The same consumer base had no problem eating up Dolby Pro Logic in the early 90s. DPL required 5 speakers and a sub! Now, one could argue that people purchased DPL systems exclusively for the home theater, but I don't think this is the case. I'd say that the majority of people that adoptered DPL at the peak of its success were mostly enticed by it's ability to matrix stereo music into a surround format, thus gaining a 3d soundfield without need for a format change.
I think the lesson to learn with quadraphonic 8-tracks/cassettes/vinyl, SACD, DVD-Audio, DCC, etc, is the following; People don't readily adopt expensive format quality upgrades that physically look the same and provide the same functionality as their predecessor.
1) Some people are just assholes. This is a fact of life. As you've noticed, there seems to be some strong correlation between linux and assholes, but I think the relationship is different than most people think. It suspect that assholes often choose to use alternative OSes (esp Linux) in order to be an elitist. It's the same motivation for people to drive flashy cars, or use exclusively specific branded products. Mac has their fair share of these personas, especially when that attitude gets mixed in with artistic elitism (also prevalent in Mac users). I think we ought to ignore these people.
2) Some people are decent humans, but simply have no interest in helping you. Ok, so this seems like a mortal sin at first, but is it? Many of these people are developers that made a program to satisfy their personal interest, and instead of keeping it to themselves, decided to release it. They might work with other programmers online to make it better, and might have chat rooms and message boards to facilitate development. They have no interest in support, and might not even care if anybody outside the development pool uses the software at all. Why should they care? Frankly, I would prefer that they spend their time coding than helping random people on IRC. And if you demand attention, doesn't that make you childish? Why is it their resposibility to help you. That attitude is arrogant and selfish.
I personally try to be helpful in all situations, but understand that not all people do. Make sure that if you need help, you're talking to the right person. Grow a thick skin, and shrug off the fools who live to deride you. And for heaven's sake, don't demand attention! That is just as childish as the derision of elitist assholes, and hurts everybody. Remember, if you have a problem or question, 100 to 1, somebody else has had it too, so Google probably already knows the answer (or at least the question:-P); just be choosey about what question you decide to take to a live system (message board, irc).
Firstly, I really do agree with most of your points. Kudos. But you went too far:
TrueHD
HDTV
HD-DVD
720i/720p/1080i/1080p
Dol by/Dolby
Digital 5.1/7.1 Surround
DD+
VHS
HD-A1/(and it's
snazzier cousin HD-XA1)
D-VHS HD
HDMI
ICT
Component
outs
OK, I'm pretty sure that most slashdoters know most of the important ones here. Some of them are derivable from other acronyms that are common enough (eg. DD+). Also, as far as I could tell, HD-A1 (and HD-XA1) are model names. It's hardly fair to gripe at an industry because their model numbers are unrecognizable to newbies. Every manufacturer has their system (some more complex than others). Consider BMW; how would you know what 325i meant without doing a small bit of research?
While I agree with your other points, complexity is certainly not a problem here. In many cases, different terms exist to indicate the potential for consumer choice (eg: DTS vs DD, or D-VHS vs DVD). In other cases, it means that the current standards have potential for technological expansion (eg: 480p vs 720p). In any case, having this kind of system and these kinds of terms means that if you do 5 minutes more research, you end up getting a system tailored to your exact need. Are you that scared of wikipedia?
Absolutely! And I won't deny that the market doesn't exist.
However, keep in mind that the PS2 is a device that was designed with application interchangability in mind. People regularly stop the machine, put in a different app (game), and restart it. Computers really weren't designed with this in mind.
I've come to the conclusion that dual booting is definitely a pain in the ass. I have a working Debian system that does exactly what I want it to, and I would be very upset if I had restart my computer just to use one or two fringe apps.
most everyone already using it will simply stay with it
Macworld only claimed that Apple has the potential to double their market share. Given that it's so small anyway (3.5%?), most everyone cansimply stay with it, and still Apple could double their market share.
