I always see that you've created a new piece of software, or a new device driver, getting new hardware, etc. My question is, how much of your software development is done because of a contract, and how much just for the fun of developing?
On your point of package management, I would have to disagree. I have no experience with ports - but I do have extensive experience with debian, and in particular apt-get. From the description of ports I've read, I'd have to say that apt-get is the equal or superior to it in every way. I don't know if ports verifies dependencies, but I do know that if I say apt-get install gimp and I don't even have X on my computer, it will get everything it needs, including X, gtk, and all the image libraries, install it, and configure it, and it will work the first time. In fact, I'd say the only difference between ports and apt is that with apt, you don't have to compile the software.
Stability: I've never seen Linux crash. I've seen a kernel panic when I tried to boot off of a bad disk on install of slackware, but that's it. Bad distributions, though, can screw up the whole thing.
I've had no problem with Debian and installing over ftp; you have to download the base image, true, but if you're going to be downloading debian anyways I assume you've got ample bandwidth. As for non-commerciality, again, Debian.
CVSup - apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade
As for personal preferences, I can't really rebut that. Mine is the GPL, yours BSD. Who cares.
You might have noticed that mostly, Debian has been referenced in here. That's because, generally speaking, Debian is the only distribution with the bits which you can compare directly to FreeBSD. Yes, I'm aware of rpmfind or whatever it's called, but it doesn't install it for you, and I'm not sure about dependancy resolution, so I can't comment.
To understand how the GPL works, you must first understand how copyright works. As the owner of the copyright for a given piece of software, you can legally say exactly what the licensing terms are, and for whom. As an example, you can give it a license something like the following:
LICENSE FOR FOO PRODUCT
If your name is Bill, you may use Foo Product under the terms of the BSD License.
If your name is Joe, you may use Foo Product under the terms of the GPL.
In any other cases, the licensing terms for this product are dictated by the QPL.
Given, of course, that you define what the BSD License, the GPL, and QPL are, that is probably a valid license. Also, you can go ahead and release it to your friend Sue under a completely different license, and you don't have to tell anyone about it.
And then, 6 months later, you decide that Foo Product's licensing terms were a bit too restrictive, and you want Joe/and/ Bill to have rights to it under the BSD License, and everyone else to have it under the GPL. You can do that. The previous license still stands, though - so those people who got it under the rights of the previous license still have those rights.
And then, of course, you have to follow the terms of the license. In this case, Monty's releasing an old, unsupported version of MySQL under the GPL. This doesn't negate the fact it was under a non-Free license before, and it doesn't change the licensing to anything else. However, anything you do with this new GPL-licensed MySQL must be done under the terms of the GPL. Later on, Monty can change the license again, and you don't gain any more, nor do you lose, rights to it than you had under the GPL. Unless some sort of termination clause or other such thing is built right into the license, a piece of software is licensed as it is forever.
It seems whenever certain topics (GNOME/KDE, BSD, NT [sometimes]) get brought up, people get a severe case of "My dick is bigger than yours" syndrome. Somehow, every single person who uses a particular system, setup or piece of software instead of your own pet friend has become evil.
It's funny up to a point. Seeing FreeBSD bigots flame away, saying how much superior their kernel, development system, method of distribution, networking, (insert issue here) is than Linux' implementation of the same feature, or Linux bigots saying how FreeBSD is dead, that it can't, won't, hasn't, will never go anywhere, that it doesn't support hardware, (insert isssue here) - It sort of grinds on you.
Why people feel the need to make their system the best is obvious. Why, in the process, they have to put down, flame, or actively disrupt other systems and their development is beyond me, though. I'm sure FreeBSD is great. I'm sure BeOS is fast and it scales pretty well. What people fail to realise is that every single person on earth thinks differently. That's why there's such diversity.
I've come across this sort of mentality before - in children. For children, it's hard to comprehend that there are a lot of other possiblities other than the one that they can come up with between their two ears. They'll become devoted to a rock band, or a television show, or perhaps something a little more extreme, and suddenly everything else in the world isn't an option anymore, and anyone who chooses it is not only misguided, but stupid - and they must be put on the right path, or they'll surely perish.
