I was just using that stuff as an example of an obfuscated way of putting your email address.
I've got the nazi procmail filters from hell on my mailbox, and usually about 1 or 2 spams gets through every week, which isn't really all that bad. My email address should always be located right above my name in the little user info post box thingy. I don't obfuscate it any - the code in that post was just for fun.
Am I the only person on slashdot who gets a real kick out of seeing different people's methods of avoiding spam? Check out this poster - he's got a mini perl script in order to convert the shown email address into the real address.
There's another user, I forget what his username is, who has in his sig "reverse, remove everything between the two e's, and rot-13 encode to email me" (a paraphrase, and probably a bit wrong, but the real one is really that obfuscated)
I get a big kick out of seeing those email obfuscations that work in theory because spam bots that troll the web are dumb and most humans aren't.
So, I've got to submit my own - I'm making this up on the fly, so if it's a bit wrong, be gentle:
Are you ACTUALLY afraid of a GNU cult??? (of course the next comment out of your mouth is "Of course cults do that too - they try to convince you that they're not a cult or they try to play down their evil, hideous ways")
You're smoking CRACK man. Sure, GNU and cults have things in common, but then again you and Adolf Hitler have things in common in that you're both human.
People are always looking to smell conspiracy and evil.
Dear AC, I was under the impression that the slashdot comments section is for comments relating to different aspects of the article, and responses to other articles.
"Flamebait" in my book, is doing something like posting something underneath somebody elses article calling it "pure flamebait puffed up into a million words" or "a turkey" or calling the whole topic crap. It provides 0 facts, only completely emotional rhetoric with no backing even in the opinion realm, much less the fact realm.
You're not using GNU/Solaris or GNU/Irix because the freedom that you get from GNU software on those platforms is not what the platform is about. They're closed UNIX systems that have nothing to do with freedom. By chance, they happen to run GNU software, but the whole point of the software is not freedom, choice, or anything that has anything to do with free software. Those platforms are about money.
Now, contrasted with Linux, which IS about freedom, free software, and choice, GNU/Linux makes sense.
And it's not really about glory hounding either. The kernel is an important part of the system, and so it's called GNU/Linux. I wouldn't have gone along, but I dont think stallman would have been way out in left field to ask people to call the whole damn thing "The GNU System" because within the framework of GNU software, that's exactly what it is. There are a lot of things that Stallman is after, (most of which would actually benefit you in the long run if you'd just stop fighting so hard against them) but I don't think glory is one of them.
That cartoon is funny in hindsight, because it was prophetic as you put it, but at the same time, putting myself in the shoes of someone who hasn't read this slashdot article yet, it doesn't make any sense.
I really don't understand why so many people seem to take such deep offense at what comes down to a naming issue. Whether or not to call it GNU/Linux or Linux. Personally, I prefer GNU/Linux, but I don't think it honestly matters.
Consider what the terminology is for. It's supposed to get across what it is that you're dealing with. I think that both names accomplish that. RMS' point about attaching GNU to Linux to accentuate the freedom that comes along with GNU/Linux is something that I think is good and very important, but at the same time, totally superfluous for beginning users and the PHBs out there that are trying to get their minds around the concept of why somebody would give software away in the first place. Calling it just Linux in my mind is also totally functional, (since that's what it is) but I think it denies the theoretical, philosophical, and practical reasons behind why most of the software is what it is and how it got there. But again, this point is totally superfluous to beginners and PHBs.
People often want to squabble over what percentage of code in the "Linux System" is from GNU. Then some say it doesn't matter how much is from GNU, only the amount that is GPL'd. Others want to extend that from GPL'd to "Free Software". But one thing is for sure in my mind (and since this is an opinion post, it has to be in my mind since I'm not speaking for anybody else) is that even if we were solidly able to nail down what percentage of code was ever written by, sanctioned by, looked at by, or breathed on by RMS, we still wouldn't be able to say, "Ok, at X% we can officially call it GNU/Linux".