Plus, legacy apps only keep perhaps half of the users around anyway. Most people just get an OEM computer with new apps, and go from there (IE 6, WMP 10, Office 2003, TaxCut 2005, etc). Is there very many reasons for the average joe to use a legacy app when the new apps general accept older file formats?
For once, the Slashdot headlines are far more sane;
*Some* defections are a pretty good bet, seeing as how people have been leaving windows for Mac OS for the last several years now. Of course, you're right that the macworld headline is fairly optimistic; to double market share would be quite an accomplishment. But does it really seem that far out? Apple has what, a 3.5% market share or something like it? To get to 7% seems very doable so long as Vista is delayed long enough, or just plain sucks. Just imagine if everybody who has an iPod bought a Mac MINI. That would far more than double their market share. Of course, I realize that's unlikely, but the iPod does make an excellent transition device. When people are exposed to the Apple interface, they often get hooked.
1) Apple users who want to run windows-based apps are in the minority; it is an amazingly limited market slice.
2)I also imagine that for the overwhelming majority of cases where somebody wants to use a windows app, it would be more convenient to use intra-session emulator, or something like wine that doesn't even require a windows license.
3)Finally, I suspect that the percentage of Apple owners who choose to pirate windows (if they simply must try out bootcamp) will be even larger than the number of Chinese citizens who do the same. Bootcamp is pretty much a novelty act, and it's hard to justify non-oem prices for a piece of crap OS like XP when you've got OS X sitting right in front of you.
Perhaps with Dell and HP, but Panasonic and Sony are not largely associated with PCs in most people's minds. People who hear "Panasonic" or "Sony" immediately think of telephones, consumer audio and video electronics, video games, video cameras (Sony DV cams are a big freaking market), and portable electronics (some people really still do buy portable CD players, and both sony and panasonic are well respected for those products). I realize that Vaio has certainly been a very popular branding, but laptops just aren't what people think when they hear "Sony".
And that's just the beginning. Soon, you'll just plug your brain right into a computer. Instant access to information. Try coming up with fair knowledge assessments when everybody has the entire internet wired into their brain.
Also, this would be a good alternative to LCD; now, you'll REALLY be able to see sounds. And when they do the same for the olfactory, you'll be able to smell colors...
This project is designed to benefit countries as a whole. Some countries have populations with no high-level skills. By providing these cheap laptops (along with a wireless infrastructure) to their citizens, they can prepare them for more high-level work, which will attract business, which will create jobs, which will put bread on the table.
Ergo, $100 laptops will [indirectly] put bread on the tables of those who need it.
Yes, I understand what you're saying; you have a valid point, but I think if I rephrase, I do as well.
Regarding nVidia, ATI, Sun and Macromedia and "intrusions": Perhaps intrusions was the wrong word. Certainly, people have the choice to just not use them and their wares. However, these companies don't push software, they push platforms (well, perhaps not ATI or nVidia). I don't think that RMS has a particular beef with, for instance, VMWare (beyond probably asking GNU/Linux users to choose open alternatives like Xen, or Bochs, or whatever). However, Sun is pushing the java platform, and Macromedia is pushing flash. ATI and nVidia are basically making sweeping additions to the OpenGL spec (which AFAIK are indeed open), but then refusing to support their hardware with open drivers, and sometimes not supporting their hardware with binary-only drivers (1.5 years for SLI). These companies promote what in RMS's mind (and mine) is a trap. It allows non-free software to gain a foothold in RMS's paradise. Why would think he be willing to brook such a presence? It isn't an really intrustion, but if people accept those technologies with open arms and call them "free" or "open" platforms, it might as well be an intrusion. Now, perhaps his paradise is not yours (and perhaps not even represenative of a majority of OpenSource developers), but how are you being alienated when he speaks based on his ideals? I think even people in the open source world with opposing viewpoints held in good faith need RMS to ground them, and to challenge them.
