The fact that something does not see widespread popularity does not mean it does not work. I know the first two on your list worked because I used a few of them. They were not as popular as standard PCs, but in the right environment they were nice.
In any case it's not exactly history repeating itself if the conditions are different. Typical network availability, reliability, and speed are much better now than they have been in the past. Do the current conditons mean thin clients make more sense than they used to? I don't know, but I'll tell you this: The computer I'm writing this on (at home) is an ancient POS with a nice screen. It occasionally runs a web browser directly, but 99% of the time it is on, it is running Remote Desktop pointed at a much nicer box (at work) across town. So I've got to disagree with your assertion. Thin clients work great for me.
And we could add in the fact that we don't know how much revenue either edition gets from advertising. I do know that most print papers make almost all of their money from advertising; the actual subscription price is usually negligible in terms of revenue. The fact that people pay for a paper is mostly useful in convincing advertisers that people actually read it. All of which is probably less true of the WSJ than others; it's expensive as papers go, and advertisers probably don't need as much convincing that people read it. Still I'd bet that subscription revenue does not begin to cover costs. And I don't even have a reasonable guess how this works out for the online edition.
"Linux source control would not be affected by the whims of a closed source sompany."
So if Linus stayed with BK, then at some point in the future he might be suddenly forced to move to something else, which would be bad, so it's a good thing he was suddenly forced to move to something else. It all makes sense to me now.
"After all these years of OSS existence and advocacy I don't understand how there are people out there that don't understand why open is better in the long term."
I'm surprised you think Linus does not understand that. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult difficult to find evidence that Linus has a preference for open source. But if you're having problems finding any, I could point to his stated assumption that he would be leaving BK eventually when an open alternative was available.
But he already knows something about open source licenses that you apparently missed: they apply to software, not hardware. He's asking how to make his hardware design "open source". Which I will now answer, though you should keep in mind that this is just the understanding of some guy you don't know on slashdot...
It is not necessarily meaningful to talk about "open source" in reference to a hardware design. There is no form of the design for this thing you could give me that would let me build it, but not let me make modifications. But assuming you mean that you want others to be able to use and modify your design freely- Well, you've published it, and have not patented it. You're done. If you continue to not patent it for a year (IIRC) you'll lose the option to do so.
"Or are they going to ban the use of all non-city WAPs"
Sort of. The plan is that normal citizens will only be allowed to use the city WAP, but if you register as a certified evil-corporate-overlord, you'll be able to set up your own WAP, and they'll let you monitor the city ones for the purpose of identifying dissenters who need to be eliminated.
What sort of crime? Seriously, the sorts of crimes I can think of that are going to be aided by knowing where all the cop cars are are going to be where you do something obvious, but then get away before the cops show up. Liquor-store holdup for example. Doesn't seem like the sort of crime that's going to appeal to someone who can set up a system to track the locations of all the cop cars. Besides, "linked" doesn't really equate to identifiable and trackable. I suppose you could not speed if there is a wireless transmitter nearby, but in any significant metro area, that's just everywhere.
You read the manual? I'm considerably beyond novide-mid level, and if I can't figure out the basics a program just by starting it up and poking at stuff, I'll look for something else. The manual is for when I want to do something obscure in a program I've already decided is worth my time. In the evil windows world, it's actually pretty rare that I can't figure out the basics just by poking around the interface, though admitedly, I'm better at doing so than most. I'm trying to even remember the last time I had to resort to the help before I could start getting anything done. Oh yeah, the GIMP. to be fair, I'm sure PhotoShop would not have faired much better. I'm sure someone will now tell me how un-1337 I must be if I don't use stuff complex enough that I need the manual right off the bat. Whatever. I read more manuals than you can imagine ten or twenty years ago, back in the command line days. I'm just glad the world has moved on to better interfaces:)
"I really feel for all the poor bastards doomed to play a rehash of Madden 2000 for the next 5 years"
Other companies can still make football games. If people buy a game based on the team name licensing, and not on whether it's a good game, then I don't feel bad for them. They're not doomed because of EA; they are doomed because they are twits.
It may well be the compiler that is wrong, but it's still my problem.
I need code that runs correctly; standards-compliant code that doesn't is worthless to me.
