Hmm...
RMS indeed does not care if anything is Open Source. He cares if software is Free Software (not 'GNU/Linux'...that's not a 'movement', license, or method of development...it's a software package...Free Software is a movement, as is Open Source).
It is true (are you trying to say this?) that RMS (and the FSF) does not have anything to do with Open Source or the OSI; I should have made that clear. But RMS's evaluation of the license is informative.
My question to you is this: Why would you want anyone to assume that for a company to be Open Source means that it has to be part of an Open Source Organization such as the Open Source Initiative?
Because the OSI made the term Open Source widely known. Apple would not be using the term if the OSI had not made it widely known in ~1998. So Apple clearly is talking about the OSI's Open Source (or are you saying they are not talking about the OSI's term, they just made up the term now?).
If I followed YOUR ERRENOUS judgement completely bias one could not be a "real" Computer Engineer unless one is registered at the IEEE +_+?
Uhh...no, I'm saying software is not 'Open Source' without being licensed under a OSI-approved license. If you mean that someone is not a 'real Computer Engineer' without a college degree, I agree, and in fact I believe it is illegal to represent yourself as an engineer if you are not one; if it's not illegal it's certainly not right. But the IEEE is not responsible for the term 'Computer Engineer' (or Electrical Engineer). And I am a Electrical Engineer, not Computer. IEEE stands for "The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers"...
Peace fellow slashdoter,
from a peaceful and compassionate slashdoter.
Holy crap, there sure are a lot of people who (apparently) don't understand what Open Source is.
For everyone who flamed me, I will say a couple things:
-If the OSI had not started using the term "Open Source" then it would not mean anything more than it did before 1998. Apple would most certainly not be using it today. So, since they are using it because of the OSI's actions, it would be nice if they could even try to get OSI's license approval.
-Code that you can download and look at without paying money is not Open Source. A key ingredient in Open Source software is the ability to modify and distribute the code. There is a massive difference between 'Free Beer' and 'Free Speech'.
I fully advocate the free & non-rigorous use of the term "Open Source", which RMS would like to use as an endorsement of his fanatical ideals in the name of freedom.
RMS would not like to use the term "Open Source" at all, he uses the term "Free Software". There is a huge difference. RMS created Free Software back in ~1984, several people (ESR, Perens, etc) created Open Source in ~1998.
No, sorry, GNU/Hurd uses the Mach kernel; it would be GNU/Darwin (not GNU/Mach).
'Hurd' refers to the (userspace) device drivers, as does 'Darwin'. Both use the Mach microkernel.
You need to understand the difference between a monolithic kernel and micro-kernel to see the difference between Hurd and Mach (or Darwin and Mach).
A monolithic kernel (like Linux) has all operations and device drivers in-kernel; they all run in kernel mode (ring 0 on x86).
A microkernel (like Mach) only has the basic operations, but doesn't do everything you need. You need userspace 'server processes' which complete the kernel and run in userspace (ring 2 on x86). Thus, you have GNU's Hurd (play on words, it's a 'herd' of server processes) and Apple's Darwin.
Unicast means you (your computer) sends out N identical packets to N different (destination) IP addresses.
Multicast means you (your computer) sends out 1 packet to 1 special multicast IP address, and downstream router(s) duplicate that 1 packet into N identical packets to the N different (real) IP addresses which the special multicast IP address corresponds to.
The most accurate 'hacker' movie I've ever seen was 'Sneakers'
Excellent movie. Very good.
Except for the part about being able to crack any encryption instantaneously (actually, only US government-based encryption). That was crap. But I guess every movie has to have one influence from Hollywood. (e.g. The Matrix had Keanu, but it was good anyway...)
Another issue many don't understand: You have to own the binary to have a claim to the source.
BULLSHIT.
That is pure BS. You're saying that if I wrote a program as GPL, and someone else changed it and started selling binaries, I would have to buy a binary to get the source to the changes they made? You are totally wrong.
Once you make your GPL'd code public (sell or give it to anyone) then you MUST make the source available to ANYONE who asks.
Where is it? I justed checked and didn't see it! It's not on users.pl (listing comments and karma) and if it is please tell us all where it is hiding!
Go to your user page (http://slashdot.org/users.pl), then click "Edit User Info". Look for the line "You can automatically login by clicking This Link and Bookmarking the resulting
page. This is totally insecure, but very convenient.". If you read the source of the page you're on, you'll see your username and password in a (plaintext) URL.