You just have to admit that Linux is just as arbitrary a word for our modern distros as GNU. I'm just as tired as the next guy of this particular debate, but there are several important points here;
1. Your suggestion of replacing excellent free software tools for spite is substantially more petty than RMS's desire to rename distributions
2. GNU/Linux as a name makes a TON of sense, and really serves to disambiguate several kinds of systems. I would support this kind of naming convention for any OS, free or not. Consider the new GNU/BSD or GNU/Solaris distros, especially as they clash with pure BSD or pure Solaris distros. It really just works. Admitedly, I wouldn't try to enforce it like RMS does, but I think it's a grand idea.
3. There could be a case for naming current GNU/Linux distros simply "GNU" (or, at any rate, just as good a case as naming it "Linux"). It's a much cooler word than Linux, and the whole prepending and appending 'x' to words for effect is getting old. If this were what people were calling it, don't you think Torvalds might be a little upset? All this to say, the Linux name is arbitrary, and by pushing it, you're no better (and probably substantially worse) than RMS for suggesting GNU/Linux
I think that the most passionate advocates for change throughout history use this kind of repitition quite a bit. Of course, check through your RMS history, and you'll find that it works time and time again. Check out RMS v. Trolltech (about QT licensing), or RMS v. X/Open ("The Open Group" now). And when he wins, he drops it. Also, you can expect him to consistantly push those ideals that he thinks are worthy. Hell, I'd be dissapointed if he didn't.
Plus, he adapts over time, constantly targeting key issues; DMCA, which really shouldn't have diminished in relevance as much as it has in the last 6 years, and now DRM which I believe to be key obstacle to a free future. It's unfortunate that the first point in the article is the GNU name issue, which I believe to be the least important of those the article mentions. I guess it's hard when a speech is transcribed to an article. In a speech the first point is usually the most trivial (you just use it to get the crowd warmed up), whereas in an article, half the people (and about 90% of the/. crowd) don't read past even the first screen of material.
So, what is his dream there, Dazo? Would you like to put words into his mouth? Do you think that is dream is for everybody to be using emacs? or for everybody to be using the Linux or Hurd kernels? Or for everybody to be using exclusively Free Software (or at least to have a choice of doing so, and being totally productive)?
I'd probably say the latter, and if that's the case, the subtle intrusions that Sun is offering is probably about the farthest thing from his dream. Java, Flash, and binary-only video card drivers (eg: those by ATI, Nvidia) are an infection in his dream. They are the one of the only ways that any hope of his dream coming true can be destroyed; they are an abomination in his heaven.
Perhaps it's everybody else that's screwed up. Maybe, if the open source community took him seriously even when they thought he was wrong, and respected his opinions even if at long last they were rejected, then there wouldn't be a problem. Torvalds has not dealt maturely with criticisms from RMS. I'd like to think that if I were in his position, I would answer objections with the respect he deserves.
Nobody should feel "alienated" because RMS pushes the Free Software Ideal. That's just foolish and trite.
What do you mean, "unworkable"? Obviously, Stallman is pushing an ideal. I don't think anybody (including RMS) expects that one day, we'll suddenly find ourselves in an FSF utopia where advocates of software restriction have been totally repressed. However, RMS is the one that keeps us grounded, all the time! Consider the KDE fiasco. I would probably consider this to be "recent" ('99ish?). Because of pressure from RMS, qt was opened up in a copyleft license. And still, he continues to push forward to defend his ideal (just as he should) from subtle invasions by various groups including Macromedia, Nvidia, ATI, and Sun. Do you really think that the GNU ideal will survive if they (we?) totally get it get overrun by closed software? He isn't going to affect change with softcore stances.
