I, too, would love to see the results of this. I highly suspect that it'll yield interesting results. And it would get even more interesting if all of the pages had links to the preferences that said "you can filter this author out". I suspect many people aren't aware of the filtering ability.
But, on a serious note. I know i've got Katz filtered, an know large amounts of other people who have him filtered. Which raises the question, Jon, if so many "geeks" don't like you and the things you say, how can you go on writing as a representative of geeks? Doesn't your concious bother you? Making so much money off random writings about people who don't even like you is simply wrong, don't you think so?
So, now we've got a fast, low power CPU. That doesn't help us too much though. Why? Because we're still lacking one thing that PCs have that can't be made portable: the user interface components. (ie, monitor, keyboard & mouse)
What do I mean? Ok. I have a Newton2k and absolutely love it! It's got the biggest screen of any "PDA", and it's still not quite suitable for constant use. Even with the extremely good handwriting recognition it's got. Besides, it's still bulky.
So, we really need to figure out a way to get information into and out of the computer for a portable to really be worth something. Right now, the interface takes up much more volume than the computer itself does, just look at your average 17" monitor compared to your computer.
Our current best hope is for some acceptable form of eye monitor for the display, but that still doesn't take care of input. Voice recognition can cover a lot, but still not that much. How about some small keyboard like devices (eg. twiddler, wrist keyboard)? Well they're a bit unwieldy.
After my 2nd bedroom freed up, I had a computer room, but I needed some good way to hold the computers. So I went to the local Home Depot and found a set of shelves that work very well. While I don't have pictures of my setup, i recommended the same set to a friend and he did this.
I'm sure that a trip to your local home improvement store will yield a whole bunch of shelving units that you can use.
As if the people of the world spend too much time thinking as it is.
Come on people. We can spend a few minutes of the day thinking. ..Hasn't anyone here spent some time actually cooking a whole meal? It's pretty fun. Not to mention, it actually tastes better cuz it was something you actually worked on.
Right now XML is "the thing" (TM). Does that mean it's viable for all applications? No! Is it viable for this? Who knows, but lets not jump into it before it's been tested!
There certainly are advantages, but they've been mentioned so I'll skip 'em. On the other hand, there are a good number of disadvantages. Things like: larger data overhead in the conf files, Less readability in conf files, progammers would need to learn XML (which many of us don't want to!) and XML might not be adequate for everyones needs.
That being said, if you wish to proceed, pick an app and convert it to using XML conf files. See if it goes over.
However, one thing I would love to see is a unified method of getting config info, regardless of file format. Something along the PAM lines so admins can just drop a module in and suddenly the linux box can draw all of its config files from a central server! As an admin, I'ld love to be able to configure all aspects of every linux box I admin from a central server.
We must remember one very important thing about being a pawn, it's quite possible for a pawn to become a queen! And certainly, few companies would voluntarily lose a queen in the great chess game that is capitalism!
Seriously, the way things are shaping up, NT is going to knock Solaris down based on price and that will leave Sun holding Linux as the queen. This is a position that most Linux users will have little trouble with, I know I'll like it.
My buddy bought this game months ago and already bought an expansion to it! What a great game!
I'ld been playing it since the late 80's or early 90's and have gotten rather adept at arranging wins for myself. ..since that's actually what you do. You don't just win the game.
I've managed to pull wins out of my butt the last two times I played. The last time was the most memorable though. 5 player game. Me and another guy were horribly behind in terms of victory conditions. Next turn around each of the other 3 players would have won so we could stop them all. Suddenly I realized that we could share victory conditions if I gave him enough cards to win and he gave me the the last 2 "Wierd" groups I needed.
Well, yes. Ego clashes are very common. That's part of what open source software development is about. Most of the time a project gets started because the original author has an ego clash with the existing software (Linus with DOS/Windows). They go off and develop their own version.
But, the true power of open source is that others can develop too! That is, if others want to contribute, they should be able to!
Now, the hallmark of a GOOD open source maintainer is that he keeps everyone happy. This is done by rolling in changes as they are approved. Linus is a prime example of a great open source maintaining.
Ok. So far we've determined that everyone wants to prove that they have a bigger penis than the other guy. . .
How 'bout we all just shut up and show the code?
This whole bickering thing bothers me. Those who care about who they want to listen to will research everyone and come up with their own ideas. Those who don't care will look at the good code and use it! Either way, we all win!
Lets face it, EVERY SINGLE ONE of us is a zealot.
** Martin
Re:What a tangled web we weave...
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
For point number one, insert "without giving anything back to the community that created it" to fully understand the GPL.
