Does anyone wonder why nobody wants to pay for slashdot when you have to put up with stupid moderators all the time? I'm not a troll, I'm a BSD operating system creator, I have more knowledge of this subject than any GNU hippie.
You should be thanking me for porting these features to free/open/net BSD and Mac OS X. At least I can make sure the whole point of Mission Critical and Sorcerer doesn't die. And yes, I know Open Source doesn't die off like windows programs do. Which is why I'm opening this up to millions more than the few dozen who compiled Sorcerer or installed Mission Critical.
Take your moderations away to the real trolls, but don't try to censor the truth of the matter.
You people crack me up, I'm going to make sure my Metamoderating rights are used to metamod down dumb moderations.
I'll think you'll find I'm actually on topic, we are discussing the online population size in this story.
why does any jackass who wants more linux users automatically get modded up? Why does every criticism of linux get automatically modded down? Slashdot has no sense of free speech or democracy, there are always 2 sides to every story
Potential Linux users alert ! Slashdot should now promote WANKER linux. Windows Alternative Network Kde Environment Resource is perfectly suited to those of us who touch themselves
Linux is dead, why am I not surprised to see the communists argue for it?
600 million chinese won't get online until it's free of cost, free of liberty and free of democracy.
Only 100 million indians can afford to eat 3 meals a day, how are 300 million starving indians going to care about the internet?
There isn't 40-50 million white or rich people living in africa, 10 million is more realistic.
Nobody needs the internet if they are censored or starving, there are more important things to worry about.
The OS isn't failing, it's just losing it's best distros, the point is that BSD still has the features which Linux has lost in those distros.
I know this will take my Karma down, but as a metamoderator I think it's more important to tell the truth than be a Whore for Karma.
It doesn't matter if Linux is dying, BSD is taking unix to more people than linux ever will. 2 linux distros are dying in 1 day, that says tons about the viability of linux.
Moderators: before you mod me down as linux geeks usually do, consider that BSD has 3 times the users than linux does. Mac OS X has several million users.
Please tell me how Kaos is offtopic, when it does the same thing as Sorcerer.
The rest is a joke, but it could also be an accurate description of almost any/. topic. Face it, BSD is 3 times more popular than linux in terms of users. User numbers count more than the opinion of geeks, so it's fair to say Linux is dying. BTW, I hope someone metamods me up soon.
I downloaded a hosts file that filters out spam and ad domains like doubleclick.com . It tells your computer to serve those addresses from your computer. Because you don't have the resource files those advertisers do, it doesn't load ads.
Which is my point, Not all Pacific Island nations are 3rd world countries. Those that aren't about to dissapear by global warming are usually 2nd world places. As for high standards of living, Wellington, New Zealand has the most : internet domains, internet connections, cafes & restaurents per capita in the world.
I object to comparing pacific islands with the 3rd world, sure the Pacific may be primitive in places like my friend's Fiji holiday home, but that's the point of having a house on the beach. (I live across the road from a beach in wellington)
I saw a link to a spam blacklist hosts file, it sets the major advertisers to be served from localhost (your computer). You could easily get one from askjeeves or google if you ask the right question.
I think that Public Information Service Software is a good name for "free software" or "open source". When I buy a linux distro, I want to ask 'Can I get some PISS here ?' or 'Will my computer work better if I PISS on it ?'
BSD is dying, but it appears that it will return like a phoenix with the arrival of the Kaos BSD operating system.
Meanwhile, the best linux ever is now dead. Nevermind the fact it only had a few dozen slashdot geeks actually use after waiting all week to compile it. Ladies (all 2 of you on slashdot) and gentlemen, Linux is dead. Tux the Penguin is extinct. (no, it's not the stink of GNU hippies)
Argentina, Brazil and India are all second world nations, far less developed than my small country in the Pacific. I am a New Zealand citizen and an Australian citizen, I resent this discrimination against Pacific Islands.
Where I live, I can buy a meal for less than a NZ$. That's about US40 for a McDonalds cheeseburger and none of this 'grow your own' crap.
The Soviet Union also had a constitution, Stalin wasn't likely to obey his own rules. The justice system has only been independant for a few years, it's mainly a party tool for kangaroo courts. Yes, democratic selection of people from one party who can't do anything about local corruption. Freedom of speech: all internet chat and emails are monitored by the ministry of truth, all publications are vetted by government censors and all faxes are read by the state. Freedom of worship: all believers have to register with a special ID card just like a driver's license. The state dictates the sermons have to be in favor of the state. Freedom of assembly: I suppose no tanks ran over citizens in Tiannemen Square? Freedom of property ownership & business: a communist state never belives in private property or free trade. Privacy: every phone is traced, every fax read, all email filtered and internet chat censored. The communist state decides who is an enemy of the state, what ideas are permitted and what religions are allowed.
Red Flag Linux is merely a way to ensure that technology is developed in Chinese language and that the Chinese Firewall has a way to censor anyone.
Why not? Although I'm not an american, the DMCA and the USA PATRIOT acts are clearly in violation of the first amendment. The UK RIP / RIPA acts are also violations of the universal declaration of human rights.
The Russian constitution actually states that any russian citizen is allowed to have unbreakable encryption, but they have the FSB (KGB in soviet days) tapping all ISPs with a government blackbox to read all emails. France & Isreal operate systems similar to the echelon system. China has the most oppresive internet, not just screening for pornography like the muslim nations do. China takes a covert interest in political dissent with a national firewall made with Cisco routers and a ministry of truth. they employ tens of thousands of communist censors just to read email and can block any port they want.
