What we do next ought to be obvious. Corporations/organizations/institutions must get together and figure out how to use this ethically. Surely, if we can cure multiple sclerosis, can't we cure [your_least_favorite_skin_color_here]ness?
I'd like to use this as a stepping stone to note that our genetic diversity provides a certain resiliancy to -unknown- attacks.
Since I'm a geek, I'll compare it to a computer network. [Warning: I don't know what 'mapping a genome' really means, how much we understand of which genes do what and how they interact based on the mapping.] Suppose you run a computer network. You keep up to date on all the latest patches, you read bugtraq religiously and patch all the holes you can find in your systems. You're still going to miss something somewhere. Some malevolant force creates a 'sploit versus your favorite operating system which goes undetected for some period of time. In that time, the kiddies have compromised all of your systems, bringing down the whole enterprise.
Obviously, you'd be in a better position if you used a more heterogeneous (even the word makes my analogy) network strategy. Having a system of like-configured boxes makes each box as strong as possible against KNOWN enemies, but makes the network less resiliant against UNKNOWN enemies.
In case you're having trouble following the analogy, consider the human race =~ network and human being =~ individual system.
Now the question becomes, "Who is going to want to forego protection against the known in order to protect the race against the unknown?" Imagine if computers were able to choose their own OS.. would any choose to be [insert your least favorite OS] as opposed to [insert your favorite OS], just for the good of the network, at significant personal risk?
The easiest way to seperate the OSS projects is on the openness of their CVS commit access granting policies.
It might be the easiest way, but it is decidedly not the most relevant way. The openess of a project is reflected in its ease of access to the code, formal methods for patch submission (this doesn't have to mean you can commit your changes), access to the developer community and licensing terms.
Anonymous CVS access broadens the availability of up to date code, so enhances the openess siginifcantly.
It's not the air, it's the the dead trees. CD packaging used to be just as bad, but rather than an authority dicatating CD packaging changes, consumer pressure got the industry to change. We need something similar for software.
If buy consumer pressure, you mean market pressure, then that probably happened.
The amount of dead trees involved in changing the size of a box from say 1.5 x 1 to 1.75 x 2 is minimal. Software is not as mass a retail market as you guys seem to believe.
If you want to affect real change, try to convince Sun not to ship a full set of documentation for each license you purchase. The retail software marke tis a real yawner in this regard.
After seeing this, I'm motivated to pitch in and make sure it doesn't die.
So if you have great ideas for how to improve the program, why haven't you already been working on it? If you don't have great ideas, what makes you think you'll be a valuable contributor in the future?
You had no idea the code was going unmaintained. Maybe there's a reason for that? Perhaps it doesn't need more feeping creaturism?
The GPL makes it hellish to find a _for-profit organization_ willing to take on project management and maintenance.
Then, everyone benefits. This is the true power of the GNU General Public License.
Perhaps so. Another possible scenario is that a company sees a potential enhancement for a product but chooses not to create it because it would require giving their software away.. corporations exist to generate profit. For good or ill, that is their function.
There are only so many hackers who have the foresight to see problems beyond technical ones to be resolved. Even fewer of those have the desire to solve them. Useful but technically uninteresting enhancements may never be created.
This is certainly not 'Informative'(is there not a moderate this to 'Misinformative' selection?) and it certainly should not have shown up when I filtered down to +5 comments. Especially when I had to look at sub +5 comments to find that, in fact, his severe factual errors had been corrected. Do the moderators actually read the posts or do they just look for their buddies' names to give them 31337 credit?
The Twin Problems of Free Speech
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
There are two major problems which are intermingled with each other.
Filtering posts causes us to narrow our range of experience making us less well-rounded and well-informed citizens.
Not filtering posts subjects us to those who would abuse the medium and lower the utility of the site.
While I may not be interested in JonKatz' writing on any given topic, leaving his "headlines" on my Slashdot front page doesn't cost me much in terms of time or energy. There's a small chance that seeing his synopsis will intrigue me and allow me to learn something new about myself or the world around me. If I filter, I lose that. So what if I don't filter, at all? Well, then, in theory, I would have to read about First Comment, how JonKatz sucks, how Slashdot is going to crap. None of this provides any value to me. Were it up to me, I would keep the Slashdot front page unfiltered. Allowing everything which the editorial board of Slashdot considers appropriate to be displayed on there. That would be a favor tothe community, even if they don't appreciate it right away. I'd keep the ability to filter responses to those articles.. since they are not subject to any review prior to posting.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to use this as a stepping stone to note that our genetic diversity provides a certain resiliancy to -unknown- attacks.