As for point number two, most of your "concerns" are addressed by the LGPL, or Library GPL. That is, if the orignal author so chooses, then all others can use that code in such a way as to generate a profit without repaying the original author or the community. This is entirely the authors decision, NOT the FSF's. Don't mistake the two.
As for the BSD ReadPotato code, don't mistake "stealing" code for "stealing the use of code". Under the BSD style license any author can steal the use of the code without ever indicating to the original author, the community that helped, or anyone else that they are using the code. On top of that, even if they so choose to indicate WHERE the code came from, they do not owe ANY form of compensation, even it the form of "intellectual property", to either the orginal author, or the community that helped.
As of yet, I would not say that Stallman made any mistake. The GPL has had a significant effect on the world of software develpment, and will continue to do so. I do not believe that that RMS at any time truly believed that the GPL would be the ONLY license available to software developers. It's absolutely a utopian thought, but lets face it, if no software developer EVER had to write code that's been written before but "protected", the technology of software would increase greater than exponentially.
** Martin
Re:And we should listen to tom why?
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
Began, yes. Tom's "rebuttal" was anything but. He did not address any of the points I had raised. Rather, he brought in a new topic. The topic of force. I asked him to justify this topic. He couldn't and didn't. In the most terse way possible, by stating a 3 word absolute. Which, btw, is the absolute I was asking justification for.
At no time during the exchange did he introduce any new ideas relevent to the discussion. At no time did he address my points that his freedom and the software's freedom are NOT one and the same! At no time did he attempt to clarify any of the points which I was calling into question.
And if either you, or he, think I just wanted to harass him, I feel truly sorry for you opinions of people and their motivations. Though, it would explain much about Tom's writings.
** Martin
Re:And we should listen to tom why?
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 2
I tried to engage Tom in a meaningful discussion about his ideas in private email. He however didn't want to hear anything contrary to his beliefs. Since his email address is publicly posted here, I figured I'ld share the rest of his wisdom with you. And possibly with him, if Tom should care to respond. Which I doubt.
http://www.nacs.net/~heller/tchrist.txt
** Martin
Re: What is Intellectual Property really?
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
And what better way to make sure that you ALWAYS get credit for your "thought" than to release it as GPL, which requires that all other people who use it MUST give you credit?
But. ..feelings are NOT what IP laws are about! They're about obtaining a monopoly on a thought or idea. That's ALL! The social agreements you speak of can be obtained through any of a number of diferent ways!
** Martin
Re: What is Intellectual Property really?
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
The concept of Intellectual Property is one that gets a little touchy, but I'll present my views and let you make your own decision. . .
What is Intellectual Property? Well, first, what is property. It is the ownership of something. In some cases that something is a unique item -- as in, a particular parcel of land -- in other cases it is not unique -- as in, a Ford Taurus, lots of those around. However, the Intellectual Property laws (ie, copyright and patent) necassarily make all Intellectual Property unique. I find this absurd.
Claiming Intellectual Property is unique is concep t that I have trouble grasping. It basically says that I had a thought that no one else may have. This is clearly not possible. We all know of many occasions where the holder of a patent only got it because he filed a day or two before someone else and similar situations. Clearly multiple unique individuals had the same thought without ever knowing the other one had that thought. How can we say that legally only one had it?
The other thing that the current Intellectual Property laws do is force many people to reinvent the wheel. There are companies and individuals who actually believe that their thoughts are unique and as such, no one else may have them. A friend, who promotes the BSD license, and I, who promote the GPL, were recently having a discussion about this. He pointed me to a company that is producing a high speed switch based on a *BSD with speed enhancements to the IP stack, and didn't release it. He then told me that he would like to write one of those and sell it too. I asked him why he would want to write something that had already been written!
Clearly Intellectual Property is not a unique commodity. Many people can posses the same thought. The idea that the law states that they can't is absurd. This is NOT a communist view. It's a simple fact. In an area where ownership of something is NOT unique, making it unique by (legal) force is all together a waste of time. Both on the part of the people who try to enforce the uniqueness, and on the part of the people who decide to recreate items that have been claimed as unique.
** Martin
Re:RMS Never tried to run a company -- Yea, and?
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
To a businessman it won't make sense . .. Unless of course, you're the business man who happens to take some college students Open Source research and turns it into a multi million dollar company without spending ANY R&D money! I think Redhat, Caldera, Suse and all the other other Linux distro's would very quickly argue that the GPL does make sense to a business man!
See, the point of (open|free) source code is NOT for companies to spend lots of money on R&D and then lose it. Rather, it's to get all those people who are actually qualified to write the source they want to write to release their code to the public. That is, if I want to write some code for a particular project for myself, at home, what am I going to do with it? Sit on it? Try to find someone to buy it? Yea, good luck. Instead, I'll release it under the GPL so that EVERYONE can benefit from my hard work and late nights.