FreeBSD is developed in a different manner than Linux, and BeOS is developed in yet another way. Each has their own goals and methods. Each is better at some things than other systems are. You know the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none." - It applies.
The simple fact is that systems have been chugging along quite nicely, doing what they're doing, and lots of people like it they way it is. Sure, you might be disappointed in the rapid changes of Linux' kernel - but a lot of people like it that way. You might be mad that BSD doesn't christen new versions often enough for you, but a whole whack of people don't even want the option of updating often.
If everyone could try, not to understand, but just to live and let live, I'm sure that flames would go down, the signal to noise ratio would go up, and fewer rants like this would have to be written. (I may just have to write something substantial next time)
Gosh golly, you sounded like a rational, sound-loving person for a little bit there, until I read the last sentence. It would have been so simple to leave that out, and not draw the flames, but yet you felt the irrational need to piss people off.
Well, just to piss you off, I'm glad to report that Alan Cox himself is working on the USB speaker/sound system driver; if there's one thing you can count on, it's that Alan will get it working. So sorry to disappoint you, but Linux will be able to drive those speakers in not too long a time.
Re:Changelog takes a while / where to get it.
on
Kernel 2.2.12
·
· Score: 2
Actually, there are now release notes written by Alan Cox for every stable kernel release. You can go see the Release notes over where Alan's written them. I rather like this, saves waiting for Myrdraal.
Wrong. A theorem is proven - just like the Pythagorean theorem. An axiom is something that's generally accepted as true, just because it is - like transitivity, if a=b and b=c, then a=c.
How about this: the Windows setup program just plain froze on me, reproducibly, on a certain system. No information I could find out about it said anything about it. I'm not even sure how we ever did get the damn thing installed - perhaps we swapped out video cards. The stupid thing was, it didn't even freeze in a hardware detection phase - it froze just before we could enter the serial number.
The point is, everyone's got their installation nightmare stories. No installer is perfect; however, Linux is just as simple (and conversely, just as difficult) to install as Windows is, in my experience.
I don't know where you get the idea that Linux is difficult to install, because it isn't. It just plain isn't. Red Hat's installer is set it and forget it, come back and you've got one installation of Red Hat completed. I've never tried Caldera (too proprietary) but apparently it is even simpler. The only reason it is perceived as difficult to install is because Windows comes preinstalled on most computers, and you don't have to install it. Average Joe User couldn't install Windows if he tried, no more than he could install Linux.
Free information, anyone?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 2
Alright, I neither drink nor take any non-perscription drugs. However, that's not to say I haven't been interested in these things before. The way I see it, one should be able to evaluate both sides of an argument before coming to a conclusion.
Now, obviously, drugs are, by and large, a bad influence on many of the people who use them, and (the real problem) the neighbourhood or area where they're being dealt. However, why shouldn't I be able to find out that if I take LSD, I can have some pretty amazing hallucinations - but, that if I take LSD, I will never be able to be a surgeon, because of the possibility of LSD flashbacks? Why shouldn't I be able to find out the pros and cons? After all, if drugs are so bad, obviously the cons will outweigh the pros, won't they?
The bottom line is, the US government wouldn't even think about banning articles in magazines or newspapers dealing with drugs. Why is it OK to stop people from disseminating information on drugs on the web?
CSIS (see-sis) I believe you mean, I've never heard of CSE. The neat thing about CSIS is that no one knows/anything/ about them. I'm fairly certain they are just as powerful, all-knowing, etc as the US' NSA - it's just that they are so far under wraps that they'd have to publicise themselves to become mysterious.
That being said, I'm not surprised they would be at talks for IPsec and other things. Undoubtedly they're looking for information on possible weaknesses, and, barring that, ways of using it to enhance their own operations.
