It is both amusing and frustrating to hear all of the "armchair computer scientists" discussing the reasons this technology is a bad idea. As if they knew more about the subject than the many PhD's who have dedicated their careers to this subject based on the knowledge gleamed from the one Computer Architecture class the poster took as an undergraduate.
Remind anyone else of Tanenbaum? (And doesn't it feel like some of Linus' arguments apply here?)
For a court to rule that GPL'd code is public domain is to steal intellectual property from the author and give it to the public. No court has ever done this. It would create such a dangerous precedent that even GPL hating companies like Microsoft would oppose such a ruling. It would be the destruction of ALL intellectual property.
... and then the GPL will have achieved its goal, albeit by really twisted means. I sorta wanna see that happen, actually. The irony would just be absolutely priceless.
If you're going to argue against rights to control your own media, then you're going to have to get rid of the good as well as the bad. You can't have it any other way.
Wrong. The GPL has to dictate the terms under which software released under it is licensed because copyright, by law, kicks in automatically, making it, by default, illegal to distribute and modify under the terms which the GPL allowed. The GPL effectively simulates copyrightlessness in a world run by copyright. If we removed people's ability to control how their product is distributed (read: abolished copyright), programs would effectively be "under the GPL" -- there would be nothing stopping us, once we had the source code, from modifying and redistributing as we wished, and anyone we subsequently give the source to can do likewise.
So, yes, GPL advocates can advocate for the removal of information hoarding without putting their own interests at risk.
I agree that the term should not be used in this meeting, but perhaps for different reasons than zztzed.
The biggest gripe I have about it is the fact that it makes the implication that all we are concerned about is discrimination against geeks. This is not the case, and our diction should reflect that fact.
Obviously, geeks suffer tremendously from such jumpy conclusions. Even if geeks suffer the most from them, geeks are not the only ones, though, and our concern ought to be with misjudgment of anyone -- be them geek or jock. (On a side note, it will also probably give your arguments more weight, since it seems less likely that you are fighting strictly for the community you happen to be representing.)
If you're looking for thoughts on this subject from an artistic point of view, I would recommend you play "Parasite Eve," for your Playstation from Squaresoft.
The game speaks deeply to the dangers that arise whenever we are too reliant upon something -- be it technology, or the bacteria which allow us to live. It's a very chilling tale.
I know that I myself have been telling people at the AOL/Time-Warner monopoly simply because they are big. That's not a good thing. We should wait for them to actually act like a predatory monopoly.
Well, if the problem is as large as this article makes it out to be, the people I just warned against have reason to come at me screaming "I told you so!" I'm none too happy about it, either. Is it just not possible for big companies to play nice with the kids?
This is actually a very nice solution, but I believe it's missing one substantial part that the anti-censorship crowd ought to address. This legislation is being proposed for a reason: there are many parents who are quite convinced that the Internet is little more than a cesspool of smut.
While your plan more than adequately allows a wonderful compromise between the two, I personally worry that it actually solves very little: the parents who are so rabidly convinced are going to ban their kids from accessing anything from eToy.com to eToys.com (one censorware product actually bans searching for the word "toy"). Moreover, they will likely push the libraries to censor by default, and leave the creation of greater access to the parents.
This is not good, as only people who actually cared enough to act upon it would bother to give their children increased access. Hence, we need to continue going out the public (big thanks to Jamie for going out and being a good citizen) and explaining to people why censorship by default is a Bad Thing. Otherwise, we really don't help anybody but ourselves.
Hmmm... an interesting theory, to say the least. It would be quite possible, and wouldn't surprise me coming from Microsoft. It wouldn't work, however, and that's for the simple fact that actions speak louder than words. Remember, this is Microsoft -- they can tell Hotmail to do anything they want. So how come those servers aren't running WinNT, if it's so much better than FreeBSD? Yeah, I thought so.
TIME selects its person of the year by choosing who has made the most news in the past year. Good or bad makes no difference: what matters is how much news relates to said person. Hence, it is no wonder that Ken Starr and Bill Clinton were chosen for last year's award -- there was no doubt. All that news may not have been good, but they made a LOT of news.
While I'm not absolutely certain of this nomination myself, I myself can't think of anyone who would particularly be more deserving of the award for this year, except possibly the Department of Justice. That's a whole group, though, rather than an individual, and most people don't hear as much news about the case as slashdotters do.
