If these decisions are made locally, you can vote with your feet. (ie, move to another state or county) and if enough ppl care they will have to take notice. Also, you as an individual might have more influence over a local decision.
If they are nationally decided you don't have a choice, and you have just lots one of your "voices" of objection. (one of the most powerful IMO, I might add.)
Lets suppose the government taxes me (ie, takes my money from me without neccisarily having my consent) and spends it on computers to give to the poor because they think it is a good way to spend my money and they know better then me.
That is socialism and is wrong IMO.
If the government or anyone else provides a way for me to give computers to people myself if and only if I choose to so is something else.
That is not soclialism. Much of socialism is more authoritarian. Saying "give stuff to ppl if oyu want, and dont if you dont want" is hardly authoritarian.
Somebody tell me. Did I just waste my time replying to a troll? Oh well, who cares if I did.
The problem I see with how many moderators use their points is that they score it according to their opinion rather than the quality of the post. I honestly don't think you can stop this completely but it can be improved.
My suggestion is to provide two seperate schemes of moderation for each post. Firstly, the moderators score according to the quality of the post (just like it is now) but there is also a separate scale with something like Scores of A to E inclusive which mean A=Agree strongly to E=disagree strongly.
This could be used to generate a "popularity score" which would complement the existing "quality score" for the benefit of those who want to see it.
The major benefit of this IMO though is that is encourages the moderator to seperate their feelings about a post from their view of it's quality.
"Survival of someone who happens to be very big because they once perhaps used to be the fittest and are now bullying the fittest into submission" is bad.
> The government sticks it's nose too much into the economy as it is.
Have you ever visited irc.openprojects.net for example?
- Lots of useful discussion regarding development etc.
- Frequent conferences held discussing the direction of open source projects
- Much much more. There's even a #slashdot channel. The one single file I have seen on this irc network for offer over dcc is a linux kernel patch in #kernelnewbies. That's hardly what I would call illegal or immoral.
I would also add that there are similar channels on #efnet. Just because there are a lot of bad goings on is not a reason to punish the legitimate users by getting rid of the networks.
Even if the people writing the code have written it from scratch and both they and Microsoft agree on that, they might have signed an NDA. (in this case, IIRC from reading LKML, that is what has happened)
The problem then comes down to being able to demonstrate that you haven't used any information provided under the NDA in writing the code. That can be tricky.
I don't think it's important whether this helps unite KDE and GNOME or not.
What's important is that it represents more choice for users and that's always good.
Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as as "good" or "bad" software when it comes to comparing functionality, only "more choice" or "less choice"
Mozilla for KDE in addition to mozilla for GNOME is good news!
What if you have an application which reads and writes files that you specifically do not ever want writing to disk eg for security reasons? That's one other good reason for a ram disk.
Patents have NOTHING to do with copyrights. They are TOTALLY independent entities.
I'm not going to explain it all here, as it's been said many times before by better ppl than me in better ways than I could say it. Go and read about it.
All I will say is that copyrights and licenses are about choice (if you dont like the license, choose another product - there are likely many others)
Whereas patents are about monopilies (albeit temporary.) You will have fewer choices when finding a product containing patented code because not everyone can afford the royalties they would have to pay to the monopolist(s).
Copyright & Licenses bring choice for the consumer and a more competitive market.
Software Patents will (IMO) result in few big rich companies, and the small ppl will suffer.
If you mean "when will there will be a stable Linux release with decent SMP support"
then the answer is "very soon" ie, shortly after 2.4.0 final is released.
Linux 2.2.x is not very good at SMP. That isn't news, everyone knows it. It's no secret.
Linux 2.4.0-test though scales MUCH better. Of course you can't recommend it to ppl yet because it's unfinished and not stable. But SMP scalability is fixed. (fixed == vastly improved, but wait for benchmarks..)
..they are only going to hurt themselves.
This is just another reason not to use AOLs messager.
Use an alternative and encourage your friends to do the same. That's my advice.
> RMS's loss would cut the heart out of the free software movement.
RMS is a great inspiration to me. I now use and write free software because I believe in it, and this is due in part to RMS's work. However, if he were suddenly abducted by aliens I wouldn't suddenly stop believing in, using, and writing free software. In time another figurehead would emerge. There is always someone else.
Similarly, if Linus disappeared, I wouldn't stop reading the kernel source, trying to find and fix bugs and I doubt others would either, and in a short time the right person would assume his position, (probably Alan in the short term I have to admit,) it would ultimately be the best person for the job as decided by all Linux contributers. Such is the nature of the development model IMO.
