I've been reading messages on this thread, and I pulled out a CD I happened to bring to work with me...Rush's Signals album. And I played the first track of that album - "Subdivisions." I've always liked that track for its music...but now I fully understand what the words mean. And it nearly has me in tears.
Listen to that first verse...that's Littleton, CO, right there, and N other suburban towns around the country. And the chorus just describes perfectly what I've seen posted in other messages in this thread, the way high school is for many people like us, the way it must have been for those two kids.
I don't know if I can look at this tragedy in the same way again...for now I can look at the way my high school years were, and what must have happened to these two, and say "there but for the grace of God go I." True, I didn't go postal the way these kids did...but I can easily imagine the possibility.
I listen to the song, and I think about what's happened, and I think, "What have we done?" Neil Peart penned those lyrics in 1982, right about when one of the Littleton killers was being born...have we learned nothing in all those years? Will we learn anything now?
A coworker of mine is going to work for a company down in Santa Monica called Direct Stock Marketing, that intend to set up an online stock exchange that would be used for things like IPOs and private placements. Seems to me to be the next logical extension of the online investing trend. Check 'em out. (End of free plug to help out a friend:-) )
OK, I think the time has come to "draw a line in the sand."
I will say, right here, right now, that, if Microsoft releases the source code to any component of the Windows 98/NT/2000 operating system, and proclaims it to be "Open Source," and their license fails to meet the Open Source Definition or the Debian Free Software Guidelines in even one particular, I will not download it, I will not look at it, and I will certainly not work on it.
I don't think Microsoft has the cojones to release their code under a license that even comes close to meeting these criteria...and, if they are bound and determined to do their damnedest to "embrace and extend" (i.e. "conquer and assimilate") the concepts that are the very underpinnings of our community, I will not lift a finger to assist them, and I will do what I can to convince people to do likewise.
I encourage all of you to stand up, declare yourself, and take this "pledge" as I have done. We can show Microsoft that any attempt they make to coopt our community in order to further their greedy, monopolistic empire will be an exercise in utter futility.
It's possible that this buyout could actually be a good, or at least non-disatrous, thing for the Well. It might be helpful if I mention here the history of a similar online community, Electric Minds. (Disclaimer: I am a part of this story, but I don't speak officially for the company I work for.)
Electric Minds was kind of a "spinoff" of the Well, created by noted online community guru Howard Rheingold after he had been a Well user for some time and written a book, The Virtual Community, which dealt in large part with the Well and his experiences there. Electric Minds was intended to be very Well-like in its operation, and, indeed, used the WellEngaged conferencing system on its server. Unfortunately, they couldn't make any money at it, and their principal financing partner (SoftBank) didn't come up with the cash they needed to keep their doors open.
At that point, the company I work for, Durand Communications (now owned by Online System Services Inc.) stepped in and bought Electric Minds. We worked hard to integrate the Electric Minds conferencing system with our existing online community-building server, CommunityWare, including the implementation of a conferencing system that mirrored the WellEngaged one. (I personally wrote a big chunk of that code.) The community members, in large part, were supportive of the move, as they had been expecting Electric Minds to completely shut down, and had been making plans to keep the community together.
Since that time, there have been problems, a number of them related to a "self-governance" movement for the community that never really panned out. There have been a number of server crashes and screw-ups, too. Yet, to this day, the Electric Minds community is still large and thriving, if somewhat altered in its makeup over time. (Rheingold left as community host some time back over internal divisions, and another longtime EMinds conference host is now running the community.) True, we never made any money from it, either, but we are now applying the lessons learned from Electric Minds in a whole series of new directions that do have revenue-generating potential.
So what was my point here? From what Salon has already done with their "Table Talk" conferencing system, I can see that they, too, understand the idea of "community." I'm not saying that the Well acquisition will be trouble-free for them or for the Well, but my expectation would be that the Well will survive at least as well as its offshoot has, because its new owners do understand "community," as well as the nature and "quirks" of the community they're buying into. (Those are important; you need to keep from alienating the longtime users if you want the community to survive. It's why we bent over backwards to essentially clone WellEngaged on our own software platform. Similarly, I wouldn't expect Salon to drop the old text-mode Well interface anytime soon.)