I think some of the naming war goes back to the differences between the "Open Source" camp and the "Free Software" camp. For the record, to disclose my biases, I'm with Bruce Perens when he wrote his article "It's time to talk about Free Software Again" when he resigned from OpenSource Initiative - Open Source was meant as a rebranding, not a replacement. I think that that comes in here in that people want to rebrand GNU/Linux to suit their political motivations, i.e. getting more businesses to adopt linux, or increasing its commercial success. Here's where the sticking point is, because we've got two major camps in the linux community as I see it. The first wants to talk about freedom, and the second wants the software to be popular. People of course can argue about that point, but as far as I can see, the only point of the open source initiative is to push it onto outside people and increase the popularity of GNU/Linux. I'm not against that, but I am against it when it comes to weakening what GNU/Linux means. (And what GNU software means in the larger sense - freedom)
SO! On one hand, it really doesn't matter what you call it. I'm often a bit lazy in writing style and I'll write Linux even though I mean GNU/Linux. No matter what you call it, as long as you get the functional point across as to what you mean, (and don't call it something like FooOS or "Gnulix") then it really doesn't matter to me personally much (and probably not 90% of other people) but what does kind of tick me off is people saying that the name GNU/Linux is totally illegitimate or silly for any myriad of reasons. I think the name GNU/Linux is totally justified and should be preferred when talking about specifics and not in a conversational sense.
So, I guess all of that makes me just another fence straddler.:)
I did read the post, I just don't think it's that strange for somebody to think that microsoft might be thinking about a port under the circumstances. (Circumstances being that BSD and linux are gaining in popularity, they've hired unix folks before, and practically none of their software runs on UNIX)
You want paranoia? I could have said, "It's only a matter of time before CmdrTaco jumps ship and goes to work for microsoft!!!!":) But we all know that that would be trollish BS.:)
Moderated to the top? I post with a base score of 2, which is where it's at now.
Jumping to an unwarranted conclusion? I figured my post had "speculation" written all over it. It was my thoughts attached to the article, which is what I thought comments were for. Sorry for being so unpopular.
Oh, and by the way, I did read the article, and I do realize that they were looking for admins for hotmail. I just don't think that it's way out in left field for them to consider hiring BSD programmers after looking for linux programmers, with the given facts that both are increasing in popularity and practically none of their products run on these platforms.
If you don't like the comment, ignore it. Don't just whine or meta-whine.
If *I* had a nickel for every time somebody posted a comment that said "Oh woe is me, slashdot is going down the drain that people can express themselves and throw ideas out there" then I'd be a rich, rich man.
I originally posted the comment - I intended no paranoia at all. I might have called the company micros~1, but I didn't express any negative opinion toward them or say that I thought it was bad that they wanted people for BSD. I was just stating opinion.
Before you get paranoid about people getting paranoid, please read the comment and think about it.:)
Well, when I hear that Micros~1 wants linux people, and now freebsd people, it smells like a port of some of their more "popular" software.
MS Office, Explorer, all that stuff. (I'm pretty sure that Explorer already exists for x86 and sparc Solaris boxen, but nowhere else). With all of the newbies from windows land flooding into the linux and BSD* worlds, I bet that they could actually attract a few people who are moving to something they don't understand by using some software on UNIX that they already know.
Of course, that would be some type of low level concession, since if we can't have our customers on our platform, we'll have our customers on your platform, but still, I think the bucks are there.
So when are they going to start hiring Plan9, Eros, and Pick programmers?:)
It would be interesting to see them port some of their software that relies so heavily on ActiveX and all that other stuff. They may have to bring that stuff with them when coming to Linux/BSD
It gives recognition where recognition is due, it's fun, and it's a good excuse to draw attention to free software, which does encourage people to write free software.
And as for whether or not the code is used by you or not, there's a lot of code that you don't use. There are a lot of people who never use perl and don't code in it, but that doesn't mean that larry wall didn't deserve his last year. It's not necessarily about whether or not you use it, but about the impact the software has had.
And GNOME has had quite an impact. It went from buggy and barely realized to quite a nice system in very little time. And it's developing faster and faster as time goes on and as more people learn about GNOME. For that reason, even though I think it's had a big impact, the impact it has now probably isn't anything compared to where it's going to be in 2 more years
Look at that thing!!! It's much cooler than an oscar. It has a picture of a friendly bearded GNU on the front, could probably double as a blanket for a midget, and looks like it's the exact same thing as free software - homemade.:)
Very colorful. Oscars just gather dust on shelves. This thing can hang on the wall. Very nice. Wish I had one.
OK, Knuth deserves one, sure, but he's not dead yet, and there will be awards like this in the future. Knuth may be VERY deserving of one, but it's hard to say that Icaza isn't deserving as well.
I think the point is that the "e"ing of the word is lame. It's a buzzword thing that currently sounds OK becuase it's so ubiquitous, but in 5 years when that fad has passed, prefixing everything with "e" will make things sound really weird.
Microsoft is a pretty pathetic word. It's just that nowadays it's SO common, that it sounds just as normal and just as "english" as the workd "the". I guess that's what millions of dollars worth of branding does for you.