Yes, of course there would be short term upset if Linus left, but there is upset in any model if the key people suddenly leave. The question is, in which model is the quickest recovery? I know where my money is.
> his quirks make the entire project too reliant upon him.
You could have ended that sentence four words earlier.
What makes you so sure the project would grind to a halt if Linus left? Very little development on this scale has been done in this way before. There is nothing in the past to compare this to that tells me Linus leaving would be a drastically bad thing. Some people (I'm not among them BTW) think it would even be good for Linux.
> Alan and Inigo fight over the "hot seat",
Do you even know these people? I don't, but I know enough about Alan at least to say that I would be very surprised to "fighting" over anything in that way.
I'm almost regretting replying to this. I almost think it's a proper troll.
I don't mean to be insulting, but all I see in what you have said is that you are afraid because you don't understand why the Linux development model works. It seems you would be more comfortable seeing a more traditional approach, but for no rational reason.
It is fairly stable now, true. And it doesn't do any harm to try.
Oh, except when it randomizes your hard drive and suddenly all your data gets eaten because of the truncate() bugs. But apart from that, its okay to try.
Ah, theres also the random oopses. Thats the other thing I forgot, Apart from the truncate() bugs and random oopses, its okay to try.
Whoops, I forgot the memory leaks. you have to reboot quite a lot 'cos of the memory leaks. But... apart from the truncate() bugs, the random oopses, the memory leaks its okay to try.
Eek. theres the memory corruption. It scribbles on your memory. If you can put up with truncate() bugs, random oopses, memory leaks and random corruption then it's definitely stable.
Seriously folks, get linux2.4.0test8-pre6 and test it as much as you can and submit ____proper____ bug reports of any problems. But I would _not_ reccomend using it near "real" data yet - even if you do have 2.2 to srop back to like the previous poster does. remember: fsck is not magic.
(BTW, the truncate() bug is fixed now AFAIK and I made most of the other stuff up for a laugh.)
> At the very least, the final say on all things
> to do with the kernel should be handed to Alan
> Cox,
Hmm. a few things spring to mind..
Don't you think Alan should have some say in what "should be handed to" him? The last I heard, he wasn't terribly happy that he was even seen as second in command, never mind first.
You don't think Linus should be in charge, but what makes you think others would be happy if someone else were?
The only reason Linus is still in charge is because he is bloody good at his job. Do you really believe Linux would have got this far if he weren't?
>..fork the code, but this wouldn't be of
> benefit to the vast majority of Linux users..
It would if it was better. Do you really think anyone would hold back on forking the code if they thought they could do a better job than Linus? I know I wouldn't
No it wouldn't. If I didn't like that a hotel charged me because others had stolen towels in the past, I could choose not to stay in that hotel, or If I felt strongly enough, I could even start my own hotel where people had to bring their own towels. or, I could develop some way to make cheaper towels so it didn't matter. Hopefully you get my point: The consumer has choice, whatever I do or whatever the hotels independently decide to do.
On the other hand, if a government charges me for copying music etc. that I haven't copied, I can hardly choose another government, can I? and I can't even set up an alternative company who doesn't mind their music being copied because the public would still have to pay the tax on the blank media.
The point here: This kind of tax reduces choise for the consumer. It leaves little room to manoeuvre for new companies with new ideas. It is an ill-concieved quick fix solution to a more than complicated problem.
Why not ignore.mp3 and use.ogg for your encoding? It's free and free. Plugins are available for all popular plays on many platforms.
It's better (arguably) than mp3 anyway.
... and in Linux kernel development, which is not really much like either of these systems of government, those who prove themselves over time (and yes, it can take a long time) get things faster / better. Which is good because it's in everyones interest.
Are you suggesting that those who get their patches included first are just somehow a bunch of good friends? I suppose it's a coincidence that they happen to each be (arguably) some of the best in the world at what they do then?
If it's closer to either, Linux development is closer to capitalism since you're more likely to get what you want (your patch included and the kernel fixed) if you can give the kernel gods what they want (proven track record of previous useful or insightful patches of design ideas) Compare these to getting what you want (a new car) because you can give them what they want (a good credit rating to show you are going to pay [compare with "show your patch will probably work])
Hopefully it will improve on the current helix upgrade program.
