Definitely has a ring to it. Though things with "open" in their name usually sound like they're based on open standards, but are not free software -- still, there is a stylishness to it all: OpenWindows, OpenStep...
(Yes, I know there are thousands of counter-examples: OpenOffice and OpenBSD to name a few.)
These are not buzzwords. 'Strawman' is a common name for a typical logical fallacy -- quite CS and unbuzzwordly for me. For a great explanation of the difference between buzzwords and terms which serve a purpose look at this list, from tunes.org:
Proeminent features built around this reflective architecture will include unification of system abstractions, security based on formal proofs from explicit negociated axioms as controlled by capabilities, higher-order functions, self-extensible syntax, fine-grained composition, distributed networking, orthogonally persistent storage, fault-tolerant computation, version-aware identification, decentralized (no-kernel) communication, dynamic code (re)generation, high-level models of encapsulation, hardware-independent exchange of code, migratable actors, yet (eventually) a highly-performant set of dynamic compilation tools (phew).
These are not buzzwords. Now, for comparison, here's a bunch of buzzwords:
"A proven 32-bit cutting-edge state-of-the-art industrial-strength Y2K-compliant zero-administration plug-and-play industry-standard Java-enabled internet-ready multimedia professional personal-computer Operating System that is even newer and faster yet compatible, with a user-friendly object-oriented 3D graphical user interface, amazing inter-application communication and plug-in capability, an enhanced filesystem, full integration into Enterprise networks, an exclusive way to deploy distributed components, seamless network sharing of printers and files." (yuck)
I read some people here saying that they'll "finally be able to run Linux on PPC in an affordable way". Well, I wonder if there are no other cheaper alternatives.
I, for one, run basically free software only, and hate x86. I'd love to run Linux on a better-thought-out architecture, but alternatives are usually _so_ much more expensive.
If this guy can make a PPC machine costing US$ 650,00 using Apple motherboards (which I assume are more expensive than no-name PPC motherboards), does that mean I could put together a generic PPC machine for less? Is there some company out there that does that? Are there any other alternatives, ARM perhaps?
Not actually. Today's BIOSes are filled with "legacy stuff" that is not used by most of the modern operating systems.
The IBM-PC BIOS was designed to cooperate with MS-DOS, providing a lot of low-level services to it. Many will surely remember interrupt-oriented assembly programming. It was basically a lot of DOS calls for filesystem handling and BIOS calls for everything else. For this reason some people even refused to call DOS a proper "operating system".
A lot of posts here try to reminds us about the meaning of BIOS as Basic Input/Output System, and that's the key to the argument against the existance of BIOSes: modern operating system don't need the BIOS to perform basic input and output anymore.
Making a PC without a BIOS, only with a minimal "kickstart ROM" that moved right on to the boot loader, would be perfectly feasible. The problem is that the idea of a PC that can't run DOS is a bad one for many people. (Remember that "can't run DOS" automatically means "can't run Windows 9x/ME").
I think your idea does make sense, as I've been through this "hell, where's my boot CD?" many times. But I think it would be better put at the boot loader, since you probably won't be able to rescue a drive that does not reach the boot loader by editing a text file.
I love GRUB's ability to access the file system and 'cat' files. I always wondered why it is not able to write to them. R/W support is possibly much harder to implement, I think, and maybe would not fit in the restricted space the boot loader has available. But then, if you asked me way back if I thought if R/O support for file systems in the boot loader was possible, I'd probably say "no way" too.
The department title for this story says "open source does not necessarily mean free". Obviously the poster did not mean "free", as his intentions are proprietary as hell, but let's try at least to stick to the Open Source definition and not call it open source either.
What you are trying to do, mister, is to give away the source but with crippled access to it. While you're at it, why don't you license it using Microsoft's Shared Source license?
Unlike most open-source projects, Freenet could be considered extremely controversial and once they reach the "easy-to-use worldwide-popular Windows-client" level it looks like they'll probably have a lot of explaining to do. They're just explaining it in advance.
And, as you said, they are doing a fine job on prioritizing
philosophy over
technology.
You see how everyone knows the general idea/intention of it ("new paradigm", "no liability for data", "copyright issues", etc.) but nobody here can explain clearly how it actually works?:)
That's why I said "might". But the
Holy GPL, on Item 1, first paragraph says that thou shalt "keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;"
"About KDE" is where the license is displayed,
so, yes, it may an issue.