Think about it. "Micro", I guess from "microcomputers" (which they aren't called anymore:) and "soft" from software? So really, their name is a silly shortening of "Microcomputer Software" or at least that's my take. Even if it wasn't shortened, it would still sound weird by current conventions. The last time I saw the term "microcomputer" was in a Lisp programming manual from the mid/late 80s.
But again - it doesn't sound strange really since it's so common in the language. But I guess you'll find out that if you say a word over and over, and don't focus on its meaning but rather just the *sound* of it, anything starts sounding very strange. Try "salad" which has absolutely no composite parts that I can see.
Notice: This article does NOT feature the word "geek". It does have the term "geek-oriented" but it's inside a parenthetical comment so we'll forgive it.
Guiness Book of World Records Entry: December 3, 1999 - Jon Katz writes an article without using the term "Geek" or referring to how helplessly misunderstood they are.
I suppose I'm a geek, but I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the way that Jon Katz approaches the topic of geeks. Debate however you want on whether he is actually a geek or not, but I don't feel that he is, and since I don't feel that he is, it sounds very strange always hearing characterizations of people like myself from somebody who's on the outside. I'm not trying to be elitist, just that if you're not a geek, your characterisations of geek behaviours should be just about as valid as, say, a politicians characterizations of geek behaviors, which is to say not at all.
Excuse me but isn't this obvious? It's called the World *Trade* Organization, not the World *Lets Get ourselves Taxed* organization.
Taxes raise the price of goods without putting any money in profit form into the pockets of the seller. Raising the price without raising the profit is something I would think that people interested in "trade" would be clearly against.
I was thinking about writing a totally paranoid rant about the WTO and inserting it here, but I figure I'll pass because we've probably already seen most of this stuff. Just IMHO as an organization, you've got to be pretty evil to get a super-apathetic American public so pissed off as to go into the streets and protest in those numbers.
No, I think that censored by the police is jumping a bit far. Most likely it's either too dark in the location they're looking at to see anything, or the camera is off and only operates at certain times. Also remember the time difference. PST is 3 hours behind EST and 9 hours behind grenich mean I think.
Doesn't this all have a lot to do with thick skin and asbestos underwear?
It's well known that you've got to have a set of asbestos underwear if you're going to post to slashdot, read slashdot, post a comment, or even practically THINK about slashdot.
When somebody puts their foot in their mouth, it's happened before, and they're going to get flamed. It happens, but those are "the rules of the game" so to speak, and you can't stop it, so just make sure you're wearing that asbestos when you do things in the first place. The debian list that Bruce posted to is of course public, and while it may not be as big as slashdot, I'm sure the same rules apply there as they do here.
I'm not criticising anybody but this story seems like old news. Yes, publicity is a cruel mistress, and you have to have thick skin. But that's ok, because obviously Bruce, Roblimo, and the rest DO have thick skin otherwise they wouldn't be here. A quote from Henry Rollins for those who are familiar with him: "If I took the time to bleed from all the tiny little arrows shot my way I wouldn't be here". That's true of anything in life in general, it just seems that as far as personality conflict is concerned, the net is life amplified. People lose their fear of offending others, and let it fly.
Bruce posted an apology, and as far as I'm concered, it's water under the bridge already. Even if he *hadn't* posted an apology, I'd think of it as his opinion (I haven't made my mind up about it yet) and move on. And when next week's story comes out and gets 300+ comments, the flamers will all move on.
Don't sweat the small stuff Bruce/Roblimo/CmdrTaco/Hemos.
I don't mean to challenge you or say that what you're saying isn't true, but I'm truly interested. I haven't seen any of those threads on linux-kernel (maybe because I'm not subscribed to it - I was for a brief period of time though)
What were some of the main issues that were brough t up with regard to redhat, the wrong direction, and so on?
I've read quite a bit of flames about Redhat and about how they're becoming evil and all, and I was geniunely worried when they went public, because they went from a company that has a profit motive that is held among private citizens to a company that has a profit motive that is owned by the public. So far though, I think they're doing quite well.
It's not as if Bob Young and Co. just snickered to themselves, "Now that our evil IPO is complete, we can begin ruthlessly screwing the linux community muhahahahaha!!!!" but rather they kept doing the business that got them to where they are. And it's a good business. It employs poor hackers like me (disclaimer: "like" me. I don't work for redhat) and pays them to write free software. Now, I don't know how the rest of you coders out there feel, but for me that's tantamount to getting paid to drink guiness beer and watch the Simpsons. Maybe not as easy, but as enjoyable. I think you get the point.
