The "They" part in that sentence could just as easily be referring to *ADVERTISERS* as it could be to the seething masses. Certainly, in the *context* of this article one is led to believe that they are talking about the general public at large, but this may not necessarily be the case.
I point this out because modification of context, selective reporting, and slanted view propagation is the biggest flaw with modern journalism in this day and age, and members of the "new mammal" methods of net journalism we're all getting excited about really need to ensure we stay tuned into this sort of thing.
I have already witnessed the perversion of a relatively cool (in its infancy) news site into a totally bizaare "traditional journalist" controlled propaganda machine...
CNet News http://www.news.com/ used to be a cool place to go for news about what was going on in the tech world, but it rapidly became corporate-ised and nothing less than a useless drivel engine pouring out couched statement after couched statement, totally psycho-babble and propaganda tainted in the grand style of traditional press. It was truly revealing to have encountered that transition and seen it objectively.
On account, in my view, of the fact that they were taken over by a corporate entity that had to PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ITS PAYING CUSTOMERS - the ADVERTISERS. The reason modern news is so bad is that it's really only relevant to the advertisers, the people who are paying the big bucks to keep the CNN machine in place, and a large percentage of news on TV and traditional media is *IRRELEVANT* to the average member of society... this is why so much effort is made to make News interesting - violence, social decay, sex, all of these things serve to attract attention, and thats why we see so much crap on TV these days.
Who can't avoid paying attention to the dying and the desolate as they are portrayed on television these days? (This explains rubbernecking, too, btw...) Its in our nature as human beings to *care* about these things when we see them, on a very, very fundamental level - Big Bad Old Media know this all too well, and use it to keep our eyeballs fixed in place, ready for the Big Advertising Moment in between news segments or as we thumb through the advertising copy.
That's how the News works.
Free Information such as we encounter on the Internet is totally free news.
But in traditional media, there IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE INFORMATION - someone is paying for it.
The only reason we're seeing journalists start to take notice of Net News as a new social mechanism, is because a) its cutting into their profit margin by "black hole"-ing eyeballs (viewing public), and b) by reporting about it in this fashion they can scare their CUSTOMERS into paying more money for their services as they function as the "Guides" to the "New Net Media".
It is *impossible* to be impartial in a public editorial-style critical review of Windows when you have the mass marketing juggernaut known as Microsoft blaring its horns in your ear.
It just doesn't work. Its like there is an imbalance in the Force behind Windows...
By the time I was 12 years old, I knew that swearing was inappropriate in many social situations. I knew that drugs (heroin, specifically) were *very* bad things to get involved in.
I knew what it was like to live in a completely different culture as a *total stranger*, courtesy of my parents lust for world travel.
I could hold my own in many adult conversations, and I understood the requirement that one choose their words carefully.
This is because I was more *experienced* than many others in my age group - my parents had taken the time to actually teach me things instead of blindly shove them down my throat without any form of rational whatsoever.
The moment you can carry around a few megs of porn in your pocket and play it back in color, in the privacy of your own bathroom stall, you will have your future pocket-sized PDA leader.
I finished it a few days ago. Man, it was a great read, but I feel like I need to read it again. Fortunately it's long enough to where you could just start at page 1 again and feel like you're reading a new book (coz you've forgotten the beginning by the time you get to the end).
I mean, sure, terrorism is a big problem, and yeah, the free world needs to stomp out all aspects of terrorism until there are no more bad terrorists around to blow things up.
But what interests me more is exactly what *ELSE* these spooks consider worth looking for? Terrorism is just a platform to use to sell more weapons, that's all...
So what else are they looking at?
Industrial information? Economic information? Details about UFO sightings? Reports of Lost-technology from ancient civilizations being found in the Australian desert? Someone trying to get the word out that they've found the aliens' fusion reactor, it runs on water, anyone can make one out of an old Coke can, and therefore should be freely available to every human being? The real truth about the Pyramids of Giza?
Seems to me that this Dictionary file should warrant a very large bounty. If ever there is a fun and rewarding cracker project, it would be to get copies of those Dictionary databases...
The world needs to know what these spooks are looking for...
Sure, attack Open Source on the merits that you can't profit from it. That definitely maintains the status quo, and it makes it easier to view the OSS movement as a fantasy world occupied by naive semi-socialist college students... certainly a great way to *NOT* contribute to the movement.
