You example"Thats like requiring car manufacturers to make sure all their vehicles can use diesel, gasoline, petroleum, electricity, fuel cells and ethenol, and have them interchangable."is simply wrong.
The present situation is as if you were forced to buy your gasoline for your Ford only from companies associated with Ford. Or, if you move from one state to the other and need a new number plate, you would have to buy a new car.
...and that's exactly where OpenSource is weak, let's face it.
OpenSource is not allways that easy to install and use and interoperable as Microsoft product are. Support is not as well available. If we think in terms of competition on the desktop, OpenSource falls flat on the belly.
This is not something, which can be fixed by speeches. We need to cooperate and coordinate better, we need to have better interoperability with de facto standards (and isn't any standard a de facto standard?).
What the government can (and should) do, is to take care, that the interface definitions are open and without patents or copyrights. That's it's typical role. Everything else is up to us.
Windows-Interfaces should be open and public - all of them. File formats of Word, Excel, Power Point etc. should be open and public.
I think, it's time to come out of the religious-like discussion and go for competition. We have the pole position in the server market and a very good base in the schools and universities - next areas to tackle will be desktop and then quality, documentation and support.
Geee, an OpenSource AG!!! With Linus for core development, Taco for press relations and me as janitor!
P2P must be OpenSource - all else is the same old crap in new clothes only. Hacking it doesn't make it any better - it's still hidden source from my point of view.
I'm not going to run anything 'free' on my hosts which is not OpenSource. Full stop.
There is another net behind the H2H ...
on
On Hacktivism
·
· Score: 1
...and that net is not the internet, B2B or H2H -- it's simply conscience to conscience. And that (say) +2+ net is going to take over, when times get really chaotic (which is no longer so far away as it was before Bush became the instrument of 'righteous war making' IMO).
All other nets - especiall the H2H net - are just the physical surface of that underlying connection. Please let's not forget that. Sorry, that I sound that twisted, but that's my reality. Must have been a drunken preacher some lifes ago.o)
Viewed from that angle fighting the suppressing government, economic, military and/or criminal structures (yes, I know, I'm putting all in one basket) will no longer be intelligent from a certain level onwards. The members of the +2+ net will simply avoid places and times, where the 'right' and 'wrong' ones are fighting each other.
I wonder how many will be left after that World War III. Hence, dear H2H members, please don't play and pay with your lifes. Be carefull, don't let yourself become a member of the powergames too.
..but dying animals are the most dangerous, so it may well take some 10 to 20 years until the industry will give up and adjust to modern reality.
The music industry is charging too much for the copyrighted material. After all the main thing they are doing is copying and distributing themselves. If the industry would simply run the distribution sites and charge a modest royalty (say 10 or 20 cents per track), Napster, Kaaza and Co would have had no chance at all. Hence in a way it's not a fight about copyright or not - it's old distribution technology against the new one. In such a case the new techniques are bound to win after all.
Like hand-copied books against printed ones. And look - are copy-machines or e-books a real threat to book-publishers? No, simply another channel of distribution (and perhaps some competition).
I also doubt that much of the high prices they charge for a CD really goes to the artists. I guess, it's less than 5%. Using the new, additional technique of distribution with lower prices and a larger customer-base is not neccessarily decreasing the artists' income. A higher percentage (say 50%) can go directly to the creators, because fixed costs are less when using the internet and P2P networks to copy and distribute the music. And the hundredfold number of customers will more than make up for the lower prices.
Music industry became fat and lazy and has simply forgotten to invest it's income into new technologies.
Let them cry while we copy. Copyright (like censorship) is a routing problem in the internet - let's route around it.
I would prefere an earth without political nations. And I think the development is heading into that direction - although I may not live long enough to see it happen.
This is directly connected to the notion of public security. For example if we had an international internet law with consistant regulations, we wouldn't see such cases as the topic we are discussing about. And big companies wouldn't be able to pick the law and court which fit their (open or hidden) interests best.
Secondly I did not start calling the German Railway names. They started the discussion by suing (hope I spell that right) the Provider. And they picked the weakest participant for that - avoiding the political discussion, not explaining to the provider, why they see the site as being illegal, not suing (successfully) the original publication (published 5 years ago - of which this site is only a sort of archive) and so on and so forth.