The ANSI C++ spec nailed down the details of some things that different compilers were doing, but doing slightly differently. It formalised things that had been decided by consensus, and compelled things decided by near-consensus.
The W3C standards have regularly nailed down the details of things nobody was doing at all, without it being clear anyone would or wanted to. Any standard not accompanied by a reference implementation should go straight in the dustbin.
Browsers may have a history of lousy standards support. But web-standards bodies definitely have a history of lousy standards processes.
But the BSD might give the original developer the freedom to use more derived works, because more may exist. Heck, the original developer has the freedom to use all derived works if they just keep their source closed. Protecting the rights of the original developer seems like an odd standard to judge free/open source licenses on. We call them free/open because the original developer gives up some of their rights.
"You will note that while companies love BSD-licensed projects"
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for a company. Please don't hate me.
"(since they can just steal code from them)"
It's not stealing. The copyright owners have specifically authorised us to use the code. Presumably they even want us to.
"they rarely distribute their own works under the BSD" We don't release all our works under the BSD, and certainly not those central to our competitive advantage, but we don't use others BSD code for that either, or there wouldn't be any advantage. However, when we use BSD code, we most certainly do release enhancements and bug fixes to that code under the BSD. Contrary to your imaginings, we release code under the BSD when we want others to be able to use and add to and our work.
The GPL only does more to protect the original developer, if the original developers wishes are what the GPL stipulates. I'm not sure the open source community needs protection; The BSD allows more people to be part of the open source community.
Saying one license is better then another is silly; they have different goals. People judge licenses by all sorts of different criteria, and judge "freedom" in all sorts of ways. Some of which seem pretty convoluted to me. Personally, I judge licenses by one yes or no question: "Can I do whatever the hell I want with the code?" I like whatever-the-hell-you-want compatible licenses. You're free to like whatever licence you like. But arguing that any license is "more free" than a whatever-the-hell-you-want licence is going to require some pretty twisted logic.
Linus made a decision that was bad for you; many people tried to persuade him that it was the wrong decision, but he didn't change his mind, so Tridge forced him to. Anyone locked out by their principles should not have been helped by this anyway, unless their "principles" forbid them from using a closed client, but had no problem with a closed server.
But really, my argument is that you still do not have access to Linus's preffered source control. The only change is that now, neither does Linus. It looks to me like Tridge knew that would be the effect, and that that was his goal.
I have no respect for Tridge, because no one is better off because of his actions.
Hitchhikers Guide over the top?!? Say it ain't so!
Three people have I handed Hitchikers Guide to and seen them start reading it. Every time, I've known when they reached that line, because they could no longer resist laughing out loud. One literally fell out of his chair.
Seriously, I can't imagine liking Hithchikers at all if over the top is a problem for you.
Perhaps I wasn't clear: Having read the long review, I am not desperate to see it. Not only am I not desperate to see it, I am not interested in seeing it, even if it is free. I fully expect being in a room where it was being shown would make me unhappy and that I would leave if permitted to.
I don't think Adams' ghost would be interested in suing, as he would have to sue himself. He himself put Hitchikers in many forms, each different, and he even wrote a fair bit of this one. If you haven't read the reveiw, it might be reasonable to assume it's a nit-picky that's-not-how-it-was-in-the-book bit. It's not. The reviewer makes quite clear that being different is not what makes it bad. He also points out that saying "But Adams wrote that himself" does not make it not bad.
Tridge doesn't need a "defense", as he has not done anything illegal, and no one, including McVoy is claiming he did. Obviously not everyone thinks Tridge's defense is weak, as everyone here seems to think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. So there is no real problem with Tridge just saying "I didn't do anything wrong.", though to me, after detailed and thoughtful explanations from McVoy and Torvalds, his minimalist denial of wrongdoing at least sounds like a dodge.
I support the right to reverse engineer, and think it would really make sense for Linux to be kept in an open source control system. I may get slammed for it, but here's why I'm still not a fan of Tridge:
I don't think he did anything illegal or immoral, just unwise and obnoxious. It's been said he just wanted to be able to access the Linux Kernel without using non-free software. Well, Linux is free software, so he is free to set up a source tree in whatever system he likes, he does not need to use BitKeeper. So what he really wanted was to access Linus's source tree with free software. Which makes sense, because so many people have been so satisfied with Linus's leadership that his source tree is the one everyone cares about. But it's still Linus's source tree, so IMO, Linus should get to decide where it lives, remembering that if you dislike his decisions sufficiently that it outweighs his value as project leader, nothing is stopping you from dropping him.
