I am with Clifford Stoll on this one. Libraries are repositories of information, but do they need to be free internet cafes? Research? Bullshit, The only research are google searches. A library inventory should contain books, periodicals, and articles of note.
I love technology, I love computers. If I need to use a computer and I cannot get home or to work, it can wait. If I am out of town, I have a laptop. My phone handles my mail and SMS as well. IMHO, we do not need klez speading porn surfers in the library. These are the type of people that do not use a video store for movies, but "rent" them from the library.Get a job.
Ya gotta watch those crafty cnundrumists. They go about pushing their views on the unwilling. I've said it before and I'll say it again: MY BODY...MY CHOICE!
Land line telcos are doing what they can to make their money. Look closely at your bill and ensure every fee is accounted for. Or don't and pay something for nothing.
If our IT depatment let out infrastructure degrade to anything close to that I would terminate the lot. These are representations of unprofessional half-assed setups. There is no justifiable reason for these examples. A small investment of time and an operational plan prevents this. These managers should be hung.
This is an ongoing discussion at Plasma. People with the bucks have been contemplating this for a while. Be sure to read up on the forums for the technical details as well. More info here.
Please note there are solutions that require money. How cheap are you going to be?
The "free book" support of the authors is critical for sucess. Ultimately though, the publishers are typically the biggest foes to 'free' publications. We are at the cross-roads of distribution models. Regardless of online versions of books, and the print at home jobs, I like the heft and smell of a well aged bound book.
As an aside, I heard that it was a neck bone. Ironically, I am savoring a frosty King-Bing right now. Mmmmm, Calamari-Peach blend.
Collective Good has been recycling for years. CollectiveGood is the mobile phone recycling resource. If you have a spare mobile phone sitting on a shelf or in a drawer, you can recycle it here in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. At CollectiveGood, you can:
Turn that spare mobile phone into something useful for people in the developing world
Help raise funds for a charity of your choice in the process
Preserve the environment by keeping your used mobile phone out of a landfill, and by recycling it back into reuse
Be rewarded for your good deed with a thank you letter and tax-deduction for your in-kind donation to a charity
Think mobile phone recycling is a good idea? Share it!
You continue to push the Italian BMT. For that, I will sample that sandwich this week. If I find it as pleasant as you express, you will be compensated with trashdot currency.
Why I Can't Stand the FSF
I like open source. I use open source software when it's appropriate. I write open source software, at that, and I'm happy to do so.
That said, I really, really dislike the Free Software Foundation. When I have a choice between their offerings and someone else's, I nearly always go with the alternatives. I don't use their licenses. I don't defend them, or even their goals, really. In many ways, I'm actively antagonistic.
Why?
It's pretty simple. I thought the FSF rocked until I had to deal with them directly, and the repercussions of that interaction made me reconsider all my assumptions.
Starting Down the Slippery Slope
I was working as a consultant for IBM in 1997, on their ProductManager suite. ProductManager needed a little language, for which I designed a grammar and lexer. When you need a compiler compiler and a lexer, you look at packages in the yacc and lex family... and the best of those, for C, remain the FSF's bison and Vern Paxson's flex. Not only was I trying to do well for IBM, but I was also aiming at using the best products available.
IBM, understandably, wanted to cover its pockets in the case of liability, so they had me talk to the respective authors to make sure that their code was actually theirs to give away. The reasoning was, as I understand it, that if (say) flex incorporated some copyrighted Microsoft code, and Microsoft discovered that IBM was using that code, Microsoft could sue both the author of flex and IBM. However, if IBM had a signed affadavit from the respective authors that asserted their right to distribute code, then IBM would have done due diligence to protect itself and other companies from illegal activity. It wouldn't have been a full defense, but would be enough to mitigate most damage in court. (The realisation that IBM didn't expect due diligence to be a complete shield was a blow to my faith in civil courts, too, even though that faith was pretty weak to begin with.)
