> Nothing like insulting your users AND taking away their right to run a particular OS. You know, this IS an educational institution -- why don't you try educating them? Better yet, cut off ports that are spreading Nimda -- that'll make people figure it out really quickly.
well now not all of these ideas are Microsoft originals, but anyhow, lots of them do seem to have merit:
increasing the use of sound in user interfaces
allowing users to move their mouse pointers to other computers' screen as a metaphor for network interaction
quick multimedia translation, i.e. easy to email clips of newscasts and to make websites out of collected bits of info in various formats at the side of the screen.
whiteboard/PC interaction
kudos to the engineers working on these. we should assimilate the basic ideas into open source UIs ASAP.
the one thing i really thought was silly was emailing video instead of typing an email. it takes so much longer to listen to someone speak than to read an email. however, one thing i do expect to happen is to speak an email, have speech-recognition software transform it into text, proofread the text, and then send the email. since speaking is faster than typing but reading is faster than listening, this would be the most efficient for all parties.
fair enough, if you think the Linux component was more important than the GNU component, then I agree that is a good reason for calling it Linux..
btw, some lines of source code stats are here. looks like [glibc + gcc (\lessthan) kernel], indeed (still, i would argue that in practice other GNU components are used, and also that the invention of the GPL is perhaps the single most important innovation, and finally that the Linux kernel would not have been written if there were not already other pieces of a free OS to use it with).
.
3. I am not put off by the FSF making an issue of this, because the FSF has every reason to harp on this issue; name recognition and publicity is critical for any organization. Can you imagine how much potential membership (and political voice) has been lost by the FSF already due to the lost publicity of the system being called Linux?
4. The inelegance of the sound of GNU/Linux is much less important than the obligation to try to give credit where credit is due. Since that credit is really, really important to the organization to which it is due, I think in this case the obligation trumps, even if it makes the GNU/Linux system less sexy/marketable.
5. But what about the other important components of most GNU/Linux systems? Like X, or Perl? Well, if we are going to abbreviate (and I think we must), the most important contributor is GNU (see #2). Personally, I think calling it "the GNU/Linux OS" makes more sense than calling it "the GNU OS", so let's take the top two most important components and stop there.
but if you are going to set a threshold of one word, you should call it GNU, right, because the GNU project wrote more of the code?
I think a threshold of two words is more appropriate because then people who only know it as "linux" will (at least sort of) know what you are talking about when you say GNU/Linux.
> "Linux" is a great name. It sounds fast and high tech. When you attach "Guh-New" to the front, it loses its sex appeal. Geeks night not care, but when you're pitching Linux to your PHB (or your PHB's PHB), these trivial cosmetic things matter.
I agree, but unfortunately, the GNU project is named what it is named. If as you point out, "these trivial cosmetic things matter", that also explains why RMS is so insistent on GNU/Linux. Because it will create name recognition for the GNU project, and that matters, a lot. So there is a "practical" reason on the other side of the argument, as well.
i'm not sure about that.. a little more name recognition for GNU would probably give it a lot more power, power that could probably be used to convert more proprietary software users (if that is the desired goal). I think fighting for (deserved) name recognition may be a good investment for the GNU project.
let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is doing things for the good of his organization rather than (or in addition to) his own ego.
The advent of GNU/Linux is good, certainly, for FSF's cause. But, equally as certainly, if people called it GNU/Linux rather than Linux, that would be much, better for the cause. Since the GNU project created most of the software, they do deserve most of the credit, so why shouldn't they ask for it? It's only fair, and it would help their cause tremendously.
It would be illogical for the FSF to sit on their laurels and be happy about GNU/Linux when they could do more good by getting it called GNU/Linux.
> After a while, people are going to get tired of this act. If Stallman wants people to show him respect, then he needs to start respecting the decisions of others.
Well, although it is perhaps legally their decision, i think people have an ethical obligation to consider the wishes of the major contributors of a piece of software as to what to call it. Perhaps it is ultimately their decision, but it's not like he shouldn't have any say in it. It's not like it's none of his business, in other words.
well, first off, as far as I can tell, GNU isn't threatening anything. In fact, they're handling the whole thing very decently, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, they aren't trying to force anything, they are just asking *.
Second, I don't believe it is childish to ask for credit where credit is due, especially when it may be a life or death issue for their organization (and i think it may be). If the system were already called GNU/Linux instead of Linux, I bet the FSF would have 10x the membership it has now, just because it would be more well known. It is a small thing to others, but it is critical to them; so I don't think it is childish to harp on it.
* yes i remember about how RMS didn't want to speak to some organization unless it changed its name, but c'mon, speaking is a favor and withholding a speech is not a terrible thing.
well, while i agree that the name GNU doesn't sound the best it is hard for me to say that that justifies depriving the creators of a piece of software their deserved credit, especially when that credit is a life or death issue for their organization (and i think it may be).