So Tridge undertook to reverse-engineer BitKeeper. He is no doubt aware of McVoys previous statements on this issue, and he is a smart guy, so I can't imagine he expected to actually complete the project. It should have been obvious that BK would pull the free version, and Linus would stop using it, thus removing the motivation for the project in the first place. Even if it were not obvious, I gather Linus told him that's where things were going, and asked him to reconsider. Tridge refused, and here we are.
So it looks to me like Tridge set out to make Linus stop using Bitkeeper. Linus is quoted in the article saying that his stopping use of Bitkeeper was inevitable anyway, but that he thought it would be more convenient for himself and others if they could continue for a while more. So Linus asked Tridge to stop, and Tridge decided to disregard his request, forcing Linus off BK now (obnoxious), and hampering the kernel development effort (unwise).
Frankly, if Tridge was so bothered about having to use non-free software to access Linus's tree, he could have addressed the problem in a much friendlier and more helpful way. He could have applied his apparently considerable coding skills to advancing development of an open source revision control system, as Linus has made it quite clear he would use one if it could do the job as well as BK. That would indeed have been a mighty blow for the cause of free software. Whereas I have a hard time admiring your dedication to the purity of free software because you make an open client for a closed server. Particularly if by doing so you cause problems for other developers who, while they might use closed software, are making free software.
I admire people who write free software because they are being helpful; they are making things better for everyone. Sorry, but it looks to me like Tridge was pissed about Linus deciding to use BK, and wanted to throw a wrench in the works. I have no respect for that.
"All versions of 'The hitchikers guide to the galaxy' has differed significantly..."
Which the reveiwer covers right off the top. Yes, each version, in at least 4 different mediums, has been different. Each has retained the essentials of what made Hitchhikers good, while being made to work well in its particular medium.
If you RTFLongReview, the reveiwer makes an extremely solid, extensively supported, and completely devastating argument that this version does not contain any of what made Hitchiker good, and does not work well in its medium.
I'm sure there have been, or will be, both bad and good reveiws. Everything gets both good and bad reveiws. This, however, is not just a bad reveiw. It is a thorough, and in my opinion spot on, analysis of what made the previous versions good, followed by a detailed disection of the film in desperate search of these features, or indeed, anything redeeming. It is quite clear this reveiwer wanted to like the movie.
I would suggest you read the long review (are you really worried about spoilers? Was it the surprising new plot twists added to new versions that made it good, or even the plot at all?). Go ahead and read it assuming that your taste in movies is very different from the reviewers, or that he just woke up on the wrong side of the bed or something. Unless he's just outright lying, and entirely making up his examples, this movie blows.
The basic thing to remember in evaluting advertising: impressions, click-throughs or whatever is irrelevant. How much did you spend, and how much business did you get as a result? When people sign up, ask them where they heard about you. You won't have to guess which advertising is worth it for long.
Of course, that's no reason I shouldn't guess:)
I'd guess that for selling web hosting, Google ad-words is about the best you can do. The only time I'm going to click on a web ad is when it comes up as an ad word when I'm searching for something I want to buy. I wan't web hosting, I'm going to search google. I can't imagine any other ad for web hosting being effective, online or otherwise.
Of course I won't. I'll read the long review, which goes iinto more than enough detail to let me understand that the reviewer knows what he's talking about. I'm not going to pay 8 bucks for a movie just because it's called "Hitchhikers Guide". The reviewer provides extensive examples to justify his claim that the makers of the movie did not understand what made Hithhikers worthwhile.
Re:They just want better pricing from Intel
on
Dell Might do AMD
·
· Score: 1
They'll do it the day Intel doesn't make it worth their while not to. Which may well be never. I don't think Dell has any particular love of Intel. They do have a love of being #1 in market share, but I don't think they care if they keep that by offering AMD, or by being able to offer Intel cheaper than if they didn't threaten to go with AMD. But to make the latter work, they have to keep making it clear to Intel that they could go with AMD.
"This bill is to stop the government from using tax dollars to supply a service that has no bearing on life or limb."