In fact, simply viewing your user info page comprimises your password!!! It's a part of the HTML that is sent, unencrypted, to you when viewing your user info page. anyone sniffing that HMTL has your password, and 0wnz j00u.
Try viewing your user info page, and read the source. There's your password, and username. doh!
I really wish/. would not put the password in the HTML; if someone really wants to use the stupid insecure link, just have 2 steps; one link to a page that has only the insecure link; then the password isn't sent, in plantext via HTML, every time I view my user info page.
I think that was his point, if the system is designed to be default-inoperative without a signal, it will never work. Loss of signal is just too common and unavoidable in some cases for that to be acceptable to anyone to buy.
And, if your neighbor jams your signal, what are you going to do about it? Assuming you figure out it's them doing it? Obviously, making a device inoperative without a clean GPS signal is utter bullshit that will never happen, or at least make any money. Nobody will buy crap like that unless they are unaware of the GPS shit.
Since I am unable to "opt-out" of their heavy-handed policy
Unfortunately, the policy that many schools have regarding their obvious lack of regard for personal rights and freedoms is, you are able to 'opt-out' of their policies; it's called dropping out.
Since they didn't force you to go to their school, they claim they can enforce any policies they want and you can always leave if you don't like it.
Strangely enough, many high schools have even worse policies, and they can't claim the same - high school students are forced to attend. But (most) parents don't seem to care, they have the attitude that turning school into a maximum security prison will protect their kids, instead of realizing that prisons create criminals and make it worse for those wanting to 'learn' and have 'fun'.
Well, first off, there's a big different between the old & new...the old was all 'wrath of God' shit, and it scared too many people so it got toned down for the 'new' testament...
But anyway, I still have to disagree with either being 'filled with the current beliefs of the time' meaning they aren't anti-whatever. It's anti-gay/female/etc regardless of what the 'current beliefs of the time' was.
And the old testament was not filled with 'a whole lot of "love-thy-neighbor" messages'! What about Jobe? I mean, "God" was worse than Satan in that shit! He let Satan do that on a fucking bet! And the whole Adam & Eve shit - Adam disobeys God once, and all of humanity has to pay for it for the rest of time?!? Tell me how God can possibly appear as a 'love-thy-neighbor' kinda guy. Don't think so. He was a vengeful bastard, and anyone who pissed him off got his wrath. That was later carried out by his "minions", i.e. religious zealots, who became Judge, Jury, & Executioner. E.g., countless centuries of religious persecution. In most cases, for simply not believing what the religion in power believed. Now that's scary!!!
Organized Religion scares me more than anything else in this world. Not just Christian religion, there are plenty other self-righteous religions out to kill/punish everyone else...
Ok, but what kind of parent is so uninvolved in their kid's life that they don't know what games he/she's playing?
It's not really that hard to investigate what games are like, and if the parent is buying the game, they can always ask the clerk/salesman. A rating system is not needed. Games already state 'blood & gore' on the cover, so if they simply read that they should have a pretty good idea of what's going on...
Mass media attention, or a strict rating system, is not required for a parent to find out what a game is like...
If you want to talk about protecting your children, you put an NC-17 rating on the
Bible and prevent children from buying it or you're going to shut up.
Damn right. More people have been killed and tortured in the name of Organized Religion than any other cause. And the Bible is filled with very negative messages; anti-gay, anti-female, anti-other religion, etc. Quake, Doom, Unreal, etc. show a little blood and guts, while the Bible tells you that everyone unlike you is evil and should be punished. Hmmm....
Hell, can you imagine if 10-year olds across the nation were
all watching Hannibal without their parents knowing its contents? Nightmare city.
And what's wrong with that? I watched The Exorcist when I was 10 and it scared the shit out of me, but I certainly don't see what's wrong with that?
Dealing with being scared is a part of life. If you try to hide the world from a child, they'll be unable to deal with reality when they grow up. "Protecting he children" is complete bullshit, and children who are "protected" wind up more screwed up than the people "protecting" them.
Hey, I work at IBM. I really, really hope the IBM hype is true. But from my perspective, it looks like IBM is going to use Linux, not help Linux. Maybe that's ok, I don't know. I do know that I am forced to keep a Windoze box whose only purpose is running Lotus Notes. Until IBM stops forcing their employees to use Windoze (or OS/2), I just can't believe IBM "supports Linux 100%". And I won't even get into whether IBM realizes there's a different between Linux, Open Source, and Free Software.
But, I'm pretty far down, so maybe the higher-ups really do know what they're doing. Hope so.