The purpose of this was not to be a Redhat cheerleader, just to point out that if you really really want to, you can search the net and find a million places that endorse redhat (and I'm not talking about companies, but individuals) and talk about how much they do for the free software community, but the only place that I've really seen that *slams* redhat and calls them all of the filthy names that we tag onto companies we don't like is here on slashdot, either in the form of AC ranting, or in the form of off-the-cuff remarks about how they're growing into the role of the Linux Microsoft or whatever propaganda people are spouting these days.
Rob Malda, slashdot crew, and pos[t]ers, I'd like to see somebody write a coherent article about how redhat is supposedly evil and then defend it against coherent questions. Now, like I said, there have been numerous things written in favor of redhat, but nothing that really makes sense or has a reasonable logical flow that's been written against redhat. If they are evil, I'd like to see some concrete material on why. It's not inherently evil to buy another corp like Cygnus. It can be, but it isn't always.
I think the moral of the story with redhat is moral relativism. Nobody can point a finger at redhat and say "you did this, you did that" and claim that since microsoft has done the same thing in the past, redhat must be like microsoft. But rather, look at the current and long term impact of the action. It depends on the context and the affect of the action before somebody can come along and label it "evil".
Redhat makes a good product, plays nice with free software, (compared to you or your organization, what does YOUR free software output look like up against redhats?) and does all kinds of things for the community. Like the whole "letter" business. I've seen a lot of posters point out that they didn't have to do that, it wasn't even expected of them. But they took the time to do that.
I see redhat as not only contributing a lot, but occasionally holding out an olive branch to the ACs of the world by doing things it doesn't have to do. If you choose to throw it away and say they're evil anyway, just don't go getting quoted on large news outlet websites saying you represent the feeling of the community.
I'm sorry if I offended anybody with the "chicks" bit, but it was intended as a joke, which I figured people would pick up on. Since when has anybody thought that having books could attract the opposite sex? It was meant to be absurd.:)
Oh sure, it may not be exciting like that vibrating doll you've always wanted, but EVERYBODY wants books. For example:
W. Richard Steven's networking tomes! (Always classics - puts shakespeare to shame) The cryptonomicon, the "Alvin Maker" series by Orson Scott Card, The Art Of Computer Programming by Donald Knuth, The Camel Book, (well OK insert ALL O'Reilly titles here except those books on NT adminstration) The Dragonbone Chair series by Tad Williams and on and on and on.
Books are better than candy, (and sweeter) last longer than clothes or geek toys, never get obsoleted by books with faster processors, books get you chicks, (if they don't, then you were looking for the wrong kind of chick anyway:) Books can be cheap or expensive, visit a local used book shop for a great bargain, (for those of us who don't have much money to buy people gifts)
Do you know any geek that doesn't like to read? Does that person use linux? I don't have any idea how on earth somebody could be using linux without at least not *minding* reading. I shudder to think how many HOWTOs I've read.
So, let's review. Books are awesome, they can be quite cheap, they last a long time, they get you chicks, they convey righteous knowledge without the associated eye strain from reading too many Gutenberg e-texts, they make you look thin, and if you eat them, they're high in fiber. Geeks love getting them, and some can even be had cheaply! Even new, they're a bargain. Imagine paying a measly $80.00 to get one volume of Donald Knuth. You can bet your ass that the time he spent in getting that information for himself and recording it was worth a lot more than $80.00 by several factors of 10. But you get it for $80.00. What a steal.
I am geek, and I WANT BOOKS FOR CHRISTMAS DAMMIT. I'm also a geek, and I'll be giving quite a few books for christmas. Of course all of this assumes that your'e into that whole christian thing - I'm sure there are quite a few of us who aren't but just go along with the cultural charade. But if that charade gets me books, bring it on!
Feed your need to read. (Don't I sound like a library commercial now) That's what I want for Christmas, and that's what I'm going to give for christmas. The only crappy thing about books is that it's very hard to give them to people in a package where it's not totally obvious that they're getting a book.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I was just using that stuff as an example of an obfuscated way of putting your email address.
I've got the nazi procmail filters from hell on my mailbox, and usually about 1 or 2 spams gets through every week, which isn't really all that bad. My email address should always be located right above my name in the little user info post box thingy. I don't obfuscate it any - the code in that post was just for fun.
Am I the only person on slashdot who gets a real kick out of seeing different people's methods of avoiding spam? Check out this poster - he's got a mini perl script in order to convert the shown email address into the real address.
