FreeCiv takes the approach of not trusting the clients (all verification is performed in the server; nothing is sent to the client that the user should not know; etc.), and it has excellently playable performance. Of course, it's not a FPS or real-time system. Players do all take their turns simultaneously, though, and it seems to scale up well (max 30 players per game, I think).
If you haven't read it before, I recommend you check out Eric Raymond's The Case of the Quake Cheats. You don't need source to come up with the kinds of cheats you're describing. Remember the story of how the bnetd people reverse engineered blizzard.net. They weren't trying to cheat, but people can and will go to these same lengths for cheating.
Open source security assumes that the people working together want access to each other, but want to keep others out.
I program every day with the assumption that I want to grant users only a limited set of permissions and nothing else and that abrupt and awkward program termination even in some acceptable cases is better than accidentally allowing unexpected actions. Open source gave me this mentality, and I use it on the job. Open source has produced some highly secure systems (such as OpenBSD). Knowledge of algorithms does not imply ability to defeat them, nor does lack of knowledge imply increased security.
It's stupid childishness. I had a fit of not liking the whole United Linux thing and said, "Well, I'm just going to misspell it all the time. So there.:P" Then I heard the stuff about per-seat licenses and said, "Hey, this is just warmed over Caldera. What's the point of Linux if you don't get freedom with it?"
The reason you don't get it is, it's not funny. I really can make good jokes sometimes, but this sure isn't one of them.:) I left it though wondering if people would wonder if the misspelling was intentional. Honestly.
Asa, I'd like to personally thank you. I don't think we can overstate the importance of the release of this product. I've got a couple of books that list Mozilla as a classical "failure" of open source; well, I'm happy to see you guys PROVE THEM WRONG! Congratulations. You folks have rewritten the book on software development and quality assurance. Thank you so much!
The official print copy of the CMM includes a case study about the space shuttle. It's a coworkers book and I haven't read it, so I'm not sure what the case study is really about. (I stick to the online PDF's, which don't include the case study.)
You're talking about how the law is. I'm talking about how the law should be. I'm not convinced that if you spread lies and the subject of those lies can prove that he was "damanged" by them that this should be an actionable offense.
This is nothing new; Caldera has been doing this since day one. They've also been failing since day one. Most software developers know that if you keep using the same methods you'll keep getting the same results, but Caldera hopes it will be different with a new name.
Believe it or not, RedHat seems to have a great commitment to freedom. With RedHat and Debian available, I don't see a whole lot of room for other distributions; especially not for non-free ones.
What you are missing is that the GPL allows (and encourages) selling free software, but it forbids taking away the rights of the recipient to further modify or redistribute the software. Caldera (UnitedLinux, by this philosophy, shows that they are just Caldera; Caldera has always done this) can't get around the GPL so I presume what they are doing is distributing source to all the GPL'd parts of the system and noting your rights in fine print somewhere while adding a few proprietary parts such that the whole integrated product cannot be redistributed and you have to pay a per-seat license. This means you're really just paying the license for a tiny amount of the product and not the whole OS.
I like your point about envy. I'm so tired of hearing people complain about the oil companies (re: gas prices) and the phone companies when their only complaint is, "They're making a lot of unfair money!" If you want some, buy stock. Don't legislate it away so that we all have to live in a hole.
Does this contradict your principle of "absolute free speech?"
Maybe sorta. I'm currently thinking I need to investigate the concept of fraud and how it interacts with free speech. For example, there seems to be a difference between printing a false advertisement for a product you are selling (there's an implicit contract there, I think) and printing lies about a political candidate in a paper. The first one is very definitely fraud and should be restricted, I think. The second is an argument.:)
Oh, yes! What an excellent point. Every April I get mad seeing that little $3 checkbox. And every year I wind up casually discussing taxes with someone and spending a long time explaining my reason for not checking it. My explanation is greeted with astonishment: "Why would you not want to help end corruption? What are you, a Communist?"
Just think; if we fund political campaigns, we'd have to fund people like LePen from France. Better to let the screwballs fund their own campaigns.