Yes, yes, everyone I know says Keaton was the
best of all Batmen in the movies. BUT, that's very different than being a good Batman.
I think that any of the fans of the classic "graphic novels" such as "Batman: Year One" and "The Dark Knight" [*] were very disappointed by the way Batman was portrayed in the movies (including the first one). Especially given that his image was so unjustly treated in the TV series and cartoons.
When I watch the original "Batman" movie, what I see is a "Tim Burton movie", not a "Batman movie". Its atmosphere ends up having more to do with other Tim Burton movies like "Sleepy Hollow" than with the Batman from the great aforementioned comics.
That's a problem with those superstar directors, I assume. Similarly, a Woody Allen movie is always "a Woody Allen movie", no matter what the movie is about.
[*] I assume those were the names in English, I read the Portuguese translations.
>RedHat is not removing any options. They are
>more or less just creating similar themes for
>both KDE and GNOME.
That is certainly not the case. Mandrake has been shipping desktop environments with their own themes for quite a while; Crystal is Conectiva's own icon set for KDE. If that was all, there would be no major fuss.
The thing is that Red Hat is doing code changes
to the environments, to further reduce their
recognizability. I don't know what motivation
other than this would drive their decision
to
remove the "About KDE" box from KDE apps.
That is a serious thing, because it might even
be illegal, since it effectively removes the
copyright notice from the program.
IIRC, the PSX came afterwards. I remember reading
about the Jaguar back in my last videogaming years.
A Segamaniac cousin of mine even had a Saturn,
while I waited for the Ultra64, which took so long
that by the time it came out (as N64) I had abandoned
videogames altogether.
I don't have any childhood memories of the PlayStation.
When I first heard of it, it was more like "ah, this
is what kids are playing nowadays". By then I was
already playing NES games on an emulator.
If you like Links,
try Links-2,
a fork that adds graphics (X11, AtheOS, framebuffer and SVGALib!) and javascript support.
It seriously rocks. Even the original Links author contributed
code to this fork. Finally, a great graphic browser has arrived to the console.
I use X much less often now...
There is a kernel patch to do this. It's called Software Suspend. It is also part of the
FOLK project (Functionality Overloaded Linux Kernel, a project to merge the largest possible amount of patches into the kernel).
Slashdot Mirror
Bob does not appreciate when you call Legolas "Legolos", but he's willing to cut you some slack this time...
Definitely has a ring to it. Though things with "open" in their name usually sound like they're based on open standards, but are not free software -- still, there is a stylishness to it all: OpenWindows, OpenStep...
(Yes, I know there are thousands of counter-examples: OpenOffice and OpenBSD to name a few.)
Sorry about this, but had to do it. It's really informative (and due to the current state of the GoboLinux servers), necessary. Thank you.
These are not buzzwords. 'Strawman' is a common name for a typical logical fallacy -- quite CS and unbuzzwordly for me. For a great explanation of the difference between buzzwords and terms which serve a purpose look at this list, from tunes.org:
These are not buzzwords. Now, for comparison, here's a bunch of buzzwords:
I read some people here saying that they'll "finally be able to run Linux on PPC in an affordable way". Well, I wonder if there are no other cheaper alternatives.
I, for one, run basically free software only, and hate x86. I'd love to run Linux on a better-thought-out architecture, but alternatives are usually _so_ much more expensive.
If this guy can make a PPC machine costing US$ 650,00 using Apple motherboards (which I assume are more expensive than no-name PPC motherboards), does that mean I could put together a generic PPC machine for less? Is there some company out there that does that? Are there any other alternatives, ARM perhaps?
So many questions...
Gibson releases analog computers!
It gives away too much of the story. Enough said.
Not actually. Today's BIOSes are filled with "legacy stuff" that is not used by most of the modern operating systems.
The IBM-PC BIOS was designed to cooperate with MS-DOS, providing a lot of low-level services to it. Many will surely remember interrupt-oriented assembly programming. It was basically a lot of DOS calls for filesystem handling and BIOS calls for everything else. For this reason some people even refused to call DOS a proper "operating system".
A lot of posts here try to reminds us about the meaning of BIOS as Basic Input/Output System, and that's the key to the argument against the existance of BIOSes: modern operating system don't need the BIOS to perform basic input and output anymore.