Justice has to abide to rules, otherwise it's just a powergame. And the German Railway is doing exactly that.
Finally I exercise my right of free speech, I don't need to write to any MdB (German member of parliament) for that. I'm part of a free world and don't need somebody else to represent me. This slashdot discussion IS democracy - just between you and me. There has never been any other real power in humanity than that of the individual. We have only given it away too often - and all too often in the name of "nations" or "security".
...the long line of disappointingly tiny steps that Sun has taken in the past
Actually that's my disappointment also. I agree with your standpoint. And - not a 'but' but an 'and' - I want to add:
Time plays an important role. If the development into Open Source is not going to speed up, Java will not play the prime role it could (and should) according to my opinion.
The present state is a critical turning point - Sun started to move. Let's help it to go on.o)
1.) The original paper is very detailled and specific in it's security aspects. It is explicitely stating that nothing should be damaged, about whose functions one is not certain, because that could endanger humans or transports. The described destructions will hinder the speed of the transports but not endanger them or endanger any human or destruct vital components. 2.) The description was available on the internet for 4 to 5 years by now. It's publication on paper was not forbidden during this time. The German Railroad did know that for years, because they allready tried to block the internet publication twice (without success). 3.) The "Right to Resistance" is an explicit part of the German constitutional law (a result of rewriting the German constitutional law from scratch after World War II).
Hence the whole action is more of a cesorship than a security issue. Probably (as already said so here in slashdot) nuclear transports are imminent in the near future - a intensely discussed theme in Germany.
I'm not in favour of force - even if it's only against things. But this stinks of antidemocratic censorship in the name of "security".
Hoo, hoo. And don't forget the heavy railroad accident in Germany some years ago; how many people were killed at that time? about 150? Or was it more like 300?
Reason? Dirty activists in black raincoats? No, Deutsche Bahn had not obeyed their own regulations of railroad maintenance.
And let's remember the Greenpeace anti-atom activists, who got beaten and punished more than once during their "illegal" demonstrations in Germany - I mean the time before Chernobyl.
It's not all that black and white. But it will become that, if we forget about tolerance and freedom of speech.
Deutsche Bahn - wasn't that the "Deutsche Reichbahn" half a century ago, who used deported Jews and Eastern Europeans to build their railroads for nothing?
If only I could give back my German citizenship. Anybody wants to have it for 1,- Euro? For 50 cents?? For a quarter???
All partners in this game know exactly, that traffic costs money. Yet the ISPs try to catch customers by selling things under price - a "flat rate" which cannot be "flat". And the heavy users buy it, because they know the price for it is not realistic, if heavily used. While the low-volume users simply don't count one plus one with their fingers.
The result is a clash of interests which can be seen from the very beginning, and the struggle seems to be fought on the shoulders of low-usage customers. But who would buy a telefon contract which promises flat rates for international calls, if he hadn't a use for it?
Vampirism? Who tried to seduce as much customers as possible into a contract with unrealistic "flat rate" offers?
What to do? Simply don't make contracts with somebody who tries to catch you with a "flat rate" which is economically impossible. Stick to realistic offers, then you'll get what you pay for (fast access).
The problems are self-created by all three partners: ISPs, low-volume as well as high-volume customers. Put them all onto a distant island (say New Zealand?) and let them think it over, how greedy and stupid the other two players in this game are.
When I've time, I'll go down into the cellar to laugh.
Sure, Stuart, the step taken was in the right direction, but was it BIG with capital letters?
From the way you write about Java I assume it is your home ground. So let me answer as somebody from the non-Java community.
The technical basis is excellent. The original idea of a standard virtual machine is still valid and flexible enough to use the language for all kinds of projects - especially for the exploding world of handhelds and imbedded systems.
What is missing now is the widespread usage in workstations, desktops and servers. This is and has to be a 'multi'-country. Just two players agreeing on the rules of the game - that's not enough. Especially as the two are USA-based. Europe and the East is missing - they are not going to say yes to a decision tree, where only Sun and Apache (and some big companies) are the ruling instances. And youngsters and hackers are missing - they are not going to be attracted by hidden-source or fixed-source projects (and thus the new generation is not fully included). The prices for Java development workbenches are accordingly prohibitive.
BIG organisations make BIG footsteps - but slow ones. Fast development comes only out of Open Source environments. And Java is not (or should I say no longer?) open enough for my taste.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to become one, just to code something for the Open Source community. Hence I have to decide from the belly.