So I wrote Vern Paxson and the FSF (because Richard Stallman was listed as the author of bison, which surprised me.) Vern got back with me after a few hours, and said he'd be happy to sign a form for us. When I talked to him on the phone and explained the exact situation, he reversed his position, saying that he simply couldn't honestly say that flex had no copyrighted code in it. He didn't think it did, but he wasn't able to get such an assertion from each author.
That eliminated flex for our project. I didn't mind, for a few reasons: one was that lexers are fairly trivial, and we could replace lex with something feature-comparable; another reason was that Vern was very straightforward about the situation. I got the feeling that he actually considered the needs of his potential userbase.
A few hours after Vern's initial reply came back, the FSF responded, too. (I was genuinely surprised at how rapid both responses were made.) They said that Richard Stallman was, indeed, the author of bison, and soon we managed to strike up a dialog with him directly.
Eventually, we were in a conference call with him. I was a little awed, considering that I'd been using some of RMS's tools (like Emacs) for quite some time even then. Basically, we had in mind a sort of quid pro quo, in that we wanted an affadavit signed and he wanted a monetary grant. It was also a chance for the FSF to score points in the courts, since the GPL hadn't been challenged. Our reasoning was that if IBM was using the code, and was challenged, then the FSF would be piggybacking a defense of the LGPL from IBM's defense team.
RMS would have none of it. What we were asking for, to be clear, was an assertion that the FSF had the right to apply their license to the software they made available. A denial of that assertion undermines their whole reason for being, after all, and we were certainly going to recompense the FSF for making good software available. Instead, RMS refused outright to sign the affadavit, and suggested quite bluntly that ProductManager (which costed IBM millions to develop, and was a pretty vertical product) should be open source, and we could send a check to him at this address, etc.
I was not impressed. It wasn't so much the open source spiel that bothered me, but the refusal of the assertion. If it was my code, I'd have been happy to say it was mine, as long as I knew (a la Vern Paxson's response). RMS, however, didn't even entertain the thought from the impression he gave us. Instead, he came across as a complete hypocrite, an impression confirmed with further investigation of the FSF's policies and approach. He was effectively implying that he'd stolen the code, and released it as open source just to further his personal views on software source code availability.
The Air Over There
I think the FSF is on crack. They want software to be open-sourced, as a statement of ethics, and yet they advocate strong-arming companies in order to get what they want. They don't want the code, even - they just want all code to be open source, and they're willing to act like brown-shirts to do it.
If you go to their home page, for example, you see this announcement at the end of the first paragraph:
Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as ``Linux'', they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems.
The opening sentence for the paragraph is "Welcome to the GNU Project web server."
Um.
Not only is the sentence about Linux inappropriate for the paragraph's subject matter, it's retarded. Their justification is something like this: "Linux is just the kernel, and GNU provides the rest of the system that makes the kernel useful, so the name should be GNU/Linux instead of just Linux."
That's idiotic. For one thing, they're targeting Linux in this, for reasons of publicity only. (Yes, that's right, I just said the FSF was a bunch of publicity whores.) If they were going to be fair about this, they'd apply that reasoning to a lot of software: "GNU/Cygwin," et cetera. To my knowledge, they don't do this. For another, they presume that GNU is central to Linux... and it's not. I know of developers who've created Linux distributions with BSD tools instead of GNU, for example, and the mere fact that it's doable suggests that maybe GNU isn't as critical to Linux as the FSF seems to suggest. Sure, maybe Linus used GNU tools to generate the kernel. Does that mean that every Visual Basic app needs to trumpet "MS/Whatever" as part of its name, too?
It gets worse. The FSF not only demands recognition (which, by the way, it got plenty of already), but it actively supports piracy, offering this newspeak as a replacement. "Use neutral terms to describe piracy," they suggest, offering "unauthorized copying" as well as "sharing information with your neighbor." Pardon me, fellows, for actually setting the price I want as recompense for my effort. The freedoms the FSF supposedly tries to work for include the rights to say "No, I wrote this with my blood, sweat, and tears, I want $100 for it or you don't have to use it."
