But the freedom that FSF is taking away is the freedom to take away freedom from users of the software. Thanks you Linus, great protector of... wha?? That's a very common mischaracterization of the objections to the hardware over reach of the GPL 3. If you want to really understand the kernel developers objections (and it's not just Linus), you need to read the relevant portions of the LKML.
So if GPL2 is "pretty good" and GPL3 is "much worse" does that make GPL3 just mediocre?
I don't get what you're saying. Can you please explain it with some hint of coherence? Why not read the LKML yourself and decide what you think the kernel developers are saying about GPL 3?
I think you're mixing up GPL 2 and GPL 3 there. Admit it, they are two very different licenses. GPL 2 is a quid pro quo license. You get, but you have to give back (if distributing binaries; if a user wants to modify the code for private use, there is nothing protecting other users from this "stinginess").
GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user. The GPL 3 is much more focused on the rights of certain users, shifting those rights away from other users and developers.
I totally agree with you that any given developer should careful examine all his licensing options and choose the license that is right for his or her project. GPL 3 is not going to be the right license for some GPL 2 projects and vice versa. For some, neither will be right, and perhaps the BSD is better suited.
Also, perhaps calling the GPL 3 a walled garden is unfair of me. A garden sounds like it's going to be small no matter what, and the GPL 3 doesn't and won't have any such physical constraints. Yet there is a wall there between it and GPL 2. A GPL 3 fork cannot be merged back with GPL 2 code.
Unless there's been a radical change in the last week, the Linux Kernel developers are eschewing GPL 3, saying it's a much worse license than GPL 2, which they consider to be a pretty good license. Most of their objections are due to the GPL 3's attempt to control hardware design and usage. The FSF has sent some squads to the LKML (Linux Kernel Mail List) to argue why the kernel developers "misunderstand", but so far I don't think they've convinced anyone, made any solid arguments, or overcome the kernel developers objections.
All the FSF can do is take the GNU/ userland GPL 3, but all the GNU/ tools up to that point are still GPL 2 and can be forked. On top of that, the BSD userland can be adapted to the Linux kernel. So I really don't see Linux going GPL 3, in whole or in part.
GPL 3 is going to be "radioactive" to a lot of companies. Hell, even the main Linux Kernel guys consider it malignant. Developers that want to see their code adopted and used by the mainstream, whether they are in it for profit or not, might want to avoid GPL 3, especially if their software has runs on specialized or proprietary hardware. GPL 3 creates what in essence is a walled garden. If you GPL 3 your code, you're putting it into that garden. It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.*
*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want.
I was thinking the same thing. OS X is just not a good vector for worms, at least not at current levels. This argument often gets conflated with the security by obscurity argument, but it is quite distinct. It's also why heterogenous computing environments are more robust than monolithic ones. A healthy internet should have a large variety of OSes in ample proportions. I think we're getting there slowly.
Which is not to say that a multi-OS worm with a multi-OS payload isn't possible.
Looks good, WATYF. I've already posted some stuff. I think you should have a separate section so that people can plug their own forums, although I think your policy of no advertising/plugging in the regular topic areas is a good one. Also, are mail lists fair game?
Although I'm an oldtimer, I never much liked using Usenet. I can't give you any particular or logical reasons why I don't like it, but it's just not my first choice these days. Even back in the BBS days, when my favorite BBS got usenet access, I didn't much like it.
You got modded funny, since there isn't a +1 obvious. =)
Still, there are times when Google is useless because of forum link spamming. Also, because Wikipedia comes up high on the list sometimes, I often go to straight to Wikipedia first if I just want a quick overview. (I type en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo, where foo is whatever subject I'm looking for.)
One area where I've found Google leading me to really useful forums is DIY home improvement, especially for finding interesting solutions to special case problems. (Last time, I was looking for techniques to color tile grout mix to a specific color, the time before that I was looking for a technique to paint walls with smooth graduated color (say, blue to red, with purple being the middle color).
Without a doubt. >Sturgeon's Law applies, although 10% is being charitable. Indeed, there are a number of blogs I read that have quality content. Some of them can be quite biased, but are open about that bias while providing factual material, so it's not hard to glean the facts. (I'm thinking of Groklaw as an example; I'm sympathetic to the bias but at times I find it a bit much.) Hell, it can even be useful to read blogs that have a bias opposite of my own, if you can trust that they'll get the facts right. (Another example, although it's a political blog, not a tech blog, is Huffington Post. I disagree with most of their politics, but I still find many of the blogs there to be interesting and challenging reading.)