I think I said in that post or the one before it in this topic that users could vote out hostile nodes from services. This would self regulate the services from censors when enough people notice. I have yet to write the withepapers on Samizdat, I'm in a draft design until I have the last few books I need. I have just discovered kernel learning ai, so I want to throw that in when I know how. I am likely to state how it works exactly when I can be sure that places like China, the UK or the USA can't block it off.
Sheep shaggers drink speights, it only tastes good if you've been riding down a dusty rural road for an hour to drink it. Really desperate farmers drink tasman draft, it's almost bad enough to be adopted by australia as a true blue beer.
I wouldn't have a clue what american beer is like, I once tried Budweiser beer and I had to piss in it to make it stronger. What americans call beer, we call watered down urine. If you want NZ beer you can handle, try Mako, Lion ICE or Flame.
The best NZ beers are Steinlager, Tui and Flame. The only good things from the South Island are the mineral water, electricity and the raincoats.
I live in the centre of New Zealand, wellington. We can see the south island from the hills and southern beaches of the suburbs. Wellington by far is the best place in New Zealand, we have the people, the culture, the government and no traffic jams. We don't care what drink you try, unlike those snobs in Auckland.
I'm working on the Samizdat protocol, which is an agile adaptive protocol capable of deceptive encryption of traffic. Samizdat is capable of filesharing, IM, email or even (anonymous) webserving. It works on a plugin system with API kernels for samizdat apps.
I hope to have individual service apps for each kind of use, and a suite app like Mozilla that does the lot. Samizdat is planned to be a distributed tree network, fast localised servers provide the search results locally and the local database of files. It works by not revealing to you what the actual url resources come from, users can vote servers to be comprimised if they try to spread viruses or censorship on the network. Samizdat is going to be free, open and GPL. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm ready to listen and put them in the mix.
Exactly like a napster style of serving, you're vunerable to lawyers and script kiddies. script kiddies wouldn't attack their source of mp3's.
I'm doing a new filesharing protocol samizdat, which will be open source (yes, I'll even GPL it for all you slashdot geeks.) The method I will use is a distributed hierarchy: if you can handle local routing traffic and a local file database, you can be a local server. (this means you can provide search results and the URL anonymiser for local files) Basically, this is a semantic web protocol for P2P in places which is agile enough to get around censorship and network port bans.
> Is singapore the same place with the shitty record on human rights? Is this the same, Oh What a Beautiful former Colony with supa Internet you are referring to? Yes it is, but Indonesia's even worse when it comes to human rights and internet censorship. Plus it's the world's largest muslim nation just north of the world's lowest poulated continent. > Is the US State Department then a bunch of liars when it says this about the wonderful country: "The Government has wide powers to limit citizens' rights and to handicap political opposition. " No, the US state department is just repeating what amnesty international has been saying for decades. >"The authorities sometimes infringe on citizens' privacy rights. Government intimidation and pressure to conform result in the practice of self-censorship among journalists. Government leaders historically have utilized court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics." Find anywhere else in asia (except westernised japan) which doesn't do that too. >"During the year, a prominent opposition figure was convicted for speaking in public without a permit. Despite a continuing discussion of the possibility of an expansion of free speech rights and the Government's role regarding these rights, the Government still did not take significant concrete steps to change the wide array of laws and government practices, or the informal levers of government influence, that lie behind the limitations on civil and political rights. The Government significantly restricts freedom of assembly and association. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church are banned." The only positive ideas I see are the banning of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Moonies. Ban the Hari Krishnas and the Mormons. I'd call the Singapore government to be spiritally enlightened instead of an orwellian dictatorship if they did that. >"The Government has moved actively to counter societal discrimination against women and minorities, but some discrimination persists. Foreign workers are vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse." >That's swell. What a wonderfuckingful place. I'm moving my business there so I can take advantage of all the superior technology, and hopefully get persecuted and my female employees harassed and discriminated against. Why not join the company of great australian and new zealand multinationals? I'm sure you'll find dozens of Fay Rich White 80s stockmarket refugees in singapore. Don't take my word for it: http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/ 1999_ hrp_report/singapor.html I think I'll stick with my backasswords western life, even if I can't look at slashdot from a pay phone.
> His motives clearly are to promote himself, and when he starts fading from peoples' memories, he never fails to embarrass himself yet again. Another example of this type of person is Jef Raskin, he is a constant irritant to UI designers and OS developers. http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/1 6564.html , http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/16566.html & http://www.macslash.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/01/06 29241&mode=thread > Granted, he has apparently developed some very key pieces of software and has generously given them back to the community. However, he leaves no question that he is in it for the money and recognition.