This bill is to have the state stop local municipalities from letting their voters choose how to spend their local tax money. The state doesn't need a law to prevent itself from doing things, it can just not do them. If one particular town wants to spend their money on something, why should people who don't live there get any say in it? It's central government interfering with local government at the behest of major corporations. I'm not sure I like the idea of my government doing things like this, but I am sure I don't like the idea of less local governments interfering with more local ones any more than necessary. And this is not necessary. A few local municipalities providing wireless will not seriously hurt competition. And a lot of locals doing it means a lot of contracts to compete for.
"Most [airports] were built by private companies." Who were mostly paid with tax dollars. Some governments try to fund some infrastructure though taxes targeted toward the users of that infrastructure, but it's not always that way, it's certainly not always fair (the gas tax is not close to proportional to the wear you put on the road), and it's still taxes. Maybe you'd like argue they should fund this through a tax on wireless cards? You're free to do so, or not, when and if your local government considers it.
"If you want to pursue free software, then you have to also pursue a different business model."
Agreed. If you start with pursuing free software as your goal, you will need to change your business model. It may still be possible to make money, though I think it will be considerably harder. If you want to try anyway, go for it.
As far as your second paragraph: OK, I can see that. I wouldn't say my business is built around secrecy, though it does use secrecy to prevent people from copying my algorithms, and from redistributing (or otherwise apropriating) third-party data I'm just the reseller for. You point out that I could still give my customers source, but instead of secrecy use trust (albeit trust enforced by contract law). In my experience, giving people the ability to do something but making them agree not to is often a recipe for debating whether it's worth suing them or not. YMMV, but I'd rather trust secrecy, particularly when the providers of the aforementioned third-party data will be debating whther it's worth suing ME.
In any case, while I do lock up my software and some data, I don't lock up (or in) my clients data, so generally they don't care about source. If they have a problem, they'll expect me to address it. If I don't, or I've gone away, or whatever, they'll switch to other software. While it might theoretically be nice for them to have the option to modify or maintain my software without me, the reality is they're not going to, and they know this.
Given that, when I'm looking at the free/open distinction, I'm used to looking at it as the consumer of source, not as the, uh, source of source. I'm also looking at it as one who wants to redistribute. From that perspective, the "free to use, but not free to redistribute" concept is not helpful, though I can see it might be from other perspectives.
The distinction you make between open vs. free+open seems entirely sensible. By that distinction, I like free+open, and I don't see the value (to me) in not being both. I was thrown off because many people seem to use "Free" in ways that seem counterintuitive to me, so that I usually agree with what people are saying if they talk about "open", but not if they talk about "Free", particularly with the capital F. RMS in particular always focusses on "Free", yet by my standards the GPL makes source open, but not free.
Why is it, whenever an article about some new funky tech comes out, people who don't even read the article feel qualified to point out the "obvious" reasons it can't possibly work; then other people think they're insightful? Yeah, there are some engineers out there who were able to build a 13" long semi-autonomous areial vehicle, but now they are smacking their forheads saying, "Doh! We didn't think about how to charge the batteries! And wind! How could we have completely forgotten about wind!" Meanwhile, a bunch of Navy guys are out there testing, saying "Gee, this might be useful for street fights, what are we supposed to do with it? We've got to change this policy of just buying new tech at random."
"How recharge batteries in the middle of battlefield?" Interesting question; I wonder if the article adresses it? Oh wait the summary does: It's not on a battlefield, it's on a naval warship.
"What about wind? Make war only when no wind?" Clearly, it would not be very useful if it were not capable of speeds in excess of typical wind speeds, but since they bothered to build the thing, I'm guessing it is capable of those speeds. Out in the ocean where this willl be used, that can be pretty fast; I wonder how they acheived that in such a small package? I wonder if the article adresses that?
"My got - why do they test this on for the NAVY?"
Interesting question; I wonder if the article adresses it?
"I'm pretty sure, that range sucks " Based on the same thorough technical understanding that leads you to conclude this is meant to be a replacement for radar?
"I can imagine this usefull for street fights" I can imagine all sorts of different things; actually, the fewer facts I have, the more things I can imagine!
Slashdot Mirror
I know the Article is too much to ask, but Read The F***ing Summary. Nikon is really not interested in this.
