Yeah, and the Linux and Apple camps are much better about this sort of thing. They always listen to rational arguments about everything from UI to file system architecture, all without ever starting a flame war over anything.
...but that is solved by an improved "configure your server wizard". The first time the server boots up, the user can explicity select what to install and/or turn on, and ONLY what they select gets installed/turned on.
It has a big long list of services in the center, Back button, Next, and the default button: "Enable All."
If we're talking about the stock footage, what can you really do with that?... You can't make something totally new like you can with algorithms and existing code.
You're missing the point entirely. True, you cannot make KDE with Cringely's show. But you could make new versions of Cringely's show with it. And you know what? You can't do that with KDE. He's not making his show open source software, he's making his show open source.
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
To:
The freedom to watch the show, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the show works, and edit the footage to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the raw footage is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). [not changed]
The freedom to improve the show, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the raw footage is a precondition for this.
All I did here was change "source code" to "raw footage", "adapt" to "edit" and "program" to "show". I didn't even need to do the last two, really.
So what he's doing *is* open source. It might not be what you're used to, but it is a pretty good adaption of the idea into a totally new medium. And I think it's awesome.
When this gets re-posted tonight at 9pm-- after the event has occurred-- we can chat about what they said. Right now, this has been a test of the emergency broadcast system.
The most amazing part is, the article is from March 18th, a whole three days in the FUTURE!
Obviously, Alexander Hartdegen is playing with us again. Since he can't change his past, he has come to the present to change the future, and Apple is his unwitting victim (forget Jeremy Irons and his hairy friends).
Just keep a watch out for temporal rifts sucking your teacups into the nether.
Apple seems to have been purchasing these types of things recently... witness their recent buy of Shake. And there's been a rumor floating about of them looking at Maya with a wad of cash in their hand...
For one thing, I could see someone emailing me a project
And I can see someone emailing you a virus, that doesn't have to be enclosed in an Outlook MIME-error or anything. It'll automatically sort through all of your conveniently-arranged rows, find your banking history, and send all your money to Zurich.
iexplore.exe (aka IE, Internet Explorer) and explorer.exe (aka Windows Explorer, the file browser) are identical binaries with different names.
If you can still browse your C: drive with explorer, IE is still on your system.
Now, this makes one of two things true: 1) IE really IS an integral part of the OS 2) Microsoft intentionally commingled the code for IE with that of WE
At least in case of IE, all I have to clean out are the favorites it creates, in Media and Links. Not that bad.
Did you also run the IE uninstaller, so that it was no longer on your system, and you could use another browser? Did you remember to manually delete the IDENTICAL binary (albeit with a different name) explorer.exe, which pretends to be just the File Explorer?
That said, Microsoft should be liable if they represent their product as "safe" and it isn't. I believe their representation of XP as the "Most Secure Windows Ever" does open the company to prosecution for misleading advertizing, but who has the resources to prosecute it?
Why don't we get the government to step in, here? They've got a lot of money, and they'd never step down to corporate pressure. Of course they'll be willing to help us out here.
Now if only we could somehow prove that Microsoft was deliberately advertising it's products as safe and at the same time stamping out better, safer products... say, if they were abusing a monopoly...:)
From the article, paragraph 2 of section "A Reformed ICANN Can Be Successful":
To be clear: ICANN's mission is effective management and coordination of those few, higher-level elements of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems that require or benefit from global management and coordination, while abstaining from actions that might interfere with the creativity and innovation that has made the Internet such a dynamic resource. ICANN's mission is stewardship and operational stability, not the defense of its existence or the preservation of the status quo.
When Ep I came out, a few friends and I drove an hour to Burbank to see it in a digital theatre, and the difference was noticeable.
They were using an experimental projection system that LucasFilm had rented/licensed/something from Texas Instruments, using projected light onto lots of tiny shifting mirrors to vary the color on the screen.
The picture was crisp. It wasn't quite as crisp as Kenneth Brannaugh's Hamlet, which was filmed on 70mm film, but it was crisper than any of the other places I saw the film- which was at least three other theatres.
The movie seemed deeper: the things that were far awy seemed far away, and I can't put my finger on why. The huge "chasm for no reason other than to have a cool battle sequence" room seemed immense, and this was the smallest theatre I saw the movie in.
But most noticable was the color, which was simply amazing. Amidala's red dresses were RED, and they were a different red than each other. The swamps of Naboo were GREEN, and they were a totally different green than the fields. Everything was more distinct, everything was better distinguished, and everything simply looked nicer.