The major problem I have with it is that it gives no option to keep copies of the downloaded packages locally, so when I want to upgrade my other boxen with the same packages I have to download them again. (unless I copy them from/tmp while its installing them which I do actually, but I want a proper option, not a kludgey workaround)
I know what you mean about discount cards. I don't use one at my local Sainsburys supermarket even though it would save me a few %.
Supposedly, they use the info about what kind of things you buy to target certain products or adverts towards you.. But......
My "fun" idea was to confuse their data as much as possible by deliberately doing ridiculous things. For example, buy all your shopping except specific items without the card and then go back and get the remaining items using the card, but make sure they are a wierd combination. eg, only ever use the card when you buy knives, glue, alcohol and other potentially harmful things. or whenever you use your card, buy nothing but 120 toilet rolls. or 30kg of rice!
Imagine the stupid junk mail you would get sent by whoever they sell your info to!
(okay, to real ppl it's probably not funny, so i must be a loon)
> those same companies hope to be in the dominant
> proprietary vendor position.
IBM have already been there and done that. And look what happened to their dominance. They don't want to go back and do it all again.
And look what is happening to Microsoft as a result of their dominance.
Large companies are beginning to learn that increasing numbers of their customers don't want them controlling the markets.
> IBM's 'commitment' to Linux can be summed up as:
> "Thanks for the kernel!"
What is more important IMO than their commitment to Linux (the kernel) is their commitment to open source. And if you think they are not committed in that area you haven't been reading much IBM related press lately. (some clues: Gnome foundation, AFS, sash, linux s/390, XFS, jikes, etc etc...)
> Companies will use Linux as long as it is
> beneficial to them,
If its beneficial to their customers (or for whatever reason, their customers want it) then in the long run it is beneficial to them also.
Slashdot Mirror
If these decisions are made locally, you can vote with your feet. (ie, move to another state or county) and if enough ppl care they will have to take notice. Also, you as an individual might have more influence over a local decision.
If they are nationally decided you don't have a choice, and you have just lots one of your "voices" of objection. (one of the most powerful IMO, I might add.)
Lets suppose the government taxes me (ie, takes my money from me without neccisarily having my consent) and spends it on computers to give to the poor because they think it is a good way to spend my money and they know better then me.
That is socialism and is wrong IMO.
If the government or anyone else provides a way for me to give computers to people myself if and only if I choose to so is something else.
That is not soclialism. Much of socialism is more authoritarian. Saying "give stuff to ppl if oyu want, and dont if you dont want" is hardly authoritarian.
Somebody tell me. Did I just waste my time replying to a troll? Oh well, who cares if I did.
The problem I see with how many moderators use their points is that they score it according to their opinion rather than the quality of the post. I honestly don't think you can stop this completely but it can be improved.
My suggestion is to provide two seperate schemes of moderation for each post. Firstly, the moderators score according to the quality of the post (just like it is now) but there is also a separate scale with something like Scores of A to E inclusive which mean A=Agree strongly to E=disagree strongly.
This could be used to generate a "popularity score" which would complement the existing "quality score" for the benefit of those who want to see it.
The major benefit of this IMO though is that is encourages the moderator to seperate their feelings about a post from their view of it's quality.
> But this does nothing to get Linux onto
> mainstream desktops.
Nor does it do anything to make lemons bigger or encourage owls to explode.
Perhaps that's because it isn't intending to do any of these things, and nobody is suggesting that it should?
"Survival of the fittest" is good.
"Survival of someone who happens to be very big because they once perhaps used to be the fittest and are now bullying the fittest into submission" is bad.
> The government sticks it's nose too much into the economy as it is.
I whole-heartedly agree.
> I say, "Good for Microsoft."
I whole-heartedly think "bollocks"
> , and all of the other IRC networks,
Getting a bit general aren't we?
Have you ever visited irc.openprojects.net for example?
- Lots of useful discussion regarding development etc.
- Frequent conferences held discussing the direction of open source projects
- Much much more. There's even a #slashdot channel. The one single file I have seen on this irc network for offer over dcc is a linux kernel patch in #kernelnewbies. That's hardly what I would call illegal or immoral.
I would also add that there are similar channels on #efnet. Just because there are a lot of bad goings on is not a reason to punish the legitimate users by getting rid of the networks.
Its not that simple.
Even if the people writing the code have written it from scratch and both they and Microsoft agree on that, they might have signed an NDA. (in this case, IIRC from reading LKML, that is what has happened)
The problem then comes down to being able to demonstrate that you haven't used any information provided under the NDA in writing the code. That can be tricky.
I don't think it's important whether this helps unite KDE and GNOME or not.