I think that Free Software can, normally be tested in most situations to as well as you can get it - much better than commercial software. But, I don't think that, even as good as Free Software testing is, that it's good enough to run, say, the firmware of a heart-and-lung machine. This sort of software has to be tested in *every* possible case, and it costs a *lot* of money to do extensive Q&A on them. I'd be surprised if the firmware in those sorts of machines is younger than 10 years.
Like it or not, the regular sorts of development, be it Free Software development or proprietary development, just isn't good enough for most medical software. It's not data or money you're toying with there - it's people's lives. *I* wouldn't trust my life to Linux - would you? (I should specify - I wouldn't trust my life to pretty much any OS. Add a layer of abstraction, you add more things that can possibly go wrong.)
I love Free Software. In my eye, it's the only way to go. However, I want the person writing the software controlling my heart to be paid to do so. And I want it tested for twenty years before they put it in me, or hook me up to it, in every possible condition, so that I don't die.
In this case, very complex software like Linux and Windows CE and various other things *cannot*be*used*. As good as the software may be, it isn't infallible - and if anything has to be bug-free, it's medical firmware (well, and military firmware, stuff in plans and the like). Releasing the software as Free Software, freely available, probably wouldn't do much for you - after all, how many people will have this sort of equipment?
That being said, there's no inherent problem with releasing the firmware code of a medical appliance. You could probably get *some* improvements. But I don't want my heart being driven by software that is potentially not completely and utterly tested to the fullest extent. I just don't think that someone not being paid would be willing to do that.
Weird Al is surprisingly clued in. A couple of choice phrases from "It's all about the Pentiums":
"I never feed trolls and I don't read spam" "You've gotta be the dumbest newbie I've ever seen" "And posting "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er" "You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total-loser" (it would have been better had he spelled it "luser" but I digress)
I was really surprised to hear it. I love the song - in fact the whole album is really good, particularly the track right before "It's all about the Pentiums, "Your Horoscope for Today" - it made me laugh out loud - and it's definitely a worthwhile album to buy.
(PS: I have written to him on his website to ask if he reads Slashdot - still waiting on a response;)
NFS was in a shoddy state in 2.2; 2.2.11 and 2.2.12, once Alan gets around to releasing them (I think he's here in Canada right now) should fix this reliably.
Yes, they're difficult to write. The difference is, they do not have to be written (at least not the journalling filesystem). Stephen Tweedie has been working on ext3fs, the journalling version of ext2, for some time, even in 2.1-days. When it's finished, it'll probably still be 2.3, and it will be rolled in. Just because it hasn't made its mainstream appearance in the kernel until a certain point, doesn't mean that the work isn't largely finished.
I'm not sure if you were around when there were very long development cycles, but in case you weren't, the transition from 2.1 to 2.2 took 2 years. That's far too long; people who wanted better SMP support, more hardware support, etc, either had to deal with the fact they were using a development kernel, or wait it out. With a shorter development cycle, this is pretty much alleviated; big changes are less likely to happen (less time), so drivers can probably be pretty easily backported.
As for major problems creeping in - uh, that's the point of patchlevel releases (as in major.minor.patchlevel). The filesystem corruption - well, as far as I know it's been mainly due to hardware problems, overclocking and faulty ram and the like. In any case, I think I remember Alan saying something about it being fixed.
Companies want to support Linux (with hardware drivers I suppose)? Great! So just submit the GPL'd driver code to Linus or Alan, get it included, and it'll probably be maintained by some people to make sure that it doesn't break with little tiny changes.
Oh, you mean non-Free, proprietary, binary module type support?
In that case, they can say "This module has been tested to work on 2.2.11. If it works on anything else, that's a complete fluke." as Linus has stated, over and over, that he'll not bend over for the companies who are too anal to release their specs or source code. As far as I personally am concerned, they can go straight to hell, because I'm not supporting them by buying their hardware (Creative Labs, are you listening?) unless they release specs (or the driver's source code).