This is why TIME would consider naming Hitler for man of the century. World War II has had outstanding impact on the world since it begun, and moreover, continues to to this very day. I doubt anyone (rational) at TIME would say what Hitler did was a good thing. He sure as hell made a lot of news, however. Thus, don't go thinking that TIME is championing Bezos as the pioneer of e-commerce.
In each of these cases, Dave's problem has absolutely nothing to do with open information: open protocols are not a hassle, Netscape Navigator is not a hassle, Linux is not a hassle.
The hassle is when things become less open. Java is a hassle. (I find this amusing -- what happened to Java's "write once, run everywhere" philosophy?) Plugins are a hassle. The problem is the fact that people, in their never-ending quest to have their stupid whizbang bandwidth-sucking toys (sorry, I'm admittedly bitter), forget the intent of the web -- that is, if they ever knew it at all.
These people who want their toys don't care about being open. They just care about making their site look pretty. If you ask me, that's pretty silly, since these things are rarely anything more useful than a clip to accompany a news bit, and are most of the time strictly what I call them -- toys.
I know everyone hates a zealot, but if you're going to get anywhere in really winning the war over proprietary web protocols, you're going to have to do at least one of two (if not both) things:
Encourage the developers of these proprietary protocols to open them. You'll need strength in numbers, too. Start pen-and-paper petitions, and send them to brick-and-mortar offices. One e-mail, while better than nothing, won't be enough to sway the green dreams of CEOs.
Encourage web authors not to use these protocols. Admittedly, this is much easier than the first task. Simply tell them: more people can use open protocols, and they're generally easier to develop. Many web authors generally don't need much more of an argument beyond that -- getting to more users and lessening the workload should always be two very big plusses in their books.
Yes, this is very doable. I frequent a web forum, and much to some users' dismay, it relied heavily on JavaScript. With enough complains, though, it works fine in any HTML-compliant browser. It's not that difficult, either. Generally, it isn't really tough to remove the bad parts from a web page -- if it is, you seriously have to question if the site isn't due for a redesign.
So, what are you waiting for? Surely you know of a few sites which could be shown a little light. Go out there and get at them!
To say "had we not worked on the Internet, we would've worked on something else" as Roblimo does here seems to be an exercise in basic logic. I'm really not sure what the point of this article really was.
Is Roblimo trying to convince us that we should stop riding the Internet boom because it's going to run out eventually, and we're lagging behind in other areas? This seems silly. All advancement is eventually replaced with a new one. Plus, even though we may not be excelling at making cars, we do excel at progressing the development of computers and the Internet. We lead there. We now have technology in our computers that were unheard of three years ago, and are working on ones we didn't even consider a month ago. Moreover, the development of computers and the Internet is particularly nice, because it assist development in other areas, since computers have practically no end to their uses. A car might help a journalist get to a story faster, but it won't help an author create a cleaner, flexible copy of his work. A computer can help them both.
If there's any association which is willing to believe that software can actually predict the behavior of a human being, the school system would be it.
Schools are horrendously giddy these days, worried about who the next problem might stem from. This is understandable, but the problem is that they will pursue any means necessary to stop what they see as a forthcoming problem, without any restraint whatsoever.
I know someone from IRC who was accused by the school of cracking passwords from the network, and consequently had his server removed from the network (and hence, he had no access to it) without any forewarning whatsoever. This year, he was accused of installing a virus onto a computer, even though he wasn't on it at the time. Luckily, no real permanent consequences have come about, but he's had a lot of hell to pay, and he's had his rights stepped all over in the process.
Personally, I have no problems if someone wants to be silly and try to use software to predict what I will do on any given day. However, I worry what the schools will do with this information -- it wouldn't surprise me at all of they punished students for being considered "high-risk" by the program. How would you react if you were forced to go through counseling and were suspiciously watched by teachers all the time, because a computer program had deemed you as anti-social, and likely to strike out against the rest of humanity?
That's what makes this particularly relevant to slashdot -- young geeks (myself included) generally don't have a great social life, and would likely go under some reprimanding label under this system. We ought to fight against this system, because it's likely to stem into a complete disregard for the rights of those who are misjudged by some piece of software. Kids have rights too.
