Actually, if you had been at Siggraph a week ago, you would have noticed that Maya (made by Alias/Wavefront) seems to be getting a lot more hype than 3DSMax. For one thing, Maya 2.0 comes with a _huge_ number of features, the one that I found most amazing is the ability to "sketch" with your tablet or even mouse to generate stuff like grass, pasta, or whatever you desire... you need a plugin to do this, which comes with the full version of Maya. Basically, you can generate a complete animation of a landscape scene (with wind, rain, etc) in 10 minutes or so... 3DSMax doesn't even come close to it. Also, Maya 2.5 is coming out soon, and will presumably fix the bugs still present in 2.0. AFAIK Kinetix/Discreet has no intention to release official bug fixes of Max 3.0 anytime soon... These and other features of Maya have seemed to make it a much more desirable tool for modellers. My company is writing translation software for 3d rendering systems, and most of the requests, by far, were for a converter to import their Max files into Maya...
Case and point: type at your linux command line prompt the following: "rpm --help | more" you get about 3-4 screenfuls of options, which you will never use most of the time.
This is why many users prefer not to use a command line interface...
I believe you are missing the point... All the author was trying to say is that, for people who are not computer-savy (he gave as example most secretaries, I believe), Linux provides too broad a range of choices and options. In so doing, Linux (or the GNU/Linux OS, if you will) becomes scary and people end up avoiding it. To help the people for whom a computer is a tool, not a way of life, we have to make the computer just that, a tool. Make it easy to use, have a consistent interface, etc etc...
"You're right to call me on this; I overstated the case a bit for humor. RMS's rhetoric is seldom this flammable. The members of The Church of the Holy GNU, OTOH..."
Judging a person by its followers is just as debatable, IMHO, as judging a religion by the members of its church. What I am trying to say is that a person cannot be held responsible for the way other people act. Of course, I cannot be certain of what Richard Stallman himself means, I can only give you my own interpretation...
"The GPV is exactly that: a legal virus that contaminates all it touches. Insulting it is exactly what I have in mind. My hope is that this debate does not die away, and that people realize that there are alternatives to the GPV for truly free software."
The GPL is attempting to set a group of rules for the distribution of free software. It does not, afaik, limit you from redistributing your software later on under a different license (correct me if I am wrong though). I am not saying it is the one and only _true_ way, but it is definitely better suited at preserving a certain set of rights (those of the program itself).
As you said, the GPL is less about convincing businesses to create/use free software, and more about a way of life. Both your efforts (as a non-follower of GPL) and ours are useful, and will contribute to the ultimate goal - a better society, be that through freedom (as Richard Stallman envisions it) or through better software (as you seem to envision it).
Just a short comment... if you read RMS's article on/. from a couple of weeks ago, you will notice that he in no way attempts to call ESR and the OSI "heretics to be burned at the stake at the first opportunity". On the contrary, his comments are polite and constructive. You are free to believe in the BSD license more than in the GPL one, however, you should not insult GPL by mistyping its proper name. In so doing, you fall into the same trap that Mr. Metcalfe and others have fallen, and do not benefit any part of the Free Software movement.
"Five atoms is the minimum thickness possible for the silicon dioxide film at the heart of computers" in the original article might actually refer to the number of atoms in the layer, regardless of whether the atoms are silicon or oxygen (of course, oxygen atoms and silicon atoms have different atomic radii).
On the other hand, "Essentially, what Bell Labs is saying that you can't go any smaller then 5 atoms of silicon dioxide at the heart of the machine.", as posted on www.slashdot.org makes no sense, since silicon dioxide is not an atom, but a molecule at the microscopic level (SiO2) and a crystal at the macroscopic level (as stated above).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you had been at Siggraph a week ago, you would have noticed that Maya (made by Alias/Wavefront) seems to be getting a lot more hype than 3DSMax. For one thing, Maya 2.0 comes with a _huge_ number of features, the one that I found most amazing is the ability to "sketch" with your tablet or even mouse to generate stuff like grass, pasta, or whatever you desire... you need a plugin to do this, which comes with the full version of Maya. Basically, you can generate a complete animation of a landscape scene (with wind, rain, etc) in 10 minutes or so... 3DSMax doesn't even come close to it. Also, Maya 2.5 is coming out soon, and will presumably fix the bugs still present in 2.0. AFAIK Kinetix/Discreet has no intention to release official bug fixes of Max 3.0 anytime soon... These and other features of Maya have seemed to make it a much more desirable tool for modellers. My company is writing translation software for 3d rendering systems, and most of the requests, by far, were for a converter to import their Max files into Maya...
Toodles
Case and point: type at your linux command line prompt the following: "rpm --help | more"
you get about 3-4 screenfuls of options, which you will never use most of the time.
This is why many users prefer not to use a command line interface...
Toodles,
Wolfheart
I believe you are missing the point... All the author was trying to say is that, for people who are not computer-savy (he gave as example most secretaries, I believe), Linux provides too broad a range of choices and options. In so doing, Linux (or the GNU/Linux OS, if you will) becomes scary and people end up avoiding it. To help the people for whom a computer is a tool, not a way of life, we have to make the computer just that, a tool. Make it easy to use, have a consistent interface, etc etc...
Take care,
Wolfheart
"You're right to call me on this; I overstated the case a bit for humor. RMS's rhetoric is seldom this flammable. The members of The Church of the Holy GNU, OTOH..."
Judging a person by its followers is just as debatable, IMHO, as judging a religion by the members of its church. What I am trying to say is that a person cannot be held responsible for the way other people act. Of course, I cannot be certain of what Richard Stallman himself means, I can only give you my own interpretation...
"The GPV is exactly that: a legal virus that contaminates all it touches. Insulting it is exactly what I have in mind. My hope is that this debate does not die away, and that people realize that there are alternatives to the GPV for truly free software."
The GPL is attempting to set a group of rules for the distribution of free software. It does not, afaik, limit you from redistributing your software later on under a different license (correct me if I am wrong though). I am not saying it is the one and only _true_ way, but it is definitely better suited at preserving a certain set of rights (those of the program itself).
As you said, the GPL is less about convincing businesses to create/use free software, and more about a way of life. Both your efforts (as a non-follower of GPL) and ours are useful, and will contribute to the ultimate goal - a better society, be that through freedom (as Richard Stallman envisions it) or through better software (as you seem to envision it).
Take care,
Wolfheart
Just a short comment... if you read RMS's article on /. from a couple of weeks ago, you will notice that he in no way attempts to call ESR and the OSI "heretics to be burned at the stake at the first opportunity". On the contrary, his comments are polite and constructive. You are free to believe in the BSD license more than in the GPL one, however, you should not insult GPL by mistyping its proper name. In so doing, you fall into the same trap that Mr. Metcalfe and others have fallen, and do not benefit any part of the Free Software movement.
Take care,
Wolfheart
"Five atoms is the minimum thickness possible for the silicon dioxide film at the heart of computers" in the original article might actually refer to the number of atoms in the layer, regardless of whether the atoms are silicon or oxygen (of course, oxygen atoms and silicon atoms have different atomic radii).
On the other hand, "Essentially, what Bell Labs is saying that you can't go any smaller then 5 atoms of silicon dioxide at the heart of the machine.", as posted on www.slashdot.org makes no sense, since silicon dioxide is not an atom, but a molecule at the microscopic level (SiO2) and a crystal at the macroscopic level (as stated above).