"The reason Linux is seeing this recent resurgence is due to..."
One of the reasons is that the distros are coming up with very good installers and that more and more hardware is supported. It was easier for me to install RH 8.0 next to Windows than it was to install Windows 98 by itself.
Linux is viable on the desktop. Note that I didn't say that it's dominant. I'm still trying to get my scanner working:-), but it's very, very close and has grown as much in three years as Windows has since 3.1.
The RIAA is, without a doubt, the worst PR group in history. The only thing they haven't done yet is to alienate most of the buying public. That step is coming if people who know about the issues keep spreading the word.
I wonder if there is anyone left who can claim that file sharing/music stealing is a bad thing and keep a straight face. Me, I copy discs from the library, from my friends, and from gnutella. The only music I've bought in the last two years are discs by artists who market their work under their own small labels such as Karen Savoca (go buy her stuff if you like cool folk).
The RIAA represents labels who turn out 95% crap anyway. I won't be buying anything from them and I'll keep up to date on the things they are doing to steal money from me. I'll also make discs for my family and friends whenever they ask.
Come put me in jail, Mr. RIAA spokesman. Until you do, let me know if there's a disc you need copied.
This is the beauty of using an open system. I've used KDE, I'm using Gnome. Switching between them is pretty much painless (as is switching between KDE/Gnome and Windows). That there are two systems for window management likely means that both will get better faster. Gnome sees a great innovation in KDE and implements it. KDE sees that Gnome is running faster and works to make KDE run faster. And back and forth.
The problem with Windows has been that there was no real competition. That problem is being solved. I know that there are folks out there who are devoted to Debian and hate what Red Hat has done with 8.0, but regardless, I could hand the Red Hat discs to any of my family members and they could install it on their computer without wiping out the Windows install. This is one thing the Linux community has been shooting for. Are there problems with RH 8.0 and BlueCurve? Sure, but it's something that compares well with XP.
I like having KDE and Gnome to choose from and, at this point, I don't know enough to choose one over the other forever and ever amen. Right now, though, I have the choice and that's what brought me to the party in the first place.
Maybe this is dumb to say, since I can probably run something similar under KDE, but is it expected that someone will pump out a version of Safari to run on my Red Hat box? Then I could compare it. I can't afford a Mac.;-)
This memo and ESR's idiot commentary have convinced me once and for all that, when it comes to GNU, Linux, and Open Source, neither MS nor ESR matter anymore if they ever did.
MS makes their software and lost of people use it. If they make Office for Linux, lots of people will use that until OpenOffice shows itself to be much better. Meanwhile, those who run Linux will continue to run Linux and (like me) will switch their parents, friends, and children over to Linux so that we don't have to do tech support for family Windows machines.
ESR will continue to rant and rave like a frothing maniac until people stop listening. Reminds me of software that falls out of use because it is a remnant of the past and hasn't kept pace with how things are today. ESR will be replaced by someone else who won't sound like a high school freshman.
I agree that ESR sounds here like an idiot. I remember that, some time ago, during a windows refund day he dressed up as Obi Wan. What's up with that? He seems to want both to be _the_ spokesperson for Linux and a geeky idiot at the same time. The two things don't match.
For many years, when I wasn't running Linux, I hated Microsoft, Bill Gates and the lot of them. Then I got Linux running and realized that it's much more fun for me. So now I don't boot Windows very often. All my emnity toward MS was just a waste of time, it was childish, and it did no one any good. Does MS make software that I like to use? No, not often. Are they evil? Well, probably not.
Back to ESR. "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" whether you agree with it or not was a good piece of writing. It was well crafted and I enjoy reading it. The commentary along with this memo is ridiculously bad writing. Embarassing stuff. Were I a developer of Linux, I would be pissed that this guy was speaking for me. As a mere user, I'm embarrassed that he thinks this is helpful.
Raymond ought to pull this version down, put up the memo and leave his commentary at the end or on an optional page. His argument would be made for him and he'd look the part of an intelligent man.
If anyone is interested in reading _Beowulf_, they should get the Seamus Heaney translation. It's difficult to imagine anything better than this. I read the story in high school and again in both college and graduate school but it wasn't until I read the Heaney translation that I understood what all the fuss was about. It's an incredible book and it seems to have taken the ear of a poet to get the translation right.
And if you get a chance to hear someone who can read the original, go to it. Just gorgeous stuff even if it's pretty tough to follow.
