No, no one-way trip for the editor. Jill is a salaried person at Prentice Hall who has a lot of good books to her name. Just as an aside, I think she was moving across the country during this one, and having a baby, etc.
Also, given that the total revenue to the publisher on any technical title is only expected to be about $150K, the author pretty much gets their way these days.
Note that the editor file for the book will be uploaded before long, and if you have problems you are welcome to fix them like any Open Source.
Electronic content (both open PDF and the editor file) will be made available for this book at phptr.com/perens . We upload content after a delay so that the retail pipeline is full before another publisher could print the book and kill our market.
Sorry about the editing stuff, I'll point your review out to Mark, the executive editor. My role is acquisition and overall series direction - I don't get involved in production.
It happens that the statement this bill is legal tender for all debts, public and private printed on dollar bills does not legally compel anyone to accept cash. See the Treasury FAQ.
Well, if I didn't know code and I heard... ---... I'd still know what to do. Just very slowly, and with a book open.
You make an interesting point about ADA. It would be much more useful to have a language with features for building reliable software in common use. One of the reasons that ADA didn't make it was that the government was attempting to ram it down people's throats when it had some very obvious problems, and people resented that. It's not unlike Morse testing in that way.
Compare Morse to PSK31. Nobody requires that you know it, it came from an individual rather than a big-ticket engineering project, and the lack of a standard has facilitated a lot of individual experimentation in that space. Doesn't that sort of say that giving people the tools and letting them find their own path works.
You're lucky. There are a lot of nice people, but the turkeys are so bad that they make up for the rest. In general they don't accept that technician class amateurs are real hams at all, and if some poor newbie makes the mistake of saying "10-4" on the air, rather than some gentle correction that guy will get his insides reamed out.
I noticed that most of the old farts were general class licensees from the 60's or earlier. So, I got a 20 WPM extra just so that I could give the same guys a hard time about their not upgrading yet. Then I founded No-Code International.
As a 20 WPM Extra, I know for sure that what I got out of that time wasn't worth it. It actually was "dumbing down" for me to spend so much time on Morse - you might have gotten another good Free Software program had I not been doing that.
You are completely unjustified in comparing algebra to Morse, as algebra has important and practical use in real life a million times greater than that of Morse. There is nothing "dumbing down" about removing something with so little use that stands in the way of greater achievement. If anything it is "smarting up" to remove a rediculous and unnecessary limitation.
We're going to get the code test killed anyway, you know. During 98-143, the proceeding where we went to 5 WPM across the board, FCC declared that the only reason for preserving Morse testing even at 5 WPM was the treaty. It's right there for you to read in their rule-making. They have already rejected the sort of argument you make.
All of your reasons are fine reasons for you and other interested parties to keep it alive on the air. But not for you to insist on testing uninterested people before they can have an amateur radio operating privilege.
This isn't about making it easy. It's about removing the single most stupid and useless law in telecommunications. I'd liken it to requiring a test on dressage riding before you can get a driver's license.
The fact is that people who aren't motivated won't approach Amateur radio anyway. There are too many outlets that don't require a theory test.
You are welcome to keep alternative communications methods alive on the Amateur spectrum. But please don't even think of requiring people who would never want to use Morse to pass a test on it. You can't possibly justify it.
This Computerworld story tells how Canopy Group is cashing in on the SCO fear war. As SCO kites its stock, Canopy directs SCO to purchase other, not-tremendously-desirable Canopy Group companies. Canopy Group then gets more SCO stock to sell for cash.
The latest SCO acquisition is Vultus, which even sounds evil. The SCO stockholders are the eventual losers, but I find it difficult to develop sympathy for someone who buys into a shakedown racket.
I guess I should have mentioned that I almost always run "unstable". I've always been imnpressed with its stability! I've had a down day once in about 10 years due to a bad Debian package.
I have no information regarding running it on "stable".
I decided to test 2.6.0-test1 on one of my primary servers. After building the kernel, I had to install the Debian module-init-tools package (required to manipulate kernel modules in 2.6) and edit/etc/modprobe.conf to alias what module to load for my ethernet cards and for the PS/2 mouse driver (the "mousedev" module). And then it just ran. It's been serving perens.com for days.
I am also running it on my Vaio U-101 (a Pentium 4 600 sub-laptop that fits in a fanny-pack).
