"If what I learned is true, you'd not remember the cracks in the wall., because they wouldn't have your attention."
What makes the discussion we participated in so interesting was that he had no control over what he memorized in effect making every stimulus he encountered receive his full attention. To pay attention to something you must actively "forget" millions of chunks of stimulus. As it was told, this person could not and was tormented. -Clump
Couldn't they have chosen better actors? I have yet to see either of them give a convincing performance. They should have chosen someone like Rick Moranis for Gates and anyone else but Wiley for jobs... -Clump
In Psychology we were taught that short-term memory usually lasts less than 30 seconds and is limited. Long-term memory is unlimited and is permanant.
A little food for thought. We discussed one patient who had a literal photographic memory. It was explained to us that he committed every memory to long term memory and thus was unable to forget anything. He eventually went insane.
Sorry to bring an unprovable story in but can you imagine the ramifications of that? It would seem that having a selectively photographic memory would be nice. Just remember EVERYTHING that you want--Good times, your wedding or divorce even... I dunno, or an entire textbook before a test. But imagine of you couldn't control what you remembered. Think of all the useless information you recieve every second. What people are wearing, the color of the wall, how many cracks in the wall...
I totally agree. IDE's are not all that they are cracked up to be. However, I see this as good for Linux in three main ways: 1.) Linux will be taken more seriously as a developer plaform. 2.) If it takes off that way software(in theory) would cost less to develop b/c of Linux's free nature. 3.) As you stated, people that code with heavy assistance from IDEs can now develop in Linux meaning a larger programmer pool.
The last item is either good or bad. Perhaps it is better that only those that truly know how to program are writing code in Linux. After all, not just Win32 itself is responsible for apps crashing.
Conversely, it could be good. Think of it as a domino effect--People of all coding abilities could be drawn to Linux and create and contribute. Given Linux's community and software peers, we pressure to keep open source and as a result can better others' shotty code. Still, there is no excuse for writing bad code in the first place.
The bottom line is that IDEs can be really good for Linux. Granted, there is no excuse for getting addicted to anything, i.e.: IDEs and even HTML editors. People could write worse code but as long as Linux keeps the open source attitude, we can pressure them to get it right. -Clump
Well, this would definitely be a good thing for Linux. This would really help dent NT's appeal and could help make people see the benefits of free software.
This has been addressed before, but here goes. Other OS makers love to discredit Linux's "free" appeal because they claim that "the OS is a minimal cost in terms of the big picture." How valid a statement is that? It merely jumps the issue. Linux is free so you pay nothing for it. Is it the only cost in a computing solution? Of course not.
Big or small computing, the OS is going to factor in. In the PC market, the OS is the only major componant that seems to increase its price. How can we call OS price insignificant? On a PC, you can eliminate somewhere near $100 if you don't add Win98. On large multi-user systems, the cost of liscencing and per-user are zero under Linux. How can that be insignificant? -Clump
That we can have such arguments is what makes this entire Linux "community" so worthwhile. Humanerror, Chromatic, and the guy who talked about the free movie players... wow.
I was raised in DOS, and didn't start on any kind of Unix or other OS until about 2 years ago when I installed Red Hat. I had complained about how I disliked Microsoft and how much I needed stability so I got my feet wet. It wasn't until after I had run Linux for some months that I really got to appreciate the Open Source movement. However, just as I could appreciate it, I am also confused by it.
ESR is making a huge stink about Linux being called GNU/Linux because without GNU tools, there would not have been Linux. Then there are those who despise Red Hat because it makes installation easy. Then there are those who despise non-open software.
After reading some comments, I can appreciate what the issue really entails. We are divided on this issue: Whether code is like a Taxi--Effort of an individual who is entitled to compensation. But then code could be much unlike a taxi--You can't touch it and it is not physical property. Some say the latter is the reason it should be open and is wrong to be closed-source. Others say it still is work, and the product is more than the sum of its whole.
I tend to agree with the analogy that compares it to wind--you can't dent it but it is there. Free software is great, but a programmer should (this is not an issue now) have a choice of whether they want their code free. With that I mean it is property of the coder, although undentable.