Also, the free speech principle is talking about rights. It's talking about what governments can and can't do to you. When you are dealing with ISPs, you are not dealing with some authority that you a forced under (well, unless you want to move out of the country). Rather, the agreement and terms of use with the ISP is a business contract, and by agreeing to this business contract, you have essentially agreed to their policies on appropriate use of *private resources*.
That was my original point. While I don't tend to favor government laws as a solution to spam because they seem to be restrictions on free speech, this is entirely between companies. Unless someone failed to keep a contract, the government has no business stepping in. I don't believe the anti-spam list that included the site had a contract with the spammer.:)
The absolute free speech principle I usually subscribe to would make these responses:
Free speech ends when what you are saying is untrue and hurtful to someone else's business.
Why? Does this constitute an abridgment under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution? (Yes, I know this is not a U.S. case.)
Let's imagine that say buy.com was put on an anti-spammer list... How much revenue would they lose?
If it's my list, I can do whatever I want with it. It's not a government sponsored list. The people providing me the resources to produce the list can choose to quit providing me those resources, if they want. The people using my list can choose to quit using the list, too, if they want.
Whose fault would it be?
The fault of the people using the list. But they don't have a contract with buy.com to provide connectivity, so I don't see that anyone should be allowed to make them.
I know you may disagree with these principles for various reasons, but this is how I would address them. (At least, most of the time. I waver and change my mind sometimes.)
You've mistaken other peoples' opinions for my own. Everyone replied that this isn't a free speech issue, but I think it is. IMO, the solution to spam is going to be limited acceptible recipient lists for mail delivery agents. I accept the spam until such time as a solution arises to it.
Slashdot Mirror
FreeCiv takes the approach of not trusting the clients (all verification is performed in the server; nothing is sent to the client that the user should not know; etc.), and it has excellently playable performance. Of course, it's not a FPS or real-time system. Players do all take their turns simultaneously, though, and it seems to scale up well (max 30 players per game, I think).
Plus, it's a great game!
If you haven't read it before, I recommend you check out Eric Raymond's The Case of the Quake Cheats. You don't need source to come up with the kinds of cheats you're describing. Remember the story of how the bnetd people reverse engineered blizzard.net. They weren't trying to cheat, but people can and will go to these same lengths for cheating.
Open source security assumes that the people working together want access to each other, but want to keep others out.
I program every day with the assumption that I want to grant users only a limited set of permissions and nothing else and that abrupt and awkward program termination even in some acceptable cases is better than accidentally allowing unexpected actions. Open source gave me this mentality, and I use it on the job. Open source has produced some highly secure systems (such as OpenBSD). Knowledge of algorithms does not imply ability to defeat them, nor does lack of knowledge imply increased security.
It's stupid childishness. I had a fit of not liking the whole United Linux thing and said, "Well, I'm just going to misspell it all the time. So there. :P" Then I heard the stuff about per-seat licenses and said, "Hey, this is just warmed over Caldera. What's the point of Linux if you don't get freedom with it?"
The reason you don't get it is, it's not funny. I really can make good jokes sometimes, but this sure isn't one of them. :) I left it though wondering if people would wonder if the misspelling was intentional. Honestly.
I wonder if I can get a clause in my contract that says I don't have to watch the ads for feminine hygiene products.
Please don't forget Macintosh. Classic and OS X.
Asa, I'd like to personally thank you. I don't think we can overstate the importance of the release of this product. I've got a couple of books that list Mozilla as a classical "failure" of open source; well, I'm happy to see you guys PROVE THEM WRONG! Congratulations. You folks have rewritten the book on software development and quality assurance. Thank you so much!
The official print copy of the CMM includes a case study about the space shuttle. It's a coworkers book and I haven't read it, so I'm not sure what the case study is really about. (I stick to the online PDF's, which don't include the case study.)
For a good introduction to what RMS is saying, try the philosophy section of GNU's website, particularly the "GNU manifesto."
the Geek Reality Distortion Field. You know, the same one that makes you think a socialist like Ralph Nader would give you MORE freedom.
A quote like that makes me wish you'd posted as yourself so I could add you to my friends list.
