What you forget is that you're totally free to begin with. If you don't like proprietary software because you have to trade certain freedoms to use it, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to. There is, in fact, a whole community founded on the notion that trading some freedom for software isn't worth it, so it's not like you're all alone. But to assert, a priori, that the other much larger community of people who have no problem trading a little freedom for a lot of software are somehow acting immorally is, in essence, to engage in religious zealotry.
Now, everybody has a religion --- or "moral compass" --- even atheists like myself. If you just want to stipulate unfree software as amoral, that's your prerogative. But I don't agree with it, and neither does the rest of the world --- you are outnumbered, outgunned, and you will lose an ideological war. Period. So if getting widespread acceptance of at least some free software has any weight with you, then you better expect to compromise your principles.
Clearly, this is part of a vast righ-wing conspiracy. Karl Rove is trying to divert attention from the Chimpler's Cabal of Evil (TM), and their complete disregard for even the most basic of human rights, by intimidating the ISPA into calling Britain the villain of the year, when that title should obviously be awarded to Bushitler. QED.
BTW, if you need to be reminded that this post is sarcastic --- well, you know you've spent too much time on Slashdot when...
I'm an avid shooter as well, and I agree that, for the majorly-most part, skills developed in an FPS don't carry over at all into actual firearms usage.
I do, however, think the revolution controller could prove to be an excellent choice for an FPS. Though the mechanism of aiming is similar to a pistol, the prescence of a targetting reticule will make a world of difference.
The reason why it's so hard to keep a real gun on target --- and let's ignore recoil, weapon heft, trigger pull, and flinching --- is the fact that sight alignment is a bitch. In a game, the bullets just goes whereever your crosshairs are. In real life, the bullet follows a trajectory determined by the lateral and longitudinal alignment of the front and rear sights --- quite a bit more complex.
To get an idea for what the Revolution experience would be like in a shooter, try shooting with a parallax-free reddot. It's friggin' cake then: put the red dot on the target, and pull the trigger. Done.
I don't know if this will be as precise as a mouse, but I expect it to be much more precise than thumbsticks, for the simple reason that you have so much more "room to breath." And that being said, thumbsticks be damned, Halo 2 is still a blast to play --- and there are plenty of people playing it. Even if the revolution isn't as precise as a mouse, I expect it will be well beyond good enough, and hella fun to boot.
No malice: I seriously didn't understand your post.
The GPL does require copyright to exist -- but that's not the point. The point is that open source software doesn't require copyright to exist. The laxly licensed BSDs are a testament to this. Further, I doubt that the FSF wouldn't exist if there were no copyright laws, and even if it didn't, I'd imagine it would be because free software would be the rule, not the exception.
I condemned copyright violations in my parent post, so I can't figure out the point of the rest of your post. Linksys shouldn't infringe the GPL. Players shouldn't infringe on Rockstar's copyright.
Copyright is a rather artificial construct. Why would we allow publishers control over their work, if that work could be made to benefit the whole world without any additional cost to the publisher? Answer: because it still takes money to create the work,
So far, so good.
and publishers should be able to make a profit on it. Only a communist would demand that publishers and artists work for nothing... and that is what you are demanding when you state that it is OK to copy software. That, or you think that others should pay for the content you enjoy for free...
Not so good.
First, publishers, like buggy whip manufacturers, do not have a special right to stay employed.
Second, to say that it is OK to copy creative works -- that is, we could get along just fine without a system of copyright -- is not to say that creators should work for nothing. The open source software business (yes, I do mean business) is rife with examples of people writing freely redistributable and modifiable code for cash. Historically, creative works were produced long before any notion of copyright existed. It would take some space to discuss this issue in full, but suffice it to say, the absence of copyright is not the abscence of creativity.
Third, I submit that a skeptical opinion of copyright law is not a trademark of communism.
Personally, I don't approve of copyright violations. If you believe in the rules, play by them. If not, quit the game. But don't try to rationalize your free-loading. That said, it would be nice if I could discuss the (de)merits of copyright and its alternatives without being branded a pinko or a bum.
Nah. Tarballs, to a large extent, are write once, compile anywhere. A modest build farm of el-cheapo boxes could crank out builds for the major distros easily. This could all be automated as well, and it's not like it's a terribly large amount of work.
I would sure like to have some real transparency for the fanslider widget me and a friend created. Screenshot here.