I'm glad that Talin has taken this issue up with the slashdot community. I'm not in the games industry myself (yet), but I am an avid reader of Game Developer. Rarely do you hear about a game that wasn't plagued by scheduling issues, or the frantic rush to hit the famed Christmas deadline. Some games have had absolutely horrible creation methods, simply because nobody felt like there was time to plan anything different out. I'm gonna get slapped for this, but the games industry follows the "if it compiles, ship it" philosophy more than Microsoft ever could. At least Microsoft delays their products. Not that it helps much.
You know what, though? It's a total damn shame, too. Unfortunately, not enough people are able to recognize games as an art form as opposed to something guys without girlfriends enjoy. Ask almost any game developer why they create games -- any developer, regardless of the game -- and I think half will tell you they consider it an art form. The other half just plain enjoys what they're doing. (These are my rough estimates, by the way.)
As games have evolved over the years -- in complexity, in technical ability, in sheer impressiveness (and hence expressiveness; at least, that's the way it is for many viewers) -- they have increased the capacity of their art. So it would make common sense that the games industry slow down to reach this art. Nope! Rather, the games industry is run by company boards who, for the most part, view games as a source of income rather than an art form. They'll be blunt about it, too. If they think your game sucks for any reason -- even in the raw prototype stage -- you can forget developing it further. It's gone baby, solid gone. When you get to the development cycle, it's dictated by them, and if you don't keep up to their expectations, you can kiss it goodbye. This is not an environment in which you foster creative, artistic thinking.
Take Zelda 64 as an example. (Console games may differ between commercial strategies, but certainly not their artistic qualities.) The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time had a long development cycle with a staff of 200 people. The result: a game which is detailed, enjoyable, and, above all, undeniably a great work of art. That's how everything should be done. Alas, not everyone is a video game genius and are willing to dictate things differently like Miyamoto. However, that's how you make art.
Video games have a great potential for art that no other art form has -- their inherent interactivity. Using this advantage, the art form can be molded to reflect upon what the player has done, and send them the message that the designers want to be sent. We should argue with the game companies to see this reflected in their games. Support games as art; not games as a way to fatten some CEO and give a company a good profile.
In the dark ages of computing, the monolithic machines had many wires and were often stuffed into dark, damp corners.
And the wisemen of the computers, known as admins, were often forced to go into these places. They would bump their head on things, accidentally disconnect wires, and have bad allergic reactions to the dust.
This made the computers angry and frustrated the admins. And so the admins prayed unto the Lord of Computing, "Lord of Computing, please aid us in our quest to maintain the great computers without causing ourselves physical bodily harm in the process."
And the Lord of Computing said, "Let there be light." And there was light. And it was good*.
-- Stargazer
* Although it didn't do much for the allergic reactions, it was a start.
... not to say that it's irrelevant to slashdot; it certainly isn't. But this poor Internet startup does not have the ability to handle the dreaded slashdot effect -- you can already see the lag on their IRC server.
Something for them to list on the "not to do"s later on.:)
It's nice to know that in light of recent events in the United States, the Catholic Church doesn't consider the Internet to be a cesspool of paganism and various other Bad Things. (Note that I'm talking from the view of the Church here.)
And we _all_ know that if anything needs a patron saint right now, it's the Internet. An omnipotent God just doesn't cut it when the backbone goes down. We need somebody who really cares.
This is another brilliant example of a company thinking that people won't care if it releases a non-free solution.
From what little I could draw from the article (it was basically a press release), it seems this company would think one of two things:
It's perfectly justifiable not to release a free solution, because they're pioneering the market -- they can do whatever they want, just as long as it gets them money.
Even if those who care about free software don't buy their product, they'll win the money of managers who still can't distinguish free from gratis.
If you're thinking that now's a good time to promote free software to your manager, I would ask that you not mention this upcoming telephony package.
First of all, it nullifies the greatest reason for promoting free software -- human rights.
Secondly, because it's proprietary, and they're working with Red Hat, it may not work well with other distributions. (NOTE: I'm not trying to flame or yell at Red Hat here; more the company releasing this product.) Proprietary software simply cannot be as flexible as free software. The odds of it working across various distributions (or even various configurations) are slim to none.
Linux Telephony? I'm all for it. But this isn't the way we want to go.
I know that this summary is nothing new, but I think that makes this an excellent time to summarize what I believe should be read from this.
In our attempts to find a "moral to the story," we can basically try to answer two questions: What does this say about Rasterman? and What does this say about Red Hat? If you don't like my longwindedness, I'll answer both for you right here: nothing.