If they're smart, they won't concentrate on revenue right away, but they'll certainly apply what they learn from the Well to help make their site, and their business, even better.
-- Divx players have a noticeably worse picture quality than regular DVD players, playing the same discs on both machines. -- Divx players can even report back on which regular DVD discs they've played recently. (As if the privacy problem you already cited weren't bad enough...) -- The Divx company can spam you whenever the hell they want. It's in the service agreement. -- If Divx suddenly decides to start charging monthly fees for their service (and they do reserve the right to do that), you either cough up the dough, or your Divx discs become instant coasters. -- If a movie studio decides for any reason that they want to "recall" a Divx movie, your disc of that movie won't play anymore. Period. Coaster time:-). -- You get dinged for an extra "viewing" even if you just put the wrong disc in the player for 5 seconds. And they won't cancel the charge, so you're stuck with it. They also won't cancel the charges if your kids put a dozen different discs in the player "just to see what'll happen." Hell, they won't even cancel the charges if your Divx player was stolen unless you notify them within 24 hours.
In short, Divx seems to be designed around one goal: To separate the gullible movie-watching public from the maximum number of dollars before they catch on and dump the worthless system. Judging by the number of Divx player returns Circuit City has been seeing, I guess a lot of people are catching on...
Well, the two examples you give are different types of general-purpose computers. An Internet-access device will succeed if it can avoid being perceived as a "general-purpose computer."
Example: PalmPilots also run fewer programs than Windows PCs. But they're growing legs and walking off store shelves anyhow. Of course, they're not sold as "general-purpose computers," they're sold as "personal digital assistants."
Example: WebTV boxes also run fewer programs than Windows PCs. But the various companies that make them (Sony, Philips/Magnavox, etc.) have still sold quite a few of them. Of course, they're not called "general-purpose computers" either; they're called "home Internet terminals."
If AOL/Netscape/Sun (the so-called "Alliance") were to create an Internet-access device, I can guarantee you that they won't call it a "computer" of any sort. If it happens to be upgradable (at additional cost, naturally) to the status of a general-purpose computer, then so much the better, but the base device won't be called a "computer."
Some of the video game consoles of the Eighties were like that, offering add-on components to turn them into home computers. Of course, they weren't really successful...but, given the awesome power of the PlayStation 2, Sony might be getting some ideas along this line. If they can turn a PSX2 into a general-purpose computer cleanly and cheaply (for, maybe, $100 or so over and above the cost of the standard PSX2), they could attract a lot of attention very quickly. Sony engineers reading this, take note:-).
But, again, the initial device wouldn't be called a "general-purpose computer," it'd be called a "video game console." And people wouldn't be buying it based on how well it performed as a computer, they'd buy it based on how well it performed as a game console. Similarly, if AOL/Netscape/Sun calls whatever box they may develop an "Internet access device," the public won't be comparing it to a Gateway or a Dell, they'll be comparing it to a WebTV. (Note to A/N/S: Find a good consumer electronics manufacturer to stick their nameplate on your box...that should help steer perceptions in the right direction.)
Special-purpose devices will only be perceived as "crippled" if the manufacturer lets them be perceived that way.
While I agree that this would be cool, there seem to be two things that would stand in the way of this happening:
Rob just doesn't get much Trek news submitted.
Rob doesn't care much for Trek. For example, see the way he shredded Star Trek: Insurrection in his movie review. (I don't have the link, but you'll find it in the archives)
I'm sure that Rob is doing exactly that, running the conferencing source code on another box (probably his own workstation) to clean up the obvious bugs.
But, if years of work on my company's Web community/conferencing system have taught me anything, it's that there are some bugs that just don't show up until you have the system on the public server and have lots of people banging on it. Even having a separate "QA" or "staging" server that the entire company can bang on doesn't always spot the bugs.
That being said, if Rob were to establish a "beta code" site (beta.slashdot.org?) and invite people to come bang on the new code, he'd probably get a decent response. (The Slashdot Effect should be most pronounced for Slashdot itself, wouldn't you agree?) But there is very little chance that even that round of testing would find all the bugs, though it would probably eliminate quite a few.