:)
There's another user, I forget what his username is, who has in his sig "reverse, remove everything between the two e's, and rot-13 encode to email me" (a paraphrase, and probably a bit wrong, but the real one is really that obfuscated)
I get a big kick out of seeing those email obfuscations that work in theory because spam bots that troll the web are dumb and most humans aren't.
So, I've got to submit my own - I'm making this up on the fly, so if it's a bit wrong, be gentle:
My email address: "moc.|.ucv.|.natitbeielladm5s"
s/(\d)/($1 - 3)/e;
s/moc/ten/g;
s/ieb/\@/g
s/\.\|\./\./g
reverse
s/[com|net|org]/edu/g
And there you have it!!! (s2mdalle@titan.vcu.edu)
Oh, excuse the regexps if they're a bit screwed - my perl is rusty.
Are you ACTUALLY afraid of a GNU cult??? (of course the next comment out of your mouth is "Of course cults do that too - they try to convince you that they're not a cult or they try to play down their evil, hideous ways")
You're smoking CRACK man. Sure, GNU and cults have things in common, but then again you and Adolf Hitler have things in common in that you're both human.
People are always looking to smell conspiracy and evil.
Flamebait?
Dear AC, I was under the impression that the slashdot comments section is for comments relating to different aspects of the article, and responses to other articles.
"Flamebait" in my book, is doing something like posting something underneath somebody elses article calling it "pure flamebait puffed up into a million words" or "a turkey" or calling the whole topic crap. It provides 0 facts, only completely emotional rhetoric with no backing even in the opinion realm, much less the fact realm.
You're not using GNU/Solaris or GNU/Irix because the freedom that you get from GNU software on those platforms is not what the platform is about. They're closed UNIX systems that have nothing to do with freedom. By chance, they happen to run GNU software, but the whole point of the software is not freedom, choice, or anything that has anything to do with free software. Those platforms are about money.
Now, contrasted with Linux, which IS about freedom, free software, and choice, GNU/Linux makes sense.
And it's not really about glory hounding either. The kernel is an important part of the system, and so it's called GNU/Linux. I wouldn't have gone along, but I dont think stallman would have been way out in left field to ask people to call the whole damn thing "The GNU System" because within the framework of GNU software, that's exactly what it is. There are a lot of things that Stallman is after, (most of which would actually benefit you in the long run if you'd just stop fighting so hard against them) but I don't think glory is one of them.
That cartoon is funny in hindsight, because it was prophetic as you put it, but at the same time, putting myself in the shoes of someone who hasn't read this slashdot article yet, it doesn't make any sense.
Am I missing anything?
I really don't understand why so many people seem to take such deep offense at what comes down to a naming issue. Whether or not to call it GNU/Linux or Linux. Personally, I prefer GNU/Linux, but I don't think it honestly matters.
:)
Consider what the terminology is for. It's supposed to get across what it is that you're dealing with. I think that both names accomplish that. RMS' point about attaching GNU to Linux to accentuate the freedom that comes along with GNU/Linux is something that I think is good and very important, but at the same time, totally superfluous for beginning users and the PHBs out there that are trying to get their minds around the concept of why somebody would give software away in the first place. Calling it just Linux in my mind is also totally functional, (since that's what it is) but I think it denies the theoretical, philosophical, and practical reasons behind why most of the software is what it is and how it got there. But again, this point is totally superfluous to beginners and PHBs.
People often want to squabble over what percentage of code in the "Linux System" is from GNU. Then some say it doesn't matter how much is from GNU, only the amount that is GPL'd. Others want to extend that from GPL'd to "Free Software". But one thing is for sure in my mind (and since this is an opinion post, it has to be in my mind since I'm not speaking for anybody else) is that even if we were solidly able to nail down what percentage of code was ever written by, sanctioned by, looked at by, or breathed on by RMS, we still wouldn't be able to say, "Ok, at X% we can officially call it GNU/Linux".
I think some of the naming war goes back to the differences between the "Open Source" camp and the "Free Software" camp. For the record, to disclose my biases, I'm with Bruce Perens when he wrote his article "It's time to talk about Free Software Again" when he resigned from OpenSource Initiative - Open Source was meant as a rebranding, not a replacement. I think that that comes in here in that people want to rebrand GNU/Linux to suit their political motivations, i.e. getting more businesses to adopt linux, or increasing its commercial success. Here's where the sticking point is, because we've got two major camps in the linux community as I see it. The first wants to talk about freedom, and the second wants the software to be popular. People of course can argue about that point, but as far as I can see, the only point of the open source initiative is to push it onto outside people and increase the popularity of GNU/Linux. I'm not against that, but I am against it when it comes to weakening what GNU/Linux means. (And what GNU software means in the larger sense - freedom)
SO! On one hand, it really doesn't matter what you call it. I'm often a bit lazy in writing style and I'll write Linux even though I mean GNU/Linux. No matter what you call it, as long as you get the functional point across as to what you mean, (and don't call it something like FooOS or "Gnulix") then it really doesn't matter to me personally much (and probably not 90% of other people) but what does kind of tick me off is people saying that the name GNU/Linux is totally illegitimate or silly for any myriad of reasons. I think the name GNU/Linux is totally justified and should be preferred when talking about specifics and not in a conversational sense.