I see no problem with that, I'm doing much the same thing with Kaos (BSD). I'm only giving people the samizdat protocol and the apps that use it's filesharing and IM encryption. This is far more valuable than my proprietory software in the OS, yet I can do good this way. > RMS, on the other hand knows that his movement will help people (ultimately) by providing them freedoms he is willing to fight for at the expense of his reputation and pocketbook. I'm willing to give people freedoms, just not all of them for nothing in return. I'm not lucky enough to be rich and liberal with my code. > He is a true libertarian (check out his home page at stallman.org if you have any doubts whatsoever). GNU is one of his many strong passions and is possibly the only one with with which I completely relate and sympathize I think some of his personal life is too liberal, but that is his problem. I'd rather not take on anyone else's problem because of their ideology. >-- I will add that he is exceptionally wise to maintain a strong distance between his GNU agenda and his other personal agendas so as to not dissociate himself from his GNU supporters. I think it's wise to seperate GNU free software from polyamour free love, even if they are both hippie nonsense. > His goals are to free software ("free" as in the verb to free from restraints and regulations). Contrary to what many people believe, the goal is NOT to provide free software ("free" as in the adjective for cost). GNU is free as in speech, not free as in liberty or cost. This would be better defined in french words as the distinction is not obvious in english or american words. > The fact that you and many others misunderstand his agenda is precisely why he continues to push it with all his energy. I have an enormous amount of respect for RMS and what he has selflessly created. The energy I have no problem with, it's the personality (or lack of) which is the problem with most computer gurus. > He is often criticized for being a relentless control-freak. Although this seems a bit exaggerated, I don't doubt that his agenda would fail were he not of this nature. I and many others see him as the Steve Ballmer of the linux community. Ordinary people don't want hairy freaks or bald freaks raving on about some rubbish which is irrelevant to them. > You are completely wrong and a very poor judge of the Gnu and Linux communities if you think Linux will die when Microsoft becomes easier to use or when Linux becomes unnecessary to support. It's a fair comment, most companies base their decisions on how easy it is to use something. I personally know dozens of geeks who organise their systems based on support. They work for banks, universities, programming firms, government departments & some for themselves. > GNU is all about freedom -- the freedom to program, modify programs to suit you, modify programs for others, and redistribute modified programs. I don't have a problem with freedom to program or modify programs to suit you or others. I do have a problem with the redistribution of my programs without my permission, this is my right to my property. > The philosophy has nothing to do with ease of use, and quite frankly cares little whether common man ever uses the software except that common man has power over the government which has the power to advance the cause or seriously impede or abolish the struggle for free software. Without ease of use, you'll never get common man to use it. Your elitist arguement is a typical one from linux geeks. The government is usually only interested in software if it impedes or abolishes their data interception. > BUT -- to earn popular support from the masses, Gnu/Linux products must be free in cost and must be easy to use. The end product, not the philosophy, has to appeal to the masses. Sure, I guess those CDs are just handed out at the bookstores. And Linux techs just do their work for free beer. Whatever. > Note this has nothing to do with the philosophy of programming freedom. This is merely a means to an end. I agree there is indeed a shame in prematurely trying to sell a product to people not ready for it. Most companies call this beta testing, microsoft calls it first release & linux calls it version Unfortunately, some GNU followers misinterpret the goals of gaining acceptance with trying to obtain marketshare. It is still too early to obtain marketshare, but it is not too early to obtain popular support for the ideals. > Note that RMS does not encourage forcing the product on those not yet ready -- I challenge you to provide a counterexample. ESR on the other hand seems to be an unfortunate troll, unknowingly bent on destroying the open source movement. I didn't say RMS is forcing people to use linux, the problem is with the followers like the network geeks at my old uni & the pale fat jackass who spends half the day going to the fast food outlets. (there's at least a dozen in my town) > Your marxist comments are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just because one can equate RMS' fervor with that of a priest doesn't mean the GNU philosophy is meant to delude or control as does many religions of the spirit. As an anarcho capitalist & evolutionist I am just as opposed to the belief in state as I am to the belief in church. I see many aspects of cults in the GNU cause. Lack of sleep, strange rituals of command recitation, 3 wise men (RMS, ESR & Torvalds) & a claim to a miraculous event (linux) > GNU is a governmental policy, grounded in the physical world. There are few, if any, parallels between GNU and spirituality.
GNU closely resembles one of those games of magic or d&d which most people grow out of by secondary school. There are always a bunch of wankers who study at or work for the university that play childrens games and waste an adult's pay on crap. This works in the same way as pyramid selling or religion (they are the same thing) in that a hierarchy of level based involvement is used.
If you want a stadium near your home, try living in Wellington, New Zealand. We have a Stadium by the Railway Station and Harbour. http://www.WestpacTrustStadium.co.nz/ T his stadium is in the Thorndon suburb, which is populated with victorian era houses for the wealthy and embassies.
Another point to note is that wellington is currently about to bulldoze a former industrial zone to make a central city park, even though the mayor campaigned against it.
This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer. I mean that I have debt to pay off, not freeloaders to support. I find I have to state this everytime I work on a software project. > Thanks for your plug on capitalism... Didn't you read my post? Did you read the part where I said I'm not advocating any particular system. Yes, but nobody ever considers why I would bother if I owed enough money to buy a car or make a deposit on a house. Which I do. > (Actually I like it when different systems co-exists) I'm a programmer, and I believe I should have the privledge to copyright my work for a limited of time to recoup my costs and even make a profit. After that limited time, I believe my work belongs to the public domain. I believe that I am entitled to make money off my work for the duration of my life + 25 years for any family I have. I don't believe my work is public property, I don't work for the state. What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life? Why would I give away my income? The dot com buble economy has burst, I'd rather stick to old-fashioned economics and make a profit for as long as I can. > For some people, charity is a way of life. Some people honestly dedicate ALL of thier time for the benefit of others while asking for little or nothing in return, while others ask for help with basic living expenses. (Most of the time, basic living arrangments are taking care of without asking...)