Then, too, having another "live" site up for beta purposes might cost money that Rob can't afford at the moment...he's gotta eat and buy beer, too. (Rob, I'll send a virtual sixpack your way. And none of that Bud/Miller/Coors crap, either. Maybe there's a good Santa Barbara County microbrew you'd appreciate.)
I have the first edition of this book, and I felt it was really good...have been meaning to get the second edition for awhile, but haven't got around to it yet.
IMHO, some reasons why Schneier spends so much time dissecting DES are:
It's one of the most popular crypto algorithms in the world, despite its mediocre key length (and 3DES can help that).
It's really rather well designed for its day; it shows you the kind of skull sweat that goes into crypto algorithm design.
As a result of (2), many of its design features are common to other algorithms, including many of the current AES candidates. Understanding this one can give you a handle on understanding a lot more of them.
I never took the crypto course in my CS curriculum in college, but this book made me wish I had.
Just one thing I'm waiting for...fict@slashdot.org pop3 email addresses.
Perhaps Rob could give one or two of these away occasionally in contests, the way Debian's now doing with their logo contest?
And they don't have to be full POP3 mailboxes, either, they could just be forwards...you can bet that, if Rob were to announce such a contest, you'd see a stampede that would make the ordinary Slashdot Effect look like a slow day:-).
Time: The not too distant future (next Sunday A.D.?).
Place: The Gateway Country Store, over on Calle Real (next to Lucky).
I walk in, admiring the cow-spotted decor, catching the attention of a salesperson.
I tell him. "I want a G6-450, 128 megs RAM, 16G hard drive, 19" monitor, 8 Mb graphics accelerator, DVD-ROM, TV card, etc., etc.--oh, and I'd like Linux preloaded on it, please."
And the salesperson's only response is, "Yes, sir. Which distribution?"
And I grin.
Now, wouldn't that be a great scenario? Who knows, it may actually happen.
It's beginning to seem to me that the people who cast the Free Software/Open Source debate in an adversarial light may be missing the point. Both sides are right; they merely represent different degrees of the same concept.
(Note: I am using the term "OSS" here to mean the general concept of open source software, i.e., software for which the source code is freely available, usable, and modifiable.)
RMS's beliefs, as embodied by the FSF, are a sort of "Platonic ideal" of OSS, in which all software is truly liberated from the bounds of proprietary claim and can be modified and redistributed endlessly to suit. I think most of us can agree that, if this were a perfect world and we were all angels, this is the way software should be distributed.
However, the software business, for all the success that OSS has had recently, is still very much stuck in the proprietary mindset, afraid that revealing their source code will be a quick road to financial ruin. RMS' rhetoric does little to assauge their fears, however unjustified they may be. (Would Netscape have opened the source to their browser, if RMS' opinions on OSS were the only ones they could read? Perhaps...but it would have been a tougher choice for them to make.) True, RMS would argue that OSS doesn't need traditional business to "buy into" the idea...bur RMS doesn't have Micro$oft's marketing budget to spread his message.
What ESR has done is to create a "transitional" ideology, one that occupies the middle ground between the proprietary mindset and RMS' Platonic ideal of OSS. He's formulated the advantages of the OSS approach in terms that business people can understand, and provides the arguments and evidence they need to make OSS a less scary choice. The recent gains made by OSS in the business world are examples that show that what he's doing is working.
Now, RMS may grumble about the fact that, while OSS as espoused by ESR may be "free," it's not free enough. To this, I would say that, by and large, the software business is not ready to accept his concept of OSS. ESR is preparing a pathway by which, at some time in the future, RMS' ideology may be accepted by providers of software everywhere. But it'll be a long process, and perhaps a painful one, and, in the end, it may turn out that it's just not in our nature to be angels after all, and proprietary software will continue to survive in some form. And, along the way, another "transitional" ideology may be required to bridge the gap between ESR's "pragmatic" OSS and RMS' Platonic ideals. But that is for the future to decide.