What's important is that it represents more choice for users and that's always good.
Personally, I don't think there's such a thing as as "good" or "bad" software when it comes to comparing functionality, only "more choice" or "less choice"
Mozilla for KDE in addition to mozilla for GNOME is good news!
What if you have an application which reads and writes files that you specifically do not ever want writing to disk eg for security reasons? That's one other good reason for a ram disk.
*Sigh*
Here we go again....
> Copyright!? on software!? unbelievable!
Patents have NOTHING to do with copyrights. They are TOTALLY independent entities.
I'm not going to explain it all here, as it's been said many times before by better ppl than me in better ways than I could say it. Go and read about it.
All I will say is that copyrights and licenses are about choice (if you dont like the license, choose another product - there are likely many others)
Whereas patents are about monopilies (albeit temporary.) You will have fewer choices when finding a product containing patented code because not everyone can afford the royalties they would have to pay to the monopolist(s).
Copyright & Licenses bring choice for the consumer and a more competitive market.
Software Patents will (IMO) result in few big rich companies, and the small ppl will suffer.
> When is Linux going to get decent SMP support?
If you mean "when will there will be a stable Linux release with decent SMP support"
then the answer is "very soon" ie, shortly after 2.4.0 final is released.
Linux 2.2.x is not very good at SMP. That isn't news, everyone knows it. It's no secret.
Linux 2.4.0-test though scales MUCH better. Of course you can't recommend it to ppl yet because it's unfinished and not stable. But SMP scalability is fixed. (fixed == vastly improved, but wait for benchmarks..)
> I'd pick linux over a broken BSD distro any day.
So would I, but I'm having difficulty finding a broken BSD distro. All the ones I tried worked fine.
..they are only going to hurt themselves.
This is just another reason not to use AOLs messager.
Use an alternative and encourage your friends to do the same. That's my advice.
> RMS's loss would cut the heart out of the free software movement.
RMS is a great inspiration to me. I now use and write free software because I believe in it, and this is due in part to RMS's work. However, if he were suddenly abducted by aliens I wouldn't suddenly stop believing in, using, and writing free software. In time another figurehead would emerge. There is always someone else.
Similarly, if Linus disappeared, I wouldn't stop reading the kernel source, trying to find and fix bugs and I doubt others would either, and in a short time the right person would assume his position, (probably Alan in the short term I have to admit,) it would ultimately be the best person for the job as decided by all Linux contributers. Such is the nature of the development model IMO.
Yes, of course there would be short term upset if Linus left, but there is upset in any model if the key people suddenly leave. The question is, in which model is the quickest recovery? I know where my money is.
> his quirks make the entire project too reliant upon him.
You could have ended that sentence four words earlier.
What makes you so sure the project would grind to a halt if Linus left? Very little development on this scale has been done in this way before. There is nothing in the past to compare this to that tells me Linus leaving would be a drastically bad thing. Some people (I'm not among them BTW) think it would even be good for Linux.
> Alan and Inigo fight over the "hot seat",
Do you even know these people? I don't, but I know enough about Alan at least to say that I would be very surprised to "fighting" over anything in that way.
I'm almost regretting replying to this. I almost think it's a proper troll.
I don't mean to be insulting, but all I see in what you have said is that you are afraid because you don't understand why the Linux development model works. It seems you would be more comfortable seeing a more traditional approach, but for no rational reason.
It is fairly stable now, true. And it doesn't do any harm to try.
Oh, except when it randomizes your hard drive and suddenly all your data gets eaten because of the truncate() bugs. But apart from that, its okay to try.
Ah, theres also the random oopses. Thats the other thing I forgot, Apart from the truncate() bugs and random oopses, its okay to try.
Whoops, I forgot the memory leaks. you have to reboot quite a lot 'cos of the memory leaks. But... apart from the truncate() bugs, the random oopses, the memory leaks its okay to try.
Eek. theres the memory corruption. It scribbles on your memory. If you can put up with truncate() bugs, random oopses, memory leaks and random corruption then it's definitely stable.
Seriously folks, get linux2.4.0test8-pre6 and test it as much as you can and submit ____proper____ bug reports of any problems. But I would _not_ reccomend using it near "real" data yet - even if you do have 2.2 to srop back to like the previous poster does. remember: fsck is not magic.
(BTW, the truncate() bug is fixed now AFAIK and I made most of the other stuff up for a laugh.)
> At the very least, the final say on all things
..fork the code, but this wouldn't be of
..