And according to my feelings the Java development is no-longer-so-open software. It became lawyer's country - and the whole situation is no longer white (open software) or black (proprietary), it's gone grey. The current discussions ar ample proof for that. Endless meetings and papers how to decide upon new papers, lawers all over the place.
But for such ground work as a development environment there need to be clear rules; the basement must be solid before you can build a house on it. And the concrete of this basement is not yet dry.
If the legal situation is not changing in the next future, 2002 will be the start of the decline of Java.
Long ago when Ada was starting to become available (and after APL had had it's crash landing) there was this saying among compiler writers: "Any programming language with an 'A' in it's name will not survive". And look at what happened with Ada - it's confined to western military developments. The leading role of the DOD became a hindrance to use Ada in non-western and non-military realms. After it's initial excellant support of Ada, the DOD should have given it's child the freedom to develop in the commercial and non-western world (which the DOD failed to do).
Now Sun is trying to make the same errors with Java which the DOD was doing with Ada - not giving enough freedom for a grown up child.
And the Apache group should stick more to it's original way of development - after all why did they succeed in the market place? If the Apache development would have been run under Sun's lead would we use the webserver all over the planet?
I was given a name, a drivers licence, an id-card, several bank accounts, email-adresses, homepages, passwords and PGP key-rings and to top it all, I should create a 'secure' storage with additional keys and data to protect? Finally I'm no longer needed; I can simply and sliently die, because all my relevant data is allready handled in a unified, standarized, automatic system - in my electronic 'persona' online.
No.
A human is something different than a 'person'. Of this great important 'persons' we all have had enough - more than enough. The more important they are, the more wars or suppression or power-greedy games are on their account. Alexander "The Great", Bill Gates "The Billionair" and Osama Bin Laden "Fighter of the Holy War".
Time for less pesonalities and more humaness - according to my taste. Let's bake a cake, go for a walk with the children or joke with the friends. How to store such things?
Well, I didn'T mean Locke's or Jefferson's Life or whatever. I'm not breathing for anyone else but myself - nothing to say about speaking -.
When I happen to have the feeling, that something is bullshit, I express that. Not out of morale, not for a thousand Locke's or a million presidents and a billion countries - no, just because I do so. And because I love myself - especially when I get angry.
And when you are using public streets your privacy is lost and you become public property?
When I go to a college toilet, they have the right to make their videos, because I could be vandalizing their property or use the paper for my personal (as opposed to official) needs?
Come on, get your priorities right. Property is NOT topping everything else - except if we make it into that.
The right of personal freedom and the secrecy of letters (which can be easily extended to email) is higher than the right of doing with your property what you want.
Insecure Open Source code - sure, has happened and is bound to happen again.
But the point is: is the development cycle going to be in favour of all of us - or is it only in favor of the market position Microsoft is defending?
Trustworthyness is more than just secured code. Trust has to do with knowledge about the thing or person trusted in - it is a function of knowledge. And trust in a person or company is directly related to my vision about the intentions of that person/company.
Bill Gates has not changed, Microsoft is still wanting to dominate the world-market. Only this time with 'trustworthyness'. Hahaha Hohohoho!
I miss your position, your aims, your goal of life, your FEELINGS in your paper. Hence you've lost touch with reality (at least my reality) during the battle with all these great words.
1.) Globalism is a fact.
2.) Global players act - they don't discuss.
3.) Giving away our responseability to political or social or intellectual ideas and concepts is also wide spread. I'd call it a fact too.
4.) The function of language is it to justify to oneself and towards others what the subconscious has allready decided and done.
5.) Your paper doesn't motivate me to do something in any aspect. It's a proof of above step 3) and 4) (with your implicit justification to do nothing but talk, because evrything looks soooo complicated).
A scale ? It's only worth anything, if you have something to put into. What this is one brings with him is often allready fixed - on which side of the scale you put is your decision.
Slashdot Mirror
You example "Thats like requiring car manufacturers to make sure all their vehicles can use diesel, gasoline, petroleum, electricity, fuel cells and ethenol, and have them interchangable." is simply wrong.
The present situation is as if you were forced to buy your gasoline for your Ford only from companies associated with Ford. Or, if you move from one state to the other and need a new number plate, you would have to buy a new car.