Slashdot Mirror
Here
**Martin
That is all. . .
** Martin
PS. If you agree, post here. Let's see how long of a thread we can get.
There is a backup site Here
I suspect they're changing it, so I posted a backup here
** Martin
But, on a serious note. I know i've got Katz filtered, an know large amounts of other people who have him filtered. Which raises the question, Jon, if so many "geeks" don't like you and the things you say, how can you go on writing as a representative of geeks? Doesn't your concious bother you? Making so much money off random writings about people who don't even like you is simply wrong, don't you think so?
** Martin
Thanks for doing a great job.
** Martin
What do I mean? Ok. I have a Newton2k and absolutely love it! It's got the biggest screen of any "PDA", and it's still not quite suitable for constant use. Even with the extremely good handwriting recognition it's got. Besides, it's still bulky.
So, we really need to figure out a way to get information into and out of the computer for a portable to really be worth something. Right now, the interface takes up much more volume than the computer itself does, just look at your average 17" monitor compared to your computer.
Our current best hope is for some acceptable form of eye monitor for the display, but that still doesn't take care of input. Voice recognition can cover a lot, but still not that much. How about some small keyboard like devices (eg. twiddler, wrist keyboard)? Well they're a bit unwieldy.
Suggestions?
** Martin
I'm sure that a trip to your local home improvement store will yield a whole bunch of shelving units that you can use.
** Martin
"It does all the thinking," Daniel said.
As if the people of the world spend too much time thinking as it is.
Come on people. We can spend a few minutes of the day thinking. .
** Martin
There is also about a Bruce Campbell Peter Parker.
Huh? Was this written in old english?
And on top of that. .
** Martin
Think of all the children it will save
End of story. It's through.
** Martin
http://www.nacs.net/~heller/linux/gartner_linux.ht ml
** Martin
. . .can be seen at:
m l
http://www.nacs.net/~heller/ms/ms_linuxmyths.ht
** Martin
Absolutely Correct!
Right now XML is "the thing" (TM). Does that mean it's viable for all applications? No! Is it viable for this? Who knows, but lets not jump into it before it's been tested!
There certainly are advantages, but they've been mentioned so I'll skip 'em. On the other hand, there are a good number of disadvantages. Things like: larger data overhead in the conf files, Less readability in conf files, progammers would need to learn XML (which many of us don't want to!) and XML might not be adequate for everyones needs.
That being said, if you wish to proceed, pick an app and convert it to using XML conf files. See if it goes over.
However, one thing I would love to see is a unified method of getting config info, regardless of file format. Something along the PAM lines so admins can just drop a module in and suddenly the linux box can draw all of its config files from a central server! As an admin, I'ld love to be able to configure all aspects of every linux box I admin from a central server.
** Martin
We must remember one very important thing about being a pawn, it's quite possible for a pawn to become a queen! And certainly, few companies would voluntarily lose a queen in the great chess game that is capitalism!
Seriously, the way things are shaping up, NT is going to knock Solaris down based on price and that will leave Sun holding Linux as the queen. This is a position that most Linux users will have little trouble with, I know I'll like it.
** Martin
Not at all!
The linux community is simply wary of others motivations!
My buddy bought this game months ago and already bought an expansion to it! What a great game!
.since that's actually what you do. You don't just win the game.
.my friends weren't happy with me that day!
I'ld been playing it since the late 80's or early 90's and have gotten rather adept at arranging wins for myself. .
I've managed to pull wins out of my butt the last two times I played. The last time was the most memorable though. 5 player game. Me and another guy were horribly behind in terms of victory conditions. Next turn around each of the other 3 players would have won so we could stop them all. Suddenly I realized that we could share victory conditions if I gave him enough cards to win and he gave me the the last 2 "Wierd" groups I needed.
Ah. .
** Martin
huh?
Well, yes. Ego clashes are very common. That's part of what open source software development is about. Most of the time a project gets started because the original author has an ego clash with the existing software (Linus with DOS/Windows). They go off and develop their own version.
But, the true power of open source is that others can develop too! That is, if others want to contribute, they should be able to!
Now, the hallmark of a GOOD open source maintainer is that he keeps everyone happy. This is done by rolling in changes as they are approved. Linus is a prime example of a great open source maintaining.
** Martin
Ok. So far we've determined that everyone wants to prove that they have a bigger penis than the other guy. . .
How 'bout we all just shut up and show the code?
This whole bickering thing bothers me. Those who care about who they want to listen to will research everyone and come up with their own ideas. Those who don't care will look at the good code and use it! Either way, we all win!
Lets face it, EVERY SINGLE ONE of us is a zealot.
** Martin
For point number one, insert "without giving anything back to the community that created it" to fully understand the GPL.