Your line of thinking about wishing to remain anonymous conflicting with civil disobedience is, in this case, not applicable. Part of the battle that's being waged by p2p users is the battle to remain anonymous on the net. That users remain anonymous is, in itself and in the face of the radical Bush administration's regime, an act of civil disobedience. That it doesn't follow exactly the Ghandi model is beside the point.
In this day and age, we have to broaden what it means to be civily disobedient. Using p2p isn't on its own an example of civil disobedience any more than driving seventy mph on a sixty-five mph highway would be. But, using p2p and sharing music with the intent to open the network _is_ to my mind civily disobedient. Same action, different mindset, different outcome.
That p2p users do not turn themselves in at the local police station, request arrest under the terms of the dcma or other laws, isn't a matter here and neither is identity. The identity here belongs to the the group of users, rather than the individual.
Perhaps it would be more fitting to term p2p use as a new revolution for independence. We have seen the irresponsible taxes that some corporations are levying on users. We have seen that our government has sided more and more of late with the oppressive acts of some of these corporations. And now we, the revolutionaries, are dumping tea in the harbor with gnutella.
There's a line from the musical _1776_ in which Ben Franklin says that Americans at the time were subjects of the king and that never has a natural resource been so squandered. The same is true of music publishers. Phish is going to make a ton of money from users just as the Dead did years ago. They understand that respecting users loses you very little (the cost of some copying) and that disrespecting (dcma) users loses much more (napster).
I for one am willing to say that civil disobedience now comes with a 1770's twist of revolution. So be it. The revolution will be anonymous!
I've been reading Lawrence Lessig's _The Future of Ideas_ and he talked about this and made it clear why it would happen and the inevitability of it. Cable is the closed network of our time. There are far too many controls on it. I wonder how it is that the network providers are so short-sighted that they believe that this model is the way to go.
As for peer-to-peer and that it trades only illegal stuff, well that's hogwash. Yes, p2p is being used for a lot of file sharing right now and most of it is still protected by (an outrageous system of) copyrights. But p2p is an infant and there is no way to tell what it will be used for in even one year's time. I bet that p2p users will outwit the cable companies, bypass them and, unless they open their networks, make them irrelevant.
What will come in the place of cable. Hell, I don't know, but the cable industries stands of today feel a lot like aol's work of yesterday. Aol's dying. Cable will be next. Something else will take its place.
Until then, if you've got access to dsl and you value openness, call Verizon or whoever. The phone companies are the only ones who have to leave things open. Though, that might change. Things are getting creepy under the Generalisimo Bush. Egad.
The ISS hasn't done one of the most important things any space program can and must do: generate interest. It's not that NASA has to do a May sweeps thing, but they need to do something sexy and exciting (e.g. the Mars Rover) and do it well. One of the things that attracted all sorts of positive media attention was that the Mars Rover mission was cheap. The public ate that up. "We get all these cool pictures of Mars, a neat little robot to look at, and it didn't cost that much? Wow! Give me more of that." Of course, then someone mixed up inches and centimeters and the life went out of that balloon. Oh well.
The point is this: landing men on the moon was sexy. People were desperate for it. The goal wasn't just NASA's but was that of the entire country. And the goal of the ISS would be? Would be? Beuller? Beuller?
Why did we go to the moon? I would wager that part of the reason we went was because it sounded cool to do. I know that's simplistic and there was the whole cold war to think of, but basically, it was really, really cool as in, "dude, we walked on the moon." In the process a whole slew of stuff happened, was discovered, was improved...and we're better off because of it. (Of course, we never really went to the moon and only a fool believes otherwise , but the point is still the same.)
NASA _should_ scrap the ISS, now. Don't OS/2 it. (Pardon me while I put on the flame retardant suit.) Sure, a lot of money has been dumped into it. Fine. Leave it there for a while and if we can figure out a way to use it well, then go ahead.
Okay, now for the controversial part: Ground the space shuttles. The shuttle builds the ISS. The ISS is no more. The shuttle is needed no more. There are better ways to put satelites in orbit.
Without the ISS, NASA can concentrate on "cool" missions again. Send a probe to Pluto, to see if we can. Send rovers to the moons of Saturn, to see if we can. Do cool stuff that will capture the minds and hearts of the public who foots the bill.
Without the shuttle, NASA could concentrate on creating a "cool" and "inexpensive" manned spaceflight vehicle, one that doesn't need to blast off.
Not that any of this matters. I teach public school which isn't that different from NASA. Schools don't change even when they know they should---they don't change because they fear change. NASA, seems to me, is about the same.
