Before everyone freaks out, think about how this will affect you directly. When Microsoft E&E'ed Java, it was a problem because it introduced incompatible VMs to potential users of your code base -- good code could be broken by a bad interpreter. It also led many developers to use their "extensions" of the language, which meant that if you had a correct VM, you couldn't run their software.
What can Microsoft do to Perl? Ask yourself this: If MS were to mess around with win32 perl, would it break your code? Probably not. Because perl code is run in an environment of *your* choice, there no place where MS can break your code. The client doesn't have to run a (possibly broken) interpreter - you choose the interpreter. And if someone else uses an "extended" perl, will you still be able to use thier site? Of course. They run the MS version on their side, and all is well.
Whether you use perl for system administration or CGI, take a moment to think what microsoft could do to break your environment - probably not much.
I might add one thing, they state that a user should be able to modify the program and keep it to themselves, without even mentioning their existence to anyone else. Is this not, however, completely contrary to the idea of free software, where everyone contributes? I smell hypocrisy.
I disagree. The idea is that free software should not place restrictions on those who use it. If you modify a program, and keep the changes, who is using the software?
You are. You are now the user. According to the spirit of free software, you can now do anything with that software that does not restrict the freedom of others.
For better or worse, that freedom includes not giving it away. However, if you were to distribute that modification in any way, there would be other users, whose freedom you would (according to the fsf) not have the right to restrict.
Segregating moderation/judgement from participation is a standard (and good) measure used to enforce objectivity. This is the reason they screen jurors for trials, etc.
The idea is that the best moderators are those who do not have particularly strong views on the subject. The best people to moderate the GNU/Linux vs. Linux discussions, for example, are those who don't really care, either way - they are more likely to be fair and impartial.
For the same reason sports have impartial referees,/. could benefit from impartial moderators. This is, in my opinion, a great way of enforcing this.
Granted, it doesn't stop the lurkers with strong opinions from moderating subjectively, but it's a good start.
You'd be surprised - There were HUGE increases in stability since 0.99.3. Those guys were in Insane Bug Fix Mode, and GNOME is now quite stable. Take a look at it.
Slashdot Mirror
Before everyone freaks out, think about how this will affect you directly. When Microsoft E&E'ed Java, it was a problem because it introduced incompatible VMs to potential users of your code base -- good code could be broken by a bad interpreter. It also led many developers to use their "extensions" of the language, which meant that if you had a correct VM, you couldn't run their software.
What can Microsoft do to Perl? Ask yourself this: If MS were to mess around with win32 perl, would it break your code? Probably not. Because perl code is run in an environment of *your* choice, there no place where MS can break your code. The client doesn't have to run a (possibly broken) interpreter - you choose the interpreter. And if someone else uses an "extended" perl, will you still be able to use thier site? Of course. They run the MS version on their side, and all is well.
Whether you use perl for system administration or CGI, take a moment to think what microsoft could do to break your environment - probably not much.
--
I disagree. The idea is that free software should not place restrictions on those who use it. If you modify a program, and keep the changes, who is using the software?
You are. You are now the user. According to the spirit of free software, you can now do anything with that software that does not restrict the freedom of others.
For better or worse, that freedom includes not giving it away. However, if you were to distribute that modification in any way, there would be other users, whose freedom you would (according to the fsf) not have the right to restrict.
My $.02
Segregating moderation/judgement from participation is a standard (and good) measure used to enforce objectivity. This is the reason they screen jurors for trials, etc.
/. could benefit from impartial moderators. This is, in my opinion, a great way of enforcing this.
The idea is that the best moderators are those who do not have particularly strong views on the subject. The best people to moderate the GNU/Linux vs. Linux discussions, for example, are those who don't really care, either way - they are more likely to be fair and impartial.
For the same reason sports have impartial referees,
Granted, it doesn't stop the lurkers with strong opinions from moderating subjectively, but it's a good start.
Keep up the great work, rob!
-dave
That list is so insanely out of date it's not even funny.
You'd be surprised - There were HUGE increases in stability since 0.99.3. Those guys were in Insane Bug Fix Mode, and GNOME is now quite stable. Take a look at it.