This is a variable-precision widget, geared toward use in audio applications. Click the slider, then drag out to create a "fan" indicating your increased precision. However, without transparency, I can only do this with clip masks (i.e. specify the window's shape). With a vertical fanslider, this is no problem when dragging to the right; I only have to clip the window once, then I can adjust it's width to create a properly sized fan. But going the other way, things start to suck. The implementation reasons are a bit boring, but basically, I can't just "set it and forget it." The result is that the fan is choppy as shit going to the left.
Real Transparency would make this all go away. If we stipulate that this is a useful and productivity enhancing widget, then there is in fact at least one scenario where compositing is a definite functional plus.
It does make sense. Providing a uniform interface through which common configuration tasks can be performed is an excellent idea. If gnome can configure network devices, and you know how to use it's configurator, then you also know that wherever you go, if gnome is installed, you can setup the network. This is superior to having every individual distribution provide it's own custom interface, at least from the perspective of consistency (which is a valuable quality in UIs).
Even though different distros may have different internal solutions to configuration, I see no good reason why a consistent front end can't (or shouldn't) be provided. Furthermore, I'd rather have many hands working together to achieve the best interface once, rather than divering talent toward reinventing a boring wheel to mediocre effect.
Wife beating is a pretty universal problem, sad to say. Real sad to say, in fact. You don't have to travel very far from my cozy little suburb to find a place where women are frequently treated as little more than a combination baby-factory, short-order cook, and punching bag. And these are God Fearin' Christians.
I really regret opening my mouth that early about ObjC. The more I read about it, the more I like it. True dynamic binding is awesome. And your right, once you drop your preconceptions, the fact that the OOP aesthetics differ from their procedural counterparts actually makes the code easier to read. However, that preconceived notion is probably widespread, so I guess my original post is still true:-\
I haven't even gotten to the kits yet, but they are supposed to be teh r0x0r. Interface Builder is incredibly awesome, I'm sold on that already. And ObjC is clean and compact, which definitely cannot be said for C++. The problem is that C++ is ubiquitous, and while GNUstep has come a long way, the fact is that it's pretty much off in its own world; and so long as it's a marginal player in the mainstream Linux scene, ObjC is going to be a niche language. BUT, I read in the FAQ that they have no objection to hooking up GTK into the AppKit backend. That would be really schweet.
Finish GNUStep
Plugin GTK
Profit!
The only predicament this puts me in is deciding whether I want to push onward with my current projects, or drop everything and start working on GNUStep. But the important thing is that I was wrong in my original post, and I apologize for flapping my yap prematurely.
I must say, I am truly impressed with the well developed arguments the Computer Scientists of slashdot have given for the superiority of their methodology vis-a-vis that of the mere code monkey. Why, with empirical support such as "IMHO," "Just my $0.02," and "In my experience," I'd say it is obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt that a mere code monkey cannot hold a candle to a true blue Computer Scientist.
It goes without saying that the ability to architect a program of several hundreds of thousands of lines of complexity, a feat which is really no more difficult than the simplest of soldering tasks, is of infinitesimal value compared to the ability to prove an algorithm correct. And we all know that Knuth was really just kidding when he said that "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." What he really meant was that we should hoist high upon our shoulders and cheer onwards those gallant few who devote themselves to making that 5% of a program's code, wherein 95% its execution takes place, run faster; the natural corollary being that the mere code monkeys who design, implement, and debug the other 95% are to be fed gruel and enroll in indentured servitude to their sheepskin bearing overlords.
Throughout the course of history, every great leap in the progress of humanity has, without fail, been initiated by those who embraced the world created for them, and followed the One True Path to enlightement that the intelligentsia (whose motives and methods are obviously pure and beyond question) have laid out for them. That's why you never hear about relatively mediocre students revolutionizing the world of physics while serving as mere clerk monkeys in a patent office. That's why the company that almost single handedly revolutionized the gaming industry was founded by wise and studied sheepskin bearing patrons of the mighty Computer Science. That's why the most popular operating system of our modern age was created under the leadership of one with years of rigorous education and edification. Mere code monkeys amount to little more than a festering pile of monkey feces in this world!
Further, this is why the most popular language in academics is Java. Computer Scientists will settle for nothing more than the fastest language, with bare-metal access beyond compare, when writing their incredible and world definining algorithms and data structures.
So if I put words into your mouth, and argue against them, you'll go along with it? Is this how you wrote your dissertation that you researched with 50 tabs open in FireFox? Did you email it to your grandma?
