Lumping science and faith seems like the
stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.
Why should faith be immune to the same sort of critisicm that science faces? Skepticism in environmental science, or any science, is a good thing (though I agree that the opinions of Lomborg are suspect).
Religions can learn a thing or two from the open dialog we see in the scientific community. Imagine if environmental science was something we were asked to accept as a matter of faith. It would be ridiculous - as it is for religion.
There is no particular reason why reason must be removed from the equation when God is added to it. Lumping faith and science is not absurd... though it is awkward for people who believe in religions.
Isn't it kind of ironic that GNOME was once a hacker's desktop environment, filled with a million applications whose names all started with G, whereas KDE was a scorned desktop built upon a proprietary toolkit? Because things are going full circle: despite the enormous popularity of KDE amongst Linux enthusiasts, GNOME seems set to become a defacto standard among the suits.
Doubt it? Red Hat has always favored GNOME, and the new UserLinux project seems ready to make the same decision. Sun's Java Desktop is GNOME-based. And SuSE, while always partial to KDE, is now owned by Novell, which also owns a big development community at Ximian. It looks like the corporate world is poised to start embracing GNOME, leaving KDE for hobyists like me (and maybe you).
I quite like both desktops, and hope the choice remains for *nix users. Particularly with the Patent Wars looming ahead of us, a diversity of open source and free software projects is a useful thing. Think of what would happen if a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against Gecko developers, preventing its availability. There goes Mozilla, Epiphany, Firebird and others. What are we left with? KHTML. I hope the need to standardize doesn't kill off the great variety we have now.
I think the film is actually better sans-Scouring. It was pointed out above that the Scouring of the Shire is important to Tolkein' story, and I agree - but only in the book. It shows how the world is changing (as both Galadriel and Sauruman note in their respective narrations in the first two films). But in a movie, the end of the ring and the return home makes a far better ending.
When I first heard they were making these three films I guessed that they would definitely omit two scenes: Tom Bombadil and the Scouring. And that's exactly what Peter Jackson did because they're clear candidates for omission. Even though they work on paper, they really distract from the main story arc, and that can be suicide on film.
And no, making more films is not the answer. Heck, this is the first time three films of this scale have been made back-to-back. It's not feasible to make half a dozen. The director, actors and crew would be dead of exhaustion by the end.
A few people have mentioned this and it's a valid point, but I don't think it invalidates the use of number portability. I'm in a contract right now with AT&T Wireless. They're great... except their service cuts out whenver you get within ten feet of my apartment. This is the only reason I have a land line, but I'd prefer to save the $30 a month and go fully wireless.
AT&T won't fix the service problem - nor should they be required to do so, because carriers can't guarrantee perfect service everywhere. But I'd like to switch. When my contract expires I'll probably switch to Sprint or Verizon, and portability will be a major factor in my being able to switch.
Some people might not have to wait for a contract - you might be able to find a carrier that will buy out your existing contract in exchange for signing a contract with them instead. It's worth asking.
This conspiracy theory may have some merit, but to be honest Google was an obvious choice even sans-Microsoft. SCO wants to sue a major, high-profile Linux user. Who better than Google? It would attract a lot of media attention and drive the SCOX stock value even higher.
When I read about SCO's future litigation... ehem... business plans a few weeks ago Google was my very first guess. But my second guess would be a major Hollywood CGI company that has a render farm, like Pixar. Third guess: some company on Wall Street since big finance companies use a lot of Linux and have deep pockets.
In a way, Hollywood is the best guess because they're very sensitive to issues of "intellectual property" and they're just starting to flirt with Linux. Google is more entrenched, and is going to be less open to being strong-armed about using the kernel.
... the company calls "core system software"... As defined by Phoenix, CSS is a new category of core system firmware...
So now we have the Content Scrambling System for DVDs, Cascading Stylesheets for HTML and Core System Software for the BIOS. Anyone else got any?
I think it's about time that we create an industry standards group to create and clarify technologies that use CSS as their initials. We could call it the CSS Standards Syndicate (CSS).
Another excellent summary of the problems with SCO's arguments. So what on earth are they trying to do? Everything they say is spin, and everything the Open Source and Free Software community says is well-organized, annotated fact. How can they possibly think this will go as they hope? Even more to the point, what is David Boies trying to accomplish? He either:
Thinks they can win on their existing evidence and arguments, in which case he is as crazy as SCO's executives, or
Wisely realizes they're likely to lose, or at least not get everything they're bargaining for, but is sticking around for the downfall anyway.