But as with any 'movement' its really only a matter of time until someone smart comes along and works out the economy of how to profit from it from a pure market-economy/capitalist perspective.
Look, better people than you and I have fought the "OSS for Profit" argument and both sides have lost. So lets just not go there.
But allow me to make the point that your "stasis field" economic view is a *potentially* primitive one, which you will at some point have to adjust in order to survive in future economies.
Exchange of goods/services takes many shapes and sizes, you know... and there are quite a few people making a very acceptable and comfortable living within the OSS movement... perhaps we should be highlighting these individuals/organizations instead of bullshitting amongst ourselves?
Microsoft has *always* kindled and fostered their number 1 asset in the OS wars, which is simply Developer Mindshare. If you own the developer, you dictate what OS people use...
Anyone that's been to one of Microsofts numerous "Developer Days" knows that it's a cushy love-fest between Microsoft and a bunch of developers soaking up the glory to be had from carting around Free Shit from Microsoft. It's an excellent study in modern propaganda techniques.
Now, what Open Source represents to Microsoft is a threat to their efforts at cultivating this key asset in their strategies, which is, again, Developer Mindshare.
You see, most of the really and truly bright and smart developers out there are often very interested in looking at other peoples code, in the hopes that they can gleen some nugget or pearl of programming wisdom, or in some cases maybe rip a function or two for use in their own work.
This is a big part of a professional software developers technique - any true pro knows that he never stops learning, and in his quiet times will gladly check out someone elses code.
This is the true threat to Microsoft and it's coveted cache of "Developer Mindshare", a threat from the heart and sould of the OSS community, and it is this threat that they will be responding to with any of their own OSS-type campaigns in the future.
They'll be working on:
a) Keeping their Developer Mindshare interested in Microsoft products, and only Microsoft products. Which means if we do get source code released from them, it'll be specific to Win32-based platforms, and will leave just enough out to make porting not worthwhile. Or it'll be really crappy parts of their Win32 universe, as others have pointed out.
b) Cultivating new developers by giving them more Free Shit from Microsoft, which will more than likely take form of a CD bundled with source code from Microsoft for new programmers to seek wisdom from, or steal stuff from for their own products (which will only run on Microsoft OS'es).
And watch for a sacrificial lamb gesture: they'll probably make a "Lite" version of their developer tools freely available for download off the 'net. Maybe Win2k will come with a "Lite" version of Visual Basic or something, or their C compiler will be released, with all of it's Microsoft-isms carefully designed to make code a pain in the ass to port to other OS's...
What the OSS community needs to watch for is the "Free Shit from Microsoft" factor. Anything we can do to make the "Free Shit from Microsoft" less valuable to a newbie developer is worth the effort...
Its the *NEW* developer that we need to be attracting to the OSS camp, and away from the greedy clutches from Microsoft, and I believe that Microsoft know this all too well...
Just 3 days ago, as I was lugging around my 'laptop' (a regular PC with wheels) up the street to a friends place for some LAN gaming action, I was thinking "How cool would it be if my computer had legs, and could just follow me around everywhere?".
With one of these dogs, I'd just bolt my case to its back, and tell it to follow me up the street instead of having to carry it everywhere...
I mean, if I'm pretty much naked when I walk through that thing, then I think it ought to be allowed to not wear any clothes at all, if I don't want to.
What, no Multimeter? Oscilliscope? Logic Analyzer?
on
Look out Leatherman!
·
· Score: 1
Multimeter - a must. Small digital one.
But what about small Oscilliscopes? Anyone seen any small, toolkit-sized Osc's out there? How about mini Logic Analyzer?
If Spyderco can fit those in on this tool, I'd buy 3.
I'll be damned if I get it...
on
Quickielanche
·
· Score: 1
I really don't.
What's so funny about these reader reviews? I don't get the humor.
I suppose it may help if I were to actually read one of those comic strips, but I've never really paid attention to it... it really seems kinda dumb, like most modern comic strips.
"The question is, what does the UDI do other than do this? All the UDI does is enable support for non-free UNIX platforms. We need to ask: what do *we* get for this? If all we get is the a bunch of binary modules, we've gotten nothing. If we get Linux developers to write to the UDI, wow. We have yet another API abstraction."
I find this to be somewhat narrow-minded. If all we get is binary device driver modules, that's not nothing.
That's an opportunity to MOVE ON.