The fact that something does not see widespread popularity does not mean it does not work. I know the first two on your list worked because I used a few of them. They were not as popular as standard PCs, but in the right environment they were nice.
In any case it's not exactly history repeating itself if the conditions are different. Typical network availability, reliability, and speed are much better now than they have been in the past. Do the current conditons mean thin clients make more sense than they used to? I don't know, but I'll tell you this: The computer I'm writing this on (at home) is an ancient POS with a nice screen. It occasionally runs a web browser directly, but 99% of the time it is on, it is running Remote Desktop pointed at a much nicer box (at work) across town. So I've got to disagree with your assertion. Thin clients work great for me.
And we could add in the fact that we don't know how much revenue either edition gets from advertising. I do know that most print papers make almost all of their money from advertising; the actual subscription price is usually negligible in terms of revenue. The fact that people pay for a paper is mostly useful in convincing advertisers that people actually read it. All of which is probably less true of the WSJ than others; it's expensive as papers go, and advertisers probably don't need as much convincing that people read it. Still I'd bet that subscription revenue does not begin to cover costs. And I don't even have a reasonable guess how this works out for the online edition.
"Linux source control would not be affected by the whims of a closed source sompany."
So if Linus stayed with BK, then at some point in the future he might be suddenly forced to move to something else, which would be bad, so it's a good thing he was suddenly forced to move to something else. It all makes sense to me now.
"After all these years of OSS existence and advocacy I don't understand how there are people out there that don't understand why open is better in the long term."
I'm surprised you think Linus does not understand that. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult difficult to find evidence that Linus has a preference for open source. But if you're having problems finding any, I could point to his stated assumption that he would be leaving BK eventually when an open alternative was available.
But he already knows something about open source licenses that you apparently missed: they apply to software, not hardware. He's asking how to make his hardware design "open source". Which I will now answer, though you should keep in mind that this is just the understanding of some guy you don't know on slashdot...
It is not necessarily meaningful to talk about "open source" in reference to a hardware design. There is no form of the design for this thing you could give me that would let me build it, but not let me make modifications. But assuming you mean that you want others to be able to use and modify your design freely- Well, you've published it, and have not patented it. You're done. If you continue to not patent it for a year (IIRC) you'll lose the option to do so.
"Or are they going to ban the use of all non-city WAPs"
Sort of. The plan is that normal citizens will only be allowed to use the city WAP, but if you register as a certified evil-corporate-overlord, you'll be able to set up your own WAP, and they'll let you monitor the city ones for the purpose of identifying dissenters who need to be eliminated.
What sort of crime? Seriously, the sorts of crimes I can think of that are going to be aided by knowing where all the cop cars are are going to be where you do something obvious, but then get away before the cops show up. Liquor-store holdup for example. Doesn't seem like the sort of crime that's going to appeal to someone who can set up a system to track the locations of all the cop cars.
Besides, "linked" doesn't really equate to identifiable and trackable. I suppose you could not speed if there is a wireless transmitter nearby, but in any significant metro area, that's just everywhere.
You read the manual? I'm considerably beyond novide-mid level, and if I can't figure out the basics a program just by starting it up and poking at stuff, I'll look for something else. The manual is for when I want to do something obscure in a program I've already decided is worth my time. In the evil windows world, it's actually pretty rare that I can't figure out the basics just by poking around the interface, though admitedly, I'm better at doing so than most. I'm trying to even remember the last time I had to resort to the help before I could start getting anything done. Oh yeah, the GIMP. to be fair, I'm sure PhotoShop would not have faired much better. :)
I'm sure someone will now tell me how un-1337 I must be if I don't use stuff complex enough that I need the manual right off the bat. Whatever. I read more manuals than you can imagine ten or twenty years ago, back in the command line days. I'm just glad the world has moved on to better interfaces
I think your analogy needs few more christian sects in with catholicism. If there is one thing open source has, it's schisms.
Lots of spreadsheets can handle tables that large, but they call themselves databases.
"I really feel for all the poor bastards doomed to play a rehash of Madden 2000 for the next 5 years"
Other companies can still make football games. If people buy a game based on the team name licensing, and not on whether it's a good game, then I don't feel bad for them. They're not doomed because of EA; they are doomed because they are twits.
It may well be the compiler that is wrong, but it's still my problem.