IV waste removal is actually a pretty interesting idea, even if a bit sci-fi. I wonder what would happen to the "plumbing" organs, though, if an IV i/o system were used for long periods of time.
And if we're going to get totally sci fi, then how about a transporter? or a worm hole?* (I imagine that would suck if you lived on the receiving end of the toilet wormhole. "Where does all this shit keep coming from?"
*Link goes to Everything2 article about a comic. One of the storylines in the comic is the reverse of the above idea, where the receiving end of the wormhole is in a man's anus and he can't stop shitting.
I didn't RTFA. I assumed that they were talking about actual chameleon liquid. I was thinking all those "Will It Blend?" experiments had finally paid off.
That might be part of it, but I think the main reason tech journalism is failing is because so much of tech journalism is really third rate regurgitation of company press releases. Journalism on the whole has been failing the public, but I think tech journalism has been on the leading edge of that failure.
More broadly, mass media on the whole sucks. And now that it's possible for anyone to produce media, the suck monopoly is broken. There are a lot of sucky tech blogs out there, just like there's lots of bad video on you tube and crappy bands competing for attention on MySpace. Why buy mass media crap or read mass media crap when there is all this other crap? The mainstream can't compete with this inundation of crap, at least not without offering a quality product. And what are the chances of that?
I was once told by someone who studies political history that my views were closest to Edmund Burke, and that I was a old school whig (i.e., the original English Whigs, not the U.S. Whig Party).
Friedman based a lot of his ideas on Hayak, who was an influence on the whole Chicago School. But Hayak did see a bigger role for the government than Friedman did. Hayak wasn't inherently against regulation of industry I don't think. It just needs to be equitable and transparent.
I don't think we'll ever see a truly free market. It's an ideal. But the closer we can come to the ideal, the better we will all be. The main stumbling block to a free market today is not government regulation and taxation, but lack of transparency and lack of access to information.
I'm still registered as a Republican. I plan on voting for Ron Paul in the primary if he can hang in there. I'm not a libertarian, although I do favor some libertarian policies, especially as related to social and moral issues. However, I don't think he'll get the nomination. (I hope he still makes a good showing.) While I liked Bill, I just don't trust Hillary. I don't hate her, I just don't trust her. If she gets the Democratic nomination I would probably vote for her, but not without a lot of misgivings. Still, I can't imagine voting for any Republican that is likely to get the nomination.
I know people that know Obama personally. I hear good things about him leadership-wise. He's supposedly good at brokering compromises and reaching consensus. Most of the money he's raised is coming from a lot of small contributors, not vested interests. I could vote for him and feel OK about it.
I'm registered as a Republican, and I enjoy news like this. I can hardly wait for the entire edifice of the modern GOP to come crashing down.
I think we're way beyond the point of ever having "small government" (God bless Ron Paul just the same). I'm in favor of more limited and fiscally disciplined government, like we had under Clinton. I'm not against safety nets and some forms of social welfare and I'm not against public sector spending. Some public infrastructure projects can (and have) increase wealth for a larger amount of people rather than lining a few pockets. (I'm thinking of proposals for public access wifi and broadband expansion.) Some regulation of industry is necessary if history is any basis for judgement. OTOH, regulation of morals is overstepping the proper bounds of government. (Fuck you, Christian Right.)
It's not just Bush/Cheney. It's the whole national apparatus of the GOP that has been corrupted. I'd rather that we were a weak minority party acting as a brake on the Dems than to do what the GOP has done over the past 12 years.
Note: Other then Arnold for Gov., I haven't voted for a Republican for national office since 1999. I've even donated to Democrat campaigns. But I don't think I could ever consider myself a Democrat. I'm too much of a liberal in the old school sense. Really old school.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get what you're saying. Can you please explain it with some hint of coherence? Why not read the LKML yourself and decide what you think the kernel developers are saying about GPL 3?
Those are part of the kernel now? My goodness, technology changes quickly!