As for point number two, most of your "concerns" are addressed by the LGPL, or Library GPL. That is, if the orignal author so chooses, then all others can use that code in such a way as to generate a profit without repaying the original author or the community. This is entirely the authors decision, NOT the FSF's. Don't mistake the two.
As for the BSD ReadPotato code, don't mistake "stealing" code for "stealing the use of code". Under the BSD style license any author can steal the use of the code without ever indicating to the original author, the community that helped, or anyone else that they are using the code. On top of that, even if they so choose to indicate WHERE the code came from, they do not owe ANY form of compensation, even it the form of "intellectual property", to either the orginal author, or the community that helped.
As of yet, I would not say that Stallman made any mistake. The GPL has had a significant effect on the world of software develpment, and will continue to do so. I do not believe that that RMS at any time truly believed that the GPL would be the ONLY license available to software developers.
It's absolutely a utopian thought, but lets face it, if no software developer EVER had to write code that's been written before but "protected", the technology of software would increase greater than exponentially.
** Martin
Began, yes. Tom's "rebuttal" was anything but. He did not address any of the points I had raised. Rather, he brought in a new topic. The topic of force. I asked him to justify this topic. He couldn't and didn't. In the most terse way possible, by stating a 3 word absolute. Which, btw, is the absolute I was asking justification for.
At no time during the exchange did he introduce any new ideas relevent to the discussion. At no time did he address my points that his freedom and the software's freedom are NOT one and the same! At no time did he attempt to clarify any of the points which I was calling into question.
And if either you, or he, think I just wanted to harass him, I feel truly sorry for you opinions of people and their motivations. Though, it would explain much about Tom's writings.
** Martin
I tried to engage Tom in a meaningful discussion about his ideas in private email. He however didn't want to hear anything contrary to his beliefs. Since his email address is publicly posted here, I figured I'ld share the rest of his wisdom with you. And possibly with him, if Tom should care to respond. Which I doubt.
http://www.nacs.net/~heller/tchrist.txt
** Martin
And what better way to make sure that you ALWAYS get credit for your "thought" than to release it as GPL, which requires that all other people who use it MUST give you credit?
.feelings are NOT what IP laws are about! They're about obtaining a monopoly on a thought or idea. That's ALL! The social agreements you speak of can be obtained through any of a number of diferent ways!
But. .
** Martin
The concept of Intellectual Property is one that gets a little touchy, but I'll present my views and let you make your own decision. . .
What is Intellectual Property? Well, first, what is property. It is the ownership of something. In some cases that something is a unique item -- as in, a particular parcel of land -- in other cases it is not unique -- as in, a Ford Taurus, lots of those around. However, the Intellectual Property laws (ie, copyright and patent) necassarily make all Intellectual Property unique. I find this absurd.
Claiming Intellectual Property is unique is concep t that I have trouble grasping. It basically says that I had a thought that no one else may have. This is clearly not possible. We all know of many occasions where the holder of a patent only got it because he filed a day or two before someone else and similar situations. Clearly multiple unique individuals had the same thought without ever knowing the other one had that thought. How can we say that legally only one had it?
The other thing that the current Intellectual Property laws do is force many people to reinvent the wheel. There are companies and individuals who actually believe that their thoughts are unique and as such, no one else may have them. A friend, who promotes the BSD license, and I, who promote the GPL, were recently having a discussion about this. He pointed me to a company that is producing a high speed switch based on a *BSD with speed enhancements to the IP stack, and didn't release it. He then told me that he would like to write one of those and sell it too. I asked him why he would want to write something that had already been written!
Clearly Intellectual Property is not a unique commodity. Many people can posses the same thought. The idea that the law states that they can't is absurd. This is NOT a communist view. It's a simple fact. In an area where ownership of something is NOT unique, making it unique by (legal) force is all together a waste of time. Both on the part of the people who try to enforce the uniqueness, and on the part of the people who decide to recreate items that have been claimed as unique.
** Martin
To a businessman it won't make sense . . .
Unless of course, you're the business man who happens to take some college students Open Source research and turns it into a multi million dollar company without spending ANY R&D money! I think Redhat, Caldera, Suse and all the other other Linux distro's would very quickly argue that the GPL does make sense to a business man!
See, the point of (open|free) source code is NOT for companies to spend lots of money on R&D and then lose it. Rather, it's to get all those people who are actually qualified to write the source they want to write to release their code to the public. That is, if I want to write some code for a particular project for myself, at home, what am I going to do with it? Sit on it? Try to find someone to buy it? Yea, good luck. Instead, I'll release it under the GPL so that EVERYONE can benefit from my hard work and late nights.
THAT is how (open|free) source got started!
** Martin