And that brings up another annoyance with the FSF - the GPL. The GPL is a viral license, requiring programs that use GPLed code to be under the GPL themselves. In a way, that makes sense, although most other similar licenses are less militaristic;most of them respect the right of authors to keep their code proprietary, usually requesting links to the source of licensed software. The GPL, on the other hand, says that it's all open, and they choose licenses accordingly.
To wit, they have a "Lesser GPL," the LGPL, which doesn't have the same viral effect that the GPL does. The FSF has a document, called Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library (written before the LGPL was renamed to "Lesser GPL"), which explains that the LGPL is used where there's no real reason to rely on the GNU offering. In other words, all the truly useful stuff they have (and there's a good bit of it) is basically bait for the GPL; "use GetOpt, and we have you!"
That's cowardly, in my opinion, arguing from a position of weakness.
Someone obviously had MUCH time on their hands. They are preaching to the choir. They should have invested the time wi a "How to promote free software".BTW, Gaz I'll keep an eye on your posts and give 'em when I can.
There are plenty of Canadiasian Pro Bonos out there that can help. Even a small investment on your part (1 hour in fees) can save you MUCH grief later. COVER YOUR ASS _BEFORE_ you sign anything!
Slashdot Mirror
I am with Clifford Stoll on this one. Libraries are repositories of information, but do they need to be free internet cafes? Research? Bullshit, The only research are google searches. A library inventory should contain books, periodicals, and articles of note.
I love technology, I love computers. If I need to use a computer and I cannot get home or to work, it can wait. If I am out of town, I have a laptop. My phone handles my mail and SMS as well. IMHO, we do not need klez speading porn surfers in the library. These are the type of people that do not use a video store for movies, but "rent" them from the library.Get a job.
This is common where price is an issue.
You had me at F P,
You...had...me...at...F...P...
Ya gotta watch those crafty cnundrumists. They go about pushing their views on the unwilling. I've said it before and I'll say it again: MY BODY...MY CHOICE!
Land line telcos are doing what they can to make their money. Look closely at your bill and ensure every fee is accounted for. Or don't and pay something for nothing.
If our IT depatment let out infrastructure degrade to anything close to that I would terminate the lot. These are representations of unprofessional half-assed setups. There is no justifiable reason for these examples. A small investment of time and an operational plan prevents this. These managers should be hung.
This is an ongoing discussion at Plasma. People with the bucks have been contemplating this for a while. Be sure to read up on the forums for the technical details as well. More info here.
Please note there are solutions that require money. How cheap are you going to be?
The "free book" support of the authors is critical for sucess. Ultimately though, the publishers are typically the biggest foes to 'free' publications. We are at the cross-roads of distribution models. Regardless of online versions of books, and the print at home jobs, I like the heft and smell of a well aged bound book.
As an aside, I heard that it was a neck bone. Ironically, I am savoring a frosty King-Bing right now. Mmmmm, Calamari-Peach blend.
1)How are the initial matchups decided. Do you try to balance the teams?
2)"If I said you had a beautiful body would you hold it against me?"
A relevant post, second in the article, and rated redundant. Moderator on crack! Someone fix this please!
If Karma is nothing refrain from posting with the bonus.
CollectiveGood is the mobile phone recycling resource. If you have a spare mobile phone sitting on a shelf or in a drawer, you can recycle it here in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. At CollectiveGood, you can:
Preserve the environment by keeping your used mobile phone out of a landfill, and by recycling it back into reuse
Be rewarded for your good deed with a thank you letter and tax-deduction for your in-kind donation to a charity
Think mobile phone recycling is a good idea? Share it!