Yeah, "IBM is committing 1 Billion to Linux". Ask yourself what percentage is Marketing dollars, and what percentage is R&D dollars. Then, of the R&D dollars, what percentage is non-Free application development, and what percentage is for Free Software (kernel development?). LVG (Lou V. Gerstner) has already said IBM will not do a Linux distro (which is good). But how about a breakdown of what that $ is going to?
And while we're at it, how about opening some of those specs that no longer make any money, e.g. the MCA spec, the RS-485 spec, etc? What possible reason is there for keeping these outdated specs closed? It would be a good PR move for IBM, and help developers who might work on old IBM hardware.
Re:The decision is obvious, different buyers targe
on
Is It OK To Sucks?
·
· Score: 1
A Guinness buyer is usually an impluse buyer, who buys this overpriced luxury beer to be perceived as a snob, an Irish fanatic or to piss off his friends.
That is probably why you bought it that one time in your life, but some people actually buy it because they enjoy it.
Really, there are many other,
better, cheaper stouts out there, if you don't want to make your own.
There are many different stouts out there, and if you really knew anything about beer, you'd know (good) beers are pretty unique, and there's more that just 'stouts' and 'Bud'. Murphys is good also, but is not a "cheaper stout", it's a different beer.
In many companies, if you don't already have a lot of experience, it takes seniority to really get management to respect you (or even consider you important at all). Remember that management usually has no clue about who does what (exactly) or who is more experienced or skilled that someone else. They cannot measure the skill level needed or used in a particular project, and usually rely on peer review and/or if your project works, and if it was on time. All that takes time to gain a reputation.
So while your peers may know you're good, management won't. After all, do you know any (real) technical people who want to be in management?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... RMS indeed does not care if anything is Open Source. He cares if software is Free Software (not 'GNU/Linux'...that's not a 'movement', license, or method of development...it's a software package...Free Software is a movement, as is Open Source).
;-)
It is true (are you trying to say this?) that RMS (and the FSF) does not have anything to do with Open Source or the OSI; I should have made that clear. But RMS's evaluation of the license is informative.
My question to you is this:
Why would you want anyone to assume that for a company to be Open Source means that it has to be part of an Open Source Organization such as the Open Source Initiative?
Because the OSI made the term Open Source widely known. Apple would not be using the term if the OSI had not made it widely known in ~1998. So Apple clearly is talking about the OSI's Open Source (or are you saying they are not talking about the OSI's term, they just made up the term now?).
If I followed YOUR ERRENOUS judgement completely bias one could not be a "real" Computer Engineer unless one is registered at the IEEE +_+?
Uhh...no, I'm saying software is not 'Open Source' without being licensed under a OSI-approved license. If you mean that someone is not a 'real Computer Engineer' without a college degree, I agree, and in fact I believe it is illegal to represent yourself as an engineer if you are not one; if it's not illegal it's certainly not right. But the IEEE is not responsible for the term 'Computer Engineer' (or Electrical Engineer). And I am a Electrical Engineer, not Computer. IEEE stands for "The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers"...
Peace fellow slashdoter,
from a peaceful and compassionate slashdoter.
Peace.
Holy crap, there sure are a lot of people who (apparently) don't understand what Open Source is.
For everyone who flamed me, I will say a couple things:
-If the OSI had not started using the term "Open Source" then it would not mean anything more than it did before 1998. Apple would most certainly not be using it today. So, since they are using it because of the OSI's actions, it would be nice if they could even try to get OSI's license approval.
-Code that you can download and look at without paying money is not Open Source. A key ingredient in Open Source software is the ability to modify and distribute the code. There is a massive difference between 'Free Beer' and 'Free Speech'.
I fully advocate the free & non-rigorous use of the term "Open Source", which RMS would like to use as an endorsement of his fanatical ideals in the name of freedom.
RMS would not like to use the term "Open Source" at all, he uses the term "Free Software". There is a huge difference. RMS created Free Software back in ~1984, several people (ESR, Perens, etc) created Open Source in ~1998.
Why does everyone simply believe Apple when they say Open Source?!?
The Apple Public Source License is not approved by the Open Source Initiative nor the Free Software Foundation. In fact RMS gives reasons why it is not acceptable, even their new 'version 1.2' APSL release.
They really need to stop erroneously using the words 'Open Source'.
No, sorry, GNU/Hurd uses the Mach kernel; it would be GNU/Darwin (not GNU/Mach).
'Hurd' refers to the (userspace) device drivers, as does 'Darwin'. Both use the Mach microkernel.