Hey, I made it first. :)
For that matter, we, theose who chose to support the OSS movement, are being called commies by the OSS movement. :)
Of course, as a laissez-faire capitalist, I kind of resent the commie label. :)
s/damanged/damaged/
You're talking about how the law is. I'm talking about how the law should be. I'm not convinced that if you spread lies and the subject of those lies can prove that he was "damanged" by them that this should be an actionable offense.
What did he think arms rights had to do with it? Was it some veiled attempt to call you a Communist or something?
This is nothing new; Caldera has been doing this since day one. They've also been failing since day one. Most software developers know that if you keep using the same methods you'll keep getting the same results, but Caldera hopes it will be different with a new name.
Believe it or not, RedHat seems to have a great commitment to freedom. With RedHat and Debian available, I don't see a whole lot of room for other distributions; especially not for non-free ones.
What you are missing is that the GPL allows (and encourages) selling free software, but it forbids taking away the rights of the recipient to further modify or redistribute the software. Caldera (UnitedLinux, by this philosophy, shows that they are just Caldera; Caldera has always done this) can't get around the GPL so I presume what they are doing is distributing source to all the GPL'd parts of the system and noting your rights in fine print somewhere while adding a few proprietary parts such that the whole integrated product cannot be redistributed and you have to pay a per-seat license. This means you're really just paying the license for a tiny amount of the product and not the whole OS.
I also meant to say thanks for the link to the IJ. I'd never heard of it before and am glad to hear of a good alternative to the ACLU.
I like your point about envy. I'm so tired of hearing people complain about the oil companies (re: gas prices) and the phone companies when their only complaint is, "They're making a lot of unfair money!" If you want some, buy stock. Don't legislate it away so that we all have to live in a hole.
I tried that at Attack of the Clones and some guy pulled out a lightsaber. Now they call me Lefty. :)
Does this contradict your principle of "absolute free speech?"
Maybe sorta. I'm currently thinking I need to investigate the concept of fraud and how it interacts with free speech. For example, there seems to be a difference between printing a false advertisement for a product you are selling (there's an implicit contract there, I think) and printing lies about a political candidate in a paper. The first one is very definitely fraud and should be restricted, I think. The second is an argument. :)
Oh, yes! What an excellent point. Every April I get mad seeing that little $3 checkbox. And every year I wind up casually discussing taxes with someone and spending a long time explaining my reason for not checking it. My explanation is greeted with astonishment: "Why would you not want to help end corruption? What are you, a Communist?"
Just think; if we fund political campaigns, we'd have to fund people like LePen from France. Better to let the screwballs fund their own campaigns.
Also, the free speech principle is talking about rights. It's talking about what governments can and can't do to you. When you are dealing with ISPs, you are not dealing with some authority that you a forced under (well, unless you want to move out of the country). Rather, the agreement and terms of use with the ISP is a business contract, and by agreeing to this business contract, you have essentially agreed to their policies on appropriate use of *private resources*.
That was my original point. While I don't tend to favor government laws as a solution to spam because they seem to be restrictions on free speech, this is entirely between companies. Unless someone failed to keep a contract, the government has no business stepping in. I don't believe the anti-spam list that included the site had a contract with the spammer. :)
The absolute free speech principle I usually subscribe to would make these responses:
Free speech ends when what you are saying is untrue and hurtful to someone else's business.
Why? Does this constitute an abridgment under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution? (Yes, I know this is not a U.S. case.)
Let's imagine that say buy.com was put on an anti-spammer list... How much revenue would they lose?
If it's my list, I can do whatever I want with it. It's not a government sponsored list. The people providing me the resources to produce the list can choose to quit providing me those resources, if they want. The people using my list can choose to quit using the list, too, if they want.
Whose fault would it be?
The fault of the people using the list. But they don't have a contract with buy.com to provide connectivity, so I don't see that anyone should be allowed to make them.
I know you may disagree with these principles for various reasons, but this is how I would address them. (At least, most of the time. I waver and change my mind sometimes.)
You've mistaken other peoples' opinions for my own. Everyone replied that this isn't a free speech issue, but I think it is. IMO, the solution to spam is going to be limited acceptible recipient lists for mail delivery agents. I accept the spam until such time as a solution arises to it.
Neat fact to know; they never mentioned it was a DISSENTING opinion when they taught it to me.