Yes I agree.
...and that's exactly where OpenSource is weak, let's face it.
OpenSource is not allways that easy to install and use and interoperable as Microsoft product are. Support is not as well available. If we think in terms of competition on the desktop, OpenSource falls flat on the belly.
This is not something, which can be fixed by speeches. We need to cooperate and coordinate better, we need to have better interoperability with de facto standards (and isn't any standard a de facto standard?).
What the government can (and should) do, is to take care, that the interface definitions are open and without patents or copyrights. That's it's typical role. Everything else is up to us.
Windows-Interfaces should be open and public - all of them.
File formats of Word, Excel, Power Point etc. should be open and public.
I think, it's time to come out of the religious-like discussion and go for competition. We have the pole position in the server market and a very good base in the schools and universities - next areas to tackle will be desktop and then quality, documentation and support.
Geee, an OpenSource AG!!! With Linus for core development, Taco for press relations and me as janitor!
P2P must be OpenSource - all else is the same old crap in new clothes only. Hacking it doesn't make it any better - it's still hidden source from my point of view.
I'm not going to run anything 'free' on my hosts which is not OpenSource. Full stop.
...and that net is not the internet, B2B or H2H -- it's simply conscience to conscience. And that (say) +2+ net is going to take over, when times get really chaotic (which is no longer so far away as it was before Bush became the instrument of 'righteous war making' IMO).
.o)
All other nets - especiall the H2H net - are just the physical surface of that underlying connection. Please let's not forget that. Sorry, that I sound that twisted, but that's my reality. Must have been a drunken preacher some lifes ago
Viewed from that angle fighting the suppressing government, economic, military and/or criminal structures (yes, I know, I'm putting all in one basket) will no longer be intelligent from a certain level onwards. The members of the +2+ net will simply avoid places and times, where the 'right' and 'wrong' ones are fighting each other.
I wonder how many will be left after that World War III. Hence, dear H2H members, please don't play and pay with your lifes. Be carefull, don't let yourself become a member of the powergames too.
..but dying animals are the most dangerous, so it may well take some 10 to 20 years until the industry will give up and adjust to modern reality.
The music industry is charging too much for the copyrighted material. After all the main thing they are doing is copying and distributing themselves. If the industry would simply run the distribution sites and charge a modest royalty (say 10 or 20 cents per track), Napster, Kaaza and Co would have had no chance at all. Hence in a way it's not a fight about copyright or not - it's old distribution technology against the new one. In such a case the new techniques are bound to win after all.
Like hand-copied books against printed ones. And look - are copy-machines or e-books a real threat to book-publishers? No, simply another channel of distribution (and perhaps some competition).
I also doubt that much of the high prices they charge for a CD really goes to the artists. I guess, it's less than 5%. Using the new, additional technique of distribution with lower prices and a larger customer-base is not neccessarily decreasing the artists' income. A higher percentage (say 50%) can go directly to the creators, because fixed costs are less when using the internet and P2P networks to copy and distribute the music. And the hundredfold number of customers will more than make up for the lower prices.
Music industry became fat and lazy and has simply forgotten to invest it's income into new technologies.
Let them cry while we copy. Copyright (like censorship) is a routing problem in the internet - let's route around it.
To start with your last sentence:
I would prefere an earth without political nations. And I think the development is heading into that direction - although I may not live long enough to see it happen.
This is directly connected to the notion of public security. For example if we had an international internet law with consistant regulations, we wouldn't see such cases as the topic we are discussing about. And big companies wouldn't be able to pick the law and court which fit their (open or hidden) interests best.
Secondly I did not start calling the German Railway names. They started the discussion by suing (hope I spell that right) the Provider. And they picked the weakest participant for that - avoiding the political discussion, not explaining to the provider, why they see the site as being illegal, not suing (successfully) the original publication (published 5 years ago - of which this site is only a sort of archive) and so on and so forth.
Justice has to abide to rules, otherwise it's just a powergame. And the German Railway is doing exactly that.
Finally I exercise my right of free speech, I don't need to write to any MdB (German member of parliament) for that. I'm part of a free world and don't need somebody else to represent me. This slashdot discussion IS democracy - just between you and me. There has never been any other real power in humanity than that of the individual. We have only given it away too often - and all too often in the name of "nations" or "security".