So, I guess all of that makes me just another fence straddler.
I did read the post, I just don't think it's that strange for somebody to think that microsoft might be thinking about a port under the circumstances. (Circumstances being that BSD and linux are gaining in popularity, they've hired unix folks before, and practically none of their software runs on UNIX)
:) But we all know that that would be trollish BS. :)
You want paranoia? I could have said, "It's only a matter of time before CmdrTaco jumps ship and goes to work for microsoft!!!!"
Moderated to the top? I post with a base score of 2, which is where it's at now.
Jumping to an unwarranted conclusion? I figured my post had "speculation" written all over it. It was my thoughts attached to the article, which is what I thought comments were for. Sorry for being so unpopular.
Oh, and by the way, I did read the article, and I do realize that they were looking for admins for hotmail. I just don't think that it's way out in left field for them to consider hiring BSD programmers after looking for linux programmers, with the given facts that both are increasing in popularity and practically none of their products run on these platforms.
If you don't like the comment, ignore it. Don't just whine or meta-whine.
If *I* had a nickel for every time somebody posted a comment that said "Oh woe is me, slashdot is going down the drain that people can express themselves and throw ideas out there" then I'd be a rich, rich man.
It's just a comment, so settle down.
I originally posted the comment - I intended no paranoia at all. I might have called the company micros~1, but I didn't express any negative opinion toward them or say that I thought it was bad that they wanted people for BSD. I was just stating opinion.
:)
Before you get paranoid about people getting paranoid, please read the comment and think about it.
Well, when I hear that Micros~1 wants linux people, and now freebsd people, it smells like a port of some of their more "popular" software.
:)
MS Office, Explorer, all that stuff. (I'm pretty sure that Explorer already exists for x86 and sparc Solaris boxen, but nowhere else). With all of the newbies from windows land flooding into the linux and BSD* worlds, I bet that they could actually attract a few people who are moving to something they don't understand by using some software on UNIX that they already know.
Of course, that would be some type of low level concession, since if we can't have our customers on our platform, we'll have our customers on your platform, but still, I think the bucks are there.
So when are they going to start hiring Plan9, Eros, and Pick programmers?
It would be interesting to see them port some of their software that relies so heavily on ActiveX and all that other stuff. They may have to bring that stuff with them when coming to Linux/BSD
Just my $0.02
Software hoarders may have loads of moneeeeeeeeeeeyyyyy....
That is truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuueeeeee hackers that is trueeeeeeeeee....
By the way, if you're looking for a techno version of the free software song, look no further:
http://opop.nols.com/krank/rms.mp3
The kinda skinny guy at the podium with glasses is Miguel, I believe.
You've probably seen a picture of rob malda too - he's the guy with the very short hair and the small beard.
The other guys I don't know, but stallman, malda, and miguel were primarily the ones at the podium.
It gives recognition where recognition is due, it's fun, and it's a good excuse to draw attention to free software, which does encourage people to write free software.
And as for whether or not the code is used by you or not, there's a lot of code that you don't use. There are a lot of people who never use perl and don't code in it, but that doesn't mean that larry wall didn't deserve his last year. It's not necessarily about whether or not you use it, but about the impact the software has had.
And GNOME has had quite an impact. It went from buggy and barely realized to quite a nice system in very little time. And it's developing faster and faster as time goes on and as more people learn about GNOME. For that reason, even though I think it's had a big impact, the impact it has now probably isn't anything compared to where it's going to be in 2 more years
Look at that thing!!! It's much cooler than an oscar. It has a picture of a friendly bearded GNU on the front, could probably double as a blanket for a midget, and looks like it's the exact same thing as free software - homemade. :)
Very colorful. Oscars just gather dust on shelves. This thing can hang on the wall. Very nice. Wish I had one.
OK, Knuth deserves one, sure, but he's not dead yet, and there will be awards like this in the future. Knuth may be VERY deserving of one, but it's hard to say that Icaza isn't deserving as well.