Of course RMS sneers at the act of compromise; he's a revolutionary by nature, and would prefer to do battle with the proprietary software industry directly. But that's a battle he'd have a hard time winning; the present-day proprietary software companies are much better armed, in terms of both money and clout. ESR is trying to carry out a "revolution from within," gradually bringing the old stalwarts of proprietary software over to the OSS way of thinking. This seems to me the approach that will, in the long run, give RMS a bigger victory than he could accomplish alone.
I've made a lot of general statements here, trying to discuss general trends; of course, you can find exceptions to pretty much everything I say. But the fact remains, it's not necessarily a "battle" that's going on here, just a process. The two "sides" really aren't "sides"; ESR and OSI represent the first step in a process for which RMS and FSF represent the ultimate goal. We should continue to support the process, while never losing sight of this ultimate goal.
Not to mention that any domain in ".com" has higher intrinsic value because of the long standing default behavior of many browsers, which is to turn the name "foo" typed into the URL field (assuming "foo" is not a valid DNS name) into "http://www.foo.com".
Netscape did this for a long time, and still does it in recent versions if you turn "Internet Keywords" off. M$IE does it too, except that it tries several different variations (".com," ".org," and ".net"), but it always tries ".com" first.
Regardless of whether browsers "should" be doing this or not, the fact is, they do do this, and it behooves somebody to produce a worthwhile resource, so that when some person tries typing "Linux" into their browser's URL field, they get a page with plenty of worthwhile information. It's good to see that VA is stepping up to the plate here.
The hell of it is, the guy "running" the "auction" linked his own eBay profile to this page, and has actually gotten comments, including 6 positive feedbacks, for this page! (Some of the comments are a riot, too...)
My guess is, if/when eBay spots this, he's probably hosed...but they really ought to just give him a commendation for original thinking.
I think the Teletubbies ActiMates will open up whole new lines of inquiry for the PARC/MIT researchers. Their tummy-mounted display screens may prove to be more versatile output devices than Barney's hands and arms.
Also, the Teletubbies are (if I am not mistaken) viewed with a lot less acrimony than Barney. Sadly, only Laa-Laa and Po are offered; apparently, Micro$oft felt that Tinky Winky was too controversial for their purposes. Pity; the use of Tinky Winky as an I/O device would offer whole new ways to piss off the Falwellites.
The only drawback to this continuing research, as I see it, will be that it will be impossible for me to read the ensuing reports without busting out in maniacal laughter, inviting quizzical gazes from my fiancee...
If it was, the Russians would be announcing that the station was being renamed to "The Microsoft MIR(TM) Space Station."
Plus, he'd insist that all the station's computers be upgraded to use Windows NT 2000(R)(C)(TM). But that'd probably do more damage to the station than that Progress did when it slammed into Spektr...
Given the choice between accepting BillG's money and decommissioning the station, I would hope the Russians would opt for the Big Slam-Dunk into the Pacific. Not that I wouldn't be sorry to see it go, but it's the principle of the thing, you understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen to that first verse...that's Littleton, CO, right there, and N other suburban towns around the country. And the chorus just describes perfectly what I've seen posted in other messages in this thread, the way high school is for many people like us, the way it must have been for those two kids.
I don't know if I can look at this tragedy in the same way again...for now I can look at the way my high school years were, and what must have happened to these two, and say "there but for the grace of God go I." True, I didn't go postal the way these kids did...but I can easily imagine the possibility.
I listen to the song, and I think about what's happened, and I think, "What have we done?" Neil Peart penned those lyrics in 1982, right about when one of the Littleton killers was being born...have we learned nothing in all those years? Will we learn anything now?
Eric
--
A coworker of mine is going to work for a company down in Santa Monica called Direct Stock Marketing, that intend to set up an online stock exchange that would be used for things like IPOs and private placements. Seems to me to be the next logical extension of the online investing trend. Check 'em out. (End of free plug to help out a friend :-) )
Eric
--
I will say, right here, right now, that, if Microsoft releases the source code to any component of the Windows 98/NT/2000 operating system, and proclaims it to be "Open Source," and their license fails to meet the Open Source Definition or the Debian Free Software Guidelines in even one particular, I will not download it, I will not look at it, and I will certainly not work on it.