Actually that's my disappointment also. I agree with your standpoint. And - not a 'but' but an 'and' - I want to add:
Time plays an important role. If the development into Open Source is not going to speed up, Java will not play the prime role it could (and should) according to my opinion.
The present state is a critical turning point - Sun started to move. Let's help it to go on .o)
1.)
The original paper is very detailled and specific in it's security aspects. It is explicitely stating that nothing should be damaged, about whose functions one is not certain, because that could endanger humans or transports. The described destructions will hinder the speed of the transports but not endanger them or endanger any human or destruct vital components.
2.)
The description was available on the internet for 4 to 5 years by now. It's publication on paper was not forbidden during this time. The German Railroad did know that for years, because they allready tried to block the internet publication twice (without success).
3.)
The "Right to Resistance" is an explicit part of the German constitutional law (a result of rewriting the German constitutional law from scratch after World War II).
Hence the whole action is more of a cesorship than a security issue. Probably (as already said so here in slashdot) nuclear transports are imminent in the near future - a intensely discussed theme in Germany.
I'm not in favour of force - even if it's only against things. But this stinks of antidemocratic censorship in the name of "security".
Just getting rid of any nationality is enough.
Hoo, hoo. And don't forget the heavy railroad accident in Germany some years ago; how many people were killed at that time? about 150? Or was it more like 300?
Reason? Dirty activists in black raincoats? No, Deutsche Bahn had not obeyed their own regulations of railroad maintenance.
And let's remember the Greenpeace anti-atom activists, who got beaten and punished more than once during their "illegal" demonstrations in Germany - I mean the time before Chernobyl.
It's not all that black and white. But it will become that, if we forget about tolerance and freedom of speech.
..and order by law.
Deutsche Bahn - wasn't that the "Deutsche Reichbahn" half a century ago, who used deported Jews and Eastern Europeans to build their railroads for nothing?
If only I could give back my German citizenship. Anybody wants to have it for 1,- Euro? For 50 cents?? For a quarter???
All partners in this game know exactly, that traffic costs money. Yet the ISPs try to catch customers by selling things under price - a "flat rate" which cannot be "flat". And the heavy users buy it, because they know the price for it is not realistic, if heavily used. While the low-volume users simply don't count one plus one with their fingers.
The result is a clash of interests which can be seen from the very beginning, and the struggle seems to be fought on the shoulders of low-usage customers. But who would buy a telefon contract which promises flat rates for international calls, if he hadn't a use for it?
Vampirism? Who tried to seduce as much customers as possible into a contract with unrealistic "flat rate" offers?
What to do? Simply don't make contracts with somebody who tries to catch you with a "flat rate" which is economically impossible. Stick to realistic offers, then you'll get what you pay for (fast access).
The problems are self-created by all three partners: ISPs, low-volume as well as high-volume customers. Put them all onto a distant island (say New Zealand?) and let them think it over, how greedy and stupid the other two players in this game are.
When I've time, I'll go down into the cellar to laugh.
Sure, Stuart, the step taken was in the right direction, but was it BIG with capital letters?
From the way you write about Java I assume it is your home ground. So let me answer as somebody from the non-Java community.
The technical basis is excellent. The original idea of a standard virtual machine is still valid and flexible enough to use the language for all kinds of projects - especially for the exploding world of handhelds and imbedded systems.
What is missing now is the widespread usage in workstations, desktops and servers. This is and has to be a 'multi'-country. Just two players agreeing on the rules of the game - that's not enough. Especially as the two are USA-based. Europe and the East is missing - they are not going to say yes to a decision tree, where only Sun and Apache (and some big companies) are the ruling instances. And youngsters and hackers are missing - they are not going to be attracted by hidden-source or fixed-source projects (and thus the new generation is not fully included). The prices for Java development workbenches are accordingly prohibitive.
BIG organisations make BIG footsteps - but slow ones. Fast development comes only out of Open Source environments. And Java is not (or should I say no longer?) open enough for my taste.
Michael
... but certainly that's part of his role.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to become one, just to code something for the Open Source community. Hence I have to decide from the belly.
And according to my feelings the Java development is no-longer-so-open software. It became lawyer's country - and the whole situation is no longer white (open software) or black (proprietary), it's gone grey. The current discussions ar ample proof for that. Endless meetings and papers how to decide upon new papers, lawers all over the place.