The only reason I am making my feelings known on this is because this is a BIG issue in Linux. This is also a big issue with MP3s and encoding engines. Should we be able to disallow duplication/modification of our work? Is it even work? Though Mp3 encoding is an algorhythm[sp??] didn't one have to write it? Keep the issue alive because no matter what we feel the worst thing we can do is not care. -Clump
I am glad to hear about what Linus talked about. As others posted here before, the faster stable kernel deployment will be good for us "Joes" and distros. One new thing I am glad to have learned is USB support. I could really care less about it but I see its significance and I realize others really like it.
I really should get off my duff and attend some kind of Linux gathering or show. I could have gone to some L.U.G.s but the ones in my area were on Friday nights... I can't swing with that. -Clump
I liked the article overall. It didn't seem to say anything earth shattering or particularly new. What I liked was that it addressed something that I find rarely, if ever, that companies may not be ready for the open attitudes like JWZ and Rasterman.
This reminds me a bit about the Slashdot response to Sun Microsystems opening of their source on some products. What surprised me is that there was a negative tide in the public response. Many were unhappy becasue of their liscence. From Sun's reasoning, it seemed logical. Open source but if you modify it and make money Sun is entitled to some of it. I am not open source expert but that does not seem unreasonable.
For the sake of discussion, what is wrong with a company that says "you can work with our code and if you make money we can have some"? I would equate that to someone borrowing a taxi and generating all sorts of revenue. The borrower never paid for the taxi yet he reaps benefits. Is it wrong for the taxi company to ask for some money?
Please don't get me wrong. I am all for open source and GPL. The only thing I am wondering is does all software have to be under the same liscence and why is it wrong for the original software author to ask a bit in return? -Clump
I think you raised a good point, but still, who gives the Government power? Blaming the "Government" or some other reified force merely escapes the real issue.
Here is an example of what I am talking about. During the Vietnam war 18 year old American males were drafted and forced to serve in the war. If you disagreed and wanted to vote for someone who opposed the draft you could not because of your age. Some called it "Too young to vote, but old enough to die". The result? Protest, and the voting age was lowered.
My point is that laws limit what we do, and in this case how we register on the Internet. A Government is just a term to call a group of individuals designed to govern the a country. They get thier power from the citizens. We have to GIVE them that power and when we do so when we accept and pay astronomical fees. -Clump
According to your logic, then the Government is not to blame. You cite that thousands of incompetant workers get little done and can manipulate things. The blame can be spread to us all. After all, NSI's reign lasted longer than it "should" have because people and organizations were willing to accept NSI's conditions. "High price for a domain and high annual fees? Sure, I will do it. I have to get my business online."
This is the exact problem with banks today. What happens when you use an ATM card at a different bank? You can be subjected to a service charge from that bank as well as your own. That problem keeps getting worse and will continue to do so as long as customers will accept it.
You made a great argument and I in no way feel NSI or the Government is innocent. In fact, I hold them accountable. However, just as I can blame, I must also take the blame for ALLOWING them to get away with it. After all, what good is a fee, law, or suggestion if nobody accepts it? -Clump
One issue I have seen addressed in other monoploy discussions is what happens when competition is introduced to a monoploy-power controlled environment? One could argue that NSI's steep fees and centralization do much to sort out "frivolous" domain registrations. Not to say these don't already exist, but when the price exponentially reduces who is to stop others from registering thousands of domains which a steep price might have prevented?
Of course the flip side is that NSI was a monopoly in all sense of the word and they have no right to charge astronomical prices or to say who can register a "useless" domain or a profane one. If the Internet is free and owned by the public then the public should do what they want on it? After all, that is an argument that surfaces much in talks of the CDA I and II, and recently in our discussions of whether anonymous posting should be allowed.
Who should police the Internet? Who should protect our children? Who should control our computers? I say ourselves. As to NSI, the future will be interesting... -Clump
Great point, but as much as you can criticize those here who talk about Microsoft, your comment about them is equally off-topic. On that note, my comment is now way off-topic because I am posting about you posting about others' posting about Microsoft when they really should be talking about little trains. -Clump
When its all said and done, I believe this to be a good thing. With the recent talk of the Mindcraft benchmarks, Linux will be able to mature faster and get fixes and improvements in quicker.