I don't think Microsoft has the cojones to release their code under a license that even comes close to meeting these criteria...and, if they are bound and determined to do their damnedest to "embrace and extend" (i.e. "conquer and assimilate") the concepts that are the very underpinnings of our community, I will not lift a finger to assist them, and I will do what I can to convince people to do likewise.
I encourage all of you to stand up, declare yourself, and take this "pledge" as I have done. We can show Microsoft that any attempt they make to coopt our community in order to further their greedy, monopolistic empire will be an exercise in utter futility.
Who's with me?
Eric
--
Electric Minds was kind of a "spinoff" of the Well, created by noted online community guru Howard Rheingold after he had been a Well user for some time and written a book, The Virtual Community, which dealt in large part with the Well and his experiences there. Electric Minds was intended to be very Well-like in its operation, and, indeed, used the WellEngaged conferencing system on its server. Unfortunately, they couldn't make any money at it, and their principal financing partner (SoftBank) didn't come up with the cash they needed to keep their doors open.
At that point, the company I work for, Durand Communications (now owned by Online System Services Inc.) stepped in and bought Electric Minds. We worked hard to integrate the Electric Minds conferencing system with our existing online community-building server, CommunityWare, including the implementation of a conferencing system that mirrored the WellEngaged one. (I personally wrote a big chunk of that code.) The community members, in large part, were supportive of the move, as they had been expecting Electric Minds to completely shut down, and had been making plans to keep the community together.
Since that time, there have been problems, a number of them related to a "self-governance" movement for the community that never really panned out. There have been a number of server crashes and screw-ups, too. Yet, to this day, the Electric Minds community is still large and thriving, if somewhat altered in its makeup over time. (Rheingold left as community host some time back over internal divisions, and another longtime EMinds conference host is now running the community.) True, we never made any money from it, either, but we are now applying the lessons learned from Electric Minds in a whole series of new directions that do have revenue-generating potential.
So what was my point here? From what Salon has already done with their "Table Talk" conferencing system, I can see that they, too, understand the idea of "community." I'm not saying that the Well acquisition will be trouble-free for them or for the Well, but my expectation would be that the Well will survive at least as well as its offshoot has, because its new owners do understand "community," as well as the nature and "quirks" of the community they're buying into. (Those are important; you need to keep from alienating the longtime users if you want the community to survive. It's why we bent over backwards to essentially clone WellEngaged on our own software platform. Similarly, I wouldn't expect Salon to drop the old text-mode Well interface anytime soon.)
If they're smart, they won't concentrate on revenue right away, but they'll certainly apply what they learn from the Well to help make their site, and their business, even better.
Eric ("erbo" on EMinds)
--
-- Divx players can even report back on which regular DVD discs they've played recently. (As if the privacy problem you already cited weren't bad enough...)
-- The Divx company can spam you whenever the hell they want. It's in the service agreement.
-- If Divx suddenly decides to start charging monthly fees for their service (and they do reserve the right to do that), you either cough up the dough, or your Divx discs become instant coasters.
-- If a movie studio decides for any reason that they want to "recall" a Divx movie, your disc of that movie won't play anymore. Period. Coaster time
-- You get dinged for an extra "viewing" even if you just put the wrong disc in the player for 5 seconds. And they won't cancel the charge, so you're stuck with it. They also won't cancel the charges if your kids put a dozen different discs in the player "just to see what'll happen." Hell, they won't even cancel the charges if your Divx player was stolen unless you notify them within 24 hours.
In short, Divx seems to be designed around one goal: To separate the gullible movie-watching public from the maximum number of dollars before they catch on and dump the worthless system. Judging by the number of Divx player returns Circuit City has been seeing, I guess a lot of people are catching on...
Eric
--
Example: PalmPilots also run fewer programs than Windows PCs. But they're growing legs and walking off store shelves anyhow. Of course, they're not sold as "general-purpose computers," they're sold as "personal digital assistants."
Example: WebTV boxes also run fewer programs than Windows PCs. But the various companies that make them (Sony, Philips/Magnavox, etc.) have still sold quite a few of them. Of course, they're not called "general-purpose computers" either; they're called "home Internet terminals."