Now, as for GIMP, i think you're right, that one is bad enough to justify overruling the creators.
well, i guess it would satisfy some of the original goal (to have a complete OS licenced as free software), but because of the free software/open source split, i guess it doens't fulfull all of the goals (i.e. it can't exactly be the flagship and rallying point of the GNU project if its creator, Linus, has important philosophical disagreements with the GNU project). Hence the Linux kernal hasn't been donated to and accepted by the GNU organization and hence can't be the completion of the GNU OS.
well certainly the name Linux sounds better, however, that for me isn't enough of a reason to refuse to give credit where credit is due. If GNU wrote most of the code, then it should be up to them what the result is called, unless there is a really good reason to do otherwise.
(now, i have been calling the system Linux in everyday speech, although I've though GNU/Linux is more correct, but after reading the FAQ I'm going to make more of an effort to call it GNU/Linux)
perhaps, but in my view this is besides the point on this issue. The issue is that the GNU project is not getting proper credit for a system in which they made the most contribution to. Regardless of whether you support or disagree with their goals, you should still want to give credit where credit is due, barring a good reason not to.
I don't know the legal details behind the Skylarov case, but i'm not sure that the article implies that Mr. Ishikawa disagrees with the parts of the DMCA that put Mr. Skylarov away. There is a distinction between the act of communicating how to circumvent copy protection, and actually performing the circumvention, and perhaps Mr. Ishikawa thinks the former action should be legal but the latter illegal.
Anyway, it's hard to condemn the man without hearing in his own words exactly which parts of the legislation he disagrees with. We can't say on the basis of available evidence whether he is really hypocritical or not, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume not.
I think Gilmore's points about the key being a good organizational structure for the DNS system carries the day. In the current system, it does seem that, first, allowing companies to make too much money off DNS is inviting trouble, and second, the registration databases can't (and shouldn't try to) provide a service to eliminate cybersquatting.
I certainly don't think making domain names more expensive will help anything.
The cooling off period idea of Hall's was good, too.
However, I don't think that having a bunch more top level domains will solve cybersquatting either. In fact, I think there probably isn't a clean solution to cybersquatting.
perhaps openNIC could eventually find a better compromise than the current system, however (and perhaps not, who knows?)
Linus's policy not to check for patents on things he independently develops is correct.
however, given that a patent has been brought to his attention in this case, he now needs to deal with it, even though it sounds like it is a bogus patent. for example, someone should find and take note of prior art somewhere.
you haven't really given any reasons why you think the "non-obvious" bar is set too low. the worst problems with the patent system stem from the patenting of obvious things. the cost of being barred from doing obvious things far outweighs the benefits of more research and less trade secrets.
certainly, this would be a great idea. let me go on record saying that it would be cool if CmdrTaco allowed direct database access for academic projects.
For those Californians out there, recall that Senator Feinstein was among the signatories on the letter alluded to in the article as "pressure on the DOJ from Congress" to do this.
- bayle
your approach is right. we should not do just anything in the name of taking down the DMCA. but i don't think that getting the DMCA repealed is going too far.
i feel a good heuristic is to err on more individual power, less government power, and less corporate power (in that order). so, while it is very bad to overshoot in the direction of less individual power and more corporate power (the DMCA), we don't have to worry as much about overshooting in the opposite direction.
why is it surprising that students aren't doing well in a subject when, first, they have no interest in it, and, second, they are rushed?
my proposals. first, waste as little time as possible forcing students to learn that which they don't want to learn. in the extreme, this would mean letting high schoolers go out into the work force and then go back to school for free when they realized they missed out. less extreme: alleviate the grade pressure in school and also allow students more choice as to what to study. too much pressure can make a student learn the quadratic formula, but it won't make him or her learn why math is such an interesting and useful thing (which i would argue is more critical for our society).
second, it takes a long time to understand something well. creating mandatory tests against teachers' recommendations will probably create unreasonable curricular requirements that can only be met by teaching to the test. if it takes a year of algebra just to learn algebra concepts, without learning any "hard algebra", so be it. teachers generally have good hearts and are close to the problem, hence their recommendations in these matters should be weighted heavily.
i agree with the above posts: merely typing in someone's name and data is not hacking. furthermore, this was done with good intentions, not to misuse anything. We should (and i do) support the guy who did it.
if we each picked a dollar amount to give to the EFF each time some new terrible development came around, we could do a lot of good. even $5 would help out, because there are lots of us. i'm in for $5/bad development if you folks are.
Slashdot Mirror
well, we could apply the same idea with a smaller fee. or lower the other fees to make room for this one.