The biggest point that I agree on with Linus is that upgrading to 2.2 was a big deal for some people when it should not have been. Just look at how many distros drastically changed their products.
The only drawback I see is that bleeding-edgers will have to compile much more often and that the already light-speed trend of kernel suffix escallation will only get worse. But is that really bad? -Clump
I definitely understand the concern. Many people feel that Red Hat is in a position to exploit Linux and could become another MS. I think the fear is legitimate, but I also feel that the community has pushed it too far recently. Not you, but in general. I definitely am not saying that we should back off or accept everything they do.
I do think MS software on Linux would be a good thing. After all, it would be another choice on what to run. Make no mistake, I can't stand MS and avoid running their buggy software but I am not representing everyone. There are a good number of people, like me in the past, who would not switch to Linux because applications were lacking. If another company ports to Linux, we all can gain. -Clump
Not trying to start something, but what did you mean by "I would not be surprised if it is 'redhat'"? There are people who use and like Red Hat, and there are people that choose other distros. Linux is a great choice, and in Linux you can choose your distro. I think one big obsticle we must overcome is that attitude of "Well, I compile all my apps so I am better than you who use RPM". All I am saying is lets focus our efforts on Linux as a whole and not dwell on distro bickering. -Clump
I can't believe I didn't think of that. Who using Linux would be a Microsoft customer? Someone who downloaded their beta media player? Here is an honest question: How can a Linux-only user be a Microsoft customer? -Clump
Well the problem is that people ARE using NT. An attitude I see often is that it is "a Microsoft world." There are too many kids that want to be rich so they get IS or CS degrees while knowing little more than how to check e-mail. These kids then get hired and are scared to death of Unix. To them it is much easier to buy a service pack than to read a man page. Granted, that is not the case in all situations, but the attitude is rising and is alarming to me. -Clump
I agree with you. Microsoft has virtually unlimited resources to spin the media any way they choose. Just look at all the commercials on TV showing how normal people are better and better daily because of Microsoft. The Linux community does not show commericals like how Linux has accellerated open source, given new life to older systems, drastically reduced IT costs(MS assertion that a free OS is negligable to total costs is ludicrous, considering NT per seat costs), and actually has given a choice in PC operating systems.
This Mindcraft fiasco is nothing but good for Linux. I agree with Salon in its assertion that a negative outcome would double the efforts of Linux coders and advocates. If we(Linux) win, that will be great but MS could easily spin the stunt or make another benchmark. If the latter is the case, I think MS will be smarter than to show how poorly they set this up. -Clump
I understand what you are trying to say, but I aam afraid I disagree. There are instances where people prefer to remain anonymous because they are afraid. However, there are instances where people prefer privacy for other reasons.
You mentioned ACs in Slashdot. Just because they didn't log in does not mean what they have to say is immaterial. Some lost passwords and haven't the time to mail, some disable cookies and choose not to log in every time, and some don't feel like it. I put my name on what I do but I feel it is no right of any Government of any country to say who has can remain anonymous. We can't afford to squelch a potentially important communication medium.
Name by comments or not, we should at least be allowed to choose. Not for the sake of a country or by a law, but for anyone that wants to say anything. -Clump
I agree with the above response. Xircom is playing this as a defamation suit but that aspect can only be resolved AFTER you find out who is defaming you. Finding out is the issue we are concerned with. -Clump
I agree fully, but remailers and other circumventors are something that not everyone is familiar with and could easily be banished. Within reason, people will find ways around anything--prohibition, taxes, and online security. However, the freedom that needs to be protected and unaltered is that basic right to speak. We can't have judges saying what ways we can speak or that we have to speak this or that way. I understand that you were not supporting the judges, I am just expressing my concern over ANY outside controls. -Clump
Slashdot Mirror
"If what I learned is true, you'd not remember the cracks in the wall., because they wouldn't have your attention."
What makes the discussion we participated in so interesting was that he had no control over what he memorized in effect making every stimulus he encountered receive his full attention. To pay attention to something you must actively "forget" millions of chunks of stimulus. As it was told, this person could not and was tormented.