I don't think it is generational. I discovered Monty Python when I was about 13, and a cable channel (Bravo) began airing Flying Circus episodes all the time shortly afterwards. Having seen Python, and the Simpsons and various other things, Python is undoubtedly the best, the greatest. Sure, the Simpsons is brilliant, but the Python crew knew how to make a sketch work like no one else. Saturday Night Live can only hope to be as good as Python. (When have you seen something like the Jockey sketch - with successful jockeys being interviewed, you only see their heads; the champion doesn't even show up on the screen =).. or the Parrot Sketch (everyone knows the parrot sketch)
..that I don't use non-Free software, and that I don't live in the United States. Somehow, big business has taken over; the States is no longer the land of the free, it's the land of those with money - oh, and you regular people can live here too.
At least sane companies won't start implementing these things - at least sane companies who want to sell to countries other than the US. Let me say this: if a similar bill is ever proposed in the Parliament or provincial legislature of Canada, I'll personally lead a crusade to fight it. I've no fear of public speaking, and I speak my mind however I see fit. Similar things will NOT come to pass in sane countries, if the people speak their minds.
To those unfortunate people who are stuck in the US: Write your representatives NOW . Make sure that they know you will NOT accept this sort of garbage. Make sure your local newspapers know about it. Every single average person will not be appreciative that their supposedly fair government, the government they elect and pay, wants to take away their rights and drop them into the hands of big business, whose only care is the almighty dollar. If enough people voice their opinion on this, it won't come to pass.
I thought that the "monitor" was covered with carpet =) I guess the fact that these are styrofoam mock-ups is the reason they're not smooth, though I do like the fuzzy computing look.
I don't know, I guess OSS and 4front rub me the wrong way. I don't see XMMS becoming a huge program capable of playing movies, sound, and having vis plugins as a good thing. Isn't the idea to have small, efficient programs?
However, this really bugged me.
If you look at asound.h - they always refer to OSS as "Obsolete" - except the irony is that 99.99% of the apps are OSS and ALSA support has to be bolted on. We have remained silent about this because it's unprofessional to dis other people's hard work.
Well, to tell the truth, if ALSA does its job, OSS is obsolete. If it is what everyone wants, supporting new cards and new features (I like multiple-open of the sound card!!) OSS will go the way of the dinosaur.
However, it isn't that way right now, and while ALSA is working on obsoleting OSS, the majority of programs were developed in the time when OSS was the only solution. How else can you support ALSA but by adding its support? (If you need to bolt it on, your program is broken to begin with.)
As for the whole proprietariness.. I'm more mad at sound card vendors than 4front. Obviously if a sound card vendor is brain damaged enough not to release specs, support has to come somehow.. Even so, as ``pragmatic'' as the 4front guys are, they are selling something which should be Free. By using binary-only drivers, you're tying yourself to one or two kernel versions, and if 4front went out of business (probably not going to happen, but within the realm of possibilities) you're up the proverbial polluted tributary without a means of locomotion.
Personally, I hope alsa's header files stay GPL'd. The ALSA development team has worked hard to create an entirely Free set of sound card drivers, and I'm one who thinks that people should come to us on our terms, not any other way. Our way is the GPL, so do what Trident did and release GPL'd drivers, or do what.. creative used to do.. and release detailed specs on the card so we can release GPL'd drivers. Anything else is undesirable and difficult to work with.
To the best of my knowledge, one just opens/dev/dsp (or whatever its alsa counterpoint is; forgive me for my memory is less than good) and uses the common ioctls. What Alsa does is both give backwards-compatibility through/dev/dsp, but also Alsa-compatibility through different devices. You don't need to use its header file, as far as I know.
However, if the Alsa guys were to make an AlsaLib, that would be different...
If the To: address doesn't contain your e-mail address, and it's not from a mailing list, chances are it can be filed away under 'spam.' The best idea would be to actually make a Spam directory or mail folder, somewhere to store mail that you probably won't ever want (so you can go through it every once and a while and pick up the mail that accidentally got filed there from bcc:s or other means).
..but do ensure that the pages are under password lock-and-key. Of course show sample images on the website, but the possibilities for the sickos out there are too numerous to have this sort of webpage 'open access'.