> Nothing like insulting your users AND taking away their right to run a particular OS. You know, this IS an educational institution -- why don't you try educating them? Better yet, cut off ports that are spreading Nimda -- that'll make people figure it out really quickly.
I agree completely. This is totally outrageous.
- increasing the use of sound in user interfaces
- allowing users to move their mouse pointers to other computers' screen as a metaphor for network interaction
- quick multimedia translation, i.e. easy to email clips of newscasts and to make websites out of collected bits of info in various formats at the side of the screen.
- whiteboard/PC interaction
kudos to the engineers working on these. we should assimilate the basic ideas into open source UIs ASAP.the one thing i really thought was silly was emailing video instead of typing an email. it takes so much longer to listen to someone speak than to read an email. however, one thing i do expect to happen is to speak an email, have speech-recognition software transform it into text, proofread the text, and then send the email. since speaking is faster than typing but reading is faster than listening, this would be the most efficient for all parties.
fair enough, if you think the Linux component was more important than the GNU component, then I agree that is a good reason for calling it Linux..
btw, some lines of source code stats are here. looks like [glibc + gcc (\lessthan) kernel], indeed (still, i would argue that in practice other GNU components are used, and also that the invention of the GPL is perhaps the single most important innovation, and finally that the Linux kernel would not have been written if there were not already other pieces of a free OS to use it with).
2. The GNU Project apparently contributed more code to the system than the Linux kernel has (see http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71s loc.html).
. 3. I am not put off by the FSF making an issue of this, because the FSF has every reason to harp on this issue; name recognition and publicity is critical for any organization. Can you imagine how much potential membership (and political voice) has been lost by the FSF already due to the lost publicity of the system being called Linux?
4. The inelegance of the sound of GNU/Linux is much less important than the obligation to try to give credit where credit is due. Since that credit is really, really important to the organization to which it is due, I think in this case the obligation trumps, even if it makes the GNU/Linux system less sexy/marketable.
5. But what about the other important components of most GNU/Linux systems? Like X, or Perl? Well, if we are going to abbreviate (and I think we must), the most important contributor is GNU (see #2). Personally, I think calling it "the GNU/Linux OS" makes more sense than calling it "the GNU OS", so let's take the top two most important components and stop there.
but if you are going to set a threshold of one word, you should call it GNU, right, because the GNU project wrote more of the code?
I think a threshold of two words is more appropriate because then people who only know it as "linux" will (at least sort of) know what you are talking about when you say GNU/Linux.
> "Linux" is a great name. It sounds fast and high tech. When you attach "Guh-New" to the front, it loses its sex appeal. Geeks night not care, but when you're pitching Linux to your PHB (or your PHB's PHB), these trivial cosmetic things matter.
I agree, but unfortunately, the GNU project is named what it is named. If as you point out, "these trivial cosmetic things matter", that also explains why RMS is so insistent on GNU/Linux. Because it will create name recognition for the GNU project, and that matters, a lot. So there is a "practical" reason on the other side of the argument, as well.
i'm not sure about that.. a little more name recognition for GNU would probably give it a lot more power, power that could probably be used to convert more proprietary software users (if that is the desired goal). I think fighting for (deserved) name recognition may be a good investment for the GNU project.
let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is doing things for the good of his organization rather than (or in addition to) his own ego.
The advent of GNU/Linux is good, certainly, for FSF's cause. But, equally as certainly, if people called it GNU/Linux rather than Linux, that would be much, better for the cause. Since the GNU project created most of the software, they do deserve most of the credit, so why shouldn't they ask for it? It's only fair, and it would help their cause tremendously.
It would be illogical for the FSF to sit on their laurels and be happy about GNU/Linux when they could do more good by getting it called GNU/Linux.
> After a while, people are going to get tired of this act. If Stallman wants people to show him respect, then he needs to start respecting the decisions of others.
Well, although it is perhaps legally their decision, i think people have an ethical obligation to consider the wishes of the major contributors of a piece of software as to what to call it. Perhaps it is ultimately their decision, but it's not like he shouldn't have any say in it. It's not like it's none of his business, in other words.
well, first off, as far as I can tell, GNU isn't threatening anything. In fact, they're handling the whole thing very decently, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, they aren't trying to force anything, they are just asking *.
Second, I don't believe it is childish to ask for credit where credit is due, especially when it may be a life or death issue for their organization (and i think it may be). If the system were already called GNU/Linux instead of Linux, I bet the FSF would have 10x the membership it has now, just because it would be more well known. It is a small thing to others, but it is critical to them; so I don't think it is childish to harp on it.