People said he was crazy back when he really did change the world, and it's no different now, except that now the people calling him crazy are so called "open source" advocates and individual developers that consider him to be more of a nuisance. They also call him a lunatic because he's constantly advocating the same things, but that, to me, is the sign of a dedicated man. I wonder if people got tired of MLKjr talking about racial equalization, or Gandhi talking about passive resistance? Clearly, the naming convention of GNU distributions is not a human rights issue, but RMS knows how battles are won, and repitition is key
You give him credit, but I think he deserves even more than you're giving him. He's relevant today, and he ought to be respected because (not inspite of) his unwavering devotion to his ideals.
BTW, I don't agree with Stallman on all his entire philosophy, but he is consistant, and that too should be respected.
That would be better than the current situation. It sounds like you're describing a situation like the current one with Internet Explorer. I agree that this sucks, but it really isn't that bad, and it certainly allows for competition (for instance, Firefox). Similarly, even if MS Office read/wrote ODF with quirks, it would still allow plenty of room for competition (or at any rate, more than there is now).
1) I did read the article I linked to.
2) I am aware of the core system and it's specifications
3) I was not attempting to disagree with the great-grandparent post, but merely amending it with all the relevent information.
It's very likely that Bethesda software will simply require people to have a hard drive. Several xbox 360 critics say the core system is pretty much useless. Either you have the money to buy the silver, or you just don't have enough money at all.
Yes, I understand that. What I'm trying to say here is that, in the phrasings ESR, a public CVS server has a lot of eyeballs. Even if there is some uberdude controlling entrance to that repository, when/if the stuff is accepted, everybody can read it, try it, and ultimately take a crack at providing a better functionality, integration, etc.
The Bazaar method does not mean that I'm sitting nude in the middle of a 100,000 person stadium coding some obscure driver for the Linux kernel. It just means that, at some point before the final release of an overarching application, everybody has the chance to criticize the code. This is the whole point of odd numbered kernels. No distros in their right mind release production products with an odd numbered kernel; the entire life of that kernel is dedicated only to attracting eyeballs.
Certainly, on a large scale, I wouldn't consider IBM developing some kernel components privately (in-house) to ruin the bazaar aspect of the Linux kernel (so long as they get made public eventually). However, on a small scale, if they don't have the eyeballs, then they're cathedral style.
This request might not be as non-sensical as you think.
We all know that Linus prefers the bazaar style software development methodology, but there is no guarantee that IBM doesn't have cathedral style GPL'ed development going on. They might be preparing to drop new code in the next version of the Linux kernel (there will be another one eventually).
There are plenty of kernel drivers, filesystems, and whatnot that can be developed (or at least started) without a completely clear understanding of the upcoming kernel architecture (provided at least a few essentials are the same, such as the monolithic design).
Well, I hope you get modded up so people can see that the **AA's propaganda machine is having a horrible effect on us peons.
DRM has, since its inception, limited the user's rights far beyond those specified by copyright law (as the grandparent pointed out). Certainly, by purchasing content on a medium, you have not magically become the author of that content. However, the law MUST recognize consumer rights in that situation; or at any rate, more rights than "you now temporarily have the right to experience the content alone, so long as the powers that be don't mind, and in the way that said powers deem acceptable".
In such a state, it could be the case that our entire lives exist at the behest of corporations (especially in a world that's becoming more and more dominated by software and 'net services).
Why can't anybody claim that? Even a mass murderer can make true claims about the law and morality. Just because one is a criminal doesn't make him any less able fight for consumer rights.
True enough; That's why I used the word "most". Now, I would imagine that google owns a ton of companies, but I believe that you've identified the only two services or tools that use technology absorbed from a corporate purchase.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/
If anybody can identify such services besides Earth and Blogger, I would love to know.
The distinction might might moot if google ends up putting wireless APs all over the country.
Of course, if the question is, "will google start channel 5 VHF stations", I would say that is unlikely. Firstly, the project manager position that was linked to doesn't seem fitting for such an enterprise, and secondly, it doesn't fit with their past patterns.
It would be more likely that they would actually design a protocol from the ground up to do pure 'net based interactive TV, and then pipe it through all their wireless APs.