The only change to Rasterman that arises from this is a different locale and different employer. That's it. He always has cared about his users; he's not leaving because he's been magically enlightened to the needs of them. Same ol' lovable Rasterman.
Likewise, there's nothing new about Red Hat here. They aren't out to hurt Rasterman's users or work, with the exception of one person. I doubt one person should categorize Red Hat's official stance. Especially one which has thus far gone unnamed, and is more than likely not anyone high on the food chain. Rasterman himself even says that most of the folks and RH and RHAD are good people: there's just that one person who has offended him.
So why am I chatting so much about something that I consider a nothing-new event? Simply because I don't want to hear any weirdness emerge from it. Rasterman is not suddenly a saint (unless he already was;) ); Red Hat is not suddenly a non-believer in the Free way.
In all seriousness, though, I think that every project in this community needs to consider what kind of documentation they need to write. I'm sure you've noticed a stark difference in the documentation of Windows and Linux programs. This is because the Windows community seems to have collectively decided that the geeks can fend for themselves; they're writing for the people who fear that clicking any button causes an irrevocable change in the computer that will mess it up.
Unfortunately, the Linux community seems to have collectively decided to write for the people who know very well how to work a computer, and want to know how to do the real juicy shtuff faster and better. The Linux Documentation Project is full of examples of these. Mind you, many of the HOWTOs on there are great, and easy for me to understand with minimal Linux experience -- but I've been comfortable with a computer since I was four years old, and I have no problem placing ideas of real objects with the abstract terms. I have a feeling that there are many people whom would be confused by even the most basic of HOWTOs (humourous ones excepted:) ), let alone the trickier ones.
Browsing through the list of writers who have applied for the job, it doesn't seem like this project is making any attempt to fix this problem. For their biographies, they note things like degrees, almost any technical experience, and listings of programs they're familiar with. Unfortunately, none of them speak of their ability to communicate simply and easily with the computer illiterate.
Advanced documentation is great. Otherwise, nobody would get sendmail configured. However, if we want people to consider free operating systems, we don't need to dumb them down -- we need to make our documentation "user-friendly." I would much prefer to see a real attempt to address larger problems than provide another means to ease communication between geeks who want to write for geeks.
These notices about JWZ's resignation come with too much of a note of sadness. Yes, it is a sad day for Netscape. But Netscape has had many sad days, long before AOL acquired it or Mozilla was released as an open source product.
This is, however, a decidedly Good Thing for JWZ himself. The two articles about his resignation are him at his best. JWZ is a person very in-touch with reality. He knows the company structure, but is still very much aware of human dignity and the Right Things (which tend to get lost in such a structure as a company).
This is an incredibly talented person. If his talents are wasted at Netscape (and there's no reason to believe they aren't), then we should be short of thrilled to see him leave. Goodness only knows what such a man could do for the Internet, computers, or the world.
The revolution never dies -- it lives in the hearts of those that seek greater.
-- Stargazer
This really frightens me...
on
Windows ID
·
· Score: 1
I used to be one of the few around here (it seems) that didn't think using Microsoft software was one of the worst things a human being could do. I've changed my mind since reading that article. This database -- which seems to already exist -- could have plenty of information about anybody out there who has ever used a recent Windows product. Me being one of those people, unfortunately, this news shocks me to no end. I will not tolerate these "bugs" any more. I also find it interesting that they try to point the finger at the Open Software Foundation, saying that it was some sort of standard at the time. That is nothing but bull and a pathetic attempt to save face. This could become a very clear argument in favor for using free software. GNU&Linux forever!
Slashdot itself has done nothing to make itself look bad here. Slashdot is a news site reporting the news. Moreover, it's not bashing MS's product, it's insulting their perceptions of our intelligence. If some comment-posters feel obliged to make their usual childish remarks, it's their own problem. Slashdot has done nothing here to stain its journalistic integrity (unless the summary is incorrect).
Slashdot Mirror
Remind anyone else of Tanenbaum? (And doesn't it feel like some of Linus' arguments apply here?)
-- Brett
For a court to rule that GPL'd code is public domain is to steal intellectual property from the author and give it to the public. No court has ever done this. It would create such a dangerous precedent that even GPL hating companies like Microsoft would oppose such a ruling. It would be the destruction of ALL intellectual property.
... and then the GPL will have achieved its goal, albeit by really twisted means. I sorta wanna see that happen, actually. The irony would just be absolutely priceless.