You continue to push the Italian BMT. For that, I will sample that sandwich this week. If I find it as pleasant as you express, you will be compensated with trashdot currency.
You are one old mosterfokker. Care for a spongebath?
for language and continue to use the term "Congresscritter".
if it is "Gee-Noo", "Guh-Noo", or just "Noo". Thanks in advance for the clarity.
What is their long range plan? Are they leveraging themselves into a competitive positon?
Why I Can't Stand the FSF I like open source. I use open source software when it's appropriate. I write open source software, at that, and I'm happy to do so.
That said, I really, really dislike the Free Software Foundation. When I have a choice between their offerings and someone else's, I nearly always go with the alternatives. I don't use their licenses. I don't defend them, or even their goals, really. In many ways, I'm actively antagonistic.
Why?
It's pretty simple. I thought the FSF rocked until I had to deal with them directly, and the repercussions of that interaction made me reconsider all my assumptions.
Starting Down the Slippery Slope I was working as a consultant for IBM in 1997, on their ProductManager suite. ProductManager needed a little language, for which I designed a grammar and lexer. When you need a compiler compiler and a lexer, you look at packages in the yacc and lex family... and the best of those, for C, remain the FSF's bison and Vern Paxson's flex. Not only was I trying to do well for IBM, but I was also aiming at using the best products available.
IBM, understandably, wanted to cover its pockets in the case of liability, so they had me talk to the respective authors to make sure that their code was actually theirs to give away. The reasoning was, as I understand it, that if (say) flex incorporated some copyrighted Microsoft code, and Microsoft discovered that IBM was using that code, Microsoft could sue both the author of flex and IBM. However, if IBM had a signed affadavit from the respective authors that asserted their right to distribute code, then IBM would have done due diligence to protect itself and other companies from illegal activity. It wouldn't have been a full defense, but would be enough to mitigate most damage in court. (The realisation that IBM didn't expect due diligence to be a complete shield was a blow to my faith in civil courts, too, even though that faith was pretty weak to begin with.)
So I wrote Vern Paxson and the FSF (because Richard Stallman was listed as the author of bison, which surprised me.) Vern got back with me after a few hours, and said he'd be happy to sign a form for us. When I talked to him on the phone and explained the exact situation, he reversed his position, saying that he simply couldn't honestly say that flex had no copyrighted code in it. He didn't think it did, but he wasn't able to get such an assertion from each author.
That eliminated flex for our project. I didn't mind, for a few reasons: one was that lexers are fairly trivial, and we could replace lex with something feature-comparable; another reason was that Vern was very straightforward about the situation. I got the feeling that he actually considered the needs of his potential userbase.
A few hours after Vern's initial reply came back, the FSF responded, too. (I was genuinely surprised at how rapid both responses were made.) They said that Richard Stallman was, indeed, the author of bison, and soon we managed to strike up a dialog with him directly.
Eventually, we were in a conference call with him. I was a little awed, considering that I'd been using some of RMS's tools (like Emacs) for quite some time even then. Basically, we had in mind a sort of quid pro quo, in that we wanted an affadavit signed and he wanted a monetary grant. It was also a chance for the FSF to score points in the courts, since the GPL hadn't been challenged. Our reasoning was that if IBM was using the code, and was challenged, then the FSF would be piggybacking a defense of the LGPL from IBM's defense team.
RMS would have none of it. What we were asking for, to be clear, was an assertion that the FSF had the right to apply their license to the software they made available. A denial of that assertion undermines their whole reason for being, after all, and we were certainly going to recompense the FSF for making good software available. Instead, RMS refused outright to sign the affadavit, and suggested quite bluntly that ProductManager (which costed IBM millions to develop, and was a pretty vertical product) should be open source, and we could send a check to him at this address, etc.