* yes i remember about how RMS didn't want to speak to some organization unless it changed its name, but c'mon, speaking is a favor and withholding a speech is not a terrible thing.
well, while i agree that the name GNU doesn't sound the best it is hard for me to say that that justifies depriving the creators of a piece of software their deserved credit, especially when that credit is a life or death issue for their organization (and i think it may be).
Now, as for GIMP, i think you're right, that one is bad enough to justify overruling the creators.
well, i guess it would satisfy some of the original goal (to have a complete OS licenced as free software), but because of the free software/open source split, i guess it doens't fulfull all of the goals (i.e. it can't exactly be the flagship and rallying point of the GNU project if its creator, Linus, has important philosophical disagreements with the GNU project). Hence the Linux kernal hasn't been donated to and accepted by the GNU organization and hence can't be the completion of the GNU OS.
well certainly the name Linux sounds better, however, that for me isn't enough of a reason to refuse to give credit where credit is due. If GNU wrote most of the code, then it should be up to them what the result is called, unless there is a really good reason to do otherwise.
(now, i have been calling the system Linux in everyday speech, although I've though GNU/Linux is more correct, but after reading the FAQ I'm going to make more of an effort to call it GNU/Linux)
perhaps, but in my view this is besides the point on this issue. The issue is that the GNU project is not getting proper credit for a system in which they made the most contribution to. Regardless of whether you support or disagree with their goals, you should still want to give credit where credit is due, barring a good reason not to.
I don't know the legal details behind the Skylarov case, but i'm not sure that the article implies that Mr. Ishikawa disagrees with the parts of the DMCA that put Mr. Skylarov away. There is a distinction between the act of communicating how to circumvent copy protection, and actually performing the circumvention, and perhaps Mr. Ishikawa thinks the former action should be legal but the latter illegal.
Anyway, it's hard to condemn the man without hearing in his own words exactly which parts of the legislation he disagrees with. We can't say on the basis of available evidence whether he is really hypocritical or not, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume not.
I think Gilmore's points about the key being a good organizational structure for the DNS system carries the day. In the current system, it does seem that, first, allowing companies to make too much money off DNS is inviting trouble, and second, the registration databases can't (and shouldn't try to) provide a service to eliminate cybersquatting.
I certainly don't think making domain names more expensive will help anything.
The cooling off period idea of Hall's was good, too.
However, I don't think that having a bunch more top level domains will solve cybersquatting either. In fact, I think there probably isn't a clean solution to cybersquatting.
perhaps openNIC could eventually find a better compromise than the current system, however (and perhaps not, who knows?)
-- bayle
yes, i agree.
Linus's policy not to check for patents on things he independently develops is correct.
however, given that a patent has been brought to his attention in this case, he now needs to deal with it, even though it sounds like it is a bogus patent. for example, someone should find and take note of prior art somewhere.
you haven't really given any reasons why you think the "non-obvious" bar is set too low. the worst problems with the patent system stem from the patenting of obvious things. the cost of being barred from doing obvious things far outweighs the benefits of more research and less trade secrets.
certainly, this would be a great idea. let me go on record saying that it would be cool if CmdrTaco allowed direct database access for academic projects.
For those Californians out there, recall that Senator Feinstein was among the signatories on the letter alluded to in the article as "pressure on the DOJ from Congress" to do this.
- bayle
your approach is right. we should not do just anything in the name of taking down the DMCA. but i don't think that getting the DMCA repealed is going too far.
i feel a good heuristic is to err on more individual power, less government power, and less corporate power (in that order). so, while it is very bad to overshoot in the direction of less individual power and more corporate power (the DMCA), we don't have to worry as much about overshooting in the opposite direction.
why is it surprising that students aren't doing well in a subject when, first, they have no interest in it, and, second, they are rushed?
my proposals. first, waste as little time as possible forcing students to learn that which they don't want to learn. in the extreme, this would mean letting high schoolers go out into the work force and then go back to school for free when they realized they missed out. less extreme: alleviate the grade pressure in school and also allow students more choice as to what to study. too much pressure can make a student learn the quadratic formula, but it won't make him or her learn why math is such an interesting and useful thing (which i would argue is more critical for our society).
second, it takes a long time to understand something well. creating mandatory tests against teachers' recommendations will probably create unreasonable curricular requirements that can only be met by teaching to the test. if it takes a year of algebra just to learn algebra concepts, without learning any "hard algebra", so be it. teachers generally have good hearts and are close to the problem, hence their recommendations in these matters should be weighted heavily.
i agree with the above posts: merely typing in someone's name and data is not hacking. furthermore, this was done with good intentions, not to misuse anything. We should (and i do) support the guy who did it.
well, one solution is education:
give more to the EFF.
if we each picked a dollar amount to give to the EFF each time some new terrible development came around, we could do a lot of good. even $5 would help out, because there are lots of us. i'm in for $5/bad development if you folks are.