All of this is beside the point. Whether anyone wants it or not, the likelihood of imposing standards on Linux is next to nil and probably a mistake. Every few months, the subject comes up for bid on/. and people get all upset about it. "Linux should give up all windows and get back to the command line" vies with "Linux needs one and only one window/desktop system and it needs it now." Hogwash.
I'm new to Linux, struggling with certain aspects but having absolutely no trouble getting onto the web, writing documents, and working with mail. Could I have done this three years ago? Well, I tried and the effort and time were more than I could afford then. Now, I'm running it without too much trouble and actually getting the hang of some of the innards. Back when I couldn't run things, there were gnome and kde. Now, there are still gnome and kde. The difference is that both of them are better and everything around them is getting better.
The improvement didn't come from standardization, did it? Was there someone or some group who came along and said, this is how it will be? Did I miss that?
Screw it. Linux isn't going to take over the desktop this year. Who gives a crap? Linux won't take over the desktop next year either. So what? The only things that matter are these: next year, Linux will be even more powerful and, at the same time, easier to use. Guess what? More people will come along for those two reasons.
This is what I've been thinking. There is no way to stop the advance of the technologies that are making antiques out of the laws we've been living under. I can understand that governments are slow to figure this stuff out--governments aren't good at looking forward--but it seems that there has to be a business that can get beyond what has been and get to what the world looks like now.
Netscape went to the courts to solve their problems. That didn't work out well for them now did it. I wonder if any of these companies will have better luck. The difference, seems to me, is that Netscape was against Microsoft which is kind of a big corporation. These cases are going to be fought by the big businesses against a horde of ones and twos. I wonder how it's all going to work out.
Bigger for those of us who are not yet on trial, probably not as big for the guy on trial. Here's the thing: the legal system, as in copyright law, is so far behind the technology that it can't quite cope with what's going on. It doesn't matter what the law _is_. We have to start thinking about what the law will be. Lessig's idea that the law will be code, or rather that code will supplant law seems appropriate to think of here.
The question I have is this: what's the next frontier? What is the next law which proves to be obsolete in our world? And what will each of us do to bring about the change? This last bit is important because, as the laws need to grow, someone will have to help them along. Those people who help the change, will likely be prosecuted because the law is there to protect someone's interests. Those interests come with a lot of money. So the law is on the old money side. The code, it seems to me, is on the new money side. I don't believe that code will lead to free (beer). There will be free stuff, but there will also be money. My guess is that it won't be the money of the blue chips unless law beats code.
Back in 1986 I went to Clarkson U, in part because of a similar deal. I got a Zenith AT or something like it with two 5-1/4" drives (one was high density!) and no hard drive. I failed out a year and a half later, but here I am at/. so it couldn't have all been a waste. Could it? (On second thought, don't answer that...)
Yeah, it will be the network's fault. And since there are no uses for a non-regulated network, it's obvious that such a person is guilty of not only facilitating terrorism, but perhaps supporting it.
Now that I think of it, there's another person running an insecure network: The Postmaster General. Yeah, terrorists could send letters to each other and, if the USPS doesn't open, read, and monitor them, the Postmaster is just running an insecure network that could bring about more havoc and terrorism. I say that we've got to lock up that Postmaster person and save ourselves. Who needs the mail anyway?
I know that we can write letters to our representatives and senators. I know that we can make phone calls to them. I know that we can send email, but I also know that that's looked upon as the least effective way of getting their attentions.
Is there something more that we can do to make this a known situation? If there is a large group of people who understand how dangerous many of these homeland security measures are, and they make noise, the poll-driven political system will roll some of these things back.
But if we don't get that large group (larger than/. readers) together, and if we don't make noise, then the whole "we're at war" nonsense spewing out of W's mouth will scare the sheep into giving up rights they don't know that they need.
So, my questions are these:
Is someone helping to create this large group?
If so, how do the rest of us get involved?
If not, how do we start one?
Does anyone have a better idea how to stop these measures?
The really powerful bit in here is about code becoming or supplanting law. This is strong stuff. The beauty of good law is that it is transparent. Everyone has the same power to use/abuse it. I'm concerned with the Bush admins imprisonment of hundreds of people with no trial in sight because it uses the tools of law (police, fbi, courts, etc) without any of the corresponding transparency. This is just one small example of how law can be made bad (even with the best of intentions) simply by cloaking it and keeping it from view.
Now, consider that the law is tracking about twenty to thirty years behind the pace of computing and communication. I don't expect law to catch up. Technology evolution is too fast and law/government evolution is too slow. So, the technology will be the law. Closed technology presents grave danger to such simple freedoms as freedom of speech since the medium for much of that speech is controlled, through closed code, by corporations. Even something as simple as Corel's or Microsoft's proprietary formats for word processing are examples of speech being limited when thought of in this way.