I'm kinda on the fence about this. I like the idea of a cleaner OOP C than C++, and the objective-c philosophy seems to be right on target in that regard. However, I'm going to throw the stake in the ground and say that it's syntax is ungodly; perhaps not because of any inherent shortcomings, but simply because it is woefully incongruous with the rest of C. When C++ gets ugly, it's mainly an ugliness of logic (abuse of friend classes, illogical operator overloading, etc); the asthetics of the code remain pretty much homogenous relative to pure C. This also means that C++ ugliness can be combatted. With ObjC, you're stuck with that @interface and [object message] crap, no matter what. And it does not blend.
I imagine people aren't picking up ObjC because of this syntactical buggery. In fact, I'd wager that, as far as standard OOP stuff goes, C++ is easier to learn than ObjC for the existing C programmer preciesly because the syntax doesn't cause cognitive dysentary. FWIW, I really wanted to be an ObjC supporter, but the friggin' syntax pisses me off, and there are some features of C++ that are incredibly useful (i.e. templates) which have no counterpart in ObjC.
Truly your hand-waving is quite impressive. You aren't the first person to spread FUD about FOSS forking,
and you won't be the last to keep doing so in spite of reality.
Unfortunately, cultural intertia is not to be underestimated. Taken as a whole, the "developed" nations really believe that a higher education is the key to be being a well rounded and competent human being. Try having a conversation with a true believer, and try to pin down the exact merits and whether there might be better ways to provide the same benefit (so that people aren't going broke/in debt and taking 4 years to get an entry level job). You will make absolutely no progress, and get scoffed at mightily. It's elitism, plain and simple. Until this notion is shed (if it ever is), a degree is always going to be a de facto necessity for higher-level jobs. People such as your self are simply very very rare.
I'm inclined to agree with the grandparent and disagree with you. When I first tried Linux in 1998 I got my ass handed to me. I actually *was* still running DOS and Win3.11 (my computer was very slow), so the comparison is analogous to your own. While I agree with your list of advantages Linux had over Windows, the things which posed a problem to me far outweighed the benefits.
Linux was hard to setup. Really hard. RedHat 5.2, deluxe edition. I still remember the horror and misery I felt when I was introduced to the nightmare of XF86Config. I wanted to cry (and being that I was only 13 at the time, I probably did).
Windows had a much larger library of applications that actually mattered to me.
Windows had a more polished and pleasant GUI experience (debatable, but this is my stance).
Thing is, if you look at these shortcomings, they are the same complaints you hear to today. Only today, we are light-years ahead of where we were, and the momentum we're gaining is accelerating our progress exponentially. All of the above points are borderline on being completely solved, and since I don't see any reason for us to stop improving we will inevitably be better than Microsoft.
Most computer users aren't Aunt Tillie, and they don't feel any particular loyalty to MS. I am confident that, when presented with a better alternative, they will switch.
All that aside, you seem to be talking about Enterprise Development Platforms (is this what the Gnome language debate is all about?), and I really have no idea what the hell any of that stuff is. All the real programs I've ever used on any platform were your standard fair C/C++ deals, and that's what I myself write. When people start talking about Java,.NET, XUL, XPCOM, DOM, XBEL, CORBA, Bonobo, Components, Platforms... my eyes glaze over. What exactly is the debate about here? Do we need a VB for Linux or something?
1600 scientists, include[sic] over 100 NOBEL LAUREATES, agree that human activity is causing global warming.
A consensus has nothing to do with science; that's politics. Science is based around proving/disproving a testable hypothesis. Show me the proof of global warming.
There isn't conclusive proof that this rate will stay the same, and us ADD people aren't convinced with the correlation == causality argument. That is, the mere fact that the Earth's temperature is rising in tandem with our CO2 emissions doesn't prove that our CO2 emissions our causing the rise of the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, the fact that Mars has global warming as well strengthens the case for increased solar activity being responsible for our rising temperature.
When I started reading your post, it was scored at 4. By the time I finished, it was a 3. I doubt it will make it through the whole discussion alive, since you have been labeled a heretic by the Green Church. I think these forums would be more productive when discussing Global Warming if the proponents of that theory would focus more on moderating up comments they like, as opposed to moderating down their critics.
...who doesn't even own a TV? While puzzling over whether rich actors demanding more money from their richer bosses is "right" or "wrong" might be interesting to the budding moral philosopher (read: wankster), I can't bring myself to care. TV == shit. All other opinions are false. My fair and balanced assessment of the situation is clearly spot-on, don't bother to dispute it.