So what's his plan? Personally I think (2) is the answer, and he's sticking around for the money. He must be hoping there will be a buyout, perhaps by Microsoft or someone else of worth, which would raise the value of the stock he's been given.
Microsoft has released a lot of crap software, but in this case if Microsoft is working on a product that won't be out for three years, it probably WILL be good, so the comment that the open source community has to keep OSS better than Windows is quite valid.
Consider:
Microsoft has significantly increased their development staff. By thoustands of developers. My interpretation of this is that they know very well they weren't much good at this before, and that they've been lucky. And now that they actually have to compete with something for a change, they need more people and a better development process.
The usual baloney about a database-driven filesystem looks like it's actually real this time. WinFS could be a major feature, since most idiot computer users don't comprehend storage. I know - I do desktop support. An intuitive way to find information is much needed by many less-skilled users. This could be a killer app, and OSS developers should probably try to match it, and beat it, prior to 2006.
Longhorn looks nicer than XP.
Supposedly M$ has hired former UNIX developers to improve the command line. So the pitiful DOSlike Windows CLI shell might actually be worth using, connecting to remotely, etc.
OSS developers should recognize Longhorn for what it is: Microsoft trying to be competetive for the first time in years. Don't expect another crap OS from them.
Whether or not they read Mostly Harmless they can solve the problem by keeping an American Express card in a more prominent location than the secret ID card. That way the Amex is more likely to get stolen, which is not a problem because it's not accepted anywhere in the known universe.
I think you'll find that your 486/66 with 8MB of ram running MS Windows for Workgroups 3.11 is also faster than a Pentium 4 running Windows XP.
Comparing an old version of Windows with any current OS doesn't help your argument. Windows for Workgroups is actually DOS with a Window manager. Any modern OS, whether it be Windows XP, OS X, or Linux, is run by a large kernel that supports a wide variety of hardware, and therefore uses a lot more memory. It also runs a number of services that might include a graphical session, networking and other fancy modern things.
I've used both the single-processor G5 and the dual. They're fast. I was actually surprised, since Mac speed hasn't impressed me in recent years and I'm not a 'Mac fanatic.' The G4 fell way behind Intel and AMD offerings, but the G5 is noticeably faster.
When you were copying that file, were you connecting to an SMB share, or using AppleTalk, or what? That 20-minute copy time is weird, and it sounds like a networking issue, not an OS problem. On a 10 megabit network a 17 MB file should copy in under 14 seconds. Even when you take the file protocol into account it shouldn't take over a minute.
I can't think of how many times I've sat around playing with the GIMP and pressing refresh on Slashdot, when suddenly a thought hits me: I need a new processor. Right now.
So I run out to the computer store and pick up an AMD or Intel CPU, and when I get back... damn and blast! I have to shut off my computer before I can install the new CPU.
But never again! Once 2.8 comes out it'll just be pop... pop... new CPU! I've waited for this a long time.
Now back to the Slashdot F5'ing. Hey, a German consortium wants to standardize vehicle software. Finally!
If you're interested in any of the non-Torvalds agenda setters on the list, yes there are indeed many dead links. Carly Fiorina and a few others lead nowhere.
In establishd *NIX environments there is not much differentiation between a "client" and a "server." The client/server model's application to operating systems is not the sort of model Sun has traditionally pushed - it is really Microsoft's legacy on the industry.
For Schwartz to say that he has no problem with GNU/Linux on the desktop but reservations about putting it on the server is absurd. Hey, Schwartz, I thought the network was the computer...
Hi, Bruce. The guy who founded Microsoft - I forget his name - recently commented that open source and free software suffers from its inability to cross-license its technology.
I see cross-licensing as the product of a broken patent system - if patents were given out only for truly original and non-obvious inventions, cross-licensing would be very rare. But along with the litigation that necessitates it, it's a fact of life. How much of a threat to GNU/Linux do you think the inability to cross-license presents, and do you think it might create a barrier to its use?
Interesting points - thanks. Yes, the seventeen year duration is a bit much, and many processes that are granted patents are for obvious inventions. But the community should probably ponder the "need for costly research" issue more deeply. Most people on Slashdot are skeptical of software patents in general, but your arguments give balance the discussion.
I find your (angio's) comment interesting. For quite a while I've been against software patents. I realize that most of the ones that get press are, as you've pointed out, the worst of the lot, and probably not representative of software patenting in general.