I think the point is that the "e"ing of the word is lame. It's a buzzword thing that currently sounds OK becuase it's so ubiquitous, but in 5 years when that fad has passed, prefixing everything with "e" will make things sound really weird.
Microsoft is a pretty pathetic word. It's just that nowadays it's SO common, that it sounds just as normal and just as "english" as the workd "the". I guess that's what millions of dollars worth of branding does for you.
:) and "soft" from software? So really, their name is a silly shortening of "Microcomputer Software" or at least that's my take. Even if it wasn't shortened, it would still sound weird by current conventions. The last time I saw the term "microcomputer" was in a Lisp programming manual from the mid/late 80s.
Think about it. "Micro", I guess from "microcomputers" (which they aren't called anymore
But again - it doesn't sound strange really since it's so common in the language. But I guess you'll find out that if you say a word over and over, and don't focus on its meaning but rather just the *sound* of it, anything starts sounding very strange. Try "salad" which has absolutely no composite parts that I can see.
Notice: This article does NOT feature the word "geek". It does have the term "geek-oriented" but it's inside a parenthetical comment so we'll forgive it.
Guiness Book of World Records Entry: December 3, 1999 - Jon Katz writes an article without using the term "Geek" or referring to how helplessly misunderstood they are.
I suppose I'm a geek, but I've always felt a little uncomfortable with the way that Jon Katz approaches the topic of geeks. Debate however you want on whether he is actually a geek or not, but I don't feel that he is, and since I don't feel that he is, it sounds very strange always hearing characterizations of people like myself from somebody who's on the outside. I'm not trying to be elitist, just that if you're not a geek, your characterisations of geek behaviours should be just about as valid as, say, a politicians characterizations of geek behaviors, which is to say not at all.
Excuse me but isn't this obvious? It's called the World *Trade* Organization, not the World *Lets Get ourselves Taxed* organization.
Taxes raise the price of goods without putting any money in profit form into the pockets of the seller. Raising the price without raising the profit is something I would think that people interested in "trade" would be clearly against.
I was thinking about writing a totally paranoid rant about the WTO and inserting it here, but I figure I'll pass because we've probably already seen most of this stuff. Just IMHO as an organization, you've got to be pretty evil to get a super-apathetic American public so pissed off as to go into the streets and protest in those numbers.
No, I think that censored by the police is jumping a bit far. Most likely it's either too dark in the location they're looking at to see anything, or the camera is off and only operates at certain times. Also remember the time difference. PST is 3 hours behind EST and 9 hours behind grenich mean I think.
Doesn't this all have a lot to do with thick skin and asbestos underwear?
It's well known that you've got to have a set of asbestos underwear if you're going to post to slashdot, read slashdot, post a comment, or even practically THINK about slashdot.
When somebody puts their foot in their mouth, it's happened before, and they're going to get flamed. It happens, but those are "the rules of the game" so to speak, and you can't stop it, so just make sure you're wearing that asbestos when you do things in the first place. The debian list that Bruce posted to is of course public, and while it may not be as big as slashdot, I'm sure the same rules apply there as they do here.
I'm not criticising anybody but this story seems like old news. Yes, publicity is a cruel mistress, and you have to have thick skin. But that's ok, because obviously Bruce, Roblimo, and the rest DO have thick skin otherwise they wouldn't be here. A quote from Henry Rollins for those who are familiar with him: "If I took the time to bleed from all the tiny little arrows shot my way I wouldn't be here". That's true of anything in life in general, it just seems that as far as personality conflict is concerned, the net is life amplified. People lose their fear of offending others, and let it fly.
Bruce posted an apology, and as far as I'm concered, it's water under the bridge already. Even if he *hadn't* posted an apology, I'd think of it as his opinion (I haven't made my mind up about it yet) and move on. And when next week's story comes out and gets 300+ comments, the flamers will all move on.
Don't sweat the small stuff Bruce/Roblimo/CmdrTaco/Hemos.
I don't mean to challenge you or say that what you're saying isn't true, but I'm truly interested. I haven't seen any of those threads on linux-kernel (maybe because I'm not subscribed to it - I was for a brief period of time though)
What were some of the main issues that were brough t up with regard to redhat, the wrong direction, and so on?
Just interested - I'd like to hear about it.
I've read quite a bit of flames about Redhat and about how they're becoming evil and all, and I was geniunely worried when they went public, because they went from a company that has a profit motive that is held among private citizens to a company that has a profit motive that is owned by the public. So far though, I think they're doing quite well.