If AOL/Netscape/Sun (the so-called "Alliance") were to create an Internet-access device, I can guarantee you that they won't call it a "computer" of any sort. If it happens to be upgradable (at additional cost, naturally) to the status of a general-purpose computer, then so much the better, but the base device won't be called a "computer."
Some of the video game consoles of the Eighties were like that, offering add-on components to turn them into home computers. Of course, they weren't really successful...but, given the awesome power of the PlayStation 2, Sony might be getting some ideas along this line. If they can turn a PSX2 into a general-purpose computer cleanly and cheaply (for, maybe, $100 or so over and above the cost of the standard PSX2), they could attract a lot of attention very quickly. Sony engineers reading this, take note :-).
But, again, the initial device wouldn't be called a "general-purpose computer," it'd be called a "video game console." And people wouldn't be buying it based on how well it performed as a computer, they'd buy it based on how well it performed as a game console. Similarly, if AOL/Netscape/Sun calls whatever box they may develop an "Internet access device," the public won't be comparing it to a Gateway or a Dell, they'll be comparing it to a WebTV. (Note to A/N/S: Find a good consumer electronics manufacturer to stick their nameplate on your box...that should help steer perceptions in the right direction.)
Special-purpose devices will only be perceived as "crippled" if the manufacturer lets them be perceived that way.
Eric
--
Eric
--
Eric
--
Also, "There are no tyops [sic] in this web page."
I wonder if they're keeping track of how many hits they get on that supposedly "not here yet" page? Probably quite a number.
Eric
--
But, if years of work on my company's Web community/conferencing system have taught me anything, it's that there are some bugs that just don't show up until you have the system on the public server and have lots of people banging on it. Even having a separate "QA" or "staging" server that the entire company can bang on doesn't always spot the bugs.
That being said, if Rob were to establish a "beta code" site (beta.slashdot.org?) and invite people to come bang on the new code, he'd probably get a decent response. (The Slashdot Effect should be most pronounced for Slashdot itself, wouldn't you agree?) But there is very little chance that even that round of testing would find all the bugs, though it would probably eliminate quite a few.
Then, too, having another "live" site up for beta purposes might cost money that Rob can't afford at the moment...he's gotta eat and buy beer, too. (Rob, I'll send a virtual sixpack your way. And none of that Bud/Miller/Coors crap, either. Maybe there's a good Santa Barbara County microbrew you'd appreciate.)
Eric
--
IMHO, some reasons why Schneier spends so much time dissecting DES are:
- It's one of the most popular crypto algorithms in the world, despite its mediocre key length (and 3DES can help that).
- It's really rather well designed for its day; it shows you the kind of skull sweat that goes into crypto algorithm design.
- As a result of (2), many of its design features are common to other algorithms, including many of the current AES candidates. Understanding this one can give you a handle on understanding a lot more of them.
I never took the crypto course in my CS curriculum in college, but this book made me wish I had.Eric
--
Perhaps Rob could give one or two of these away occasionally in contests, the way Debian's now doing with their logo contest?
And they don't have to be full POP3 mailboxes, either, they could just be forwards...you can bet that, if Rob were to announce such a contest, you'd see a stampede that would make the ordinary Slashdot Effect look like a slow day :-).
Eric
--
Place: The Gateway Country Store, over on Calle Real (next to Lucky).
I walk in, admiring the cow-spotted decor, catching the attention of a salesperson.
I tell him. "I want a G6-450, 128 megs RAM, 16G hard drive, 19" monitor, 8 Mb graphics accelerator, DVD-ROM, TV card, etc., etc.--oh, and I'd like Linux preloaded on it, please."
And the salesperson's only response is, "Yes, sir. Which distribution?"
And I grin.
Now, wouldn't that be a great scenario? Who knows, it may actually happen.
Eric
--
(Note: I am using the term "OSS" here to mean the general concept of open source software, i.e., software for which the source code is freely available, usable, and modifiable.)
RMS's beliefs, as embodied by the FSF, are a sort of "Platonic ideal" of OSS, in which all software is truly liberated from the bounds of proprietary claim and can be modified and redistributed endlessly to suit. I think most of us can agree that, if this were a perfect world and we were all angels, this is the way software should be distributed.