But for such ground work as a development environment there need to be clear rules; the basement must be solid before you can build a house on it. And the concrete of this basement is not yet dry.
If the legal situation is not changing in the next future, 2002 will be the start of the decline of Java.
Long ago when Ada was starting to become available (and after APL had had it's crash landing) there was this saying among compiler writers: "Any programming language with an 'A' in it's name will not survive". And look at what happened with Ada - it's confined to western military developments. The leading role of the DOD became a hindrance to use Ada in non-western and non-military realms. After it's initial excellant support of Ada, the DOD should have given it's child the freedom to develop in the commercial and non-western world (which the DOD failed to do).
Now Sun is trying to make the same errors with Java which the DOD was doing with Ada - not giving enough freedom for a grown up child.
And the Apache group should stick more to it's original way of development - after all why did they succeed in the market place? If the Apache development would have been run under Sun's lead would we use the webserver all over the planet?
After he published the special relativity theory he said:
"If I hadn't written it, it would've taken only a few month for somebody else to publish it. The time was ripe."
Whose ideas are the ideas we write?
(c) copyright 2002 Slashdot.org
life# echo "bah! children, friends, who needs those..."
life# reboot
** message from root@life: system is going down for reboot NOW! **
I was given a name, a drivers licence, an id-card, several bank accounts, email-adresses, homepages, passwords and PGP key-rings and to top it all, I should create a 'secure' storage with additional keys and data to protect? Finally I'm no longer needed; I can simply and sliently die, because all my relevant data is allready handled in a unified, standarized, automatic system - in my electronic 'persona' online.
No.
A human is something different than a 'person'. Of this great important 'persons' we all have had enough - more than enough. The more important they are, the more wars or suppression or power-greedy games are on their account. Alexander "The Great", Bill Gates "The Billionair" and Osama Bin Laden "Fighter of the Holy War".
Time for less pesonalities and more humaness - according to my taste. Let's bake a cake, go for a walk with the children or joke with the friends. How to store such things?
Life cannot be stored - nor can I.
Well, I didn'T mean Locke's or Jefferson's Life or whatever. I'm not breathing for anyone else but myself - nothing to say about speaking -.
When I happen to have the feeling, that something is bullshit, I express that. Not out of morale, not for a thousand Locke's or a million presidents and a billion countries - no, just because I do so. And because I love myself - especially when I get angry.
bOR1ng, no nEW +ricK5.
And when you are using public streets your privacy is lost and you become public property?
When I go to a college toilet, they have the right to make their videos, because I could be vandalizing their property or use the paper for my personal (as opposed to official) needs?
Come on, get your priorities right. Property is NOT topping everything else - except if we make it into that.
The right of personal freedom and the secrecy of letters (which can be easily extended to email) is higher than the right of doing with your property what you want.
Isn't that so?
If not, the declaration needs to be fixed.
Secure Microsoft code - great, why not?
Insecure Open Source code - sure, has happened and is bound to happen again.
But the point is: is the development cycle going to be in favour of all of us - or is it only in favor of the market position Microsoft is defending?
Trustworthyness is more than just secured code. Trust has to do with knowledge about the thing or person trusted in - it is a function of knowledge. And trust in a person or company is directly related to my vision about the intentions of that person/company.
Bill Gates has not changed, Microsoft is still wanting to dominate the world-market. Only this time with 'trustworthyness'. Hahaha Hohohoho!
I miss your position, your aims, your goal of life, your FEELINGS in your paper. Hence you've lost touch with reality (at least my reality) during the battle with all these great words.
1.)
Globalism is a fact.
2.)
Global players act - they don't discuss.
3.)
Giving away our responseability to political or social or intellectual ideas and concepts is also wide spread. I'd call it a fact too.
4.)
The function of language is it to justify to oneself and towards others what the subconscious has allready decided and done.
5.)
Your paper doesn't motivate me to do something in any aspect. It's a proof of above step 3) and 4) (with your implicit justification to do nothing but talk, because evrything looks soooo complicated).
Luke-warm air.
Thanks for helping me to improve my English.
A scale ? It's only worth anything, if you have something to put into. What this is one brings with him is often allready fixed - on which side of the scale you put is your decision.
Same holds true for friend, foe or colleague.