Slashdot Mirror
I always see that you've created a new piece of software, or a new device driver, getting new hardware, etc. My question is, how much of your software development is done because of a contract, and how much just for the fun of developing?
Stability: I've never seen Linux crash. I've seen a kernel panic when I tried to boot off of a bad disk on install of slackware, but that's it. Bad distributions, though, can screw up the whole thing.
I've had no problem with Debian and installing over ftp; you have to download the base image, true, but if you're going to be downloading debian anyways I assume you've got ample bandwidth. As for non-commerciality, again, Debian.
CVSup - apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade
As for personal preferences, I can't really rebut that. Mine is the GPL, yours BSD. Who cares.
You might have noticed that mostly, Debian has been referenced in here. That's because, generally speaking, Debian is the only distribution with the bits which you can compare directly to FreeBSD. Yes, I'm aware of rpmfind or whatever it's called, but it doesn't install it for you, and I'm not sure about dependancy resolution, so I can't comment.
LICENSE FOR FOO PRODUCT
If your name is Bill, you may use Foo Product under the terms of the BSD License.
If your name is Joe, you may use Foo Product under the terms of the GPL.
In any other cases, the licensing terms for this product are dictated by the QPL.
Given, of course, that you define what the BSD License, the GPL, and QPL are, that is probably a valid license. Also, you can go ahead and release it to your friend Sue under a completely different license, and you don't have to tell anyone about it.
And then, 6 months later, you decide that Foo Product's licensing terms were a bit too restrictive, and you want Joe /and/ Bill to have rights to it under the BSD License, and everyone else to have it under the GPL. You can do that. The previous license still stands, though - so those people who got it under the rights of the previous license still have those rights.
And then, of course, you have to follow the terms of the license. In this case, Monty's releasing an old, unsupported version of MySQL under the GPL. This doesn't negate the fact it was under a non-Free license before, and it doesn't change the licensing to anything else. However, anything you do with this new GPL-licensed MySQL must be done under the terms of the GPL. Later on, Monty can change the license again, and you don't gain any more, nor do you lose, rights to it than you had under the GPL. Unless some sort of termination clause or other such thing is built right into the license, a piece of software is licensed as it is forever.
It's funny up to a point. Seeing FreeBSD bigots flame away, saying how much superior their kernel, development system, method of distribution, networking, (insert issue here) is than Linux' implementation of the same feature, or Linux bigots saying how FreeBSD is dead, that it can't, won't, hasn't, will never go anywhere, that it doesn't support hardware, (insert isssue here) - It sort of grinds on you.
Why people feel the need to make their system the best is obvious. Why, in the process, they have to put down, flame, or actively disrupt other systems and their development is beyond me, though. I'm sure FreeBSD is great. I'm sure BeOS is fast and it scales pretty well. What people fail to realise is that every single person on earth thinks differently. That's why there's such diversity.
I've come across this sort of mentality before - in children. For children, it's hard to comprehend that there are a lot of other possiblities other than the one that they can come up with between their two ears. They'll become devoted to a rock band, or a television show, or perhaps something a little more extreme, and suddenly everything else in the world isn't an option anymore, and anyone who chooses it is not only misguided, but stupid - and they must be put on the right path, or they'll surely perish.
FreeBSD is developed in a different manner than Linux, and BeOS is developed in yet another way. Each has their own goals and methods. Each is better at some things than other systems are. You know the saying "Jack of all trades, master of none." - It applies.
The simple fact is that systems have been chugging along quite nicely, doing what they're doing, and lots of people like it they way it is. Sure, you might be disappointed in the rapid changes of Linux' kernel - but a lot of people like it that way. You might be mad that BSD doesn't christen new versions often enough for you, but a whole whack of people don't even want the option of updating often.
If everyone could try, not to understand, but just to live and let live, I'm sure that flames would go down, the signal to noise ratio would go up, and fewer rants like this would have to be written. (I may just have to write something substantial next time)
Well, just to piss you off, I'm glad to report that Alan Cox himself is working on the USB speaker/sound system driver; if there's one thing you can count on, it's that Alan will get it working. So sorry to disappoint you, but Linux will be able to drive those speakers in not too long a time.