However, the software business, for all the success that OSS has had recently, is still very much stuck in the proprietary mindset, afraid that revealing their source code will be a quick road to financial ruin. RMS' rhetoric does little to assauge their fears, however unjustified they may be. (Would Netscape have opened the source to their browser, if RMS' opinions on OSS were the only ones they could read? Perhaps...but it would have been a tougher choice for them to make.) True, RMS would argue that OSS doesn't need traditional business to "buy into" the idea...bur RMS doesn't have Micro$oft's marketing budget to spread his message.
What ESR has done is to create a "transitional" ideology, one that occupies the middle ground between the proprietary mindset and RMS' Platonic ideal of OSS. He's formulated the advantages of the OSS approach in terms that business people can understand, and provides the arguments and evidence they need to make OSS a less scary choice. The recent gains made by OSS in the business world are examples that show that what he's doing is working.
Now, RMS may grumble about the fact that, while OSS as espoused by ESR may be "free," it's not free enough. To this, I would say that, by and large, the software business is not ready to accept his concept of OSS. ESR is preparing a pathway by which, at some time in the future, RMS' ideology may be accepted by providers of software everywhere. But it'll be a long process, and perhaps a painful one, and, in the end, it may turn out that it's just not in our nature to be angels after all, and proprietary software will continue to survive in some form. And, along the way, another "transitional" ideology may be required to bridge the gap between ESR's "pragmatic" OSS and RMS' Platonic ideals. But that is for the future to decide.
Of course RMS sneers at the act of compromise; he's a revolutionary by nature, and would prefer to do battle with the proprietary software industry directly. But that's a battle he'd have a hard time winning; the present-day proprietary software companies are much better armed, in terms of both money and clout. ESR is trying to carry out a "revolution from within," gradually bringing the old stalwarts of proprietary software over to the OSS way of thinking. This seems to me the approach that will, in the long run, give RMS a bigger victory than he could accomplish alone.
I've made a lot of general statements here, trying to discuss general trends; of course, you can find exceptions to pretty much everything I say. But the fact remains, it's not necessarily a "battle" that's going on here, just a process. The two "sides" really aren't "sides"; ESR and OSI represent the first step in a process for which RMS and FSF represent the ultimate goal. We should continue to support the process, while never losing sight of this ultimate goal.
Eric
--
Netscape did this for a long time, and still does it in recent versions if you turn "Internet Keywords" off. M$IE does it too, except that it tries several different variations (".com," ".org," and ".net"), but it always tries ".com" first.
Regardless of whether browsers "should" be doing this or not, the fact is, they do do this, and it behooves somebody to produce a worthwhile resource, so that when some person tries typing "Linux" into their browser's URL field, they get a page with plenty of worthwhile information. It's good to see that VA is stepping up to the plate here.
Eric
--
My guess is, if/when eBay spots this, he's probably hosed...but they really ought to just give him a commendation for original thinking.
Eric
--
Also, the Teletubbies are (if I am not mistaken) viewed with a lot less acrimony than Barney. Sadly, only Laa-Laa and Po are offered; apparently, Micro$oft felt that Tinky Winky was too controversial for their purposes. Pity; the use of Tinky Winky as an I/O device would offer whole new ways to piss off the Falwellites.
The only drawback to this continuing research, as I see it, will be that it will be impossible for me to read the ensuing reports without busting out in maniacal laughter, inviting quizzical gazes from my fiancee...
Eric
--
Kudos (and other granola snacks) to you, Rob, and to the rest of the Slashdot team! You deserve every bit of it.
Eric
--
Eric
--
Eric
--
Plus, he'd insist that all the station's computers be upgraded to use Windows NT 2000(R)(C)(TM). But that'd probably do more damage to the station than that Progress did when it slammed into Spektr...
Given the choice between accepting BillG's money and decommissioning the station, I would hope the Russians would opt for the Big Slam-Dunk into the Pacific. Not that I wouldn't be sorry to see it go, but it's the principle of the thing, you understand.
Eric
--