Now, you might be able to convince me that the better picture et all were due to the TI projector, but it was described as a "digital projector" and the film as a "digital file on disc"...
Apple has to have dumped tons of cash into this project, even if MPEG-4 is based on QuickTime. So, in this economy, how long can Apple keep a leash on a potential money-maker?
There would be dancing in the streets of Slashdot, and verily all would be hailed as a happy slap in the face of Redmond. But since it's Apple, obviously they're wasting their money.
Now where did that unbiased journalistic integerity go?
Slashdot Mirror
...in the same way that I disagree with the APIs for DCOM, in that I have never read them but know that they exist and do some stuff.
That's right. He never read it.
Yeah, and the Linux and Apple camps are much better about this sort of thing. They always listen to rational arguments about everything from UI to file system architecture, all without ever starting a flame war over anything.
It has a big long list of services in the center, Back button, Next, and the default button: "Enable All."
You're missing the point entirely. True, you cannot make KDE with Cringely's show. But you could make new versions of Cringely's show with it. And you know what? You can't do that with KDE. He's not making his show open source software, he's making his show open source.
So we translate [from gnu.org]:
To:
All I did here was change "source code" to "raw footage", "adapt" to "edit" and "program" to "show". I didn't even need to do the last two, really.
So what he's doing *is* open source. It might not be what you're used to, but it is a pretty good adaption of the idea into a totally new medium. And I think it's awesome.
When this gets re-posted tonight at 9pm-- after the event has occurred-- we can chat about what they said.
Right now, this has been a test of the emergency broadcast system.
The most amazing part is, the article is from March 18th, a whole three days in the FUTURE!
Obviously, Alexander Hartdegen is playing with us again. Since he can't change his past, he has come to the present to change the future, and Apple is his unwitting victim (forget Jeremy Irons and his hairy friends).
Just keep a watch out for temporal rifts sucking your teacups into the nether.
Apple seems to have been purchasing these types of things recently...
witness their recent buy of Shake.
And there's been a rumor floating about of them looking at Maya with a wad of cash in their hand...
And I can see someone emailing you a virus, that doesn't have to be enclosed in an Outlook MIME-error or anything. It'll automatically sort through all of your conveniently-arranged rows, find your banking history, and send all your money to Zurich.
Here's a fun fact:
iexplore.exe (aka IE, Internet Explorer) and explorer.exe (aka Windows Explorer, the file browser) are identical binaries with different names.
If you can still browse your C: drive with explorer, IE is still on your system.
Now, this makes one of two things true:
1) IE really IS an integral part of the OS
2) Microsoft intentionally commingled the code for IE with that of WE
Since IE came about after WE, we have to assume that case #2 is true, despite Microsoft's continued assertations that they did no such thing.
Wait a minute... Microsoft lying in court? Why would they do such a thing? And how could they get away with it?
Why don't we get the government to step in, here? They've got a lot of money, and they'd never step down to corporate pressure. Of course they'll be willing to help us out here.
Now if only we could somehow prove that Microsoft was deliberately advertising it's products as safe and at the same time stamping out better, safer products... say, if they were abusing a monopoly...
From the article, paragraph 2 of section "A Reformed ICANN Can Be Successful":
When Ep I came out, a few friends and I drove an hour to Burbank to see it in a digital theatre, and the difference was noticeable.
They were using an experimental projection system that LucasFilm had rented/licensed/something from Texas Instruments, using projected light onto lots of tiny shifting mirrors to vary the color on the screen.
The picture was crisp. It wasn't quite as crisp as Kenneth Brannaugh's Hamlet, which was filmed on 70mm film, but it was crisper than any of the other places I saw the film- which was at least three other theatres.
The movie seemed deeper: the things that were far awy seemed far away, and I can't put my finger on why. The huge "chasm for no reason other than to have a cool battle sequence" room seemed immense, and this was the smallest theatre I saw the movie in.
But most noticable was the color, which was simply amazing. Amidala's red dresses were RED, and they were a different red than each other. The swamps of Naboo were GREEN, and they were a totally different green than the fields. Everything was more distinct, everything was better distinguished, and everything simply looked nicer.
Now, you might be able to convince me that the better picture et all were due to the TI projector, but it was described as a "digital projector" and the film as a "digital file on disc"...
Apple has to have dumped tons of cash into this project, even if MPEG-4 is based on QuickTime. So, in this economy, how long can Apple keep a leash on a potential money-maker?
Now where did that unbiased journalistic integerity go?