The cost of a student loan is a basic living cost, it's the same as a mortgage for most people. Some people I know can't get mortgages until they pay off their student loan. > Other people try to contribute by building businesses. They want to solve problems and help people with an enterprise. By creating wealth, they employ and support families, education, and charities. This is how they make thier contribution.
I prefer becoming a business to becoming a charity. It's far better to create wealth than it is to distribute wealth without personal gain. > Then there are some people who don't care and just want to help themselves (often they end up hurting themselves and others). > IMO, Free Software and Open Source software are charitable contributions, who's purpose is for the benefit of society. Personally, I view charities as sort of a voluntary socialism. I know the comparison doesn't entirely match up, but I'm more suggesting that the spirit of charity and socialism are the same.
Which is why socialism doesn't work, everything can't be run as a charity. The best way is to allow a mix of the best systems existing. > While there may be SOME people who think all software should be Free or Open Source software, I disagree. I think each type compliments to other well and keeps the other in check. (Like checks and balances)
Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century. No socialist nation has ever been an improvement on the past. > How can you be sure? The fact the USSR and China had become super powers doesn't suggested communism failed. To suggest that communism actually built both of these superpowers and destroyed one of them it seems pretty counter-intuitive to your conclusion, especially if you consider the fact they were in a cold war with us. Don't you think the fact that communist societies were at war with capitalists societies played any role?
I think the real downfall of communism will be when the proles rise up and overthrow the communist dictators. It happened in East Germany, Hungary, Poland and to limited extent in Russia. > There were many factors involved, so why are you singling out just one factor? If you're so hard up on making me wrong, I might as well tell you that I think capitalism has proven itself to be effective. I think you'll find that capitalism is an evolutionary drive. All life has to profit in order to survive, this means resource profit, not money profit. > I'll also tell you that capitalism-socialist hydrids like Isreal and Sweden have proven themselves too, because I believe a good economy is built on freedom of ownership and equal opportunity (No special government favors for specific companies) Sure, Isreal considers the palestinians to be equals. The isrealis let the palestinians have ownership of their land and equal opportunity? No way, even my friend who was an ex isreali command squad leader would argue that Isreal is an openly racist state. He'd rather eat non kosher food than go back to raid lebanon every weekend or shoot innocent arabs again.
The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies. > It's worse than that... There are many killer technologies and ideas which could dramatically change the landscape of society. Wonder why they aren't? Look to the patent system and the large industries who would be hurt by these killer technologies.
Which is why I advocate more capitalism, less corporatism. It's better to constantly create than to constantly conserve. > If you were a large company who's primary source of revenue was from selling an expensive technology, and you found a very inexpensive alternative that would ruin that revenue stream, wouldn't you patent to prevent some little guy from getting his hands on it to undercut your business?
Say for example, microsoft vs. my company. The model they use for Farsite (due 2012) is the same as the model for a project I did in 1998. (the model of the Farsite server) Would they get a patent if I had prior work under copyright? No, they'd get it rejected. > The truth is: Large industries benefit from a flawed patent system more than small companies because they have the capital and cash to research, patent the research, and sue the crap out of you if you fsck with them. The problem isn't the corporations, it's the unlevel playing field.
The corporations have the capital to maintain mediocre innovations, small companies and start-ups don't have this need for lawyers. "do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ? What do you think?
That's the part where I mention my operating system project, Kaos. BSD, not GNU. I'd rather do my operating system here in new zealand with strong encryption than cripple my technologies for USA or UK internet laws.
I have a point which you disagree with, I saying that it's no use to have a lot of fanatical devotees if the cause doesn't have the acceptance of the people. Why should anyone want to use a system which doesn't work effectively for them ? All the believers do is just make it a cult experience of mass delusion. As an atheist and an evolutionist, I find all aspects of religion to just be mumbo jumbo and the power of control over people's lives. This applies to linux because nothing reeks more of power than a computer guru who knows more about the computer system than the owner. These geeks have no shame in convincing people to buy CDs of a "free" operating system, then install it without telling them the real cost is in difficulty. I see nothing but the cost of tech support for a seriously flawed system, linux costs more to run than windows for ordinary users.
The real point of this discussion is, when tech support gets cheaper due to ease of use increasing windows or linux will die. You may have noticed that tech support is the real driver of windows acceptance, it's also the driver of linux installation by linux gurus. The point is, linux will die off as soon as the linux guru is no longer needed to assist ordinary users of linux. What would be the point of evangelism if the evangelist can't make money off it anymore? Guy Kawasaki ran into this problem a few years ago with the Mac OS, he gave up evangelism because he didn't need to anymore.
There is a clear difference between those movements and linux, the movements were about fair treatment of people who didn't have the vote. This is not an extreme position by anyone's standards, everyone can be in some kind of minority if you think about it. Most linux users who are old enough have the vote already, the linux movement is about using software whjich you don't have to pay for. The poin of acceptance of linux as a mainstream movement will come when the linux "spokesmen" have reached a level of maturity that matches their age, not their shoe size. If you have some doubts about that, just take the time to read about RMS on his site stallman.org and ask yourself if that is evidence of an ordinary person with a social life.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone wonder why nobody wants to pay for slashdot when you have to put up with stupid moderators all the time?
I'm not a troll, I'm a BSD operating system creator, I have more knowledge of this subject than any GNU hippie.
You should be thanking me for porting these features to free/open/net BSD and Mac OS X. At least I can make sure the whole point of Mission Critical and Sorcerer doesn't die.