-Clump
Couldn't they have chosen better actors? I have yet to see either of them give a convincing performance. They should have chosen someone like Rick Moranis for Gates and anyone else but Wiley for jobs...
-Clump
If my brain can hold 13TB, I would love to hook that up to my computer. All I have in there now is 64M SIMM. I swap like a mofo...
-Clump
In Psychology we were taught that short-term memory usually lasts less than 30 seconds and is limited. Long-term memory is unlimited and is permanant.
A little food for thought. We discussed one patient who had a literal photographic memory. It was explained to us that he committed every memory to long term memory and thus was unable to forget anything. He eventually went insane.
Sorry to bring an unprovable story in but can you imagine the ramifications of that? It would seem that having a selectively photographic memory would be nice. Just remember EVERYTHING that you want--Good times, your wedding or divorce even... I dunno, or an entire textbook before a test. But imagine of you couldn't control what you remembered. Think of all the useless information you recieve every second. What people are wearing, the color of the wall, how many cracks in the wall...
I most certainly would go insane.
-Clump
I totally agree. IDE's are not all that they are cracked up to be. However, I see this as good for Linux in three main ways:
1.) Linux will be taken more seriously as a developer plaform.
2.) If it takes off that way software(in theory) would cost less to develop b/c of Linux's free nature.
3.) As you stated, people that code with heavy assistance from IDEs can now develop in Linux meaning a larger programmer pool.
The last item is either good or bad. Perhaps it is better that only those that truly know how to program are writing code in Linux. After all, not just Win32 itself is responsible for apps crashing.
Conversely, it could be good. Think of it as a domino effect--People of all coding abilities could be drawn to Linux and create and contribute. Given Linux's community and software peers, we pressure to keep open source and as a result can better others' shotty code. Still, there is no excuse for writing bad code in the first place.
The bottom line is that IDEs can be really good for Linux. Granted, there is no excuse for getting addicted to anything, i.e.: IDEs and even HTML editors. People could write worse code but as long as Linux keeps the open source attitude, we can pressure them to get it right.
-Clump
Well, this would definitely be a good thing for Linux. This would really help dent NT's appeal and could help make people see the benefits of free software.
This has been addressed before, but here goes. Other OS makers love to discredit Linux's "free" appeal because they claim that "the OS is a minimal cost in terms of the big picture." How valid a statement is that? It merely jumps the issue. Linux is free so you pay nothing for it. Is it the only cost in a computing solution? Of course not.
Big or small computing, the OS is going to factor in. In the PC market, the OS is the only major componant that seems to increase its price. How can we call OS price insignificant? On a PC, you can eliminate somewhere near $100 if you don't add Win98. On large multi-user systems, the cost of liscencing and per-user are zero under Linux. How can that be insignificant?
-Clump
That we can have such arguments is what makes this entire Linux "community" so worthwhile. Humanerror, Chromatic, and the guy who talked about the free movie players... wow.
I was raised in DOS, and didn't start on any kind of Unix or other OS until about 2 years ago when I installed Red Hat. I had complained about how I disliked Microsoft and how much I needed stability so I got my feet wet. It wasn't until after I had run Linux for some months that I really got to appreciate the Open Source movement. However, just as I could appreciate it, I am also confused by it.
ESR is making a huge stink about Linux being called GNU/Linux because without GNU tools, there would not have been Linux. Then there are those who despise Red Hat because it makes installation easy. Then there are those who despise non-open software.
After reading some comments, I can appreciate what the issue really entails. We are divided on this issue: Whether code is like a Taxi--Effort of an individual who is entitled to compensation. But then code could be much unlike a taxi--You can't touch it and it is not physical property. Some say the latter is the reason it should be open and is wrong to be closed-source. Others say it still is work, and the product is more than the sum of its whole.
I tend to agree with the analogy that compares it to wind--you can't dent it but it is there. Free software is great, but a programmer should (this is not an issue now) have a choice of whether they want their code free. With that I mean it is property of the coder, although undentable.