Since I'm a geek, I'll compare it to a computer network. [Warning: I don't know what 'mapping a genome' really means, how much we understand of which genes do what and how they interact based on the mapping.] Suppose you run a computer network. You keep up to date on all the latest patches, you read bugtraq religiously and patch all the holes you can find in your systems. You're still going to miss something somewhere. Some malevolant force creates a 'sploit versus your favorite operating system which goes undetected for some period of time. In that time, the kiddies have compromised all of your systems, bringing down the whole enterprise.
Obviously, you'd be in a better position if you used a more heterogeneous (even the word makes my analogy) network strategy. Having a system of like-configured boxes makes each box as strong as possible against KNOWN enemies, but makes the network less resiliant against UNKNOWN enemies.
In case you're having trouble following the analogy, consider the human race =~ network and human being =~ individual system.
Now the question becomes, "Who is going to want to forego protection against the known in order to protect the race against the unknown?" Imagine if computers were able to choose their own OS.. would any choose to be [insert your least favorite OS] as opposed to [insert your favorite OS], just for the good of the network, at significant personal risk?
It might be the easiest way, but it is decidedly not the most relevant way. The openess of a project is reflected in its ease of access to the code, formal methods for patch submission (this doesn't have to mean you can commit your changes), access to the developer community and licensing terms.
Anonymous CVS access broadens the availability of up to date code, so enhances the openess siginifcantly.
What are the chances of getting some non-GPLd kernel code sharing from the Linux camp tho? It's an impossible sell to add GPL to the BSD kernel.
If buy consumer pressure, you mean market pressure, then that probably happened.
The amount of dead trees involved in changing the size of a box from say 1.5 x 1 to 1.75 x 2 is minimal. Software is not as mass a retail market as you guys seem to believe.
If you want to affect real change, try to convince Sun not to ship a full set of documentation for each license you purchase. The retail software marke tis a real yawner in this regard.
So if you have great ideas for how to improve the program, why haven't you already been working on it? If you don't have great ideas, what makes you think you'll be a valuable contributor in the future?
You had no idea the code was going unmaintained. Maybe there's a reason for that? Perhaps it doesn't need more feeping creaturism?
The GPL makes it hellish to find a _for-profit organization_ willing to take on project management and maintenance.
Of course, the cool thing is that you that the right to include BSD code in your GPL'd apps...
You can't do the reverse... so I guess the choice to use GPL is the real problem.
Then, everyone benefits. This is the true power of the GNU General Public License.
Perhaps so. Another possible scenario is that a company sees a potential enhancement for a product but chooses not to create it because it would require giving their software away.. corporations exist to generate profit. For good or ill, that is their function.
There are only so many hackers who have the foresight to see problems beyond technical ones to be resolved. Even fewer of those have the desire to solve them. Useful but technically uninteresting enhancements may never be created.
This will only benefit everyone involved, as there is no worry about the package staying free --- it must, or else we sue! ;-)
Unless the development stalls BECAUSE it must remain free... the special case that GPL boosters always skip.
How much green cheese can the Earth possibly need to import?
This is certainly not 'Informative'(is there not a moderate this to 'Misinformative' selection?) and it certainly should not have shown up when I filtered down to +5 comments. Especially when I had to look at sub +5 comments to find that, in fact, his severe factual errors had been corrected. Do the moderators actually read the posts or do they just look for their buddies' names to give them 31337 credit?
While I may not be interested in JonKatz' writing on any given topic, leaving his "headlines" on my Slashdot front page doesn't cost me much in terms of time or energy. There's a small chance that seeing his synopsis will intrigue me and allow me to learn something new about myself or the world around me. If I filter, I lose that.
So what if I don't filter, at all? Well, then, in theory, I would have to read about First Comment, how JonKatz sucks, how Slashdot is going to crap. None of this provides any value to me.
Were it up to me, I would keep the Slashdot front page unfiltered. Allowing everything which the editorial board of Slashdot considers appropriate to be displayed on there. That would be a favor tothe community, even if they don't appreciate it right away.
I'd keep the ability to filter responses to those articles.. since they are not subject to any review prior to posting.