And yes, I know Open Source doesn't die off like windows programs do. Which is why I'm opening this up to millions more than the few dozen who compiled Sorcerer or installed Mission Critical.
Take your moderations away to the real trolls, but don't try to censor the truth of the matter.
I'll think you'll find I'm actually on topic, we are discussing the online population size in this story.
why does any jackass who wants more linux users automatically get modded up?
Why does every criticism of linux get automatically modded down?
Slashdot has no sense of free speech or democracy, there are always 2 sides to every story
Windows Alternative Network Kde Environment Resource is perfectly suited to those of us who touch themselves
I predict mass acceptance of WANKER linux
600 million chinese won't get online until it's free of cost, free of liberty and free of democracy.
Only 100 million indians can afford to eat 3 meals a day, how are 300 million starving indians going to care about the internet?
There isn't 40-50 million white or rich people living in africa, 10 million is more realistic.
Nobody needs the internet if they are censored or starving, there are more important things to worry about.
The OS isn't failing, it's just losing it's best distros, the point is that BSD still has the features which Linux has lost in those distros.
I know this will take my Karma down, but as a metamoderator I think it's more important to tell the truth than be a Whore for Karma.
It doesn't matter if Linux is dying, BSD is taking unix to more people than linux ever will. 2 linux distros are dying in 1 day, that says tons about the viability of linux.
Moderators: before you mod me down as linux geeks usually do, consider that BSD has 3 times the users than linux does. Mac OS X has several million users.
Please tell me how Kaos is offtopic, when it does the same thing as Sorcerer.
/. topic. Face it, BSD is 3 times more popular than linux in terms of users.
The rest is a joke, but it could also be an accurate description of almost any
User numbers count more than the opinion of geeks, so it's fair to say Linux is dying. BTW, I hope someone metamods me up soon.
I downloaded a hosts file that filters out spam and ad domains like doubleclick.com . It tells your computer to serve those addresses from your computer.
Because you don't have the resource files those advertisers do, it doesn't load ads.
Which is my point, Not all Pacific Island nations are 3rd world countries. Those that aren't about to dissapear by global warming are usually 2nd world places.
As for high standards of living, Wellington, New Zealand has the most : internet domains, internet connections, cafes & restaurents per capita in the world.
I object to comparing pacific islands with the 3rd world, sure the Pacific may be primitive in places like my friend's Fiji holiday home, but that's the point of having a house on the beach. (I live across the road from a beach in wellington)
I saw a link to a spam blacklist hosts file, it sets the major advertisers to be served from localhost (your computer).
You could easily get one from askjeeves or google if you ask the right question.
I think that Public Information Service Software is a good name for "free software" or "open source".
1 15 825
When I buy a linux distro, I want to ask 'Can I get some PISS here ?' or 'Will my computer work better if I PISS on it ?'
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28988&cid=3
BSD is dying, but it appears that it will return like a phoenix with the arrival of the Kaos BSD operating system.
Meanwhile, the best linux ever is now dead. Nevermind the fact it only had a few dozen slashdot geeks actually use after waiting all week to compile it.
Ladies (all 2 of you on slashdot) and gentlemen, Linux is dead. Tux the Penguin is extinct. (no, it's not the stink of GNU hippies)
JavaScript Instructions to get rid of Ads.
Argentina, Brazil and India are all second world nations, far less developed than my small country in the Pacific.
I am a New Zealand citizen and an Australian citizen, I resent this discrimination against Pacific Islands.
Where I live, I can buy a meal for less than a NZ$. That's about US40 for a McDonalds cheeseburger and none of this 'grow your own' crap.
The Soviet Union also had a constitution, Stalin wasn't likely to obey his own rules.
The justice system has only been independant for a few years, it's mainly a party tool for kangaroo courts.
Yes, democratic selection of people from one party who can't do anything about local corruption.
Freedom of speech: all internet chat and emails are monitored by the ministry of truth, all publications are vetted by government censors and all faxes are read by the state.
Freedom of worship: all believers have to register with a special ID card just like a driver's license. The state dictates the sermons have to be in favor of the state.
Freedom of assembly: I suppose no tanks ran over citizens in Tiannemen Square?
Freedom of property ownership & business: a communist state never belives in private property or free trade.
Privacy: every phone is traced, every fax read, all email filtered and internet chat censored.
The communist state decides who is an enemy of the state, what ideas are permitted and what religions are allowed.
Red Flag Linux is merely a way to ensure that technology is developed in Chinese language and that the Chinese Firewall has a way to censor anyone.
Why not? Although I'm not an american, the DMCA and the USA PATRIOT acts are clearly in violation of the first amendment.
The UK RIP / RIPA acts are also violations of the universal declaration of human rights.
The Russian constitution actually states that any russian citizen is allowed to have unbreakable encryption, but they have the FSB (KGB in soviet days) tapping all ISPs with a government blackbox to read all emails.
France & Isreal operate systems similar to the echelon system.
China has the most oppresive internet, not just screening for pornography like the muslim nations do. China takes a covert interest in political dissent with a national firewall made with Cisco routers and a ministry of truth.
they employ tens of thousands of communist censors just to read email and can block any port they want.
I think I said in that post or the one before it in this topic that users could vote out hostile nodes from services. This would self regulate the services from censors when enough people notice.
I have yet to write the withepapers on Samizdat, I'm in a draft design until I have the last few books I need. I have just discovered kernel learning ai, so I want to throw that in when I know how.