To application development that *USES* those device drivers, for example. Device drivers might be a fun geek hacking toy, and it's always nice to know whats going on at the lower level, but don't you think it's more important on a strategic basis for Linux developers to actually start moving into the Application development area rather than dealing with driver development?
Generally speaking, that is. There will always be lower-level work to be done, but organizing device driver development is a good thing...
Its more of an interface to the kernel/OS than an interface in the traditional way of thinking about interfaces (as an API, for example).
The driver can still do whatever it wants to at the low-level, its just that in order to function it has to provide fundamental exports that can be used by the kernel of the OS to get data in and data out.
Sort of in the same way that entries in/dev all represent vastly different devices, but yet they can be written to/from with fread()/fwrite() etc. because they appear as standard UNIX file streams.
(I'm generalizing here)
IMHO, having a UDI spec published is a good thing as it means that more and more device drivers can be made available across the Unix sphere. Yes, there are disadvantages - there *may* (not necessarily *definite*) be less and less opportunity for hackers to release OpenSource drivers based on study of released specs from hardware manufacturers.
On the other hand it does mean that specialized hardware manufacturers who consider their device driver the 'first line of defense' against reverse engineering will be more prone to releasing drivers for Linux, BSD, and other UDI supporting OS'es.
Essentially, militant OSS dogma aside, this means more device drivers, which means more use of these OS'es in area's that would be relegated to having to bolt NT into an application area just because it has device drivers for the card.
I'm all for the UDI, I think its a positive thing. As a developer of Win9x/NT and Linux device drivers myself, I'm all for a more organized and standardized device driver industry, and if the UDI presents a degree of solidification in that area, then so be it.
My fundamental feeling about device driver development is that it's a good thing for those that enjoy it, and they'll always be able to continue this sphere, but for Linux and other such OS'es, its really time for its developers to move on from the lower-level stuff into the Applications arena, taking advantage of standardized efforts at the lower level to make super-cool Application development possible.
If there were, for example, a completely standardized and well implemented audio driver core for Linux, I could move on and write the killer multi-track recording system I want to run under Linux, instead of having to worry about whether or not I have read/write capabilities to sound hardware at the driver level.
Realistically, the only thing stopping me from launching on such a project is that the technology behind device drivers for audio devices under Linux is bogus - and if UDI means more device driver development occurring (OSS or non-OSS, I don't care as long as it works) this increases the chances that better audio drivers will be written by those that have an interest in writing them (those that profit from the hardware sales).
And this means that I can then move on to building a 'tractor' application for Linux that people will want to use without having to worry about how to get bytes flung around the bus...
My point was that RMS is, right now, being promoted as a figurehead for the Open Source movement - in magazines and other media, usually in the context of "Linux as a tool for business" or "Linux as a product to invest ___ in", where ___ is either money or other resources.
And the problem with this positioning of RMS is that he's unable to function in that environment as a reliable and safe source of information.
It takes but a simple misuse of "Linux" over "GNU/Linux" in an interview to set him off on what is being perceived (and, in alarmist reporter fashion, being *reported*) as a lunatic rant against a product *NAME*. Rather than focussing on what Linux can do as a tool, the media take the easier route - to report about how mad RMS is as a 'leader' of the Open Source revolution.
This is a tack that requires less study and understanding on a reporters behalf because its about human emotion and reaction, not protocol implementations or reliable performance spec comparisons, etc.
As a point-of-contact for media types, RMS should not be allowing the media to have the option of taking that easy route - he should be promoting the benefits of the Open Source cause and making headway in terms of establishing 'mindset' in the realm of those being reported to - the readers of the media he's being interviewed by... That's the role of a figurehead/leader type in this modern media-fed world.
RMS' hissy fits and temper tantrums are not exactly the best way to get the word out there and promote the pro's of Open Source as a movement and tool for business.
If you're going to be in a position of figurehead, then learn how to play the game of being a figurehead for the cause, rather than being a figurehead for ones own self or ones own moral and philosophical beliefs, which is how RMS comes off 80% of the time. Either that, or create a band of similarly inclined folk, give them a title, and head off in that direction...
But to presume that anyone in the OSS noosphere these days automatically agree's with his own ideals, and therefore it's acceptable for him to vigorously and millitantly promote them as part of the general OSS "movement", is ludicrous on RMS' part.