I'm working to use open software, to support open software law, and to promote the use of open software by others. Why? It's not because I hate Microsoft. It's because I see us going through something similar to 1776. There are great minds at work here, trying to carve out space for freedom. I can't do much (I don't have the brains for it) but I support those who are looking out for me.
Code is law. Code is becoming law. Either way, this is powerful and important stuff.
One last thing: how come the majority of computer/internet users don't give a damn?
I'm concerned that Linux is not going to make it to the big time for one simple reason. While coders are working on the system, developers are writing applications, and the press is writing about Linux, there is no concerted effort by a central group that is pursuing important lawsuits against those who use the word "Linux," the syllable "lin," or the letter L in their product names. Further, the penquins at are zoo are labeled as such without any notice that they are not related to or shareholders of a Linux company. I for one am confused by these misleading names and animals and I am sure that if they aren't stopped, and I mean soon, Linux is sure to fade into obscurity.
Can't someone do anything about this problem before it's too late? And why isn't Linus leading the legal fight? What's he got that is more important to work on?
Actually, the difference is big. I think of copyright as an extremely flawed law. Copyright, at one time I suppose, was the same as ownership, but now it's used in a very different way. I respect ownership, especially by the creative individual, but I have a great deal of trouble with copyrights attached to the likes of Sony, Disney, et.al. There's something different.
A local artist named Karen Savoca writes fantastic music, performs very well, and sells her discs at her concerts. I have purchased every one of them and encouraged friends to purchase them as well. One way I got a friend to buy some was by making a copy of one of the discs I had already purchased. She keeps that copy in her car and has a purchased copy at home. I wouldn't think of stealing from Karen Savoca. But I'm currently listening to something from Warner Bros. that I copied from the library. The two things are, to me, very different.
Oddly enough, no, I wasn't downloading music until the last year or so. I used to buy a whole lot of music. Back when it was just albums and I was in high school, I bought about three a week. I remember when the cd came out and Stereo Review talked about how it would really take off once the record companies got the things down below ten bucks. I'm still waiting for that day.
What revenue stream have they lost because of me? Not much, but I haven't bought a disc in a year and probably won't for another year or so. Wait, I take it back, I have bought three discs this year. But I bought them with a friend. He paid half and I paid half. He paid the tax so he gets to keep the originals. I keep the copies and pay less than ten bucks a shot.
Nonsense. This isn't the end of the chain of events, more like the middle. To say that the end result of sharing/stealing music is that the users will not be able to play music on their computers is short-sighted. Of course DIGITAL music will be played on DIGITAL computers. Bits are bits even if they are encrypted, masked, or otherwise blocked by some system. Every encryption system is, to put it in overly simplified terms, a puzzle to be solved. There are those among us who love good puzzles and some of theose same folks like to listen to music while they solve those problems. the system will be broken. Music will continue to be sold for profit and shared/stolen for some time. I can't imagine just yet how the whole thing will end, but I know that it will not end with music being banned from computers. That doesn't fit with my idea of how the world works.
I can't wait for the music industry to implode. An abusive power (whether in goverment (old school) or coporate (new school)) must be subverted. Funny thing. I just went to the library yesterday from which I had ordered eight discs I've been wanting. Spent an hour or so last night ripping copies of them to give to myself as a holiday present.
Am I stealing? Yes, yes I am. Do I feel badly about it? No, no I don't. How come? Because the media companies have so far overstepped the boundaries of decency, that I have lost the ability to feel their pain.
Isn't there one executive at one of these companies who has the slightest idea or vision of how this is going to work out?
Finally, I agree with the poster who said simply that this will be hacked. It will indeed be hacked and it's likely that it will be hacked before the discs are widely available. Then the music will be on p2p and the system will continue to dissolve and fade away.
Seems to me that this is impetus to have an open source system for publishing documents to the web. I post documents to the web for my students. They all use ms word, but I'm unwilling to post the docs in that. However, I need for them to appear as I want them to appear, so html is not going to work. Instead, for the moment, I post in.pdf format. If there were something else, something free or at least open source, I would use it in a second. Maybe, just maybe, having ms take over the market (which they would likely do if they actually produce this software) will lead to an open product. "Isn't it pretty to think so."
Does anyone have or know where to get figures on how small Phoenix is getting. I wondered about this and imagine I could just search the old builds, but wouldn't this be a good thing to have up on a Phoenix page somewhere. I'm imagining a graph that might show the size of the build, the memory usage, and the speed with which the browser loads and creates new windows. Maybe along the bottom could be a note about which features have been added at each milestone. It could make a good "marketing" tool even though the browser is free. Seems like the sort of thing that reviewers would go nuts for.