I am likely to state how it works exactly when I can be sure that places like China, the UK or the USA can't block it off.
Sheep shaggers drink speights, it only tastes good if you've been riding down a dusty rural road for an hour to drink it.
Really desperate farmers drink tasman draft, it's almost bad enough to be adopted by australia as a true blue beer.
I wouldn't have a clue what american beer is like, I once tried Budweiser beer and I had to piss in it to make it stronger.
What americans call beer, we call watered down urine. If you want NZ beer you can handle, try Mako, Lion ICE or Flame.
The best NZ beers are Steinlager, Tui and Flame. The only good things from the South Island are the mineral water, electricity and the raincoats.
I live in the centre of New Zealand, wellington. We can see the south island from the hills and southern beaches of the suburbs.
Wellington by far is the best place in New Zealand, we have the people, the culture, the government and no traffic jams.
We don't care what drink you try, unlike those snobs in Auckland.
I'm working on the Samizdat protocol, which is an agile adaptive protocol capable of deceptive encryption of traffic.
Samizdat is capable of filesharing, IM, email or even (anonymous) webserving. It works on a plugin system with API kernels for samizdat apps.
I hope to have individual service apps for each kind of use, and a suite app like Mozilla that does the lot.
Samizdat is planned to be a distributed tree network, fast localised servers provide the search results locally and the local database of files.
It works by not revealing to you what the actual url resources come from, users can vote servers to be comprimised if they try to spread viruses or censorship on the network.
Samizdat is going to be free, open and GPL. If anyone has any suggestions, I'm ready to listen and put them in the mix.
Exactly like a napster style of serving, you're vunerable to lawyers and script kiddies. script kiddies wouldn't attack their source of mp3's.
I'm doing a new filesharing protocol samizdat, which will be open source (yes, I'll even GPL it for all you slashdot geeks.)
The method I will use is a distributed hierarchy: if you can handle local routing traffic and a local file database, you can be a local server. (this means you can provide search results and the URL anonymiser for local files)
Basically, this is a semantic web protocol for P2P in places which is agile enough to get around censorship and network port bans.
> Is singapore the same place with the shitty record on human rights? Is this the same, Oh What a Beautiful former Colony with supa Internet you are referring to?/ 1999_ hrp_report/singapor.html
Yes it is, but Indonesia's even worse when it comes to human rights and internet censorship. Plus it's the world's largest muslim nation just north of the world's lowest poulated continent.
> Is the US State Department then a bunch of liars when it says this about the wonderful country: "The Government has wide powers to limit citizens' rights and to handicap political opposition. "
No, the US state department is just repeating what amnesty international has been saying for decades.
>"The authorities sometimes infringe on citizens' privacy rights. Government intimidation and pressure to conform result in the practice of self-censorship among journalists. Government leaders historically have utilized court proceedings, in particular defamation suits, against political opponents and critics."
Find anywhere else in asia (except westernised japan) which doesn't do that too.
>"During the year, a prominent opposition figure was convicted for speaking in public without a permit. Despite a continuing discussion of the possibility of an expansion of free speech rights and the Government's role regarding these rights, the Government still did not take significant concrete steps to change the wide array of laws and government practices, or the informal levers of government influence, that lie behind the limitations on civil and political rights. The Government significantly restricts freedom of assembly and association. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church are banned."
The only positive ideas I see are the banning of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Moonies. Ban the Hari Krishnas and the Mormons.
I'd call the Singapore government to be spiritally enlightened instead of an orwellian dictatorship if they did that.
>"The Government has moved actively to counter societal discrimination against women and minorities, but some discrimination persists. Foreign workers are vulnerable to mistreatment and abuse."
>That's swell. What a wonderfuckingful place. I'm moving my business there so I can take advantage of all the superior technology, and hopefully get persecuted and my female employees harassed and discriminated against.
Why not join the company of great australian and new zealand multinationals? I'm sure you'll find dozens of Fay Rich White 80s stockmarket refugees in singapore.
Don't take my word for it:
http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights
I think I'll stick with my backasswords western life, even if I can't look at slashdot from a pay phone.
> His motives clearly are to promote himself, and when he starts fading from peoples' memories, he never fails to embarrass himself yet again.1 6564.html , http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/16566.html & http://www.macslash.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/01/06 29241&mode=thread
Another example of this type of person is Jef Raskin, he is a constant irritant to UI designers and OS developers.
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/
> Granted, he has apparently developed some very key pieces of software and has generously given them back to the community. However, he leaves no question that he is in it for the money and recognition.
I see no problem with that, I'm doing much the same thing with Kaos (BSD). I'm only giving people the samizdat protocol and the apps that use it's filesharing and IM encryption.
This is far more valuable than my proprietory software in the OS, yet I can do good this way.
> RMS, on the other hand knows that his movement will help people (ultimately) by providing them freedoms he is willing to fight for at the expense of his reputation and pocketbook.
I'm willing to give people freedoms, just not all of them for nothing in return. I'm not lucky enough to be rich and liberal with my code.
> He is a true libertarian (check out his home page at stallman.org if you have any doubts whatsoever). GNU is one of his many strong passions and is possibly the only one with with which I completely relate and sympathize
I think some of his personal life is too liberal, but that is his problem. I'd rather not take on anyone else's problem because of their ideology.
>-- I will add that he is exceptionally wise to maintain a strong distance between his GNU agenda and his other personal agendas so as to not dissociate himself from his GNU supporters.