The only reason I am making my feelings known on this is because this is a BIG issue in Linux. This is also a big issue with MP3s and encoding engines. Should we be able to disallow duplication/modification of our work? Is it even work? Though Mp3 encoding is an algorhythm[sp??] didn't one have to write it? Keep the issue alive because no matter what we feel the worst thing we can do is not care.
-Clump
I am glad to hear about what Linus talked about. As others posted here before, the faster stable kernel deployment will be good for us "Joes" and distros. One new thing I am glad to have learned is USB support. I could really care less about it but I see its significance and I realize others really like it.
I really should get off my duff and attend some kind of Linux gathering or show. I could have gone to some L.U.G.s but the ones in my area were on Friday nights... I can't swing with that.
-Clump
I liked the article overall. It didn't seem to say anything earth shattering or particularly new. What I liked was that it addressed something that I find rarely, if ever, that companies may not be ready for the open attitudes like JWZ and Rasterman.
This reminds me a bit about the Slashdot response to Sun Microsystems opening of their source on some products. What surprised me is that there was a negative tide in the public response. Many were unhappy becasue of their liscence. From Sun's reasoning, it seemed logical. Open source but if you modify it and make money Sun is entitled to some of it. I am not open source expert but that does not seem unreasonable.
For the sake of discussion, what is wrong with a company that says "you can work with our code and if you make money we can have some"? I would equate that to someone borrowing a taxi and generating all sorts of revenue. The borrower never paid for the taxi yet he reaps benefits. Is it wrong for the taxi company to ask for some money?
Please don't get me wrong. I am all for open source and GPL. The only thing I am wondering is does all software have to be under the same liscence and why is it wrong for the original software author to ask a bit in return?
-Clump
That NSI's reign is breaking, consumers have a choice, and will pay less is evidence that Capitolism is working.
-Clump
I think you raised a good point, but still, who gives the Government power? Blaming the "Government" or some other reified force merely escapes the real issue.
Here is an example of what I am talking about. During the Vietnam war 18 year old American males were drafted and forced to serve in the war. If you disagreed and wanted to vote for someone who opposed the draft you could not because of your age. Some called it "Too young to vote, but old enough to die". The result? Protest, and the voting age was lowered.
My point is that laws limit what we do, and in this case how we register on the Internet. A Government is just a term to call a group of individuals designed to govern the a country. They get thier power from the citizens. We have to GIVE them that power and when we do so when we accept and pay astronomical fees.
-Clump
According to your logic, then the Government is not to blame. You cite that thousands of incompetant workers get little done and can manipulate things. The blame can be spread to us all. After all, NSI's reign lasted longer than it "should" have because people and organizations were willing to accept NSI's conditions. "High price for a domain and high annual fees? Sure, I will do it. I have to get my business online."
This is the exact problem with banks today. What happens when you use an ATM card at a different bank? You can be subjected to a service charge from that bank as well as your own. That problem keeps getting worse and will continue to do so as long as customers will accept it.
You made a great argument and I in no way feel NSI or the Government is innocent. In fact, I hold them accountable. However, just as I can blame, I must also take the blame for ALLOWING them to get away with it. After all, what good is a fee, law, or suggestion if nobody accepts it?
-Clump
One issue I have seen addressed in other monoploy discussions is what happens when competition is introduced to a monoploy-power controlled environment? One could argue that NSI's steep fees and centralization do much to sort out "frivolous" domain registrations. Not to say these don't already exist, but when the price exponentially reduces who is to stop others from registering thousands of domains which a steep price might have prevented?
Of course the flip side is that NSI was a monopoly in all sense of the word and they have no right to charge astronomical prices or to say who can register a "useless" domain or a profane one. If the Internet is free and owned by the public then the public should do what they want on it? After all, that is an argument that surfaces much in talks of the CDA I and II, and recently in our discussions of whether anonymous posting should be allowed.
Who should police the Internet? Who should protect our children? Who should control our computers? I say ourselves. As to NSI, the future will be interesting...
-Clump
Great point, but as much as you can criticize those here who talk about Microsoft, your comment about them is equally off-topic. On that note, my comment is now way off-topic because I am posting about you posting about others' posting about Microsoft when they really should be talking about little trains.