You need to understand the difference between a monolithic kernel and micro-kernel to see the difference between Hurd and Mach (or Darwin and Mach).
A monolithic kernel (like Linux) has all operations and device drivers in-kernel; they all run in kernel mode (ring 0 on x86).
A microkernel (like Mach) only has the basic operations, but doesn't do everything you need. You need userspace 'server processes' which complete the kernel and run in userspace (ring 2 on x86). Thus, you have GNU's Hurd (play on words, it's a 'herd' of server processes) and Apple's Darwin.
But they BOTH use the Mach microkernel.
See history of FSF and GNU (scroll down to 'The GNU Hurd") for a better explanation.
Shame on them for making things up that *could* exist.
Please explain to me how a chip can factorize any key used by the US government but cannot factorize other government's keys.
Did you see the movie?
Here is a a explanation of unicast vs. multicast:
Unicast means you (your computer) sends out N identical packets to N different (destination) IP addresses.
Multicast means you (your computer) sends out 1 packet to 1 special multicast IP address, and downstream router(s) duplicate that 1 packet into N identical packets to the N different (real) IP addresses which the special multicast IP address corresponds to.
Imagine the potential for DDoS attacks...;-)
The most accurate 'hacker' movie I've ever seen was 'Sneakers'
Excellent movie. Very good.
Except for the part about being able to crack any encryption instantaneously (actually, only US government-based encryption). That was crap. But I guess every movie has to have one influence from Hollywood. (e.g. The Matrix had Keanu, but it was good anyway...)
to give any third party,
I cut-n-pasted that from what you just posted.
Think about it.
I've read it plenty of times. Maybe you should read it, and discuss it with a lawyer if you don't understand it.
Another issue many don't understand: You have to own the binary to have a claim to the source.
.
BULLSHIT
That is pure BS. You're saying that if I wrote a program as GPL, and someone else changed it and started selling binaries, I would have to buy a binary to get the source to the changes they made? You are totally wrong.
Once you make your GPL'd code public (sell or give it to anyone) then you MUST make the source available to ANYONE who asks.
I want it to work like my CD and DVD player - turn it on, and a few seconds later it is ready to go.
I set up a PC/104 with Linux, it booted (from its Solid State disc) in about 10-15 seconds.
Check out the PC/104 website.
Where is it? I justed checked and didn't see it! It's not on users.pl (listing comments and karma) and if it is please tell us all where it is hiding!
Go to your user page (http://slashdot.org/users.pl), then click "Edit User Info". Look for the line "You can automatically login by clicking This Link and Bookmarking the resulting page. This is totally insecure, but very convenient.". If you read the source of the page you're on, you'll see your username and password in a (plaintext) URL.
Sucks, don't it?
In fact, simply viewing your user info page comprimises your password!!! It's a part of the HTML that is sent, unencrypted, to you when viewing your user info page. anyone sniffing that HMTL has your password, and 0wnz j00u.
/. would not put the password in the HTML; if someone really wants to use the stupid insecure link, just have 2 steps; one link to a page that has only the insecure link; then the password isn't sent, in plantext via HTML, every time I view my user info page.
Try viewing your user info page, and read the source. There's your password, and username. doh!
I really wish
I think that was his point, if the system is designed to be default-inoperative without a signal, it will never work. Loss of signal is just too common and unavoidable in some cases for that to be acceptable to anyone to buy.
And, if your neighbor jams your signal, what are you going to do about it? Assuming you figure out it's them doing it? Obviously, making a device inoperative without a clean GPS signal is utter bullshit that will never happen, or at least make any money. Nobody will buy crap like that unless they are unaware of the GPS shit.
...is, are the daemon babes going to be there? :-)
Since I am unable to "opt-out" of their heavy-handed policy
Unfortunately, the policy that many schools have regarding their obvious lack of regard for personal rights and freedoms is, you are able to 'opt-out' of their policies; it's called dropping out.
Since they didn't force you to go to their school, they claim they can enforce any policies they want and you can always leave if you don't like it.
Strangely enough, many high schools have even worse policies, and they can't claim the same - high school students are forced to attend. But (most) parents don't seem to care, they have the attitude that turning school into a maximum security prison will protect their kids, instead of realizing that prisons create criminals and make it worse for those wanting to 'learn' and have 'fun'.
Well, first off, there's a big different between the old & new...the old was all 'wrath of God' shit, and it scared too many people so it got toned down for the 'new' testament...