Slashdot Mirror
NO!
The same consumer base had no problem eating up Dolby Pro Logic in the early 90s. DPL required 5 speakers and a sub! Now, one could argue that people purchased DPL systems exclusively for the home theater, but I don't think this is the case. I'd say that the majority of people that adoptered DPL at the peak of its success were mostly enticed by it's ability to matrix stereo music into a surround format, thus gaining a 3d soundfield without need for a format change.
I think the lesson to learn with quadraphonic 8-tracks/cassettes/vinyl, SACD, DVD-Audio, DCC, etc, is the following; People don't readily adopt expensive format quality upgrades that physically look the same and provide the same functionality as their predecessor.
There are two issues here.
:-P); just be choosey about what question you decide to take to a live system (message board, irc).
1) Some people are just assholes. This is a fact of life. As you've noticed, there seems to be some strong correlation between linux and assholes, but I think the relationship is different than most people think. It suspect that assholes often choose to use alternative OSes (esp Linux) in order to be an elitist. It's the same motivation for people to drive flashy cars, or use exclusively specific branded products. Mac has their fair share of these personas, especially when that attitude gets mixed in with artistic elitism (also prevalent in Mac users). I think we ought to ignore these people.
2) Some people are decent humans, but simply have no interest in helping you. Ok, so this seems like a mortal sin at first, but is it? Many of these people are developers that made a program to satisfy their personal interest, and instead of keeping it to themselves, decided to release it. They might work with other programmers online to make it better, and might have chat rooms and message boards to facilitate development. They have no interest in support, and might not even care if anybody outside the development pool uses the software at all. Why should they care? Frankly, I would prefer that they spend their time coding than helping random people on IRC. And if you demand attention, doesn't that make you childish? Why is it their resposibility to help you. That attitude is arrogant and selfish.
I personally try to be helpful in all situations, but understand that not all people do. Make sure that if you need help, you're talking to the right person. Grow a thick skin, and shrug off the fools who live to deride you. And for heaven's sake, don't demand attention! That is just as childish as the derision of elitist assholes, and hurts everybody. Remember, if you have a problem or question, 100 to 1, somebody else has had it too, so Google probably already knows the answer (or at least the question
OK, I'm pretty sure that most slashdoters know most of the important ones here. Some of them are derivable from other acronyms that are common enough (eg. DD+). Also, as far as I could tell, HD-A1 (and HD-XA1) are model names. It's hardly fair to gripe at an industry because their model numbers are unrecognizable to newbies. Every manufacturer has their system (some more complex than others). Consider BMW; how would you know what 325i meant without doing a small bit of research?
While I agree with your other points, complexity is certainly not a problem here. In many cases, different terms exist to indicate the potential for consumer choice (eg: DTS vs DD, or D-VHS vs DVD). In other cases, it means that the current standards have potential for technological expansion (eg: 480p vs 720p). In any case, having this kind of system and these kinds of terms means that if you do 5 minutes more research, you end up getting a system tailored to your exact need. Are you that scared of wikipedia?
Then you should switch to SkyOS. They have a really small market share.
Absolutely! And I won't deny that the market doesn't exist.
However, keep in mind that the PS2 is a device that was designed with application interchangability in mind. People regularly stop the machine, put in a different app (game), and restart it. Computers really weren't designed with this in mind.
I've come to the conclusion that dual booting is definitely a pain in the ass. I have a working Debian system that does exactly what I want it to, and I would be very upset if I had restart my computer just to use one or two fringe apps.
most everyone already using it will simply stay with it
Macworld only claimed that Apple has the potential to double their market share. Given that it's so small anyway (3.5%?), most everyone can simply stay with it, and still Apple could double their market share.
Plus, legacy apps only keep perhaps half of the users around anyway. Most people just get an OEM computer with new apps, and go from there (IE 6, WMP 10, Office 2003, TaxCut 2005, etc). Is there very many reasons for the average joe to use a legacy app when the new apps general accept older file formats?