I need code that runs correctly; standards-compliant code that doesn't is worthless to me.
The ANSI C++ spec nailed down the details of some things that different compilers were doing, but doing slightly differently. It formalised things that had been decided by consensus, and compelled things decided by near-consensus.
The W3C standards have regularly nailed down the details of things nobody was doing at all, without it being clear anyone would or wanted to. Any standard not accompanied by a reference implementation should go straight in the dustbin.
Browsers may have a history of lousy standards support. But web-standards bodies definitely have a history of lousy standards processes.
But the BSD might give the original developer the freedom to use more derived works, because more may exist. Heck, the original developer has the freedom to use all derived works if they just keep their source closed. Protecting the rights of the original developer seems like an odd standard to judge free/open source licenses on. We call them free/open because the original developer gives up some of their rights.
"You will note that while companies love BSD-licensed projects"
In the interest of full disclosure: I work for a company. Please don't hate me.
"(since they can just steal code from them)"
It's not stealing. The copyright owners have specifically authorised us to use the code. Presumably they even want us to.
"they rarely distribute their own works under the BSD"
We don't release all our works under the BSD, and certainly not those central to our competitive advantage, but we don't use others BSD code for that either, or there wouldn't be any advantage. However, when we use BSD code, we most certainly do release enhancements and bug fixes to that code under the BSD. Contrary to your imaginings, we release code under the BSD when we want others to be able to use and add to and our work.
The GPL only does more to protect the original developer, if the original developers wishes are what the GPL stipulates. I'm not sure the open source community needs protection; The BSD allows more people to be part of the open source community.
Saying one license is better then another is silly; they have different goals. People judge licenses by all sorts of different criteria, and judge "freedom" in all sorts of ways. Some of which seem pretty convoluted to me. Personally, I judge licenses by one yes or no question: "Can I do whatever the hell I want with the code?"
I like whatever-the-hell-you-want compatible licenses. You're free to like whatever licence you like. But arguing that any license is "more free" than a whatever-the-hell-you-want licence is going to require some pretty twisted logic.
Linus made a decision that was bad for you; many people tried to persuade him that it was the wrong decision, but he didn't change his mind, so Tridge forced him to. Anyone locked out by their principles should not have been helped by this anyway, unless their "principles" forbid them from using a closed client, but had no problem with a closed server.
But really, my argument is that you still do not have access to Linus's preffered source control. The only change is that now, neither does Linus. It looks to me like Tridge knew that would be the effect, and that that was his goal.
I have no respect for Tridge, because no one is better off because of his actions.
Hitchhikers Guide over the top?!?
Say it ain't so!
Three people have I handed Hitchikers Guide to and seen them start reading it. Every time, I've known when they reached that line, because they could no longer resist laughing out loud. One literally fell out of his chair.
Seriously, I can't imagine liking Hithchikers at all if over the top is a problem for you.
Perhaps I wasn't clear: Having read the long review, I am not desperate to see it. Not only am I not desperate to see it, I am not interested in seeing it, even if it is free. I fully expect being in a room where it was being shown would make me unhappy and that I would leave if permitted to.
I don't think Adams' ghost would be interested in suing, as he would have to sue himself. He himself put Hitchikers in many forms, each different, and he even wrote a fair bit of this one. If you haven't read the reveiw, it might be reasonable to assume it's a nit-picky that's-not-how-it-was-in-the-book bit. It's not. The reviewer makes quite clear that being different is not what makes it bad. He also points out that saying "But Adams wrote that himself" does not make it not bad.
Tridge doesn't need a "defense", as he has not done anything illegal, and no one, including McVoy is claiming he did. Obviously not everyone thinks Tridge's defense is weak, as everyone here seems to think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. So there is no real problem with Tridge just saying "I didn't do anything wrong.", though to me, after detailed and thoughtful explanations from McVoy and Torvalds, his minimalist denial of wrongdoing at least sounds like a dodge.
I support the right to reverse engineer, and think it would really make sense for Linux to be kept in an open source control system. I may get slammed for it, but here's why I'm still not a fan of Tridge:
I don't think he did anything illegal or immoral, just unwise and obnoxious. It's been said he just wanted to be able to access the Linux Kernel without using non-free software. Well, Linux is free software, so he is free to set up a source tree in whatever system he likes, he does not need to use BitKeeper. So what he really wanted was to access Linus's source tree with free software. Which makes sense, because so many people have been so satisfied with Linus's leadership that his source tree is the one everyone cares about. But it's still Linus's source tree, so IMO, Linus should get to decide where it lives, remembering that if you dislike his decisions sufficiently that it outweighs his value as project leader, nothing is stopping you from dropping him.