I think you're mixing up GPL 2 and GPL 3 there. Admit it, they are two very different licenses. GPL 2 is a quid pro quo license. You get, but you have to give back (if distributing binaries; if a user wants to modify the code for private use, there is nothing protecting other users from this "stinginess").
GPL 3 reaches past this (some would say overreaches), and controls attempts to control the hardware designs of the user. The GPL 3 is much more focused on the rights of certain users, shifting those rights away from other users and developers.
I totally agree with you that any given developer should careful examine all his licensing options and choose the license that is right for his or her project. GPL 3 is not going to be the right license for some GPL 2 projects and vice versa. For some, neither will be right, and perhaps the BSD is better suited.
Also, perhaps calling the GPL 3 a walled garden is unfair of me. A garden sounds like it's going to be small no matter what, and the GPL 3 doesn't and won't have any such physical constraints. Yet there is a wall there between it and GPL 2. A GPL 3 fork cannot be merged back with GPL 2 code.
Or did they interview the robotic dopelganger, Sim Meier? Not Sid Meier, but an incredible simulation.
Unless there's been a radical change in the last week, the Linux Kernel developers are eschewing GPL 3, saying it's a much worse license than GPL 2, which they consider to be a pretty good license. Most of their objections are due to the GPL 3's attempt to control hardware design and usage. The FSF has sent some squads to the LKML (Linux Kernel Mail List) to argue why the kernel developers "misunderstand", but so far I don't think they've convinced anyone, made any solid arguments, or overcome the kernel developers objections.
All the FSF can do is take the GNU/ userland GPL 3, but all the GNU/ tools up to that point are still GPL 2 and can be forked. On top of that, the BSD userland can be adapted to the Linux kernel. So I really don't see Linux going GPL 3, in whole or in part.
GPL 3 is going to be "radioactive" to a lot of companies. Hell, even the main Linux Kernel guys consider it malignant. Developers that want to see their code adopted and used by the mainstream, whether they are in it for profit or not, might want to avoid GPL 3, especially if their software has runs on specialized or proprietary hardware. GPL 3 creates what in essence is a walled garden. If you GPL 3 your code, you're putting it into that garden. It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.*
*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want.
Bah! Apple has already built a phone that can walk on water. This is just a phone with arms and legs.
I was thinking the same thing. OS X is just not a good vector for worms, at least not at current levels. This argument often gets conflated with the security by obscurity argument, but it is quite distinct. It's also why heterogenous computing environments are more robust than monolithic ones. A healthy internet should have a large variety of OSes in ample proportions. I think we're getting there slowly.
Which is not to say that a multi-OS worm with a multi-OS payload isn't possible.
I like that forum software. Are you one of the developers or otherwise involved with Simple Machines?
Looks good, WATYF. I've already posted some stuff. I think you should have a separate section so that people can plug their own forums, although I think your policy of no advertising/plugging in the regular topic areas is a good one. Also, are mail lists fair game?
Although I'm an oldtimer, I never much liked using Usenet. I can't give you any particular or logical reasons why I don't like it, but it's just not my first choice these days. Even back in the BBS days, when my favorite BBS got usenet access, I didn't much like it.
You got modded funny, since there isn't a +1 obvious. =)
Still, there are times when Google is useless because of forum link spamming. Also, because Wikipedia comes up high on the list sometimes, I often go to straight to Wikipedia first if I just want a quick overview. (I type en.wikipedia.org/wiki/foo, where foo is whatever subject I'm looking for.)
One area where I've found Google leading me to really useful forums is DIY home improvement, especially for finding interesting solutions to special case problems. (Last time, I was looking for techniques to color tile grout mix to a specific color, the time before that I was looking for a technique to paint walls with smooth graduated color (say, blue to red, with purple being the middle color).
Without a doubt. >Sturgeon's Law applies, although 10% is being charitable. Indeed, there are a number of blogs I read that have quality content. Some of them can be quite biased, but are open about that bias while providing factual material, so it's not hard to glean the facts. (I'm thinking of Groklaw as an example; I'm sympathetic to the bias but at times I find it a bit much.) Hell, it can even be useful to read blogs that have a bias opposite of my own, if you can trust that they'll get the facts right. (Another example, although it's a political blog, not a tech blog, is Huffington Post. I disagree with most of their politics, but I still find many of the blogs there to be interesting and challenging reading.)