For once, the Slashdot headlines are far more sane;
*Some* defections are a pretty good bet, seeing as how people have been leaving windows for Mac OS for the last several years now. Of course, you're right that the macworld headline is fairly optimistic; to double market share would be quite an accomplishment. But does it really seem that far out? Apple has what, a 3.5% market share or something like it? To get to 7% seems very doable so long as Vista is delayed long enough, or just plain sucks. Just imagine if everybody who has an iPod bought a Mac MINI. That would far more than double their market share. Of course, I realize that's unlikely, but the iPod does make an excellent transition device. When people are exposed to the Apple interface, they often get hooked.
1) Apple users who want to run windows-based apps are in the minority; it is an amazingly limited market slice.
2)I also imagine that for the overwhelming majority of cases where somebody wants to use a windows app, it would be more convenient to use intra-session emulator, or something like wine that doesn't even require a windows license.
3)Finally, I suspect that the percentage of Apple owners who choose to pirate windows (if they simply must try out bootcamp) will be even larger than the number of Chinese citizens who do the same. Bootcamp is pretty much a novelty act, and it's hard to justify non-oem prices for a piece of crap OS like XP when you've got OS X sitting right in front of you.
Perhaps with Dell and HP, but Panasonic and Sony are not largely associated with PCs in most people's minds. People who hear "Panasonic" or "Sony" immediately think of telephones, consumer audio and video electronics, video games, video cameras (Sony DV cams are a big freaking market), and portable electronics (some people really still do buy portable CD players, and both sony and panasonic are well respected for those products). I realize that Vaio has certainly been a very popular branding, but laptops just aren't what people think when they hear "Sony".
And that's just the beginning. Soon, you'll just plug your brain right into a computer. Instant access to information. Try coming up with fair knowledge assessments when everybody has the entire internet wired into their brain.
Also, this would be a good alternative to LCD; now, you'll REALLY be able to see sounds. And when they do the same for the olfactory, you'll be able to smell colors...
This project is designed to benefit countries as a whole. Some countries have populations with no high-level skills. By providing these cheap laptops (along with a wireless infrastructure) to their citizens, they can prepare them for more high-level work, which will attract business, which will create jobs, which will put bread on the table.
Ergo, $100 laptops will [indirectly] put bread on the tables of those who need it.
Yes, I understand what you're saying; you have a valid point, but I think if I rephrase, I do as well.
Regarding nVidia, ATI, Sun and Macromedia and "intrusions": Perhaps intrusions was the wrong word. Certainly, people have the choice to just not use them and their wares. However, these companies don't push software, they push platforms (well, perhaps not ATI or nVidia). I don't think that RMS has a particular beef with, for instance, VMWare (beyond probably asking GNU/Linux users to choose open alternatives like Xen, or Bochs, or whatever). However, Sun is pushing the java platform, and Macromedia is pushing flash. ATI and nVidia are basically making sweeping additions to the OpenGL spec (which AFAIK are indeed open), but then refusing to support their hardware with open drivers, and sometimes not supporting their hardware with binary-only drivers (1.5 years for SLI). These companies promote what in RMS's mind (and mine) is a trap. It allows non-free software to gain a foothold in RMS's paradise. Why would think he be willing to brook such a presence? It isn't an really intrustion, but if people accept those technologies with open arms and call them "free" or "open" platforms, it might as well be an intrusion. Now, perhaps his paradise is not yours (and perhaps not even represenative of a majority of OpenSource developers), but how are you being alienated when he speaks based on his ideals? I think even people in the open source world with opposing viewpoints held in good faith need RMS to ground them, and to challenge them.