So Tridge undertook to reverse-engineer BitKeeper. He is no doubt aware of McVoys previous statements on this issue, and he is a smart guy, so I can't imagine he expected to actually complete the project. It should have been obvious that BK would pull the free version, and Linus would stop using it, thus removing the motivation for the project in the first place. Even if it were not obvious, I gather Linus told him that's where things were going, and asked him to reconsider. Tridge refused, and here we are.
So it looks to me like Tridge set out to make Linus stop using Bitkeeper. Linus is quoted in the article saying that his stopping use of Bitkeeper was inevitable anyway, but that he thought it would be more convenient for himself and others if they could continue for a while more. So Linus asked Tridge to stop, and Tridge decided to disregard his request, forcing Linus off BK now (obnoxious), and hampering the kernel development effort (unwise).
Frankly, if Tridge was so bothered about having to use non-free software to access Linus's tree, he could have addressed the problem in a much friendlier and more helpful way. He could have applied his apparently considerable coding skills to advancing development of an open source revision control system, as Linus has made it quite clear he would use one if it could do the job as well as BK. That would indeed have been a mighty blow for the cause of free software. Whereas I have a hard time admiring your dedication to the purity of free software because you make an open client for a closed server. Particularly if by doing so you cause problems for other developers who, while they might use closed software, are making free software.
I admire people who write free software because they are being helpful; they are making things better for everyone. Sorry, but it looks to me like Tridge was pissed about Linus deciding to use BK, and wanted to throw a wrench in the works. I have no respect for that.
"All versions of 'The hitchikers guide to the galaxy' has differed significantly..."
Which the reveiwer covers right off the top. Yes, each version, in at least 4 different mediums, has been different. Each has retained the essentials of what made Hitchhikers good, while being made to work well in its particular medium.
If you RTFLongReview, the reveiwer makes an extremely solid, extensively supported, and completely devastating argument that this version does not contain any of what made Hitchiker good, and does not work well in its medium.
I'm sure there have been, or will be, both bad and good reveiws. Everything gets both good and bad reveiws. This, however, is not just a bad reveiw. It is a thorough, and in my opinion spot on, analysis of what made the previous versions good, followed by a detailed disection of the film in desperate search of these features, or indeed, anything redeeming. It is quite clear this reveiwer wanted to like the movie.
I would suggest you read the long review (are you really worried about spoilers? Was it the surprising new plot twists added to new versions that made it good, or even the plot at all?). Go ahead and read it assuming that your taste in movies is very different from the reviewers, or that he just woke up on the wrong side of the bed or something. Unless he's just outright lying, and entirely making up his examples, this movie blows.
The basic thing to remember in evaluting advertising: impressions, click-throughs or whatever is irrelevant. How much did you spend, and how much business did you get as a result? When people sign up, ask them where they heard about you. You won't have to guess which advertising is worth it for long.
Of course, that's no reason I shouldn't guess
I'd guess that for selling web hosting, Google ad-words is about the best you can do. The only time I'm going to click on a web ad is when it comes up as an ad word when I'm searching for something I want to buy. I wan't web hosting, I'm going to search google. I can't imagine any other ad for web hosting being effective, online or otherwise.
Of course I won't. I'll read the long review, which goes iinto more than enough detail to let me understand that the reviewer knows what he's talking about. I'm not going to pay 8 bucks for a movie just because it's called "Hitchhikers Guide". The reviewer provides extensive examples to justify his claim that the makers of the movie did not understand what made Hithhikers worthwhile.
They'll do it the day Intel doesn't make it worth their while not to. Which may well be never. I don't think Dell has any particular love of Intel. They do have a love of being #1 in market share, but I don't think they care if they keep that by offering AMD, or by being able to offer Intel cheaper than if they didn't threaten to go with AMD. But to make the latter work, they have to keep making it clear to Intel that they could go with AMD.
"This bill is to stop the government from using tax dollars to supply a service that has no bearing on life or limb."