Slashdot Mirror
"The reason Linux is seeing this recent resurgence is due to..."
:-), but it's very, very close and has grown as much in three years as Windows has since 3.1.
One of the reasons is that the distros are coming up with very good installers and that more and more hardware is supported. It was easier for me to install RH 8.0 next to Windows than it was to install Windows 98 by itself.
Linux is viable on the desktop. Note that I didn't say that it's dominant. I'm still trying to get my scanner working
The RIAA is, without a doubt, the worst PR group in history. The only thing they haven't done yet is to alienate most of the buying public. That step is coming if people who know about the issues keep spreading the word.
I wonder if there is anyone left who can claim that file sharing/music stealing is a bad thing and keep a straight face. Me, I copy discs from the library, from my friends, and from gnutella. The only music I've bought in the last two years are discs by artists who market their work under their own small labels such as Karen Savoca (go buy her stuff if you like cool folk).
The RIAA represents labels who turn out 95% crap anyway. I won't be buying anything from them and I'll keep up to date on the things they are doing to steal money from me. I'll also make discs for my family and friends whenever they ask.
Come put me in jail, Mr. RIAA spokesman. Until you do, let me know if there's a disc you need copied.
This is the beauty of using an open system. I've used KDE, I'm using Gnome. Switching between them is pretty much painless (as is switching between KDE/Gnome and Windows). That there are two systems for window management likely means that both will get better faster. Gnome sees a great innovation in KDE and implements it. KDE sees that Gnome is running faster and works to make KDE run faster. And back and forth.
The problem with Windows has been that there was no real competition. That problem is being solved. I know that there are folks out there who are devoted to Debian and hate what Red Hat has done with 8.0, but regardless, I could hand the Red Hat discs to any of my family members and they could install it on their computer without wiping out the Windows install. This is one thing the Linux community has been shooting for. Are there problems with RH 8.0 and BlueCurve? Sure, but it's something that compares well with XP.
I like having KDE and Gnome to choose from and, at this point, I don't know enough to choose one over the other forever and ever amen. Right now, though, I have the choice and that's what brought me to the party in the first place.
Maybe this is dumb to say, since I can probably run something similar under KDE, but is it expected that someone will pump out a version of Safari to run on my Red Hat box? Then I could compare it. I can't afford a Mac. ;-)
This memo and ESR's idiot commentary have convinced me once and for all that, when it comes to GNU, Linux, and Open Source, neither MS nor ESR matter anymore if they ever did.
MS makes their software and lost of people use it. If they make Office for Linux, lots of people will use that until OpenOffice shows itself to be much better. Meanwhile, those who run Linux will continue to run Linux and (like me) will switch their parents, friends, and children over to Linux so that we don't have to do tech support for family Windows machines.
ESR will continue to rant and rave like a frothing maniac until people stop listening. Reminds me of software that falls out of use because it is a remnant of the past and hasn't kept pace with how things are today. ESR will be replaced by someone else who won't sound like a high school freshman.
Until then, I'll just keep learning Linux.
I agree that ESR sounds here like an idiot. I remember that, some time ago, during a windows refund day he dressed up as Obi Wan. What's up with that? He seems to want both to be _the_ spokesperson for Linux and a geeky idiot at the same time. The two things don't match.
For many years, when I wasn't running Linux, I hated Microsoft, Bill Gates and the lot of them. Then I got Linux running and realized that it's much more fun for me. So now I don't boot Windows very often. All my emnity toward MS was just a waste of time, it was childish, and it did no one any good. Does MS make software that I like to use? No, not often. Are they evil? Well, probably not.
Back to ESR. "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" whether you agree with it or not was a good piece of writing. It was well crafted and I enjoy reading it. The commentary along with this memo is ridiculously bad writing. Embarassing stuff. Were I a developer of Linux, I would be pissed that this guy was speaking for me. As a mere user, I'm embarrassed that he thinks this is helpful.
Raymond ought to pull this version down, put up the memo and leave his commentary at the end or on an optional page. His argument would be made for him and he'd look the part of an intelligent man.
If anyone is interested in reading _Beowulf_, they should get the Seamus Heaney translation. It's difficult to imagine anything better than this. I read the story in high school and again in both college and graduate school but it wasn't until I read the Heaney translation that I understood what all the fuss was about. It's an incredible book and it seems to have taken the ear of a poet to get the translation right.