I think it's wise to seperate GNU free software from polyamour free love, even if they are both hippie nonsense.
> His goals are to free software ("free" as in the verb to free from restraints and regulations). Contrary to what many people believe, the goal is NOT to provide free software ("free" as in the adjective for cost).
GNU is free as in speech, not free as in liberty or cost. This would be better defined in french words as the distinction is not obvious in english or american words.
> The fact that you and many others misunderstand his agenda is precisely why he continues to push it with all his energy. I have an enormous amount of respect for RMS and what he has selflessly created.
The energy I have no problem with, it's the personality (or lack of) which is the problem with most computer gurus.
> He is often criticized for being a relentless control-freak. Although this seems a bit exaggerated, I don't doubt that his agenda would fail were he not of this nature.
I and many others see him as the Steve Ballmer of the linux community. Ordinary people don't want hairy freaks or bald freaks raving on about some rubbish which is irrelevant to them.
> You are completely wrong and a very poor judge of the Gnu and Linux communities if you think Linux will die when Microsoft becomes easier to use or when Linux becomes unnecessary to support.
It's a fair comment, most companies base their decisions on how easy it is to use something. I personally know dozens of geeks who organise their systems based on support. They work for banks, universities, programming firms, government departments & some for themselves.
> GNU is all about freedom -- the freedom to program, modify programs to suit you, modify programs for others, and redistribute modified programs.
I don't have a problem with freedom to program or modify programs to suit you or others. I do have a problem with the redistribution of my programs without my permission, this is my right to my property.
> The philosophy has nothing to do with ease of use, and quite frankly cares little whether common man ever uses the software except that common man has power over the government which has the power to advance the cause or seriously impede or abolish the struggle for free software.
Without ease of use, you'll never get common man to use it. Your elitist arguement is a typical one from linux geeks. The government is usually only interested in software if it impedes or abolishes their data interception.
> BUT -- to earn popular support from the masses, Gnu/Linux products must be free in cost and must be easy to use. The end product, not the philosophy, has to appeal to the masses.
Sure, I guess those CDs are just handed out at the bookstores. And Linux techs just do their work for free beer. Whatever.
> Note this has nothing to do with the philosophy of programming freedom. This is merely a means to an end. I agree there is indeed a shame in prematurely trying to sell a product to people not ready for it.
Most companies call this beta testing, microsoft calls it first release & linux calls it version Unfortunately, some GNU followers misinterpret the goals of gaining acceptance with trying to obtain marketshare. It is still too early to obtain marketshare, but it is not too early to obtain popular support for the ideals. > Note that RMS does not encourage forcing the product on those not yet ready -- I challenge you to provide a counterexample. ESR on the other hand seems to be an unfortunate troll, unknowingly bent on destroying the open source movement.
I didn't say RMS is forcing people to use linux, the problem is with the followers like the network geeks at my old uni & the pale fat jackass who spends half the day going to the fast food outlets. (there's at least a dozen in my town)
> Your marxist comments are completely irrelevant to the discussion. Just because one can equate RMS' fervor with that of a priest doesn't mean the GNU philosophy is meant to delude or control as does many religions of the spirit.
As an anarcho capitalist & evolutionist I am just as opposed to the belief in state as I am to the belief in church.
I see many aspects of cults in the GNU cause. Lack of sleep, strange rituals of command recitation, 3 wise men (RMS, ESR & Torvalds) & a claim to a miraculous event (linux)
> GNU is a governmental policy, grounded in the physical world. There are few, if any, parallels between GNU and spirituality.
GNU closely resembles one of those games of magic or d&d which most people grow out of by secondary school.
There are always a bunch of wankers who study at or work for the university that play childrens games and waste an adult's pay on crap.
This works in the same way as pyramid selling or religion (they are the same thing) in that a hierarchy of level based involvement is used.
If you want a stadium near your home, try living in Wellington, New Zealand. We have a Stadium by the Railway Station and Harbour.
T his stadium is in the Thorndon suburb, which is populated with victorian era houses for the wealthy and embassies.
http://www.WestpacTrustStadium.co.nz/
Another point to note is that wellington is currently about to bulldoze a former industrial zone to make a central city park, even though the mayor campaigned against it.
This is why I take exception to the notion that software is supposed to be free, you aren't considering the costs of the programmer.
I mean that I have debt to pay off, not freeloaders to support. I find I have to state this everytime I work on a software project.
> Thanks for your plug on capitalism... Didn't you read my post? Did you read the part where I said I'm not advocating any particular system.
Yes, but nobody ever considers why I would bother if I owed enough money to buy a car or make a deposit on a house. Which I do.
> (Actually I like it when different systems co-exists) I'm a programmer, and I believe I should have the privledge to copyright my work for a limited of time to recoup my costs and even make a profit. After that limited time, I believe my work belongs to the public domain.
I believe that I am entitled to make money off my work for the duration of my life + 25 years for any family I have. I don't believe my work is public property, I don't work for the state.
What would be the point in me doing something if it won't improve the quality of my life? Why would I give away my income?
The dot com buble economy has burst, I'd rather stick to old-fashioned economics and make a profit for as long as I can.
> For some people, charity is a way of life. Some people honestly dedicate ALL of thier time for the benefit of others while asking for little or nothing in return, while others ask for help with basic living expenses. (Most of the time, basic living arrangments are taking care of without asking...)