-- Brett
Wrong. The GPL has to dictate the terms under which software released under it is licensed because copyright, by law, kicks in automatically, making it, by default, illegal to distribute and modify under the terms which the GPL allowed. The GPL effectively simulates copyrightlessness in a world run by copyright. If we removed people's ability to control how their product is distributed (read: abolished copyright), programs would effectively be "under the GPL" -- there would be nothing stopping us, once we had the source code, from modifying and redistributing as we wished, and anyone we subsequently give the source to can do likewise.
So, yes, GPL advocates can advocate for the removal of information hoarding without putting their own interests at risk.
-- Brett
I agree that the term should not be used in this meeting, but perhaps for different reasons than zztzed.
The biggest gripe I have about it is the fact that it makes the implication that all we are concerned about is discrimination against geeks. This is not the case, and our diction should reflect that fact.
Obviously, geeks suffer tremendously from such jumpy conclusions. Even if geeks suffer the most from them, geeks are not the only ones, though, and our concern ought to be with misjudgment of anyone -- be them geek or jock. (On a side note, it will also probably give your arguments more weight, since it seems less likely that you are fighting strictly for the community you happen to be representing.)
Don't use the term.
-- Brett Smith
If you're looking for thoughts on this subject from an artistic point of view, I would recommend you play "Parasite Eve," for your Playstation from Squaresoft.
The game speaks deeply to the dangers that arise whenever we are too reliant upon something -- be it technology, or the bacteria which allow us to live. It's a very chilling tale.
-- Stargazer
Well, if the problem is as large as this article makes it out to be, the people I just warned against have reason to come at me screaming "I told you so!" I'm none too happy about it, either. Is it just not possible for big companies to play nice with the kids?
-- Stargazer
While your plan more than adequately allows a wonderful compromise between the two, I personally worry that it actually solves very little: the parents who are so rabidly convinced are going to ban their kids from accessing anything from eToy.com to eToys.com (one censorware product actually bans searching for the word "toy"). Moreover, they will likely push the libraries to censor by default, and leave the creation of greater access to the parents.
This is not good, as only people who actually cared enough to act upon it would bother to give their children increased access. Hence, we need to continue going out the public (big thanks to Jamie for going out and being a good citizen) and explaining to people why censorship by default is a Bad Thing. Otherwise, we really don't help anybody but ourselves.
-- Brett Smith
-- Stargazer
While I'm not absolutely certain of this nomination myself, I myself can't think of anyone who would particularly be more deserving of the award for this year, except possibly the Department of Justice. That's a whole group, though, rather than an individual, and most people don't hear as much news about the case as slashdotters do.
This is why TIME would consider naming Hitler for man of the century. World War II has had outstanding impact on the world since it begun, and moreover, continues to to this very day. I doubt anyone (rational) at TIME would say what Hitler did was a good thing. He sure as hell made a lot of news, however. Thus, don't go thinking that TIME is championing Bezos as the pioneer of e-commerce.
-- Stargazer
The hassle is when things become less open. Java is a hassle. (I find this amusing -- what happened to Java's "write once, run everywhere" philosophy?) Plugins are a hassle. The problem is the fact that people, in their never-ending quest to have their stupid whizbang bandwidth-sucking toys (sorry, I'm admittedly bitter), forget the intent of the web -- that is, if they ever knew it at all.
These people who want their toys don't care about being open. They just care about making their site look pretty. If you ask me, that's pretty silly, since these things are rarely anything more useful than a clip to accompany a news bit, and are most of the time strictly what I call them -- toys.
I know everyone hates a zealot, but if you're going to get anywhere in really winning the war over proprietary web protocols, you're going to have to do at least one of two (if not both) things:
Yes, this is very doable. I frequent a web forum, and much to some users' dismay, it relied heavily on JavaScript. With enough complains, though, it works fine in any HTML-compliant browser. It's not that difficult, either. Generally, it isn't really tough to remove the bad parts from a web page -- if it is, you seriously have to question if the site isn't due for a redesign.
So, what are you waiting for? Surely you know of a few sites which could be shown a little light. Go out there and get at them!
-- Stargazer
Is Roblimo trying to convince us that we should stop riding the Internet boom because it's going to run out eventually, and we're lagging behind in other areas? This seems silly. All advancement is eventually replaced with a new one. Plus, even though we may not be excelling at making cars, we do excel at progressing the development of computers and the Internet. We lead there. We now have technology in our computers that were unheard of three years ago, and are working on ones we didn't even consider a month ago. Moreover, the development of computers and the Internet is particularly nice, because it assist development in other areas, since computers have practically no end to their uses. A car might help a journalist get to a story faster, but it won't help an author create a cleaner, flexible copy of his work. A computer can help them both.