That's not how I read the BSD license. As far as I can tell, there is essentially total freedom to relicense, with GPL or proprietary or any license, with only the requirement for attribution in the actual source code. The source code and its attribution need not be shown to anyone by the relicensor (at least without a court order). You might not like this, but as far as I can tell BSD licensing was explicitly designed to allow it.
Sorry, I really like the "share and share alike" aspect of the GPL and will continue to promote it.
I would happily apply the BSD license to my work when someone else is paying me to do so. I don't expect that I'd do so very often otherwise, because my goal in creating Open Source on my own time is not to facilitate proprietary software. Anyone who wants to make proprietary use of code I make on my own time is welcome to contact me for a commercial license.
This seems fair and logical to me.
It's never been clear to me why some BSD proponents feel that any license except the GPL is OK to be applied to derived works of BSD code, when most proprietary licenses would fit your definition of "open" more poorly than the GPL.
In the case of the strategy I have recommended to the Open Group, there is a range of licenses that fits multiple business purposes. I acklowledged in the discussion that BSD was an appropriate license for some purposes, and went on to imply that LGPL and GPL fit other business purposes better than BSD does. If you want to restrain your competition from making proprietary use of your code, GPL is a good license for that. And there's the LGPL in between.
I don't see that this is not supporting Open Source in all of its forms.
Well, there's this game on Slashdot where people try to bait some well-known person into responding to a troll. And this game is pursued intensively against yours truly. So, I've become somewhat sensitive to it.
I would have treated him better if there was the slightest chance that anyone who had actually looked up what social Darwinism is could have sincerely linked it to my argument. But no, there is no chance of that.
Well, I have nothing against tech-literate people in India getting jobs and poor people in India getting fed and housed. And hopefully both will happen.
Living here in the US and making a living is the immediate concern of a good many people. I don't have much to offer them in the way of advice. That's all I was saying.
The Open Group is a mixed vendor-and-customer organization, and one that I can't see is dominated by the vendors.
I think you need to remember that vendors exist to serve customers. If they don't do that as well as possible, they should fail and go out of business. That is what capitalism is about.
Actually, I did point it out. Or at least imply it. In this text:
Establishment of a small set of licenses that are all compatible with each other, so that projects can be mixed.
Identification of a range of licenses within this set, roughly from least to most restrictive, that implement a range of Open Source business plans.
Standardization within the Open Group membership on this range of licenses, so that all Open Source work done by our members has compatible licensing, across all of our various companies.
Compatibility with a broad range of existing Open Source projects, so that our members can take part in work under most or all of the existing Open Source projects while complying with our standards.
The licenses I recommend, from similar work for HP's GELATO consortium, would be:
A BSD-like license.
Least restrictive, can be integrated into proprietary software with impunity.
A LGPL-like license.
Can be integrated into proprietary software, the Open Source component maintains its "free" status while not placing restrictions upon the proprietary elements.
A GPL-like license.
Embodies the share-and-share-alike quid-pro-quo of the GPL. Can be used to protect revenues from a parallel proprietary licensing track. Keeps your competition from running away with your product in a proprietary form that you can't match.
These licenses need not be identical to the BSD, LGPL, and GPL, but should be compatible with them in their terms.
There is nothing wrong with India if you live there. But some people are going to be concerned if jobs are moving out of wherever those people are.
In this particular case I think it is the US own fault because we haven't maintained a strong educational tradition among our own people, our primary schools are underfunded and substandard, and we don't do a good job at keeping our minorities in school, and interested in school.
You are assuming that most software jobs are related to retail software. The fact is that most software is not written to make money, it's written to achieve some internal purpose for a company. These companies could participate in Open Source collaborations and get more and better software for their programmer dollar. Their need for software will never disappear.
Eric Raymond thinks my point about the no-canonical-X-widget-set decision giving the market to MS is "wack". He thinks it has more to do with vendors not wanting to give up high-margin hardware.
Social Darwinism is the misapplication of a vulgarized form of Darwinian theory to race. Evolution is a fact in biological and scientific contexts, but its application to race is hogwash. And the same goes for Shockley's theories about race. None of this has anything to do with the selection that software goes through when people choose to aggregate a community around it, or choose not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, given that the total revenue to the publisher on any technical title is only expected to be about $150K, the author pretty much gets their way these days.
Note that the editor file for the book will be uploaded before long, and if you have problems you are welcome to fix them like any Open Source.