-Clump
When its all said and done, I believe this to be a good thing. With the recent talk of the Mindcraft benchmarks, Linux will be able to mature faster and get fixes and improvements in quicker.
The biggest point that I agree on with Linus is that upgrading to 2.2 was a big deal for some people when it should not have been. Just look at how many distros drastically changed their products.
The only drawback I see is that bleeding-edgers will have to compile much more often and that the already light-speed trend of kernel suffix escallation will only get worse. But is that really bad?
-Clump
I definitely understand the concern. Many people feel that Red Hat is in a position to exploit Linux and could become another MS. I think the fear is legitimate, but I also feel that the community has pushed it too far recently. Not you, but in general. I definitely am not saying that we should back off or accept everything they do.
I do think MS software on Linux would be a good thing. After all, it would be another choice on what to run. Make no mistake, I can't stand MS and avoid running their buggy software but I am not representing everyone. There are a good number of people, like me in the past, who would not switch to Linux because applications were lacking. If another company ports to Linux, we all can gain.
-Clump
Sorry, DVD isn't the man. Only Quake and Netscape are "the man".
-Clump
Not trying to start something, but what did you mean by "I would not be surprised if it is 'redhat'"? There are people who use and like Red Hat, and there are people that choose other distros. Linux is a great choice, and in Linux you can choose your distro. I think one big obsticle we must overcome is that attitude of "Well, I compile all my apps so I am better than you who use RPM". All I am saying is lets focus our efforts on Linux as a whole and not dwell on distro bickering.
-Clump
I can't believe I didn't think of that. Who using Linux would be a Microsoft customer? Someone who downloaded their beta media player? Here is an honest question: How can a Linux-only user be a Microsoft customer?
-Clump
Well the problem is that people ARE using NT. An attitude I see often is that it is "a Microsoft world." There are too many kids that want to be rich so they get IS or CS degrees while knowing little more than how to check e-mail. These kids then get hired and are scared to death of Unix. To them it is much easier to buy a service pack than to read a man page. Granted, that is not the case in all situations, but the attitude is rising and is alarming to me.
-Clump
I agree with you. Microsoft has virtually unlimited resources to spin the media any way they choose. Just look at all the commercials on TV showing how normal people are better and better daily because of Microsoft. The Linux community does not show commericals like how Linux has accellerated open source, given new life to older systems, drastically reduced IT costs(MS assertion that a free OS is negligable to total costs is ludicrous, considering NT per seat costs), and actually has given a choice in PC operating systems.
This Mindcraft fiasco is nothing but good for Linux. I agree with Salon in its assertion that a negative outcome would double the efforts of Linux coders and advocates. If we(Linux) win, that will be great but MS could easily spin the stunt or make another benchmark. If the latter is the case, I think MS will be smarter than to show how poorly they set this up.
-Clump
I understand what you are trying to say, but I aam afraid I disagree. There are instances where people prefer to remain anonymous because they are afraid. However, there are instances where people prefer privacy for other reasons.
You mentioned ACs in Slashdot. Just because they didn't log in does not mean what they have to say is immaterial. Some lost passwords and haven't the time to mail, some disable cookies and choose not to log in every time, and some don't feel like it. I put my name on what I do but I feel it is no right of any Government of any country to say who has can remain anonymous. We can't afford to squelch a potentially important communication medium.
Name by comments or not, we should at least be allowed to choose. Not for the sake of a country or by a law, but for anyone that wants to say anything.
-Clump
I agree with the above response. Xircom is playing this as a defamation suit but that aspect can only be resolved AFTER you find out who is defaming you. Finding out is the issue we are concerned with.
-Clump
I agree fully, but remailers and other circumventors are something that not everyone is familiar with and could easily be banished. Within reason, people will find ways around anything--prohibition, taxes, and online security. However, the freedom that needs to be protected and unaltered is that basic right to speak. We can't have judges saying what ways we can speak or that we have to speak this or that way. I understand that you were not supporting the judges, I am just expressing my concern over ANY outside controls.
-Clump
I hope so.