As for politicians... that's always a problem. :)
-- Stargazer
Schools are horrendously giddy these days, worried about who the next problem might stem from. This is understandable, but the problem is that they will pursue any means necessary to stop what they see as a forthcoming problem, without any restraint whatsoever.
I know someone from IRC who was accused by the school of cracking passwords from the network, and consequently had his server removed from the network (and hence, he had no access to it) without any forewarning whatsoever. This year, he was accused of installing a virus onto a computer, even though he wasn't on it at the time. Luckily, no real permanent consequences have come about, but he's had a lot of hell to pay, and he's had his rights stepped all over in the process.
Personally, I have no problems if someone wants to be silly and try to use software to predict what I will do on any given day. However, I worry what the schools will do with this information -- it wouldn't surprise me at all of they punished students for being considered "high-risk" by the program. How would you react if you were forced to go through counseling and were suspiciously watched by teachers all the time, because a computer program had deemed you as anti-social, and likely to strike out against the rest of humanity?
That's what makes this particularly relevant to slashdot -- young geeks (myself included) generally don't have a great social life, and would likely go under some reprimanding label under this system. We ought to fight against this system, because it's likely to stem into a complete disregard for the rights of those who are misjudged by some piece of software. Kids have rights too.
You know what, though? It's a total damn shame, too. Unfortunately, not enough people are able to recognize games as an art form as opposed to something guys without girlfriends enjoy. Ask almost any game developer why they create games -- any developer, regardless of the game -- and I think half will tell you they consider it an art form. The other half just plain enjoys what they're doing. (These are my rough estimates, by the way.)
As games have evolved over the years -- in complexity, in technical ability, in sheer impressiveness (and hence expressiveness; at least, that's the way it is for many viewers) -- they have increased the capacity of their art. So it would make common sense that the games industry slow down to reach this art. Nope! Rather, the games industry is run by company boards who, for the most part, view games as a source of income rather than an art form. They'll be blunt about it, too. If they think your game sucks for any reason -- even in the raw prototype stage -- you can forget developing it further. It's gone baby, solid gone. When you get to the development cycle, it's dictated by them, and if you don't keep up to their expectations, you can kiss it goodbye. This is not an environment in which you foster creative, artistic thinking.
Take Zelda 64 as an example. (Console games may differ between commercial strategies, but certainly not their artistic qualities.) The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time had a long development cycle with a staff of 200 people. The result: a game which is detailed, enjoyable, and, above all, undeniably a great work of art. That's how everything should be done. Alas, not everyone is a video game genius and are willing to dictate things differently like Miyamoto. However, that's how you make art.
Video games have a great potential for art that no other art form has -- their inherent interactivity. Using this advantage, the art form can be molded to reflect upon what the player has done, and send them the message that the designers want to be sent. We should argue with the game companies to see this reflected in their games. Support games as art; not games as a way to fatten some CEO and give a company a good profile.
-- Stargazer
In the dark ages of computing, the monolithic machines had many wires and were often stuffed into dark, damp corners.
And the wisemen of the computers, known as admins, were often forced to go into these places. They would bump their head on things, accidentally disconnect wires, and have bad allergic reactions to the dust.
This made the computers angry and frustrated the admins. And so the admins prayed unto the Lord of Computing, "Lord of Computing, please aid us in our quest to maintain the great computers without causing ourselves physical bodily harm in the process."
And the Lord of Computing said, "Let there be light." And there was light. And it was good*.
-- Stargazer
* Although it didn't do much for the allergic reactions, it was a start.
Something for them to list on the "not to do"s later on. :)
-- Stargazer
And we _all_ know that if anything needs a patron saint right now, it's the Internet. An omnipotent God just doesn't cut it when the backbone goes down. We need somebody who really cares.
(All in the name of good humor, folks. :) )
From what little I could draw from the article (it was basically a press release), it seems this company would think one of two things:
If you're thinking that now's a good time to promote free software to your manager, I would ask that you not mention this upcoming telephony package.
First of all, it nullifies the greatest reason for promoting free software -- human rights.