I'm a software developer too, and I have a strong philosophical background myself, with my own set of equally valid and strong morals, but I don't greedily use face-time with reporters in order to propagate those beliefs - I use it to promote my products in order to gain market share and stronger product penetration, to attract more interested parties to the area that my software is attended to address (music/media software tools) - which ultimately results in my philosophical views being represented by the use of those products in the marketplace.
RMS' over-promotion of his philosophical and moral approach to GNU overshadows the true work that needs to be done - to explain and enlighten the media (and thus, the 'masses') on the pro's of using Linux as a tool for whatever endeavours it fits the role.
He really isn't. Plenty of people, in his time, were writing code and releasing the source for use on the Internet.
All Stallman did was get on the bandwagon, codify it a bit, formalize the process a bit, and then direct the energies of a bunch of people (who were doing it anyway) towards creating a free Unix.
Sure, that's a commendable contribution to the computer using community. But on this basis alone, I don't find any reason to accept Stallman's inability to prove the success of his dogma in a business world.
I think he's gotten on this soapbox because he's lazy. If he were actively writing code and organizing new and exciting projects for the greater good, I'd have an easier time appreciating his perspective.
For example, if he'd gotten involved in the GNOME or KDE projects, or something similarly needed in the "Liberty Unix" world, then it'd be a hell of a lot easier for a productive person to appreciate his views.
But as it stands, he's not producing anything other than controversy. In my view, he's the "Dennis Rodman" of the software world, riding whatever controversy he can stir up in order to prolong his 15 minutes of fame and get more face-time in the corporate scope.
Calling him this doesn't demean the community as a whole. His own free radical inability to communicate his ideals and demonstrate success of his principles of free software ultimately confuse the perception of the free software community in the eyes of investors, marketers and strategists - a lot of whom this industry could actually use.
Thus, this community need to replace RMS with a re-write.
Slashdot Mirror
The "They" part in that sentence could just as easily be referring to *ADVERTISERS* as it could be to the seething masses. Certainly, in the *context* of this article one is led to believe that they are talking about the general public at large, but this may not necessarily be the case.
...
I point this out because modification of context, selective reporting, and slanted view propagation is the biggest flaw with modern journalism in this day and age, and members of the "new mammal" methods of net journalism we're all getting excited about really need to ensure we stay tuned into this sort of thing.
I have already witnessed the perversion of a relatively cool (in its infancy) news site into a totally bizaare "traditional journalist" controlled propaganda machine
CNet News http://www.news.com/ used to be a cool place to go for news about what was going on in the tech world, but it rapidly became corporate-ised and nothing less than a useless drivel engine pouring out couched statement after couched statement, totally psycho-babble and propaganda tainted in the grand style of traditional press. It was truly revealing to have encountered that transition and seen it objectively.
On account, in my view, of the fact that they were taken over by a corporate entity that had to PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ITS PAYING CUSTOMERS - the ADVERTISERS. The reason modern news is so bad is that it's really only relevant to the advertisers, the people who are paying the big bucks to keep the CNN machine in place, and a large percentage of news on TV and traditional media is *IRRELEVANT* to the average member of society... this is why so much effort is made to make News interesting - violence, social decay, sex, all of these things serve to attract attention, and thats why we see so much crap on TV these days.
Who can't avoid paying attention to the dying and the desolate as they are portrayed on television these days? (This explains rubbernecking, too, btw...) Its in our nature as human beings to *care* about these things when we see them, on a very, very fundamental level - Big Bad Old Media know this all too well, and use it to keep our eyeballs fixed in place, ready for the Big Advertising Moment in between news segments or as we thumb through the advertising copy.
That's how the News works.
Free Information such as we encounter on the Internet is totally free news.
But in traditional media, there IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE INFORMATION - someone is paying for it.
The only reason we're seeing journalists start to take notice of Net News as a new social mechanism, is because a) its cutting into their profit margin by "black hole"-ing eyeballs (viewing public), and b) by reporting about it in this fashion they can scare their CUSTOMERS into paying more money for their services as they function as the "Guides" to the "New Net Media".
It is *impossible* to be impartial in a public editorial-style critical review of Windows when you have the mass marketing juggernaut known as Microsoft blaring its horns in your ear.
It just doesn't work. Its like there is an imbalance in the Force behind Windows...
By the time I was 12 years old, I knew that swearing was inappropriate in many social situations. I knew that drugs (heroin, specifically) were *very* bad things to get involved in.