The cost of a student loan is a basic living cost, it's the same as a mortgage for most people. Some people I know can't get mortgages until they pay off their student loan.
> Other people try to contribute by building businesses. They want to solve problems and help people with an enterprise. By creating wealth, they employ and support families, education, and charities. This is how they make thier contribution.
I prefer becoming a business to becoming a charity. It's far better to create wealth than it is to distribute wealth without personal gain.
> Then there are some people who don't care and just want to help themselves (often they end up hurting themselves and others).
> IMO, Free Software and Open Source software are charitable contributions, who's purpose is for the benefit of society. Personally, I view charities as sort of a voluntary socialism. I know the comparison doesn't entirely match up, but I'm more suggesting that the spirit of charity and socialism are the same.
Which is why socialism doesn't work, everything can't be run as a charity. The best way is to allow a mix of the best systems existing.
> While there may be SOME people who think all software should be Free or Open Source software, I disagree. I think each type compliments to other well and keeps the other in check. (Like checks and balances)
Let's face the facts, socialism has been proven to be the greatest failure of the 20th century. No socialist nation has ever been an improvement on the past.
> How can you be sure? The fact the USSR and China had become super powers doesn't suggested communism failed. To suggest that communism actually built both of these superpowers and destroyed one of them it seems pretty counter-intuitive to your conclusion, especially if you consider the fact they were in a cold war with us. Don't you think the fact that communist societies were at war with capitalists societies played any role?
I think the real downfall of communism will be when the proles rise up and overthrow the communist dictators. It happened in East Germany, Hungary, Poland and to limited extent in Russia.
> There were many factors involved, so why are you singling out just one factor? If you're so hard up on making me wrong, I might as well tell you that I think capitalism has proven itself to be effective.
I think you'll find that capitalism is an evolutionary drive. All life has to profit in order to survive, this means resource profit, not money profit.
> I'll also tell you that capitalism-socialist hydrids like Isreal and Sweden have proven themselves too, because I believe a good economy is built on freedom of ownership and equal opportunity (No special government favors for specific companies)
Sure, Isreal considers the palestinians to be equals. The isrealis let the palestinians have ownership of their land and equal opportunity?
No way, even my friend who was an ex isreali command squad leader would argue that Isreal is an openly racist state.
He'd rather eat non kosher food than go back to raid lebanon every weekend or shoot innocent arabs again.
The point is to seize the power from the multinational corporates and the global organizations that reduce innovation by their centralised planning strategies.
> It's worse than that... There are many killer technologies and ideas which could dramatically change the landscape of society. Wonder why they aren't? Look to the patent system and the large industries who would be hurt by these killer technologies.
Which is why I advocate more capitalism, less corporatism. It's better to constantly create than to constantly conserve.
> If you were a large company who's primary source of revenue was from selling an expensive technology, and you found a very inexpensive alternative that would ruin that revenue stream, wouldn't you patent to prevent some little guy from getting his hands on it to undercut your business?
Say for example, microsoft vs. my company. The model they use for Farsite (due 2012) is the same as the model for a project I did in 1998. (the model of the Farsite server)
Would they get a patent if I had prior work under copyright? No, they'd get it rejected.
> The truth is: Large industries benefit from a flawed patent system more than small companies because they have the capital and cash to research, patent the research, and sue the crap out of you if you fsck with them. The problem isn't the corporations, it's the unlevel playing field.
The corporations have the capital to maintain mediocre innovations, small companies and start-ups don't have this need for lawyers.
"do you want to find microsoft has a monopoly on distributed operating systems in ten years ? or do you want to have a diverse selection of systems that can run on your computer ?
What do you think?
That's the part where I mention my operating system project, Kaos. BSD, not GNU.
I'd rather do my operating system here in new zealand with strong encryption than cripple my technologies for USA or UK internet laws.
I have a point which you disagree with, I saying that it's no use to have a lot of fanatical devotees if the cause doesn't have the acceptance of the people.
Why should anyone want to use a system which doesn't work effectively for them ? All the believers do is just make it a cult experience of mass delusion.
As an atheist and an evolutionist, I find all aspects of religion to just be mumbo jumbo and the power of control over people's lives.
This applies to linux because nothing reeks more of power than a computer guru who knows more about the computer system than the owner.
These geeks have no shame in convincing people to buy CDs of a "free" operating system, then install it without telling them the real cost is in difficulty.
I see nothing but the cost of tech support for a seriously flawed system, linux costs more to run than windows for ordinary users.
The real point of this discussion is, when tech support gets cheaper due to ease of use increasing windows or linux will die.
You may have noticed that tech support is the real driver of windows acceptance, it's also the driver of linux installation by linux gurus.
The point is, linux will die off as soon as the linux guru is no longer needed to assist ordinary users of linux.
What would be the point of evangelism if the evangelist can't make money off it anymore? Guy Kawasaki ran into this problem a few years ago with the Mac OS, he gave up evangelism because he didn't need to anymore.
There is a clear difference between those movements and linux, the movements were about fair treatment of people who didn't have the vote.
This is not an extreme position by anyone's standards, everyone can be in some kind of minority if you think about it.
Most linux users who are old enough have the vote already, the linux movement is about using software whjich you don't have to pay for.
The poin of acceptance of linux as a mainstream movement will come when the linux "spokesmen" have reached a level of maturity that matches their age, not their shoe size.
If you have some doubts about that, just take the time to read about RMS on his site stallman.org and ask yourself if that is evidence of an ordinary person with a social life.