Thanks
Bruce
Sorry about the editing stuff, I'll point your review out to Mark, the executive editor. My role is acquisition and overall series direction - I don't get involved in production.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
You make an interesting point about ADA. It would be much more useful to have a language with features for building reliable software in common use. One of the reasons that ADA didn't make it was that the government was attempting to ram it down people's throats when it had some very obvious problems, and people resented that. It's not unlike Morse testing in that way.
Compare Morse to PSK31. Nobody requires that you know it, it came from an individual rather than a big-ticket engineering project, and the lack of a standard has facilitated a lot of individual experimentation in that space. Doesn't that sort of say that giving people the tools and letting them find their own path works.
Bruce
I noticed that most of the old farts were general class licensees from the 60's or earlier. So, I got a 20 WPM extra just so that I could give the same guys a hard time about their not upgrading yet. Then I founded No-Code International.
Bruce
You are completely unjustified in comparing algebra to Morse, as algebra has important and practical use in real life a million times greater than that of Morse. There is nothing "dumbing down" about removing something with so little use that stands in the way of greater achievement. If anything it is "smarting up" to remove a rediculous and unnecessary limitation.
We're going to get the code test killed anyway, you know. During 98-143, the proceeding where we went to 5 WPM across the board, FCC declared that the only reason for preserving Morse testing even at 5 WPM was the treaty. It's right there for you to read in their rule-making. They have already rejected the sort of argument you make.
Bruce
Bruce
The fact is that people who aren't motivated won't approach Amateur radio anyway. There are too many outlets that don't require a theory test.
You are welcome to keep alternative communications methods alive on the Amateur spectrum. But please don't even think of requiring people who would never want to use Morse to pass a test on it. You can't possibly justify it.
Bruce Perens K6BP (20 WPM, 1993, via ARRL VEC)
The latest SCO acquisition is Vultus, which even sounds evil. The SCO stockholders are the eventual losers, but I find it difficult to develop sympathy for someone who buys into a shakedown racket.
Bruce
Bruce
I have no information regarding running it on "stable".
Bruce
I am also running it on my Vaio U-101 (a Pentium 4 600 sub-laptop that fits in a fanny-pack).
Bruce
Sorry, I really like the "share and share alike" aspect of the GPL and will continue to promote it.
Thanks
Bruce
So, I guess your problem is that I would rather spend my own time to help only the neighbors who want to help me in a similar way.
Bruce
I would happily apply the BSD license to my work when someone else is paying me to do so. I don't expect that I'd do so very often otherwise, because my goal in creating Open Source on my own time is not to facilitate proprietary software. Anyone who wants to make proprietary use of code I make on my own time is welcome to contact me for a commercial license.
This seems fair and logical to me.
It's never been clear to me why some BSD proponents feel that any license except the GPL is OK to be applied to derived works of BSD code, when most proprietary licenses would fit your definition of "open" more poorly than the GPL.
In the case of the strategy I have recommended to the Open Group, there is a range of licenses that fits multiple business purposes. I acklowledged in the discussion that BSD was an appropriate license for some purposes, and went on to imply that LGPL and GPL fit other business purposes better than BSD does. If you want to restrain your competition from making proprietary use of your code, GPL is a good license for that. And there's the LGPL in between.
I don't see that this is not supporting Open Source in all of its forms.
Bruce
I would have treated him better if there was the slightest chance that anyone who had actually looked up what social Darwinism is could have sincerely linked it to my argument. But no, there is no chance of that.
Bruce
Living here in the US and making a living is the immediate concern of a good many people. I don't have much to offer them in the way of advice. That's all I was saying.
Bruce
Bruce
Did I really say it was HP's 40% profit margin?
The Open Group is a mixed vendor-and-customer organization, and one that I can't see is dominated by the vendors.
I think you need to remember that vendors exist to serve customers. If they don't do that as well as possible, they should fail and go out of business. That is what capitalism is about.
Bruce
Actually, I did point it out. Or at least imply it. In this text:
Bruce
There is nothing wrong with India if you live there. But some people are going to be concerned if jobs are moving out of wherever those people are.
In this particular case I think it is the US own fault because we haven't maintained a strong educational tradition among our own people, our primary schools are underfunded and substandard, and we don't do a good job at keeping our minorities in school, and interested in school.
But I digress...
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
This really made my day. Thanks!
Social Darwinism is the misapplication of a vulgarized form of Darwinian theory to race. Evolution is a fact in biological and scientific contexts, but its application to race is hogwash. And the same goes for Shockley's theories about race. None of this has anything to do with the selection that software goes through when people choose to aggregate a community around it, or choose not to.
Bruce