Actually, there are now release notes written by Alan Cox for every stable kernel release. You can go see the Release notes over where Alan's written them. I rather like this, saves waiting for Myrdraal.
Wrong. A theorem is proven - just like the Pythagorean theorem. An axiom is something that's generally accepted as true, just because it is - like transitivity, if a=b and b=c, then a=c.
The point is, everyone's got their installation nightmare stories. No installer is perfect; however, Linux is just as simple (and conversely, just as difficult) to install as Windows is, in my experience.
I don't know where you get the idea that Linux is difficult to install, because it isn't. It just plain isn't. Red Hat's installer is set it and forget it, come back and you've got one installation of Red Hat completed. I've never tried Caldera (too proprietary) but apparently it is even simpler. The only reason it is perceived as difficult to install is because Windows comes preinstalled on most computers, and you don't have to install it. Average Joe User couldn't install Windows if he tried, no more than he could install Linux.
Now, obviously, drugs are, by and large, a bad influence on many of the people who use them, and (the real problem) the neighbourhood or area where they're being dealt. However, why shouldn't I be able to find out that if I take LSD, I can have some pretty amazing hallucinations - but, that if I take LSD, I will never be able to be a surgeon, because of the possibility of LSD flashbacks? Why shouldn't I be able to find out the pros and cons? After all, if drugs are so bad, obviously the cons will outweigh the pros, won't they?
The bottom line is, the US government wouldn't even think about banning articles in magazines or newspapers dealing with drugs. Why is it OK to stop people from disseminating information on drugs on the web?
That being said, I'm not surprised they would be at talks for IPsec and other things. Undoubtedly they're looking for information on possible weaknesses, and, barring that, ways of using it to enhance their own operations.
Like it or not, the regular sorts of development, be it Free Software development or proprietary development, just isn't good enough for most medical software. It's not data or money you're toying with there - it's people's lives. *I* wouldn't trust my life to Linux - would you? (I should specify - I wouldn't trust my life to pretty much any OS. Add a layer of abstraction, you add more things that can possibly go wrong.)
In this case, very complex software like Linux and Windows CE and various other things *cannot*be*used*. As good as the software may be, it isn't infallible - and if anything has to be bug-free, it's medical firmware (well, and military firmware, stuff in plans and the like). Releasing the software as Free Software, freely available, probably wouldn't do much for you - after all, how many people will have this sort of equipment?
That being said, there's no inherent problem with releasing the firmware code of a medical appliance. You could probably get *some* improvements. But I don't want my heart being driven by software that is potentially not completely and utterly tested to the fullest extent. I just don't think that someone not being paid would be willing to do that.
"I never feed trolls and I don't read spam"
"You've gotta be the dumbest newbie I've ever seen"
"And posting "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er"
"You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total-loser" (it would have been better had he spelled it "luser" but I digress)
I was really surprised to hear it. I love the song - in fact the whole album is really good, particularly the track right before "It's all about the Pentiums, "Your Horoscope for Today" - it made me laugh out loud - and it's definitely a worthwhile album to buy.
(PS: I have written to him on his website to ask if he reads Slashdot - still waiting on a response ;)
DK2 is going nowhere; I asked Bullfrog. (It was posted on linuxgames.com too)
NFS was in a shoddy state in 2.2; 2.2.11 and 2.2.12, once Alan gets around to releasing them (I think he's here in Canada right now) should fix this reliably.
Yes, they're difficult to write. The difference is, they do not have to be written (at least not the journalling filesystem). Stephen Tweedie has been working on ext3fs, the journalling version of ext2, for some time, even in 2.1-days. When it's finished, it'll probably still be 2.3, and it will be rolled in. Just because it hasn't made its mainstream appearance in the kernel until a certain point, doesn't mean that the work isn't largely finished.
As for major problems creeping in - uh, that's the point of patchlevel releases (as in major.minor.patchlevel). The filesystem corruption - well, as far as I know it's been mainly due to hardware problems, overclocking and faulty ram and the like. In any case, I think I remember Alan saying something about it being fixed.