If the USPTO were to fix its software patenting policies and accept only original and non-obvious software innovations, I'd still oppose software patents. I'm not opposed to them because they're bad for free software specifically. Patents are designed to create a temporary monopoly, and that barrier-to-entry should apply equally to free and non-free competitors. Rather, my opposition to software patents is based upon the core purpose behind patents. They're designed to promote development and creativity - the reward of the inventor is just a means, or rather an incentive, to that end. To me this clearly makes software ineligible for patent protection because people will write software with or without patent protection. So the need for patents is not met.
I'd be interested to hear what sorts of software patents you think would promote future development. Would you say that the patents for which you've applied have led you to write more software than you would have otherwise?
A lot of people will be annoyed by this comment, but personally I think we should support Microsoft on this. No, this is not a troll. I usually enjoy laughing in Microsoft's face, but in this case they've encountered the same problem that many open source developers face: the notion that software patents are a valid use of our patent system. They are not.
While many of us have feared that GNU/Linux and other free OSs will be targets of patent infringement lawsuits when they start to take Microsoft's core desktop market share, Microsoft has probably not considered that their business could be severely hampered by the same sort of litigation. Of course that's probably not what will happen. In all likelihood Microsoft will settle this out of court, and it'll result in a licensing deal with InterTrust. Either that or Microsoft will countersue for an unrelated patent infringement on InterTrust's part, and cross-licensing will commence. It's predictable, like clockwork. But there is a small chance that InterTrust will not go down easily, and that must have Microsoft execs worried.
In the long run it's best for Microsoft, as for the rest of us, that software patents be abolished. Microsoft would balk at the idea right now, but after a suit like this - or years of similar suits - they might be convinced it's not productive. They'd make a good ally if convinced.
Here's an idea. If you've purchased any CDs recently and have the receipts, go ahead and Kazaa away. But only download songs from albums for which you can prove you had previously owned a copy.
I wonder if the RIAA would continue with this activity if the first few people they targeted with $150,000 fines were downloading songs they already owned...
The free market doesn't really choose the best product. This is a myth, but one that a lot of people enjoy believing. Microsoft is not proof that a free market chooses the best product - if anything it's a demonstration of the opposite.
While Windows is useable and suits many peoples' needs, it was not chosen because it was superior to its competitors, but rather because it came preinstalled on so many machines. This is not the same as it being the best product. If your free market extremist philosophy were worth anything, we could invent a better OS than Windows next year and by 2005 everyone would have adopted it at Windows' expense - pretty much overnight. We know that won't happen. Momentum is more powerful than merit in most markets. Our love of free markets can often blind us to this.
We should look at this legislation as an encouragement to make software that runs on open protocols and uses open file formats. There is nothing objectionable to that. Microsoft and other suppliers won't have to pay a dime if they fess up on their file formats before the law takes effect.
We'll have a better idea when the next version of Windows comes out. Nicknamed "Longcomb," it will have a sleek new interface, a database-driven filesystem named WinCoolFS, and other features so numerous that if I included them here Slashdot would come to a standstill while my comment was being uploaded. And while I'm mentioning vaporware, Quark for Mac OS X also gives us an idea about whether hyping vaporware has a negative effect on anyone.
Of course it can... but I'm not sure if vaporware warrants a lawsuit per se. The real crime in the case of Enron is not overhyping, but rather not delivering on contractual agreements. That's quite a separate issue from hyping vaporware, and is a crime not limited to the software world.
We all wish that software would come to us sans bugs, but the persistence of bugs makes perfect sense. Computers have been in use for over 30 years, but we've used new software continuously throughout that period. And we'll be using brand new software again five a years from now (except for people who use Microsoft Word, which will still contain original 1.0 code along with 3 GB of patches and features - but I digress).
Software is not always hereditary - each project, whether it be a browser or an OS or an office suite, is often a fresh start. Unfortunately you need to use software for a while in order to discover its bugs, so as long as there is new software, there will be new bugs.
Inevitably when software becomes bug-free it will also be close to obsolescence.
I'd actually recommend against using shared folders in Outlook. I used to work in an environment that used them, and they were nice in many ways. But they use up a lot of storage in the Exchange database, which can slow down your server.
Also, the the data wasn't really as secure as it would be on an actual file system. If something were deleted you couldn't just go to a tape backup and find the file, because old copies of it were stuck in Microsoft's proprietary database.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wait. You mean that kind of windows. I thought this story was about something else. Never mind. I guess I'be been reading too much Slashdot.