But anyway, I still have to disagree with either being 'filled with the current beliefs of the time' meaning they aren't anti-whatever. It's anti-gay/female/etc regardless of what the 'current beliefs of the time' was.
And the old testament was not filled with 'a whole lot of "love-thy-neighbor" messages'! What about Jobe? I mean, "God" was worse than Satan in that shit! He let Satan do that on a fucking bet! And the whole Adam & Eve shit - Adam disobeys God once, and all of humanity has to pay for it for the rest of time?!? Tell me how God can possibly appear as a 'love-thy-neighbor' kinda guy. Don't think so. He was a vengeful bastard, and anyone who pissed him off got his wrath. That was later carried out by his "minions", i.e. religious zealots, who became Judge, Jury, & Executioner. E.g., countless centuries of religious persecution. In most cases, for simply not believing what the religion in power believed. Now that's scary!!!
Organized Religion scares me more than anything else in this world. Not just Christian religion, there are plenty other self-righteous religions out to kill/punish everyone else...
Ok, but what kind of parent is so uninvolved in their kid's life that they don't know what games he/she's playing?
It's not really that hard to investigate what games are like, and if the parent is buying the game, they can always ask the clerk/salesman. A rating system is not needed. Games already state 'blood & gore' on the cover, so if they simply read that they should have a pretty good idea of what's going on...
Mass media attention, or a strict rating system, is not required for a parent to find out what a game is like...
If you want to talk about protecting your children, you put an NC-17 rating on the Bible and prevent children from buying it or you're going to shut up.
Damn right. More people have been killed and tortured in the name of Organized Religion than any other cause. And the Bible is filled with very negative messages; anti-gay, anti-female, anti-other religion, etc. Quake, Doom, Unreal, etc. show a little blood and guts, while the Bible tells you that everyone unlike you is evil and should be punished. Hmmm....
Hell, can you imagine if 10-year olds across the nation were all watching Hannibal without their parents knowing its contents? Nightmare city.
And what's wrong with that? I watched The Exorcist when I was 10 and it scared the shit out of me, but I certainly don't see what's wrong with that?
Dealing with being scared is a part of life. If you try to hide the world from a child, they'll be unable to deal with reality when they grow up. "Protecting he children" is complete bullshit, and children who are "protected" wind up more screwed up than the people "protecting" them.
Have you ever seen IBM's Linux commercial on TV? I haven't.
Hey, I work at IBM. I really, really hope the IBM hype is true. But from my perspective, it looks like IBM is going to use Linux, not help Linux. Maybe that's ok, I don't know. I do know that I am forced to keep a Windoze box whose only purpose is running Lotus Notes. Until IBM stops forcing their employees to use Windoze (or OS/2), I just can't believe IBM "supports Linux 100%". And I won't even get into whether IBM realizes there's a different between Linux, Open Source, and Free Software.
But, I'm pretty far down, so maybe the higher-ups really do know what they're doing. Hope so.
Except that IBM is commiting itself to Linux.
Yeah, "IBM is committing 1 Billion to Linux". Ask yourself what percentage is Marketing dollars, and what percentage is R&D dollars. Then, of the R&D dollars, what percentage is non-Free application development, and what percentage is for Free Software (kernel development?). LVG (Lou V. Gerstner) has already said IBM will not do a Linux distro (which is good). But how about a breakdown of what that $ is going to?
And while we're at it, how about opening some of those specs that no longer make any money, e.g. the MCA spec, the RS-485 spec, etc? What possible reason is there for keeping these outdated specs closed? It would be a good PR move for IBM, and help developers who might work on old IBM hardware.
A Guinness buyer is usually an impluse buyer, who buys this overpriced luxury beer to be perceived as a snob, an Irish fanatic or to piss off his friends.
That is probably why you bought it that one time in your life, but some people actually buy it because they enjoy it.
Really, there are many other, better, cheaper stouts out there, if you don't want to make your own.
There are many different stouts out there, and if you really knew anything about beer, you'd know (good) beers are pretty unique, and there's more that just 'stouts' and 'Bud'. Murphys is good also, but is not a "cheaper stout", it's a different beer.
In many companies, if you don't already have a lot of experience, it takes seniority to really get management to respect you (or even consider you important at all). Remember that management usually has no clue about who does what (exactly) or who is more experienced or skilled that someone else. They cannot measure the skill level needed or used in a particular project, and usually rely on peer review and/or if your project works, and if it was on time. All that takes time to gain a reputation.
So while your peers may know you're good, management won't. After all, do you know any (real) technical people who want to be in management?