I don't like the style of the article. I almost didn't read further than the "sky is falling" style intro. But it is critically important that the core of Mono and other free/open.NET efforts is fully protected from patent prosecution. Not fully protecting it would be irresponsible.
So, it is ok and even mandatory that an ISP monitor spmamers using its service but totally un-OK that the same ISP drop your web page if someone claims (not proves) copyright enfringement or hands over your records to government officials who claim it is the responsible thing to do? Methinks we are a bit two-headed about our support of freedom and privacy.
Also, any reasonably competent spammer (oxymoron I know) would relay through some other smtp equipped but inadequately guarded machine.
Is it more "inherently unsafe" than sending a letter through dozens of hands in a flimsy paper envelope? Really, this isn't the point at all. The point is that the Internet is the medium for communication largely today and becoming ever more so. There is a very real question of whether we can expect privacy in our communications from snoops of various kinds.
So, you don't think anyone wants to outlaw Open Source heh? Not even Bill Gates? What were the Halloween documents about. What is the SSSCA likely to do if ever passed?
I did not say to make RMS a god. But he is a saint imho. Only a saint would have spent all of those thankless years pounding away to produce free software at a time when most of us and most of the world thought or acted as if he was a loon, commie, both, or worse. Linux is build on and includes and is very much dependent on what he and the FSF folks did. It wouldn't exist without his vision and dedication and yes, even fanaticism. That, in my book, entitles him to HUGE respect. Does that mean he can never be wrong? No. But to me it does mean that I will give him the benefit of the doubt much of the time if the question is not resolvable otherwise. He can still be wrong of course. But he is certainly entitled to respect. In my opinion, to have done what he did, see it twisted in ways he considers dangerous, and rant as little as he does is itself a sign of huge patience and humility. I doubt seriously that most of his critics even understand where he is coming from and the implications.
He has a valid point on GNU/Linux. The $10,000 is peanuts and more symbolic than anything else. Even if it was 100 times that it shouldn't change what he believes is true or that he says so.
I don't know what the last thing you bring up is actually about as I wasn't there.
Re:Am I the only person who is hesitent about this
on
.NETly News
·
· Score: 1
This is not and should never be construed as being Bill Gates' vision alone. Many of us who definitely are not fans of Brother Billy also want many of these things and are working toward them. All your information on line is not a problem with adequate encryption and solid protocols and laws to make it impossible for the Feds and other miscreants to monitor your keystrokes, speech, sub-vocalization, thoughts, gestures or whatever else you may use to do input.
Actually, he did invent and define what free software means in the full sense of freedom that he supports. He also devoted many, many years to producing a truly free alternative. The original was right, this is the man who made it happen and brought us to the point Linus built on. Go snipe at the people who want to outlaw this kind of freedom and open source. Respect and honor RMS as he deserves.
Yes, we have lost as soon as a monstrosity such as AOL/RedHat comes into being. We have lost because money and marketshare has out-ruled value, lost because greed is considered before having a real alternative. We have lost when we pretend that a mega-corp despised for engineering ineptitude by most hackers can and should eat the strongest Linux distro and a very important open/free software company.
A Linux user is not a Linux user when they are instead an AOLized Linux luser. Do you really believe that AOL linux will long remain open source?
I think we should very much "get up in arms". At least we should if we really understand what we are about.
Screw the end-users if the are only lusers! The beauty of GNU-Linux is a real alternative to the commercial, closed, boring pablum. Turning it into more of the same is a travesty. What will happen is that the community will become a lot more polarized. I also would not be surprised to see a lot of DRM krap shoehorned into Linux from this little maneuver. Geeks ARE the target! But not in a good way at all. DUCK.
The only thing worse would be having MicroSloth buy RedHat. If this goes through then I consider it a real betrayal of the Linux and especially the hacker community. Didn't we learn anything with AOL/Netscape? Do we really want arguably the strongest of the Linux distros to be owned by the AOL/Time-Warner hyper monopoly? Do you think these people are going to care about the community or open source, much less free software? If this happens it will leave me much more firmly an enemy of what the commerical software business has become. And it will make me a hell of a lot less likely to compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't like the style of the article. I almost didn't read further than the "sky is falling" style intro. But it is critically important that the core of Mono and other free/open .NET efforts is fully protected from patent prosecution. Not fully protecting it would be irresponsible.