Making a PC without a BIOS, only with a minimal "kickstart ROM" that moved right on to the boot loader, would be perfectly feasible. The problem is that the idea of a PC that can't run DOS is a bad one for many people. (Remember that "can't run DOS" automatically means "can't run Windows 9x/ME").
I think your idea does make sense, as I've been through this "hell, where's my boot CD?" many times. But I think it would be better put at the boot loader, since you probably won't be able to rescue a drive that does not reach the boot loader by editing a text file.
I love GRUB's ability to access the file system and 'cat' files. I always wondered why it is not able to write to them. R/W support is possibly much harder to implement, I think, and maybe would not fit in the restricted space the boot loader has available. But then, if you asked me way back if I thought if R/O support for file systems in the boot loader was possible, I'd probably say "no way" too.
The department title for this story says "open source does not necessarily mean free". Obviously the poster did not mean "free", as his intentions are proprietary as hell, but let's try at least to stick to the Open Source definition and not call it open source either.
What you are trying to do, mister, is to give away the source but with crippled access to it. While you're at it, why don't you license it using Microsoft's Shared Source license?
Unlike most open-source projects, Freenet could be considered extremely controversial and once they reach the "easy-to-use worldwide-popular Windows-client" level it looks like they'll probably have a lot of explaining to do. They're just explaining it in advance.
And, as you said, they are doing a fine job on prioritizing philosophy over technology. You see how everyone knows the general idea/intention of it ("new paradigm", "no liability for data", "copyright issues", etc.) but nobody here can explain clearly how it actually works? :)
But of course...
I can't believe how this reply got to Score 4... it must have been moderated by people who didn't get the real punchline.
That's why I said "might". But the Holy GPL, on Item 1, first paragraph says that thou shalt "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;"
"About KDE" is where the license is displayed, so, yes, it may an issue.
Yes, yes, everyone I know says Keaton was the best of all Batmen in the movies. BUT, that's very different than being a good Batman.
I think that any of the fans of the classic "graphic novels" such as "Batman: Year One" and "The Dark Knight" [*] were very disappointed by the way Batman was portrayed in the movies (including the first one). Especially given that his image was so unjustly treated in the TV series and cartoons.
When I watch the original "Batman" movie, what I see is a "Tim Burton movie", not a "Batman movie". Its atmosphere ends up having more to do with other Tim Burton movies like "Sleepy Hollow" than with the Batman from the great aforementioned comics.
That's a problem with those superstar directors, I assume. Similarly, a Woody Allen movie is always "a Woody Allen movie", no matter what the movie is about.
[*] I assume those were the names in English, I read the Portuguese translations.
>RedHat is not removing any options. They are
>more or less just creating similar themes for
>both KDE and GNOME.
That is certainly not the case. Mandrake has been shipping desktop environments with their own themes for quite a while; Crystal is Conectiva's own icon set for KDE. If that was all, there would be no major fuss.
The thing is that Red Hat is doing code changes to the environments, to further reduce their recognizability. I don't know what motivation other than this would drive their decision to remove the "About KDE" box from KDE apps.
That is a serious thing, because it might even be illegal, since it effectively removes the copyright notice from the program.
...at least supposedly.
Unfortunately editing is not one of
Slashdot's strengths.
I wish I could mod you up.
Especially for the "I don't like your games" part :)
IIRC, the PSX came afterwards. I remember reading about the Jaguar back in my last videogaming years. A Segamaniac cousin of mine even had a Saturn, while I waited for the Ultra64, which took so long that by the time it came out (as N64) I had abandoned videogames altogether.
I don't have any childhood memories of the PlayStation. When I first heard of it, it was more like "ah, this is what kids are playing nowadays". By then I was already playing NES games on an emulator.
If you like Links, try Links-2, a fork that adds graphics (X11, AtheOS, framebuffer and SVGALib!) and javascript support.
It seriously rocks. Even the original Links author contributed code to this fork. Finally, a great graphic browser has arrived to the console. I use X much less often now...
...don't tell about this to my boss! :-)
And that's not even Konqi 3...
Konqueror 2.2.2, Java 1.3.1, Linux.
There is a kernel patch to do this. It's called Software Suspend. It is also part of the FOLK project (Functionality Overloaded Linux Kernel, a project to merge the largest possible amount of patches into the kernel).