> to do with the kernel should be handed to Alan
> Cox,
Hmm. a few things spring to mind..
Don't you think Alan should have some say in what "should be handed to" him? The last I heard, he wasn't terribly happy that he was even seen as second in command, never mind first.
You don't think Linus should be in charge, but what makes you think others would be happy if someone else were?
The only reason Linus is still in charge is because he is bloody good at his job. Do you really believe Linux would have got this far if he weren't?
>
> benefit to the vast majority of Linux users
It would if it was better. Do you really think anyone would hold back on forking the code if they thought they could do a better job than Linus? I know I wouldn't
No it wouldn't. If I didn't like that a hotel charged me because others had stolen towels in the past, I could choose not to stay in that hotel, or If I felt strongly enough, I could even start my own hotel where people had to bring their own towels. or, I could develop some way to make cheaper towels so it didn't matter. Hopefully you get my point: The consumer has choice, whatever I do or whatever the hotels independently decide to do.
On the other hand, if a government charges me for copying music etc. that I haven't copied, I can hardly choose another government, can I? and I can't even set up an alternative company who doesn't mind their music being copied because the public would still have to pay the tax on the blank media.
The point here: This kind of tax reduces choise for the consumer. It leaves little room to manoeuvre for new companies with new ideas. It is an ill-concieved quick fix solution to a more than complicated problem.
Why not ignore .mp3 and use .ogg for your encoding? It's free and free. Plugins are available for all popular plays on many platforms.
It's better (arguably) than mp3 anyway.
http://vorbis.com
... and in Linux kernel development, which is not really much like either of these systems of government, those who prove themselves over time (and yes, it can take a long time) get things faster / better. Which is good because it's in everyones interest.
Are you suggesting that those who get their patches included first are just somehow a bunch of good friends? I suppose it's a coincidence that they happen to each be (arguably) some of the best in the world at what they do then?
If it's closer to either, Linux development is closer to capitalism since you're more likely to get what you want (your patch included and the kernel fixed) if you can give the kernel gods what they want (proven track record of previous useful or insightful patches of design ideas) Compare these to getting what you want (a new car) because you can give them what they want (a good credit rating to show you are going to pay [compare with "show your patch will probably work])
.. then it is fantastic news.
At last these two great products, GNOME and KDE can compete on their merits alone. That's surely in everyone's interest.
Hopefully it will improve on the current helix upgrade program.
/tmp while its installing them which I do actually, but I want a proper option, not a kludgey workaround)
The major problem I have with it is that it gives no option to keep copies of the downloaded packages locally, so when I want to upgrade my other boxen with the same packages I have to download them again. (unless I copy them from
I know what you mean about discount cards. I don't use one at my local Sainsburys supermarket even though it would save me a few %.
Supposedly, they use the info about what kind of things you buy to target certain products or adverts towards you.. But......
My "fun" idea was to confuse their data as much as possible by deliberately doing ridiculous things. For example, buy all your shopping except specific items without the card and then go back and get the remaining items using the card, but make sure they are a wierd combination. eg, only ever use the card when you buy knives, glue, alcohol and other potentially harmful things. or whenever you use your card, buy nothing but 120 toilet rolls. or 30kg of rice!
Imagine the stupid junk mail you would get sent by whoever they sell your info to!
(okay, to real ppl it's probably not funny, so i must be a loon)
> those same companies hope to be in the dominant
> proprietary vendor position.
IBM have already been there and done that. And look what happened to their dominance. They don't want to go back and do it all again.
And look what is happening to Microsoft as a result of their dominance.
Large companies are beginning to learn that increasing numbers of their customers don't want them controlling the markets.
> IBM's 'commitment' to Linux can be summed up as:
> "Thanks for the kernel!"
What is more important IMO than their commitment to Linux (the kernel) is their commitment to open source. And if you think they are not committed in that area you haven't been reading much IBM related press lately. (some clues: Gnome foundation, AFS, sash, linux s/390, XFS, jikes, etc etc...)
> Companies will use Linux as long as it is
> beneficial to them,
If its beneficial to their customers (or for whatever reason, their customers want it) then in the long run it is beneficial to them also.
No you're way off. They are not print servers.
They are development machines which we use to edit and compile and print source and other documents from.
They use the HP jetdirects to print (the Jetdirect models we have DO support linux, although I didn't set it up so I don't know how it works exactly.)
Also, it's not a 25 man shop. We have over 1700 employees worldwide. (Have a look if you like http://www.dcstrans.com)