It's not as if Bob Young and Co. just snickered to themselves, "Now that our evil IPO is complete, we can begin ruthlessly screwing the linux community muhahahahaha!!!!" but rather they kept doing the business that got them to where they are. And it's a good business. It employs poor hackers like me (disclaimer: "like" me. I don't work for redhat) and pays them to write free software. Now, I don't know how the rest of you coders out there feel, but for me that's tantamount to getting paid to drink guiness beer and watch the Simpsons. Maybe not as easy, but as enjoyable. I think you get the point.
The purpose of this was not to be a Redhat cheerleader, just to point out that if you really really want to, you can search the net and find a million places that endorse redhat (and I'm not talking about companies, but individuals) and talk about how much they do for the free software community, but the only place that I've really seen that *slams* redhat and calls them all of the filthy names that we tag onto companies we don't like is here on slashdot, either in the form of AC ranting, or in the form of off-the-cuff remarks about how they're growing into the role of the Linux Microsoft or whatever propaganda people are spouting these days.
Rob Malda, slashdot crew, and pos[t]ers, I'd like to see somebody write a coherent article about how redhat is supposedly evil and then defend it against coherent questions. Now, like I said, there have been numerous things written in favor of redhat, but nothing that really makes sense or has a reasonable logical flow that's been written against redhat. If they are evil, I'd like to see some concrete material on why. It's not inherently evil to buy another corp like Cygnus. It can be, but it isn't always.
I think the moral of the story with redhat is moral relativism. Nobody can point a finger at redhat and say "you did this, you did that" and claim that since microsoft has done the same thing in the past, redhat must be like microsoft. But rather, look at the current and long term impact of the action. It depends on the context and the affect of the action before somebody can come along and label it "evil".
Redhat makes a good product, plays nice with free software, (compared to you or your organization, what does YOUR free software output look like up against redhats?) and does all kinds of things for the community. Like the whole "letter" business. I've seen a lot of posters point out that they didn't have to do that, it wasn't even expected of them. But they took the time to do that.
I see redhat as not only contributing a lot, but occasionally holding out an olive branch to the ACs of the world by doing things it doesn't have to do. If you choose to throw it away and say they're evil anyway, just don't go getting quoted on large news outlet websites saying you represent the feeling of the community.
The blatant sexism of the post???
:)
I'm sorry if I offended anybody with the "chicks" bit, but it was intended as a joke, which I figured people would pick up on. Since when has anybody thought that having books could attract the opposite sex? It was meant to be absurd.
Oh sure, it may not be exciting like that vibrating doll you've always wanted, but EVERYBODY wants books. For example:
:) Books can be cheap or expensive, visit a local used book shop for a great bargain, (for those of us who don't have much money to buy people gifts)
:)
W. Richard Steven's networking tomes! (Always classics - puts shakespeare to shame) The cryptonomicon, the "Alvin Maker" series by Orson Scott Card, The Art Of Computer Programming by Donald Knuth, The Camel Book, (well OK insert ALL O'Reilly titles here except those books on NT adminstration) The Dragonbone Chair series by Tad Williams and on and on and on.
Books are better than candy, (and sweeter) last longer than clothes or geek toys, never get obsoleted by books with faster processors, books get you chicks, (if they don't, then you were looking for the wrong kind of chick anyway
Do you know any geek that doesn't like to read? Does that person use linux? I don't have any idea how on earth somebody could be using linux without at least not *minding* reading. I shudder to think how many HOWTOs I've read.
So, let's review. Books are awesome, they can be quite cheap, they last a long time, they get you chicks, they convey righteous knowledge without the associated eye strain from reading too many Gutenberg e-texts, they make you look thin, and if you eat them, they're high in fiber. Geeks love getting them, and some can even be had cheaply! Even new, they're a bargain. Imagine paying a measly $80.00 to get one volume of Donald Knuth. You can bet your ass that the time he spent in getting that information for himself and recording it was worth a lot more than $80.00 by several factors of 10. But you get it for $80.00. What a steal.
I am geek, and I WANT BOOKS FOR CHRISTMAS DAMMIT. I'm also a geek, and I'll be giving quite a few books for christmas. Of course all of this assumes that your'e into that whole christian thing - I'm sure there are quite a few of us who aren't but just go along with the cultural charade. But if that charade gets me books, bring it on!
Feed your need to read. (Don't I sound like a library commercial now) That's what I want for Christmas, and that's what I'm going to give for christmas. The only crappy thing about books is that it's very hard to give them to people in a package where it's not totally obvious that they're getting a book.