I did it, too. Let's Google bomb them. Tell your friends - it only takes a few dozen Google-noticed sites for it to work.
stupidest thing I have heard in a long time.
Why should faith be immune to the same sort of critisicm that science faces? Skepticism in environmental science, or any science, is a good thing (though I agree that the opinions of Lomborg are suspect).
Religions can learn a thing or two from the open dialog we see in the scientific community. Imagine if environmental science was something we were asked to accept as a matter of faith. It would be ridiculous - as it is for religion.
There is no particular reason why reason must be removed from the equation when God is added to it. Lumping faith and science is not absurd ... though it is awkward for people who believe in religions.
You wouldn't have posted that comment, thus distracting us from the Microsoft angle of this story, if the liberals didn't secretly control Slashdot.
Doubt it? Red Hat has always favored GNOME, and the new UserLinux project seems ready to make the same decision. Sun's Java Desktop is GNOME-based. And SuSE, while always partial to KDE, is now owned by Novell, which also owns a big development community at Ximian. It looks like the corporate world is poised to start embracing GNOME, leaving KDE for hobyists like me (and maybe you).
I quite like both desktops, and hope the choice remains for *nix users. Particularly with the Patent Wars looming ahead of us, a diversity of open source and free software projects is a useful thing. Think of what would happen if a patent infringement lawsuit was filed against Gecko developers, preventing its availability. There goes Mozilla, Epiphany, Firebird and others. What are we left with? KHTML. I hope the need to standardize doesn't kill off the great variety we have now.
When I first heard they were making these three films I guessed that they would definitely omit two scenes: Tom Bombadil and the Scouring. And that's exactly what Peter Jackson did because they're clear candidates for omission. Even though they work on paper, they really distract from the main story arc, and that can be suicide on film.
And no, making more films is not the answer. Heck, this is the first time three films of this scale have been made back-to-back. It's not feasible to make half a dozen. The director, actors and crew would be dead of exhaustion by the end.
AT&T won't fix the service problem - nor should they be required to do so, because carriers can't guarrantee perfect service everywhere. But I'd like to switch. When my contract expires I'll probably switch to Sprint or Verizon, and portability will be a major factor in my being able to switch.
Some people might not have to wait for a contract - you might be able to find a carrier that will buy out your existing contract in exchange for signing a contract with them instead. It's worth asking.
When I read about SCO's future litigation ... ehem ... business plans a few weeks ago Google was my very first guess. But my second guess would be a major Hollywood CGI company that has a render farm, like Pixar. Third guess: some company on Wall Street since big finance companies use a lot of Linux and have deep pockets.
In a way, Hollywood is the best guess because they're very sensitive to issues of "intellectual property" and they're just starting to flirt with Linux. Google is more entrenched, and is going to be less open to being strong-armed about using the kernel.
So now we have the Content Scrambling System for DVDs, Cascading Stylesheets for HTML and Core System Software for the BIOS. Anyone else got any?
I think it's about time that we create an industry standards group to create and clarify technologies that use CSS as their initials. We could call it the CSS Standards Syndicate (CSS).
So what's his plan? Personally I think (2) is the answer, and he's sticking around for the money. He must be hoping there will be a buyout, perhaps by Microsoft or someone else of worth, which would raise the value of the stock he's been given.
Consider:
OSS developers should recognize Longhorn for what it is: Microsoft trying to be competetive for the first time in years. Don't expect another crap OS from them.
Whether or not they read Mostly Harmless they can solve the problem by keeping an American Express card in a more prominent location than the secret ID card. That way the Amex is more likely to get stolen, which is not a problem because it's not accepted anywhere in the known universe.
Comparing an old version of Windows with any current OS doesn't help your argument. Windows for Workgroups is actually DOS with a Window manager. Any modern OS, whether it be Windows XP, OS X, or Linux, is run by a large kernel that supports a wide variety of hardware, and therefore uses a lot more memory. It also runs a number of services that might include a graphical session, networking and other fancy modern things.
I've used both the single-processor G5 and the dual. They're fast. I was actually surprised, since Mac speed hasn't impressed me in recent years and I'm not a 'Mac fanatic.' The G4 fell way behind Intel and AMD offerings, but the G5 is noticeably faster.
When you were copying that file, were you connecting to an SMB share, or using AppleTalk, or what? That 20-minute copy time is weird, and it sounds like a networking issue, not an OS problem. On a 10 megabit network a 17 MB file should copy in under 14 seconds. Even when you take the file protocol into account it shouldn't take over a minute.