I was not impressed. It wasn't so much the open source spiel that bothered me, but the refusal of the assertion. If it was my code, I'd have been happy to say it was mine, as long as I knew (a la Vern Paxson's response). RMS, however, didn't even entertain the thought from the impression he gave us. Instead, he came across as a complete hypocrite, an impression confirmed with further investigation of the FSF's policies and approach. He was effectively implying that he'd stolen the code, and released it as open source just to further his personal views on software source code availability.
The Air Over There I think the FSF is on crack. They want software to be open-sourced, as a statement of ethics, and yet they advocate strong-arming companies in order to get what they want. They don't want the code, even - they just want all code to be open source, and they're willing to act like brown-shirts to do it.
If you go to their home page, for example, you see this announcement at the end of the first paragraph:
Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as ``Linux'', they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems. The opening sentence for the paragraph is "Welcome to the GNU Project web server."
Um.
Not only is the sentence about Linux inappropriate for the paragraph's subject matter, it's retarded. Their justification is something like this: "Linux is just the kernel, and GNU provides the rest of the system that makes the kernel useful, so the name should be GNU/Linux instead of just Linux."
That's idiotic. For one thing, they're targeting Linux in this, for reasons of publicity only. (Yes, that's right, I just said the FSF was a bunch of publicity whores.) If they were going to be fair about this, they'd apply that reasoning to a lot of software: "GNU/Cygwin," et cetera. To my knowledge, they don't do this. For another, they presume that GNU is central to Linux... and it's not. I know of developers who've created Linux distributions with BSD tools instead of GNU, for example, and the mere fact that it's doable suggests that maybe GNU isn't as critical to Linux as the FSF seems to suggest. Sure, maybe Linus used GNU tools to generate the kernel. Does that mean that every Visual Basic app needs to trumpet "MS/Whatever" as part of its name, too?
It gets worse. The FSF not only demands recognition (which, by the way, it got plenty of already), but it actively supports piracy, offering this newspeak as a replacement. "Use neutral terms to describe piracy," they suggest, offering "unauthorized copying" as well as "sharing information with your neighbor." Pardon me, fellows, for actually setting the price I want as recompense for my effort. The freedoms the FSF supposedly tries to work for include the rights to say "No, I wrote this with my blood, sweat, and tears, I want $100 for it or you don't have to use it."
And that brings up another annoyance with the FSF - the GPL. The GPL is a viral license, requiring programs that use GPLed code to be under the GPL themselves. In a way, that makes sense, although most other similar licenses are less militaristic;most of them respect the right of authors to keep their code proprietary, usually requesting links to the source of licensed software. The GPL, on the other hand, says that it's all open, and they choose licenses accordingly.
To wit, they have a "Lesser GPL," the LGPL, which doesn't have the same viral effect that the GPL does. The FSF has a document, called Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library (written before the LGPL was renamed to "Lesser GPL"), which explains that the LGPL is used where there's no real reason to rely on the GNU offering. In other words, all the truly useful stuff they have (and there's a good bit of it) is basically bait for the GPL; "use GetOpt, and we have you!"
That's cowardly, in my opinion, arguing from a position of weakness.
And that's the FSF for you.
http://enigmastation.com/Q260
Someone obviously had MUCH time on their hands. They are preaching to the choir. They should have invested the time wi a "How to promote free software".BTW, Gaz I'll keep an eye on your posts and give 'em when I can.
There are plenty of Canadiasian Pro Bonos out there that can help. Even a small investment on your part (1 hour in fees) can save you MUCH grief later. COVER YOUR ASS _BEFORE_ you sign anything!
Bell Labs. If you smart people can't figure it out what makes you think we can. :)
giant corporation known as WALMART! Poor Sun, perhaps they will bloody that beast. :).
Ahoy, send mail fool. Are you really the ghost of Eddie Gentry?
A movie can take several years to be produced. Look at the Bourne Identity, the original printing of the Ludlum book was in '75.
Good story fit for the effects technology available.
I feel thereis a chasm in you interpretation of Editorial Comment and Opinion. Please take a moment to review both.