Slashdot Mirror
A witty saying proves nothing. Ditto for a litany of loaded questions.
Now, everybody has a religion --- or "moral compass" --- even atheists like myself. If you just want to stipulate unfree software as amoral, that's your prerogative. But I don't agree with it, and neither does the rest of the world --- you are outnumbered, outgunned, and you will lose an ideological war. Period. So if getting widespread acceptance of at least some free software has any weight with you, then you better expect to compromise your principles.
RIP
Clearly, this is part of a vast righ-wing conspiracy. Karl Rove is trying to divert attention from the Chimpler's Cabal of Evil (TM), and their complete disregard for even the most basic of human rights, by intimidating the ISPA into calling Britain the villain of the year, when that title should obviously be awarded to Bushitler. QED. BTW, if you need to be reminded that this post is sarcastic --- well, you know you've spent too much time on Slashdot when...
I'm an avid shooter as well, and I agree that, for the majorly-most part, skills developed in an FPS don't carry over at all into actual firearms usage.
I do, however, think the revolution controller could prove to be an excellent choice for an FPS. Though the mechanism of aiming is similar to a pistol, the prescence of a targetting reticule will make a world of difference.
The reason why it's so hard to keep a real gun on target --- and let's ignore recoil, weapon heft, trigger pull, and flinching --- is the fact that sight alignment is a bitch. In a game, the bullets just goes whereever your crosshairs are. In real life, the bullet follows a trajectory determined by the lateral and longitudinal alignment of the front and rear sights --- quite a bit more complex.
To get an idea for what the Revolution experience would be like in a shooter, try shooting with a parallax-free reddot. It's friggin' cake then: put the red dot on the target, and pull the trigger. Done.
I don't know if this will be as precise as a mouse, but I expect it to be much more precise than thumbsticks, for the simple reason that you have so much more "room to breath." And that being said, thumbsticks be damned, Halo 2 is still a blast to play --- and there are plenty of people playing it. Even if the revolution isn't as precise as a mouse, I expect it will be well beyond good enough, and hella fun to boot.
No malice: I seriously didn't understand your post.
The GPL does require copyright to exist -- but that's not the point. The point is that open source software doesn't require copyright to exist. The laxly licensed BSDs are a testament to this. Further, I doubt that the FSF wouldn't exist if there were no copyright laws, and even if it didn't, I'd imagine it would be because free software would be the rule, not the exception.
I condemned copyright violations in my parent post, so I can't figure out the point of the rest of your post. Linksys shouldn't infringe the GPL. Players shouldn't infringe on Rockstar's copyright.
What did I miss?
So far, so good.
Not so good.
First, publishers, like buggy whip manufacturers, do not have a special right to stay employed.
Second, to say that it is OK to copy creative works -- that is, we could get along just fine without a system of copyright -- is not to say that creators should work for nothing. The open source software business (yes, I do mean business) is rife with examples of people writing freely redistributable and modifiable code for cash. Historically, creative works were produced long before any notion of copyright existed. It would take some space to discuss this issue in full, but suffice it to say, the absence of copyright is not the abscence of creativity.
Third, I submit that a skeptical opinion of copyright law is not a trademark of communism.
Personally, I don't approve of copyright violations. If you believe in the rules, play by them. If not, quit the game. But don't try to rationalize your free-loading. That said, it would be nice if I could discuss the (de)merits of copyright and its alternatives without being branded a pinko or a bum.
Nah. Tarballs, to a large extent, are write once, compile anywhere. A modest build farm of el-cheapo boxes could crank out builds for the major distros easily. This could all be automated as well, and it's not like it's a terribly large amount of work.
I would sure like to have some real transparency for the fanslider widget me and a friend created. Screenshot here.
This is a variable-precision widget, geared toward use in audio applications. Click the slider, then drag out to create a "fan" indicating your increased precision. However, without transparency, I can only do this with clip masks (i.e. specify the window's shape). With a vertical fanslider, this is no problem when dragging to the right; I only have to clip the window once, then I can adjust it's width to create a properly sized fan. But going the other way, things start to suck. The implementation reasons are a bit boring, but basically, I can't just "set it and forget it." The result is that the fan is choppy as shit going to the left.
Real Transparency would make this all go away. If we stipulate that this is a useful and productivity enhancing widget, then there is in fact at least one scenario where compositing is a definite functional plus.
My $0.02.