Companies want to support Linux (with hardware drivers I suppose)? Great! So just submit the GPL'd driver code to Linus or Alan, get it included, and it'll probably be maintained by some people to make sure that it doesn't break with little tiny changes.
Oh, you mean non-Free, proprietary, binary module type support?
In that case, they can say "This module has been tested to work on 2.2.11. If it works on anything else, that's a complete fluke." as Linus has stated, over and over, that he'll not bend over for the companies who are too anal to release their specs or source code. As far as I personally am concerned, they can go straight to hell, because I'm not supporting them by buying their hardware (Creative Labs, are you listening?) unless they release specs (or the driver's source code).
I don't think it is generational. I discovered Monty Python when I was about 13, and a cable channel (Bravo) began airing Flying Circus episodes all the time shortly afterwards. Having seen Python, and the Simpsons and various other things, Python is undoubtedly the best, the greatest. Sure, the Simpsons is brilliant, but the Python crew knew how to make a sketch work like no one else. Saturday Night Live can only hope to be as good as Python. (When have you seen something like the Jockey sketch - with successful jockeys being interviewed, you only see their heads; the champion doesn't even show up on the screen =).. or the Parrot Sketch (everyone knows the parrot sketch)
At least sane companies won't start implementing these things - at least sane companies who want to sell to countries other than the US. Let me say this: if a similar bill is ever proposed in the Parliament or provincial legislature of Canada, I'll personally lead a crusade to fight it. I've no fear of public speaking, and I speak my mind however I see fit. Similar things will NOT come to pass in sane countries, if the people speak their minds.
To those unfortunate people who are stuck in the US: Write your representatives NOW . Make sure that they know you will NOT accept this sort of garbage. Make sure your local newspapers know about it. Every single average person will not be appreciative that their supposedly fair government, the government they elect and pay, wants to take away their rights and drop them into the hands of big business, whose only care is the almighty dollar. If enough people voice their opinion on this, it won't come to pass.
I thought that the "monitor" was covered with carpet =) I guess the fact that these are styrofoam mock-ups is the reason they're not smooth, though I do like the fuzzy computing look.
However, this really bugged me.
Well, to tell the truth, if ALSA does its job, OSS is obsolete. If it is what everyone wants, supporting new cards and new features (I like multiple-open of the sound card!!) OSS will go the way of the dinosaur.However, it isn't that way right now, and while ALSA is working on obsoleting OSS, the majority of programs were developed in the time when OSS was the only solution. How else can you support ALSA but by adding its support? (If you need to bolt it on, your program is broken to begin with.)
As for the whole proprietariness.. I'm more mad at sound card vendors than 4front. Obviously if a sound card vendor is brain damaged enough not to release specs, support has to come somehow.. Even so, as ``pragmatic'' as the 4front guys are, they are selling something which should be Free. By using binary-only drivers, you're tying yourself to one or two kernel versions, and if 4front went out of business (probably not going to happen, but within the realm of possibilities) you're up the proverbial polluted tributary without a means of locomotion.
Personally, I hope alsa's header files stay GPL'd. The ALSA development team has worked hard to create an entirely Free set of sound card drivers, and I'm one who thinks that people should come to us on our terms, not any other way. Our way is the GPL, so do what Trident did and release GPL'd drivers, or do what .. creative used to do .. and release detailed specs on the card so we can release GPL'd drivers. Anything else is undesirable and difficult to work with.
However, if the Alsa guys were to make an AlsaLib, that would be different...
If the To: address doesn't contain your e-mail address, and it's not from a mailing list, chances are it can be filed away under 'spam.' The best idea would be to actually make a Spam directory or mail folder, somewhere to store mail that you probably won't ever want (so you can go through it every once and a while and pick up the mail that accidentally got filed there from bcc:s or other means).
..but do ensure that the pages are under password lock-and-key. Of course show sample images on the website, but the possibilities for the sickos out there are too numerous to have this sort of webpage 'open access'.