You just have to admit that Linux is just as arbitrary a word for our modern distros as GNU. I'm just as tired as the next guy of this particular debate, but there are several important points here;
1. Your suggestion of replacing excellent free software tools for spite is substantially more petty than RMS's desire to rename distributions
2. GNU/Linux as a name makes a TON of sense, and really serves to disambiguate several kinds of systems. I would support this kind of naming convention for any OS, free or not. Consider the new GNU/BSD or GNU/Solaris distros, especially as they clash with pure BSD or pure Solaris distros. It really just works. Admitedly, I wouldn't try to enforce it like RMS does, but I think it's a grand idea.
3. There could be a case for naming current GNU/Linux distros simply "GNU" (or, at any rate, just as good a case as naming it "Linux"). It's a much cooler word than Linux, and the whole prepending and appending 'x' to words for effect is getting old. If this were what people were calling it, don't you think Torvalds might be a little upset? All this to say, the Linux name is arbitrary, and by pushing it, you're no better (and probably substantially worse) than RMS for suggesting GNU/Linux
This is modded funny, but it really is true.
/. crowd) don't read past even the first screen of material.
I think that the most passionate advocates for change throughout history use this kind of repitition quite a bit. Of course, check through your RMS history, and you'll find that it works time and time again. Check out RMS v. Trolltech (about QT licensing), or RMS v. X/Open ("The Open Group" now). And when he wins, he drops it. Also, you can expect him to consistantly push those ideals that he thinks are worthy. Hell, I'd be dissapointed if he didn't.
Plus, he adapts over time, constantly targeting key issues; DMCA, which really shouldn't have diminished in relevance as much as it has in the last 6 years, and now DRM which I believe to be key obstacle to a free future. It's unfortunate that the first point in the article is the GNU name issue, which I believe to be the least important of those the article mentions. I guess it's hard when a speech is transcribed to an article. In a speech the first point is usually the most trivial (you just use it to get the crowd warmed up), whereas in an article, half the people (and about 90% of the
farther away his dream will be ??
So, what is his dream there, Dazo? Would you like to put words into his mouth? Do you think that is dream is for everybody to be using emacs? or for everybody to be using the Linux or Hurd kernels? Or for everybody to be using exclusively Free Software (or at least to have a choice of doing so, and being totally productive)?
I'd probably say the latter, and if that's the case, the subtle intrusions that Sun is offering is probably about the farthest thing from his dream. Java, Flash, and binary-only video card drivers (eg: those by ATI, Nvidia) are an infection in his dream. They are the one of the only ways that any hope of his dream coming true can be destroyed; they are an abomination in his heaven.
Perhaps it's everybody else that's screwed up. Maybe, if the open source community took him seriously even when they thought he was wrong, and respected his opinions even if at long last they were rejected, then there wouldn't be a problem. Torvalds has not dealt maturely with criticisms from RMS. I'd like to think that if I were in his position, I would answer objections with the respect he deserves.
Nobody should feel "alienated" because RMS pushes the Free Software Ideal. That's just foolish and trite.
What do you mean, "unworkable"? Obviously, Stallman is pushing an ideal. I don't think anybody (including RMS) expects that one day, we'll suddenly find ourselves in an FSF utopia where advocates of software restriction have been totally repressed. However, RMS is the one that keeps us grounded, all the time! Consider the KDE fiasco. I would probably consider this to be "recent" ('99ish?). Because of pressure from RMS, qt was opened up in a copyleft license. And still, he continues to push forward to defend his ideal (just as he should) from subtle invasions by various groups including Macromedia, Nvidia, ATI, and Sun. Do you really think that the GNU ideal will survive if they (we?) totally get it get overrun by closed software? He isn't going to affect change with softcore stances.
People said he was crazy back when he really did change the world, and it's no different now, except that now the people calling him crazy are so called "open source" advocates and individual developers that consider him to be more of a nuisance. They also call him a lunatic because he's constantly advocating the same things, but that, to me, is the sign of a dedicated man. I wonder if people got tired of MLKjr talking about racial equalization, or Gandhi talking about passive resistance? Clearly, the naming convention of GNU distributions is not a human rights issue, but RMS knows how battles are won, and repitition is key
You give him credit, but I think he deserves even more than you're giving him. He's relevant today, and he ought to be respected because (not inspite of) his unwavering devotion to his ideals.