And if you get a chance to hear someone who can read the original, go to it. Just gorgeous stuff even if it's pretty tough to follow.
Your line of thinking about wishing to remain anonymous conflicting with civil disobedience is, in this case, not applicable. Part of the battle that's being waged by p2p users is the battle to remain anonymous on the net. That users remain anonymous is, in itself and in the face of the radical Bush administration's regime, an act of civil disobedience. That it doesn't follow exactly the Ghandi model is beside the point.
In this day and age, we have to broaden what it means to be civily disobedient. Using p2p isn't on its own an example of civil disobedience any more than driving seventy mph on a sixty-five mph highway would be. But, using p2p and sharing music with the intent to open the network _is_ to my mind civily disobedient. Same action, different mindset, different outcome.
That p2p users do not turn themselves in at the local police station, request arrest under the terms of the dcma or other laws, isn't a matter here and neither is identity. The identity here belongs to the the group of users, rather than the individual.
Perhaps it would be more fitting to term p2p use as a new revolution for independence. We have seen the irresponsible taxes that some corporations are levying on users. We have seen that our government has sided more and more of late with the oppressive acts of some of these corporations. And now we, the revolutionaries, are dumping tea in the harbor with gnutella.
There's a line from the musical _1776_ in which Ben Franklin says that Americans at the time were subjects of the king and that never has a natural resource been so squandered. The same is true of music publishers. Phish is going to make a ton of money from users just as the Dead did years ago. They understand that respecting users loses you very little (the cost of some copying) and that disrespecting (dcma) users loses much more (napster).
I for one am willing to say that civil disobedience now comes with a 1770's twist of revolution. So be it. The revolution will be anonymous!
I've been reading Lawrence Lessig's _The Future of Ideas_ and he talked about this and made it clear why it would happen and the inevitability of it. Cable is the closed network of our time. There are far too many controls on it. I wonder how it is that the network providers are so short-sighted that they believe that this model is the way to go.
As for peer-to-peer and that it trades only illegal stuff, well that's hogwash. Yes, p2p is being used for a lot of file sharing right now and most of it is still protected by (an outrageous system of) copyrights. But p2p is an infant and there is no way to tell what it will be used for in even one year's time. I bet that p2p users will outwit the cable companies, bypass them and, unless they open their networks, make them irrelevant.
What will come in the place of cable. Hell, I don't know, but the cable industries stands of today feel a lot like aol's work of yesterday. Aol's dying. Cable will be next. Something else will take its place.
Until then, if you've got access to dsl and you value openness, call Verizon or whoever. The phone companies are the only ones who have to leave things open. Though, that might change. Things are getting creepy under the Generalisimo Bush. Egad.
Maybe NASA isn't the group to head manned spaceflight.
The ISS hasn't done one of the most important things any space program can and must do: generate interest. It's not that NASA has to do a May sweeps thing, but they need to do something sexy and exciting (e.g. the Mars Rover) and do it well. One of the things that attracted all sorts of positive media attention was that the Mars Rover mission was cheap. The public ate that up. "We get all these cool pictures of Mars, a neat little robot to look at, and it didn't cost that much? Wow! Give me more of that." Of course, then someone mixed up inches and centimeters and the life went out of that balloon. Oh well.
The point is this: landing men on the moon was sexy. People were desperate for it. The goal wasn't just NASA's but was that of the entire country. And the goal of the ISS would be? Would be? Beuller? Beuller?
Why did we go to the moon? I would wager that part of the reason we went was because it sounded cool to do. I know that's simplistic and there was the whole cold war to think of, but basically, it was really, really cool as in, "dude, we walked on the moon." In the process a whole slew of stuff happened, was discovered, was improved...and we're better off because of it. (Of course, we never really went to the moon and only a fool believes otherwise , but the point is still the same.)
NASA _should_ scrap the ISS, now. Don't OS/2 it. (Pardon me while I put on the flame retardant suit.) Sure, a lot of money has been dumped into it. Fine. Leave it there for a while and if we can figure out a way to use it well, then go ahead.
Okay, now for the controversial part: Ground the space shuttles. The shuttle builds the ISS. The ISS is no more. The shuttle is needed no more. There are better ways to put satelites in orbit.
Without the ISS, NASA can concentrate on "cool" missions again. Send a probe to Pluto, to see if we can. Send rovers to the moons of Saturn, to see if we can. Do cool stuff that will capture the minds and hearts of the public who foots the bill.
Without the shuttle, NASA could concentrate on creating a "cool" and "inexpensive" manned spaceflight vehicle, one that doesn't need to blast off.