Secondly, because it's proprietary, and they're working with Red Hat, it may not work well with other distributions. (NOTE: I'm not trying to flame or yell at Red Hat here; more the company releasing this product.) Proprietary software simply cannot be as flexible as free software. The odds of it working across various distributions (or even various configurations) are slim to none.
Linux Telephony? I'm all for it. But this isn't the way we want to go.
In our attempts to find a "moral to the story," we can basically try to answer two questions: What does this say about Rasterman? and What does this say about Red Hat? If you don't like my longwindedness, I'll answer both for you right here: nothing.
The only change to Rasterman that arises from this is a different locale and different employer. That's it. He always has cared about his users; he's not leaving because he's been magically enlightened to the needs of them. Same ol' lovable Rasterman.
Likewise, there's nothing new about Red Hat here. They aren't out to hurt Rasterman's users or work, with the exception of one person. I doubt one person should categorize Red Hat's official stance. Especially one which has thus far gone unnamed, and is more than likely not anyone high on the food chain. Rasterman himself even says that most of the folks and RH and RHAD are good people: there's just that one person who has offended him.
So why am I chatting so much about something that I consider a nothing-new event? Simply because I don't want to hear any weirdness emerge from it. Rasterman is not suddenly a saint (unless he already was ;) ); Red Hat is not suddenly a non-believer in the Free way.
Flames burn. Hurt. Don't touch; don't start.
In all seriousness, though, I think that every project in this community needs to consider what kind of documentation they need to write. I'm sure you've noticed a stark difference in the documentation of Windows and Linux programs. This is because the Windows community seems to have collectively decided that the geeks can fend for themselves; they're writing for the people who fear that clicking any button causes an irrevocable change in the computer that will mess it up.
Unfortunately, the Linux community seems to have collectively decided to write for the people who know very well how to work a computer, and want to know how to do the real juicy shtuff faster and better. The Linux Documentation Project is full of examples of these. Mind you, many of the HOWTOs on there are great, and easy for me to understand with minimal Linux experience -- but I've been comfortable with a computer since I was four years old, and I have no problem placing ideas of real objects with the abstract terms. I have a feeling that there are many people whom would be confused by even the most basic of HOWTOs (humourous ones excepted :) ), let alone the trickier ones.
Browsing through the list of writers who have applied for the job, it doesn't seem like this project is making any attempt to fix this problem. For their biographies, they note things like degrees, almost any technical experience, and listings of programs they're familiar with. Unfortunately, none of them speak of their ability to communicate simply and easily with the computer illiterate.
Advanced documentation is great. Otherwise, nobody would get sendmail configured. However, if we want people to consider free operating systems, we don't need to dumb them down -- we need to make our documentation "user-friendly." I would much prefer to see a real attempt to address larger problems than provide another means to ease communication between geeks who want to write for geeks.
These notices about JWZ's resignation come with too much of a note of sadness. Yes, it is a sad day for Netscape. But Netscape has had many sad days, long before AOL acquired it or Mozilla was released as an open source product.
This is, however, a decidedly Good Thing for JWZ himself. The two articles about his resignation are him at his best. JWZ is a person very in-touch with reality. He knows the company structure, but is still very much aware of human dignity and the Right Things (which tend to get lost in such a structure as a company).
This is an incredibly talented person. If his talents are wasted at Netscape (and there's no reason to believe they aren't), then we should be short of thrilled to see him leave. Goodness only knows what such a man could do for the Internet, computers, or the world.
The revolution never dies -- it lives in the hearts of those that seek greater.
-- Stargazer
I used to be one of the few around here (it seems) that didn't think using Microsoft software was one of the worst things a human being could do. I've changed my mind since reading that article.
This database -- which seems to already exist -- could have plenty of information about anybody out there who has ever used a recent Windows product. Me being one of those people, unfortunately, this news shocks me to no end. I will not tolerate these "bugs" any more.
I also find it interesting that they try to point the finger at the Open Software Foundation, saying that it was some sort of standard at the time. That is nothing but bull and a pathetic attempt to save face.
This could become a very clear argument in favor for using free software. GNU&Linux forever!
Slashdot itself has done nothing to make itself look bad here. Slashdot is a news site reporting the news. Moreover, it's not bashing MS's product, it's insulting their perceptions of our intelligence. If some comment-posters feel obliged to make their usual childish remarks, it's their own problem. Slashdot has done nothing here to stain its journalistic integrity (unless the summary is incorrect).