IV waste removal is actually a pretty interesting idea, even if a bit sci-fi. I wonder what would happen to the "plumbing" organs, though, if an IV i/o system were used for long periods of time.
And if we're going to get totally sci fi, then how about a transporter? or a worm hole?* (I imagine that would suck if you lived on the receiving end of the toilet wormhole. "Where does all this shit keep coming from?"
*Link goes to Everything2 article about a comic. One of the storylines in the comic is the reverse of the above idea, where the receiving end of the wormhole is in a man's anus and he can't stop shitting.
I didn't RTFA. I assumed that they were talking about actual chameleon liquid. I was thinking all those "Will It Blend?" experiments had finally paid off.
There needs to be a forums forum, where I can go to find which forums are authoritative on a given subject.
That might be part of it, but I think the main reason tech journalism is failing is because so much of tech journalism is really third rate regurgitation of company press releases. Journalism on the whole has been failing the public, but I think tech journalism has been on the leading edge of that failure.
More broadly, mass media on the whole sucks. And now that it's possible for anyone to produce media, the suck monopoly is broken. There are a lot of sucky tech blogs out there, just like there's lots of bad video on you tube and crappy bands competing for attention on MySpace. Why buy mass media crap or read mass media crap when there is all this other crap? The mainstream can't compete with this inundation of crap, at least not without offering a quality product. And what are the chances of that?
If one wanted to be pedantic, one could point out that there are other, non-optical (i.e., radio) telescopes that are much larger.
And what about room for the diaper? There's got to be room in the ass for expansion. How do you manage that with mechanical pressure?
E++ is nuts, but (in his favor) he's a mad scientist, so I cut him some slack.
Now, what was that you were saying about angry sex with machines? Is there a mail list for this?
I was once told by someone who studies political history that my views were closest to Edmund Burke, and that I was a old school whig (i.e., the original English Whigs, not the U.S. Whig Party).
Friedman based a lot of his ideas on Hayak, who was an influence on the whole Chicago School. But Hayak did see a bigger role for the government than Friedman did. Hayak wasn't inherently against regulation of industry I don't think. It just needs to be equitable and transparent.
I don't think we'll ever see a truly free market. It's an ideal. But the closer we can come to the ideal, the better we will all be. The main stumbling block to a free market today is not government regulation and taxation, but lack of transparency and lack of access to information.
I'm still registered as a Republican. I plan on voting for Ron Paul in the primary if he can hang in there. I'm not a libertarian, although I do favor some libertarian policies, especially as related to social and moral issues. However, I don't think he'll get the nomination. (I hope he still makes a good showing.) While I liked Bill, I just don't trust Hillary. I don't hate her, I just don't trust her. If she gets the Democratic nomination I would probably vote for her, but not without a lot of misgivings. Still, I can't imagine voting for any Republican that is likely to get the nomination.
I know people that know Obama personally. I hear good things about him leadership-wise. He's supposedly good at brokering compromises and reaching consensus. Most of the money he's raised is coming from a lot of small contributors, not vested interests. I could vote for him and feel OK about it.
How soon before I start getting spam for nanotubes as an alternative to Viagra?
How many nanotubes will it take to make my standard metric tube into a Gigatube?
I'm registered as a Republican, and I enjoy news like this. I can hardly wait for the entire edifice of the modern GOP to come crashing down.
I think we're way beyond the point of ever having "small government" (God bless Ron Paul just the same). I'm in favor of more limited and fiscally disciplined government, like we had under Clinton. I'm not against safety nets and some forms of social welfare and I'm not against public sector spending. Some public infrastructure projects can (and have) increase wealth for a larger amount of people rather than lining a few pockets. (I'm thinking of proposals for public access wifi and broadband expansion.) Some regulation of industry is necessary if history is any basis for judgement. OTOH, regulation of morals is overstepping the proper bounds of government. (Fuck you, Christian Right.)
It's not just Bush/Cheney. It's the whole national apparatus of the GOP that has been corrupted. I'd rather that we were a weak minority party acting as a brake on the Dems than to do what the GOP has done over the past 12 years.
Note: Other then Arnold for Gov., I haven't voted for a Republican for national office since 1999. I've even donated to Democrat campaigns. But I don't think I could ever consider myself a Democrat. I'm too much of a liberal in the old school sense. Really old school.