So, it is ok and even mandatory that an ISP monitor spmamers using its service but totally un-OK that the same ISP drop your web page if someone claims (not proves) copyright enfringement or hands over your records to government officials who claim it is the responsible thing to do? Methinks we are a bit two-headed about our support of freedom and privacy. Also, any reasonably competent spammer (oxymoron I know) would relay through some other smtp equipped but inadequately guarded machine.
Is it more "inherently unsafe" than sending a letter through dozens of hands in a flimsy paper envelope? Really, this isn't the point at all. The point is that the Internet is the medium for communication largely today and becoming ever more so. There is a very real question of whether we can expect privacy in our communications from snoops of various kinds.
So, you don't think anyone wants to outlaw Open Source heh? Not even Bill Gates? What were the Halloween documents about. What is the SSSCA likely to do if ever passed? I did not say to make RMS a god. But he is a saint imho. Only a saint would have spent all of those thankless years pounding away to produce free software at a time when most of us and most of the world thought or acted as if he was a loon, commie, both, or worse. Linux is build on and includes and is very much dependent on what he and the FSF folks did. It wouldn't exist without his vision and dedication and yes, even fanaticism. That, in my book, entitles him to HUGE respect. Does that mean he can never be wrong? No. But to me it does mean that I will give him the benefit of the doubt much of the time if the question is not resolvable otherwise. He can still be wrong of course. But he is certainly entitled to respect. In my opinion, to have done what he did, see it twisted in ways he considers dangerous, and rant as little as he does is itself a sign of huge patience and humility. I doubt seriously that most of his critics even understand where he is coming from and the implications. He has a valid point on GNU/Linux. The $10,000 is peanuts and more symbolic than anything else. Even if it was 100 times that it shouldn't change what he believes is true or that he says so. I don't know what the last thing you bring up is actually about as I wasn't there.
This is not and should never be construed as being Bill Gates' vision alone. Many of us who definitely are not fans of Brother Billy also want many of these things and are working toward them. All your information on line is not a problem with adequate encryption and solid protocols and laws to make it impossible for the Feds and other miscreants to monitor your keystrokes, speech, sub-vocalization, thoughts, gestures or whatever else you may use to do input.
Actually, he did invent and define what free software means in the full sense of freedom that he supports. He also devoted many, many years to producing a truly free alternative. The original was right, this is the man who made it happen and brought us to the point Linus built on. Go snipe at the people who want to outlaw this kind of freedom and open source. Respect and honor RMS as he deserves.
(3) You are unable to read and understand what you read.
Another fine way to get a keylogger sitting on your machine, assuming there is not already one present.
Linux with strict DRM?!!! Do you have a single CLUE?
Yes, we have lost as soon as a monstrosity such as AOL/RedHat comes into being. We have lost because money and marketshare has out-ruled value, lost because greed is considered before having a real alternative. We have lost when we pretend that a mega-corp despised for engineering ineptitude by most hackers can and should eat the strongest Linux distro and a very important open/free software company. A Linux user is not a Linux user when they are instead an AOLized Linux luser. Do you really believe that AOL linux will long remain open source? I think we should very much "get up in arms". At least we should if we really understand what we are about.
Screw the end-users if the are only lusers! The beauty of GNU-Linux is a real alternative to the commercial, closed, boring pablum. Turning it into more of the same is a travesty. What will happen is that the community will become a lot more polarized. I also would not be surprised to see a lot of DRM krap shoehorned into Linux from this little maneuver. Geeks ARE the target! But not in a good way at all. DUCK.
The only thing worse would be having MicroSloth buy RedHat. If this goes through then I consider it a real betrayal of the Linux and especially the hacker community. Didn't we learn anything with AOL/Netscape? Do we really want arguably the strongest of the Linux distros to be owned by the AOL/Time-Warner hyper monopoly? Do you think these people are going to care about the community or open source, much less free software? If this happens it will leave me much more firmly an enemy of what the commerical software business has become. And it will make me a hell of a lot less likely to compromise.