BTW, I don't agree with Stallman on all his entire philosophy, but he is consistant, and that too should be respected.
That would be better than the current situation. It sounds like you're describing a situation like the current one with Internet Explorer. I agree that this sucks, but it really isn't that bad, and it certainly allows for competition (for instance, Firefox). Similarly, even if MS Office read/wrote ODF with quirks, it would still allow plenty of room for competition (or at any rate, more than there is now).
Here's some food for thought:
1) I did read the article I linked to.
2) I am aware of the core system and it's specifications
3) I was not attempting to disagree with the great-grandparent post, but merely amending it with all the relevent information.
It's very likely that Bethesda software will simply require people to have a hard drive. Several xbox 360 critics say the core system is pretty much useless. Either you have the money to buy the silver, or you just don't have enough money at all.
Some of the packages do: Xbox 360 info.
And interestingly, the original did as well (8 Gb hard drive, i believe).
Yes, I understand that. What I'm trying to say here is that, in the phrasings ESR, a public CVS server has a lot of eyeballs. Even if there is some uberdude controlling entrance to that repository, when/if the stuff is accepted, everybody can read it, try it, and ultimately take a crack at providing a better functionality, integration, etc.
The Bazaar method does not mean that I'm sitting nude in the middle of a 100,000 person stadium coding some obscure driver for the Linux kernel. It just means that, at some point before the final release of an overarching application, everybody has the chance to criticize the code. This is the whole point of odd numbered kernels. No distros in their right mind release production products with an odd numbered kernel; the entire life of that kernel is dedicated only to attracting eyeballs.
Certainly, on a large scale, I wouldn't consider IBM developing some kernel components privately (in-house) to ruin the bazaar aspect of the Linux kernel (so long as they get made public eventually). However, on a small scale, if they don't have the eyeballs, then they're cathedral style.
This request might not be as non-sensical as you think.
We all know that Linus prefers the bazaar style software development methodology, but there is no guarantee that IBM doesn't have cathedral style GPL'ed development going on. They might be preparing to drop new code in the next version of the Linux kernel (there will be another one eventually).
There are plenty of kernel drivers, filesystems, and whatnot that can be developed (or at least started) without a completely clear understanding of the upcoming kernel architecture (provided at least a few essentials are the same, such as the monolithic design).
Nevertheless, SCO is stupid; point taken.
Well, I hope you get modded up so people can see that the **AA's propaganda machine is having a horrible effect on us peons. DRM has, since its inception, limited the user's rights far beyond those specified by copyright law (as the grandparent pointed out). Certainly, by purchasing content on a medium, you have not magically become the author of that content. However, the law MUST recognize consumer rights in that situation; or at any rate, more rights than "you now temporarily have the right to experience the content alone, so long as the powers that be don't mind, and in the way that said powers deem acceptable". In such a state, it could be the case that our entire lives exist at the behest of corporations (especially in a world that's becoming more and more dominated by software and 'net services).
Why can't anybody claim that? Even a mass murderer can make true claims about the law and morality. Just because one is a criminal doesn't make him any less able fight for consumer rights.
True enough; That's why I used the word "most". Now, I would imagine that google owns a ton of companies, but I believe that you've identified the only two services or tools that use technology absorbed from a corporate purchase. http://www.google.com/intl/en/options/ If anybody can identify such services besides Earth and Blogger, I would love to know.
The distinction might might moot if google ends up putting wireless APs all over the country.
Of course, if the question is, "will google start channel 5 VHF stations", I would say that is unlikely. Firstly, the project manager position that was linked to doesn't seem fitting for such an enterprise, and secondly, it doesn't fit with their past patterns.
It would be more likely that they would actually design a protocol from the ground up to do pure 'net based interactive TV, and then pipe it through all their wireless APs.