Not that any of this matters. I teach public school which isn't that different from NASA. Schools don't change even when they know they should---they don't change because they fear change. NASA, seems to me, is about the same.
All of this is beside the point. Whether anyone wants it or not, the likelihood of imposing standards on Linux is next to nil and probably a mistake. Every few months, the subject comes up for bid on /. and people get all upset about it. "Linux should give up all windows and get back to the command line" vies with "Linux needs one and only one window/desktop system and it needs it now." Hogwash.
I'm new to Linux, struggling with certain aspects but having absolutely no trouble getting onto the web, writing documents, and working with mail. Could I have done this three years ago? Well, I tried and the effort and time were more than I could afford then. Now, I'm running it without too much trouble and actually getting the hang of some of the innards. Back when I couldn't run things, there were gnome and kde. Now, there are still gnome and kde. The difference is that both of them are better and everything around them is getting better.
The improvement didn't come from standardization, did it? Was there someone or some group who came along and said, this is how it will be? Did I miss that?
Screw it. Linux isn't going to take over the desktop this year. Who gives a crap? Linux won't take over the desktop next year either. So what? The only things that matter are these: next year, Linux will be even more powerful and, at the same time, easier to use. Guess what? More people will come along for those two reasons.
This is what I've been thinking. There is no way to stop the advance of the technologies that are making antiques out of the laws we've been living under. I can understand that governments are slow to figure this stuff out--governments aren't good at looking forward--but it seems that there has to be a business that can get beyond what has been and get to what the world looks like now.
Netscape went to the courts to solve their problems. That didn't work out well for them now did it. I wonder if any of these companies will have better luck. The difference, seems to me, is that Netscape was against Microsoft which is kind of a big corporation. These cases are going to be fought by the big businesses against a horde of ones and twos. I wonder how it's all going to work out.
Bigger for those of us who are not yet on trial, probably not as big for the guy on trial. Here's the thing: the legal system, as in copyright law, is so far behind the technology that it can't quite cope with what's going on. It doesn't matter what the law _is_. We have to start thinking about what the law will be. Lessig's idea that the law will be code, or rather that code will supplant law seems appropriate to think of here.
The question I have is this: what's the next frontier? What is the next law which proves to be obsolete in our world? And what will each of us do to bring about the change? This last bit is important because, as the laws need to grow, someone will have to help them along. Those people who help the change, will likely be prosecuted because the law is there to protect someone's interests. Those interests come with a lot of money. So the law is on the old money side. The code, it seems to me, is on the new money side. I don't believe that code will lead to free (beer). There will be free stuff, but there will also be money. My guess is that it won't be the money of the blue chips unless law beats code.
I'm rambling now. Time to shut up.
Back in 1986 I went to Clarkson U, in part because of a similar deal. I got a Zenith AT or something like it with two 5-1/4" drives (one was high density!) and no hard drive. I failed out a year and a half later, but here I am at /. so it couldn't have all been a waste. Could it? (On second thought, don't answer that...)
Yeah, it will be the network's fault. And since there are no uses for a non-regulated network, it's obvious that such a person is guilty of not only facilitating terrorism, but perhaps supporting it.
Now that I think of it, there's another person running an insecure network: The Postmaster General. Yeah, terrorists could send letters to each other and, if the USPS doesn't open, read, and monitor them, the Postmaster is just running an insecure network that could bring about more havoc and terrorism. I say that we've got to lock up that Postmaster person and save ourselves. Who needs the mail anyway?
The really powerful bit in here is about code becoming or supplanting law. This is strong stuff. The beauty of good law is that it is transparent. Everyone has the same power to use/abuse it. I'm concerned with the Bush admins imprisonment of hundreds of people with no trial in sight because it uses the tools of law (police, fbi, courts, etc) without any of the corresponding transparency. This is just one small example of how law can be made bad (even with the best of intentions) simply by cloaking it and keeping it from view.
/government evolution is too slow. So, the technology will be the law. Closed technology presents grave danger to such simple freedoms as freedom of speech since the medium for much of that speech is controlled, through closed code, by corporations. Even something as simple as Corel's or Microsoft's proprietary formats for word processing are examples of speech being limited when thought of in this way.
Now, consider that the law is tracking about twenty to thirty years behind the pace of computing and communication. I don't expect law to catch up. Technology evolution is too fast and law
I'm working to use open software, to support open software law, and to promote the use of open software by others. Why? It's not because I hate Microsoft. It's because I see us going through something similar to 1776. There are great minds at work here, trying to carve out space for freedom. I can't do much (I don't have the brains for it) but I support those who are looking out for me.