I knew what it was like to live in a completely different culture as a *total stranger*, courtesy of my parents lust for world travel.
I could hold my own in many adult conversations, and I understood the requirement that one choose their words carefully.
This is because I was more *experienced* than many others in my age group - my parents had taken the time to actually teach me things instead of blindly shove them down my throat without any form of rational whatsoever.
Sheesh.
Or:
"Dependable Technology"
"Productive Technology"
Why bother adding a history-element to it? Since time is insufferable, making time part of the buzz is a losing battle.
Because of time, New Technology isn't.
I mean, its classic propaganda.
... so how do we know he's not just smearing the OSS community?
There's enough *truth* in what he's saying to warrant our belief, but how are we to know that it was nearly as bad as he's saying?
I mean, it's a pretty good argument against the Linux community, isn't it
Just reading the subject line gave me a shit eating grin...
And MS know this damned well.
The moment you can carry around a few megs of porn in your pocket and play it back in color, in the privacy of your own bathroom stall, you will have your future pocket-sized PDA leader.
Sad but true.
I finished it a few days ago. Man, it was a great read, but I feel like I need to read it again. Fortunately it's long enough to where you could just start at page 1 again and feel like you're reading a new book (coz you've forgotten the beginning by the time you get to the end).
Is Cryptonomicon a Strange Loop?
:)
I know I should take a cue from your web address (crynwr.com), but I was wondering how you generated that graph?
I mean, sure, terrorism is a big problem, and yeah, the free world needs to stomp out all aspects of terrorism until there are no more bad terrorists around to blow things up.
...
...
But what interests me more is exactly what *ELSE* these spooks consider worth looking for? Terrorism is just a platform to use to sell more weapons, that's all...
So what else are they looking at?
Industrial information? Economic information? Details about UFO sightings? Reports of Lost-technology from ancient civilizations being found in the Australian desert? Someone trying to get the word out that they've found the aliens' fusion reactor, it runs on water, anyone can make one out of an old Coke can, and therefore should be freely available to every human being? The real truth about the Pyramids of Giza?
Seems to me that this Dictionary file should warrant a very large bounty. If ever there is a fun and rewarding cracker project, it would be to get copies of those Dictionary databases
The world needs to know what these spooks are looking for
Sure, attack Open Source on the merits that you can't profit from it. That definitely maintains the status quo, and it makes it easier to view the OSS movement as a fantasy world occupied by naive semi-socialist college students ... certainly a great way to *NOT* contribute to the movement.
But as with any 'movement' its really only a matter of time until someone smart comes along and works out the economy of how to profit from it from a pure market-economy/capitalist perspective.
Look, better people than you and I have fought the "OSS for Profit" argument and both sides have lost. So lets just not go there.
But allow me to make the point that your "stasis field" economic view is a *potentially* primitive one, which you will at some point have to adjust in order to survive in future economies.
Exchange of goods/services takes many shapes and sizes, you know... and there are quite a few people making a very acceptable and comfortable living within the OSS movement... perhaps we should be highlighting these individuals/organizations instead of bullshitting amongst ourselves?
Hah hah! Yeah, actually, I love to code in my pajamas. Its great, you can fart and not worry about anything.
Microsoft has *always* kindled and fostered their number 1 asset in the OS wars, which is simply Developer Mindshare. If you own the developer, you dictate what OS people use...
Anyone that's been to one of Microsofts numerous "Developer Days" knows that it's a cushy love-fest between Microsoft and a bunch of developers soaking up the glory to be had from carting around Free Shit from Microsoft. It's an excellent study in modern propaganda techniques.
Now, what Open Source represents to Microsoft is a threat to their efforts at cultivating this key asset in their strategies, which is, again, Developer Mindshare.
You see, most of the really and truly bright and smart developers out there are often very interested in looking at other peoples code, in the hopes that they can gleen some nugget or pearl of programming wisdom, or in some cases maybe rip a function or two for use in their own work.
This is a big part of a professional software developers technique - any true pro knows that he never stops learning, and in his quiet times will gladly check out someone elses code.
This is the true threat to Microsoft and it's coveted cache of "Developer Mindshare", a threat from the heart and sould of the OSS community, and it is this threat that they will be responding to with any of their own OSS-type campaigns in the future.
