn't mean that it "sucks" (I love that word. Sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks. Do you use that word in polite company? Do you realize that it refers to the act of fellatio [look it up]?), it just means that your experience is inadequate to understand it.
-russ
p.s. sigh.
I see command line applications failing to take advantage of all the resources available to them. I'm not saying that we should abandon the CLI. I'm saying that CLI applications could give us more information than they do now. They could interact better with us than they do now. For example, try doing something on the command line to all files but one. For example, try tracking the progress of a long-lived pipe command. There's a LOT of value to knowing whether you should sit and wait for a command to finish, or if you should go read slashdot for ten minutes while it's working.
-russ
And you ssh into these machines from a real VT-100?? Or a simulated one running under X.
-russ
You have a good point, a very good point. If Unix is so good at pasting tools together, then there's no need for tar to be modified. Okay, how about this, then:
xprogress gzcat files.tar.gz | tar xf -
xprogress would stat stdin, fork the rest of its command line with stdout going through a pipe, and show a progress bar over the length of the file.
But that's just tar. There's a bunch of other things I'm wanting.
-russ
"switch"?? Who needs a switch. If you don't want a CLI program to use your GUI, unset your DISPLAY environment variable. With no display to display on, it doesn't display.
-russ
...force people into a GUI environment
But we're already IN a GUI environment. Is there *anyone* who still uses Alt-F1, Alt-F2, etc as their "windowing" environment? I used to, but netscape is an essential tool. In fact, I'm soaking in it now.
-russ
When tar runs quickly, that's fine. When I'm doing an untar over the network, you can bet I want a progress bar.
The command line rules because it does what you tell it? Obviously YOU have never typed "rm -rf foo *".
-russ
No, you're adding a command into into a GUI. That's not what I want. I want my command-line applications to know that they've got the resources of a GUI.
-russ