it is not just WebGUI. There is more free software that follows the "free source - payed documentation" scheme:
- jBoss is a free application server. However it is
hardly usable without the documentation which is
not free.
There is a free documentation project, but it
is available only for outdated versions.
- Blender is a great piece of free software but
trying to work with it without documentation is
a pure waste of time.
(However, I am not sure whether this is a
business model in this particular case.)
- OpenGL and other libraries are open to use but
require documentation in order to be used.
(Here You have to buy the book.)
- gcc is free. Learning C without a book or
teacher is nearly impossible.
What I want to tell You with this examples is:
- Not everything which is for free to get can
also be used for free.
- It is not a bad thing [TM] to give away the
source and keep back the docs.
However, if You do so, You should make clear
that You have to buy the documentation to
use the product.
- You have no right for free documentation.
(hard, but true)
- Any documentation which is not part of the
free product can be distributed with a separate
license. Therefore, it seems OK to me that
there is a nda for a installation guide.
- If it is really important, someone will figure
out the needed information and distribute it
for free.
However, stating that a product is completely free to _use_ should include a free and good documentation for the product. Providing commercial support is another story...
As an European citizen, I might have an explanation for this:
Most European politicians do not understand the
internet and its structure.
For them, the internet is something completely new, which requires new laws. In my opinion, the mistake they are making is not applying the exitsing laws on the internet but defining new laws on something they do not understand yet.
Most country on earth have laws in order to prohibit discrimination (which is meant by "hate speech"). The strange thing about Europe is that European politicians seem to believe that we need new laws to enforce civil rights on the internet.
The points You mentioned will become true, if
those new laws
redefine the term "hate speech". (Your point 1)
limit other civil rights, e.g. the right of free speech (Your point 2)
are applied without knowledge about the internet. A PGP-Mail is definitely not something which can be compared to a statement said in public - a not encrypted web page is something public (Your point 3)
Shields up may be a solution to save attention You can spend elsewhere.
But I would recommend to give up TV at all.
For the price of a TV set You can get a lot of cinema tickets.
Therefore, the quality is even better as on pay-TV.
And as a positive side effect, You save a lot of time and attention. I could not pay enough attention to all three
the real life
the internet
TV
And because the TV is the one item in this list I have least influence on, I decided to spend my attention to the real life and the internet.
In both, the real life and the internet, You can influence what You want to see.
So what do You think about spending Your attention responsibly?
In the "good old days", everyone knew the rules and today everyone wants to be online without reading the netiquette.
But I think the real reason for this is that companies want to "sell" the internet. And as we all know the internet is "so easy".
Unfortunately, reading the FAQs and behaving is not that easy and therefore usenet has been flooded by trolls over time.
But there is a change going on:
More and more new users do not even know that there is a thing like "usenet". They simply think that internet consists of HTTP, FTP, Mail and instant messaging.
In my opinion, this is a big change for the come-back of the usenet. Because the "me too" guys do not know the usenet, they can not flood it. And if they are really interested in getting answers to questions and participating in discussions, they will find the usenet.
It is just a matter of how new users will discover the usenet. There are some different ways:
The worst is "this is usenet, just type Your questions and comments".
Better would be an explanation, what usenet is ment for like "... so You did not find Your answers in a web search engine? Try groups.google.com, maybe someone had asked the same questions. If You still do not find Your answer, take a look in those newsgroups, read what they are about and ask Your question in a polite style.
Unfortunately, the second way sells worse than the first, but today usenet does not sell well at all and therefore I think there is a comeback for usenet.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi,
/.er
it is not just WebGUI. There is more free software
that follows the "free source - payed documentation" scheme:
- jBoss is a free application server. However it is
hardly usable without the documentation which is
not free.
There is a free documentation project, but it
is available only for outdated versions.
- Blender is a great piece of free software but
trying to work with it without documentation is
a pure waste of time.
(However, I am not sure whether this is a
business model in this particular case.)
- OpenGL and other libraries are open to use but
require documentation in order to be used.
(Here You have to buy the book.)
- gcc is free. Learning C without a book or
teacher is nearly impossible.
What I want to tell You with this examples is:
- Not everything which is for free to get can
also be used for free.
- It is not a bad thing [TM] to give away the
source and keep back the docs.
However, if You do so, You should make clear
that You have to buy the documentation to
use the product.
- You have no right for free documentation.
(hard, but true)
- Any documentation which is not part of the
free product can be distributed with a separate
license. Therefore, it seems OK to me that
there is a nda for a installation guide.
- If it is really important, someone will figure
out the needed information and distribute it
for free.
However, stating that a product is completely
free to _use_ should include a free and good
documentation for the product.
Providing commercial support is another story...
Greetings,
I am quite sure, that the German government will help other nations to implement this software.
But that's not the point. The point is:
Do other nations want to implement this software?
WEP is not the most secure way of encrypting the
data as it combines hardware and encryption.
Therefore, I am using IPSec for my WLAN and
the accesspoints are in plaintext-mode.
By using FreeSwan on the gateway and
ssh-sentinel on the laptops, the network access can
be controlled by issuing and revoking certificates.
Unfortunately, that's not the kind of
software which comes with AccessPoints.
Most European politicians do not understand the internet and its structure.
For them, the internet is something completely new, which requires new laws. In my opinion, the mistake they are making is not applying the exitsing laws on the internet but defining new laws on something they do not understand yet.
Most country on earth have laws in order to prohibit discrimination (which is meant by "hate speech"). The strange thing about Europe is that European politicians seem to believe that we need new laws to enforce civil rights on the internet.
The points You mentioned will become true, if those new laws
A PGP-Mail is definitely not something which can be compared to a statement said in public - a not encrypted web page is something public
(Your point 3)
But I would recommend to give up TV at all.
For the price of a TV set You can get a lot of cinema tickets. Therefore, the quality is even better as on pay-TV.
And as a positive side effect, You save a lot of time and attention.
I could not pay enough attention to all three
- the real life
- the internet
- TV
And because the TV is the one item in this list I have least influence on, I decided to spend my attention to the real life and the internet.In both, the real life and the internet, You can influence what You want to see.
So what do You think about spending Your attention responsibly?
I don't think Usenet is useless nowadays.
In the "good old days", everyone knew the rules and today everyone wants to be online without reading the netiquette.
But I think the real reason for this is that companies want to "sell" the internet. And as we all know the internet is "so easy".
Unfortunately, reading the FAQs and behaving is not that easy and therefore usenet has been flooded by trolls over time.
But there is a change going on:
More and more new users do not even know that there is a thing like "usenet". They simply think that internet consists of HTTP, FTP, Mail and instant messaging.
In my opinion, this is a big change for the come-back of the usenet. Because the "me too" guys do not know the usenet, they can not flood it. And if they are really interested in getting answers to questions and participating in discussions, they will find the usenet.
It is just a matter of how new users will discover the usenet. There are some different ways:
The worst is "this is usenet, just type Your questions and comments".
Better would be an explanation, what usenet is ment for like "... so You did not find Your answers in a web search engine? Try groups.google.com, maybe someone had asked the same questions. If You still do not find Your answer, take a look in those newsgroups, read what they are about and ask Your question in a polite style.
Unfortunately, the second way sells worse than the first, but today usenet does not sell well at all and therefore I think there is a comeback for usenet.
What do You think?