They'll be working on:
a) Keeping their Developer Mindshare interested in Microsoft products, and only Microsoft products. Which means if we do get source code released from them, it'll be specific to Win32-based platforms, and will leave just enough out to make porting not worthwhile. Or it'll be really crappy parts of their Win32 universe, as others have pointed out.
b) Cultivating new developers by giving them more Free Shit from Microsoft, which will more than likely take form of a CD bundled with source code from Microsoft for new programmers to seek wisdom from, or steal stuff from for their own products (which will only run on Microsoft OS'es).
And watch for a sacrificial lamb gesture: they'll probably make a "Lite" version of their developer tools freely available for download off the 'net. Maybe Win2k will come with a "Lite" version of Visual Basic or something, or their C compiler will be released, with all of it's Microsoft-isms carefully designed to make code a pain in the ass to port to other OS's...
What the OSS community needs to watch for is the "Free Shit from Microsoft" factor. Anything we can do to make the "Free Shit from Microsoft" less valuable to a newbie developer is worth the effort...
Its the *NEW* developer that we need to be attracting to the OSS camp, and away from the greedy clutches from Microsoft, and I believe that Microsoft know this all too well...
The line in the sand has been drawn.
Just 3 days ago, as I was lugging around my 'laptop' (a regular PC with wheels) up the street to a friends place for some LAN gaming action, I was thinking "How cool would it be if my computer had legs, and could just follow me around everywhere?".
With one of these dogs, I'd just bolt my case to its back, and tell it to follow me up the street instead of having to carry it everywhere...
heh heh. i kill myself.
I mean, really. It makes sense, right?
I mean, if I'm pretty much naked when I walk through that thing, then I think it ought to be allowed to not wear any clothes at all, if I don't want to.
:)
SSIA.
Altitude or something?
Multimeter - a must. Small digital one.
But what about small Oscilliscopes? Anyone seen any small, toolkit-sized Osc's out there? How about mini Logic Analyzer?
If Spyderco can fit those in on this tool, I'd buy 3.
I really don't.
What's so funny about these reader reviews? I don't get the humor.
I suppose it may help if I were to actually read one of those comic strips, but I've never really paid attention to it... it really seems kinda dumb, like most modern comic strips.
"The question is, what does the UDI do other than do this? All the UDI does is enable support for non-free UNIX platforms. We need to ask: what do *we* get for this? If all we get is the a bunch of binary modules, we've gotten nothing. If we get Linux developers to write to the UDI, wow. We have yet another API abstraction."
...
I find this to be somewhat narrow-minded. If all we get is binary device driver modules, that's not nothing.
That's an opportunity to MOVE ON.
To application development that *USES* those device drivers, for example. Device drivers might be a fun geek hacking toy, and it's always nice to know whats going on at the lower level, but don't you think it's more important on a strategic basis for Linux developers to actually start moving into the Application development area rather than dealing with driver development?
Generally speaking, that is. There will always be lower-level work to be done, but organizing device driver development is a good thing
Its more of an interface to the kernel/OS than an interface in the traditional way of thinking about interfaces (as an API, for example).
/dev all represent vastly different devices, but yet they can be written to/from with fread()/fwrite() etc. because they appear as standard UNIX file streams.
...
The driver can still do whatever it wants to at the low-level, its just that in order to function it has to provide fundamental exports that can be used by the kernel of the OS to get data in and data out.
Sort of in the same way that entries in
(I'm generalizing here)
IMHO, having a UDI spec published is a good thing as it means that more and more device drivers can be made available across the Unix sphere. Yes, there are disadvantages - there *may* (not necessarily *definite*) be less and less opportunity for hackers to release OpenSource drivers based on study of released specs from hardware manufacturers.
On the other hand it does mean that specialized hardware manufacturers who consider their device driver the 'first line of defense' against reverse engineering will be more prone to releasing drivers for Linux, BSD, and other UDI supporting OS'es.
Essentially, militant OSS dogma aside, this means more device drivers, which means more use of these OS'es in area's that would be relegated to having to bolt NT into an application area just because it has device drivers for the card.
I'm all for the UDI, I think its a positive thing. As a developer of Win9x/NT and Linux device drivers myself, I'm all for a more organized and standardized device driver industry, and if the UDI presents a degree of solidification in that area, then so be it.
My fundamental feeling about device driver development is that it's a good thing for those that enjoy it, and they'll always be able to continue this sphere, but for Linux and other such OS'es, its really time for its developers to move on from the lower-level stuff into the Applications arena, taking advantage of standardized efforts at the lower level to make super-cool Application development possible.