Code is law. Code is becoming law. Either way, this is powerful and important stuff.
One last thing: how come the majority of computer/internet users don't give a damn?
I'm concerned that Linux is not going to make it to the big time for one simple reason. While coders are working on the system, developers are writing applications, and the press is writing about Linux, there is no concerted effort by a central group that is pursuing important lawsuits against those who use the word "Linux," the syllable "lin," or the letter L in their product names. Further, the penquins at are zoo are labeled as such without any notice that they are not related to or shareholders of a Linux company. I for one am confused by these misleading names and animals and I am sure that if they aren't stopped, and I mean soon, Linux is sure to fade into obscurity.
Can't someone do anything about this problem before it's too late? And why isn't Linus leading the legal fight? What's he got that is more important to work on?
So which is worse?
Actually, the difference is big. I think of copyright as an extremely flawed law. Copyright, at one time I suppose, was the same as ownership, but now it's used in a very different way. I respect ownership, especially by the creative individual, but I have a great deal of trouble with copyrights attached to the likes of Sony, Disney, et.al. There's something different.
A local artist named Karen Savoca writes fantastic music, performs very well, and sells her discs at her concerts. I have purchased every one of them and encouraged friends to purchase them as well. One way I got a friend to buy some was by making a copy of one of the discs I had already purchased. She keeps that copy in her car and has a purchased copy at home. I wouldn't think of stealing from Karen Savoca. But I'm currently listening to something from Warner Bros. that I copied from the library. The two things are, to me, very different.
Oddly enough, no, I wasn't downloading music until the last year or so. I used to buy a whole lot of music. Back when it was just albums and I was in high school, I bought about three a week. I remember when the cd came out and Stereo Review talked about how it would really take off once the record companies got the things down below ten bucks. I'm still waiting for that day.
What revenue stream have they lost because of me? Not much, but I haven't bought a disc in a year and probably won't for another year or so. Wait, I take it back, I have bought three discs this year. But I bought them with a friend. He paid half and I paid half. He paid the tax so he gets to keep the originals. I keep the copies and pay less than ten bucks a shot.
Nonsense. This isn't the end of the chain of events, more like the middle. To say that the end result of sharing/stealing music is that the users will not be able to play music on their computers is short-sighted. Of course DIGITAL music will be played on DIGITAL computers. Bits are bits even if they are encrypted, masked, or otherwise blocked by some system. Every encryption system is, to put it in overly simplified terms, a puzzle to be solved. There are those among us who love good puzzles and some of theose same folks like to listen to music while they solve those problems. the system will be broken. Music will continue to be sold for profit and shared/stolen for some time. I can't imagine just yet how the whole thing will end, but I know that it will not end with music being banned from computers. That doesn't fit with my idea of how the world works.
Wow, I sure do want to buy some Sony discs now.
I can't wait for the music industry to implode. An abusive power (whether in goverment (old school) or coporate (new school)) must be subverted. Funny thing. I just went to the library yesterday from which I had ordered eight discs I've been wanting. Spent an hour or so last night ripping copies of them to give to myself as a holiday present.
Am I stealing? Yes, yes I am.
Do I feel badly about it? No, no I don't.
How come? Because the media companies have so far overstepped the boundaries of decency, that I have lost the ability to feel their pain.
Isn't there one executive at one of these companies who has the slightest idea or vision of how this is going to work out?
Finally, I agree with the poster who said simply that this will be hacked. It will indeed be hacked and it's likely that it will be hacked before the discs are widely available. Then the music will be on p2p and the system will continue to dissolve and fade away.
Seems to me that this is impetus to have an open source system for publishing documents to the web. I post documents to the web for my students. They all use ms word, but I'm unwilling to post the docs in that. However, I need for them to appear as I want them to appear, so html is not going to work. Instead, for the moment, I post in .pdf format. If there were something else, something free or at least open source, I would use it in a second. Maybe, just maybe, having ms take over the market (which they would likely do if they actually produce this software) will lead to an open product. "Isn't it pretty to think so."
Does anyone have or know where to get figures on how small Phoenix is getting. I wondered about this and imagine I could just search the old builds, but wouldn't this be a good thing to have up on a Phoenix page somewhere. I'm imagining a graph that might show the size of the build, the memory usage, and the speed with which the browser loads and creates new windows. Maybe along the bottom could be a note about which features have been added at each milestone. It could make a good "marketing" tool even though the browser is free. Seems like the sort of thing that reviewers would go nuts for.