I can't think of how many times I've sat around playing with the GIMP and pressing refresh on Slashdot, when suddenly a thought hits me: I need a new processor. Right now.
So I run out to the computer store and pick up an AMD or Intel CPU, and when I get back ... damn and blast! I have to shut off my computer before I can install the new CPU.
But never again! Once 2.8 comes out it'll just be pop ... pop ... new CPU! I've waited for this a long time.
Now back to the Slashdot F5'ing. Hey, a German consortium wants to standardize vehicle software. Finally!
If you're interested in any of the non-Torvalds agenda setters on the list, yes there are indeed many dead links. Carly Fiorina and a few others lead nowhere.
Who besides me noticed?
In establishd *NIX environments there is not much differentiation between a "client" and a "server." The client/server model's application to operating systems is not the sort of model Sun has traditionally pushed - it is really Microsoft's legacy on the industry.
For Schwartz to say that he has no problem with GNU/Linux on the desktop but reservations about putting it on the server is absurd. Hey, Schwartz, I thought the network was the computer ...
I see cross-licensing as the product of a broken patent system - if patents were given out only for truly original and non-obvious inventions, cross-licensing would be very rare. But along with the litigation that necessitates it, it's a fact of life. How much of a threat to GNU/Linux do you think the inability to cross-license presents, and do you think it might create a barrier to its use?
Interesting points - thanks. Yes, the seventeen year duration is a bit much, and many processes that are granted patents are for obvious inventions. But the community should probably ponder the "need for costly research" issue more deeply. Most people on Slashdot are skeptical of software patents in general, but your arguments give balance the discussion.
If the USPTO were to fix its software patenting policies and accept only original and non-obvious software innovations, I'd still oppose software patents. I'm not opposed to them because they're bad for free software specifically. Patents are designed to create a temporary monopoly, and that barrier-to-entry should apply equally to free and non-free competitors. Rather, my opposition to software patents is based upon the core purpose behind patents. They're designed to promote development and creativity - the reward of the inventor is just a means, or rather an incentive, to that end. To me this clearly makes software ineligible for patent protection because people will write software with or without patent protection. So the need for patents is not met.
I'd be interested to hear what sorts of software patents you think would promote future development. Would you say that the patents for which you've applied have led you to write more software than you would have otherwise?
While many of us have feared that GNU/Linux and other free OSs will be targets of patent infringement lawsuits when they start to take Microsoft's core desktop market share, Microsoft has probably not considered that their business could be severely hampered by the same sort of litigation. Of course that's probably not what will happen. In all likelihood Microsoft will settle this out of court, and it'll result in a licensing deal with InterTrust. Either that or Microsoft will countersue for an unrelated patent infringement on InterTrust's part, and cross-licensing will commence. It's predictable, like clockwork. But there is a small chance that InterTrust will not go down easily, and that must have Microsoft execs worried.
In the long run it's best for Microsoft, as for the rest of us, that software patents be abolished. Microsoft would balk at the idea right now, but after a suit like this - or years of similar suits - they might be convinced it's not productive. They'd make a good ally if convinced.
I wonder if the RIAA would continue with this activity if the first few people they targeted with $150,000 fines were downloading songs they already owned ...
While Windows is useable and suits many peoples' needs, it was not chosen because it was superior to its competitors, but rather because it came preinstalled on so many machines. This is not the same as it being the best product. If your free market extremist philosophy were worth anything, we could invent a better OS than Windows next year and by 2005 everyone would have adopted it at Windows' expense - pretty much overnight. We know that won't happen. Momentum is more powerful than merit in most markets. Our love of free markets can often blind us to this.
We should look at this legislation as an encouragement to make software that runs on open protocols and uses open file formats. There is nothing objectionable to that. Microsoft and other suppliers won't have to pay a dime if they fess up on their file formats before the law takes effect.
Of course it can ... but I'm not sure if vaporware warrants a lawsuit per se. The real crime in the case of Enron is not overhyping, but rather not delivering on contractual agreements. That's quite a separate issue from hyping vaporware, and is a crime not limited to the software world.
Software is not always hereditary - each project, whether it be a browser or an OS or an office suite, is often a fresh start. Unfortunately you need to use software for a while in order to discover its bugs, so as long as there is new software, there will be new bugs.
Inevitably when software becomes bug-free it will also be close to obsolescence.
Also, the the data wasn't really as secure as it would be on an actual file system. If something were deleted you couldn't just go to a tape backup and find the file, because old copies of it were stuck in Microsoft's proprietary database.