If there were, for example, a completely standardized and well implemented audio driver core for Linux, I could move on and write the killer multi-track recording system I want to run under Linux, instead of having to worry about whether or not I have read/write capabilities to sound hardware at the driver level.
Realistically, the only thing stopping me from launching on such a project is that the technology behind device drivers for audio devices under Linux is bogus - and if UDI means more device driver development occurring (OSS or non-OSS, I don't care as long as it works) this increases the chances that better audio drivers will be written by those that have an interest in writing them (those that profit from the hardware sales).
And this means that I can then move on to building a 'tractor' application for Linux that people will want to use without having to worry about how to get bytes flung around the bus
My point was that RMS is, right now, being promoted as a figurehead for the Open Source movement - in magazines and other media, usually in the context of "Linux as a tool for business" or "Linux as a product to invest ___ in", where ___ is either money or other resources.
And the problem with this positioning of RMS is that he's unable to function in that environment as a reliable and safe source of information.
It takes but a simple misuse of "Linux" over "GNU/Linux" in an interview to set him off on what is being perceived (and, in alarmist reporter fashion, being *reported*) as a lunatic rant against a product *NAME*. Rather than focussing on what Linux can do as a tool, the media take the easier route - to report about how mad RMS is as a 'leader' of the Open Source revolution.
This is a tack that requires less study and understanding on a reporters behalf because its about human emotion and reaction, not protocol implementations or reliable performance spec comparisons, etc.
As a point-of-contact for media types, RMS should not be allowing the media to have the option of taking that easy route - he should be promoting the benefits of the Open Source cause and making headway in terms of establishing 'mindset' in the realm of those being reported to - the readers of the media he's being interviewed by... That's the role of a figurehead/leader type in this modern media-fed world.
RMS' hissy fits and temper tantrums are not exactly the best way to get the word out there and promote the pro's of Open Source as a movement and tool for business.
If you're going to be in a position of figurehead, then learn how to play the game of being a figurehead for the cause, rather than being a figurehead for ones own self or ones own moral and philosophical beliefs, which is how RMS comes off 80% of the time. Either that, or create a band of similarly inclined folk, give them a title, and head off in that direction...
But to presume that anyone in the OSS noosphere these days automatically agree's with his own ideals, and therefore it's acceptable for him to vigorously and millitantly promote them as part of the general OSS "movement", is ludicrous on RMS' part.
I'm a software developer too, and I have a strong philosophical background myself, with my own set of equally valid and strong morals, but I don't greedily use face-time with reporters in order to propagate those beliefs - I use it to promote my products in order to gain market share and stronger product penetration, to attract more interested parties to the area that my software is attended to address (music/media software tools) - which ultimately results in my philosophical views being represented by the use of those products in the marketplace.
RMS' over-promotion of his philosophical and moral approach to GNU overshadows the true work that needs to be done - to explain and enlighten the media (and thus, the 'masses') on the pro's of using Linux as a tool for whatever endeavours it fits the role.
He really isn't. Plenty of people, in his time, were writing code and releasing the source for use on the Internet.
All Stallman did was get on the bandwagon, codify it a bit, formalize the process a bit, and then direct the energies of a bunch of people (who were doing it anyway) towards creating a free Unix.
Sure, that's a commendable contribution to the computer using community. But on this basis alone, I don't find any reason to accept Stallman's inability to prove the success of his dogma in a business world.
I think he's gotten on this soapbox because he's lazy. If he were actively writing code and organizing new and exciting projects for the greater good, I'd have an easier time appreciating his perspective.
For example, if he'd gotten involved in the GNOME or KDE projects, or something similarly needed in the "Liberty Unix" world, then it'd be a hell of a lot easier for a productive person to appreciate his views.
But as it stands, he's not producing anything other than controversy. In my view, he's the "Dennis Rodman" of the software world, riding whatever controversy he can stir up in order to prolong his 15 minutes of fame and get more face-time in the corporate scope.
Calling him this doesn't demean the community as a whole. His own free radical inability to communicate his ideals and demonstrate success of his principles of free software ultimately confuse the perception of the free software community in the eyes of investors, marketers and strategists - a lot of whom this industry could actually use.
Thus, this community need to replace RMS with a re-write.