This bill is to have the state stop local municipalities from letting their voters choose how to spend their local tax money. The state doesn't need a law to prevent itself from doing things, it can just not do them. If one particular town wants to spend their money on something, why should people who don't live there get any say in it? It's central government interfering with local government at the behest of major corporations. I'm not sure I like the idea of my government doing things like this, but I am sure I don't like the idea of less local governments interfering with more local ones any more than necessary. And this is not necessary. A few local municipalities providing wireless will not seriously hurt competition. And a lot of locals doing it means a lot of contracts to compete for.
"Most [airports] were built by private companies."
Who were mostly paid with tax dollars. Some governments try to fund some infrastructure though taxes targeted toward the users of that infrastructure, but it's not always that way, it's certainly not always fair (the gas tax is not close to proportional to the wear you put on the road), and it's still taxes. Maybe you'd like argue they should fund this through a tax on wireless cards? You're free to do so, or not, when and if your local government considers it.
"If you want to pursue free software, then you have to also pursue a different business model."
Agreed. If you start with pursuing free software as your goal, you will need to change your business model. It may still be possible to make money, though I think it will be considerably harder. If you want to try anyway, go for it.
As far as your second paragraph: OK, I can see that. I wouldn't say my business is built around secrecy, though it does use secrecy to prevent people from copying my algorithms, and from redistributing (or otherwise apropriating) third-party data I'm just the reseller for. You point out that I could still give my customers source, but instead of secrecy use trust (albeit trust enforced by contract law). In my experience, giving people the ability to do something but making them agree not to is often a recipe for debating whether it's worth suing them or not. YMMV, but I'd rather trust secrecy, particularly when the providers of the aforementioned third-party data will be debating whther it's worth suing ME.
In any case, while I do lock up my software and some data, I don't lock up (or in) my clients data, so generally they don't care about source. If they have a problem, they'll expect me to address it. If I don't, or I've gone away, or whatever, they'll switch to other software. While it might theoretically be nice for them to have the option to modify or maintain my software without me, the reality is they're not going to, and they know this.
Given that, when I'm looking at the free/open distinction, I'm used to looking at it as the consumer of source, not as the, uh, source of source. I'm also looking at it as one who wants to redistribute. From that perspective, the "free to use, but not free to redistribute" concept is not helpful, though I can see it might be from other perspectives.
The distinction you make between open vs. free+open seems entirely sensible. By that distinction, I like free+open, and I don't see the value (to me) in not being both. I was thrown off because many people seem to use "Free" in ways that seem counterintuitive to me, so that I usually agree with what people are saying if they talk about "open", but not if they talk about "Free", particularly with the capital F. RMS in particular always focusses on "Free", yet by my standards the GPL makes source open, but not free.
Well at least we're making progress. The query that so consistently vexed the Usenet Oracle, it simply answers.
Why is it, whenever an article about some new funky tech comes out, people who don't even read the article feel qualified to point out the "obvious" reasons it can't possibly work; then other people think they're insightful? Yeah, there are some engineers out there who were able to build a 13" long semi-autonomous areial vehicle, but now they are smacking their forheads saying, "Doh! We didn't think about how to charge the batteries! And wind! How could we have completely forgotten about wind!" Meanwhile, a bunch of Navy guys are out there testing, saying "Gee, this might be useful for street fights, what are we supposed to do with it? We've got to change this policy of just buying new tech at random."
"How recharge batteries in the middle of battlefield?"
Interesting question; I wonder if the article adresses it? Oh wait the summary does: It's not on a battlefield, it's on a naval warship.
"What about wind? Make war only when no wind?"
Clearly, it would not be very useful if it were not capable of speeds in excess of typical wind speeds, but since they bothered to build the thing, I'm guessing it is capable of those speeds. Out in the ocean where this willl be used, that can be pretty fast; I wonder how they acheived that in such a small package? I wonder if the article adresses that?
"My got - why do they test this on for the NAVY?"
Interesting question; I wonder if the article adresses it?
"I'm pretty sure, that range sucks "
Based on the same thorough technical understanding that leads you to conclude this is meant to be a replacement for radar?
"I can imagine this usefull for street fights"
I can imagine all sorts of different things; actually, the fewer facts I have, the more things I can imagine!