It does make sense. Providing a uniform interface through which common configuration tasks can be performed is an excellent idea. If gnome can configure network devices, and you know how to use it's configurator, then you also know that wherever you go, if gnome is installed, you can setup the network. This is superior to having every individual distribution provide it's own custom interface, at least from the perspective of consistency (which is a valuable quality in UIs).
Even though different distros may have different internal solutions to configuration, I see no good reason why a consistent front end can't (or shouldn't) be provided. Furthermore, I'd rather have many hands working together to achieve the best interface once, rather than divering talent toward reinventing a boring wheel to mediocre effect.
I love you.
Wife beating is a pretty universal problem, sad to say. Real sad to say, in fact. You don't have to travel very far from my cozy little suburb to find a place where women are frequently treated as little more than a combination baby-factory, short-order cook, and punching bag. And these are God Fearin' Christians.
I haven't even gotten to the kits yet, but they are supposed to be teh r0x0r. Interface Builder is incredibly awesome, I'm sold on that already. And ObjC is clean and compact, which definitely cannot be said for C++. The problem is that C++ is ubiquitous, and while GNUstep has come a long way, the fact is that it's pretty much off in its own world; and so long as it's a marginal player in the mainstream Linux scene, ObjC is going to be a niche language. BUT, I read in the FAQ that they have no objection to hooking up GTK into the AppKit backend. That would be really schweet.
The only predicament this puts me in is deciding whether I want to push onward with my current projects, or drop everything and start working on GNUStep. But the important thing is that I was wrong in my original post, and I apologize for flapping my yap prematurely.
I must say, I am truly impressed with the well developed arguments the Computer Scientists of slashdot have given for the superiority of their methodology vis-a-vis that of the mere code monkey. Why, with empirical support such as "IMHO," "Just my $0.02," and "In my experience," I'd say it is obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt that a mere code monkey cannot hold a candle to a true blue Computer Scientist.
It goes without saying that the ability to architect a program of several hundreds of thousands of lines of complexity, a feat which is really no more difficult than the simplest of soldering tasks, is of infinitesimal value compared to the ability to prove an algorithm correct. And we all know that Knuth was really just kidding when he said that "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." What he really meant was that we should hoist high upon our shoulders and cheer onwards those gallant few who devote themselves to making that 5% of a program's code, wherein 95% its execution takes place, run faster; the natural corollary being that the mere code monkeys who design, implement, and debug the other 95% are to be fed gruel and enroll in indentured servitude to their sheepskin bearing overlords.
Throughout the course of history, every great leap in the progress of humanity has, without fail, been initiated by those who embraced the world created for them, and followed the One True Path to enlightement that the intelligentsia (whose motives and methods are obviously pure and beyond question) have laid out for them. That's why you never hear about relatively mediocre students revolutionizing the world of physics while serving as mere clerk monkeys in a patent office. That's why the company that almost single handedly revolutionized the gaming industry was founded by wise and studied sheepskin bearing patrons of the mighty Computer Science. That's why the most popular operating system of our modern age was created under the leadership of one with years of rigorous education and edification. Mere code monkeys amount to little more than a festering pile of monkey feces in this world!
Further, this is why the most popular language in academics is Java. Computer Scientists will settle for nothing more than the fastest language, with bare-metal access beyond compare, when writing their incredible and world definining algorithms and data structures.
So if I put words into your mouth, and argue against them, you'll go along with it? Is this how you wrote your dissertation that you researched with 50 tabs open in FireFox? Did you email it to your grandma?
Yeah, you got me. And I cringe everytime I have to type an email address.
I imagine people aren't picking up ObjC because of this syntactical buggery. In fact, I'd wager that, as far as standard OOP stuff goes, C++ is easier to learn than ObjC for the existing C programmer preciesly because the syntax doesn't cause cognitive dysentary. FWIW, I really wanted to be an ObjC supporter, but the friggin' syntax pisses me off, and there are some features of C++ that are incredibly useful (i.e. templates) which have no counterpart in ObjC.
Truly your hand-waving is quite impressive. You aren't the first person to spread FUD about FOSS forking, and you won't be the last to keep doing so in spite of reality.
Unfortunately, cultural intertia is not to be underestimated. Taken as a whole, the "developed" nations really believe that a higher education is the key to be being a well rounded and competent human being. Try having a conversation with a true believer, and try to pin down the exact merits and whether there might be better ways to provide the same benefit (so that people aren't going broke/in debt and taking 4 years to get an entry level job). You will make absolutely no progress, and get scoffed at mightily. It's elitism, plain and simple. Until this notion is shed (if it ever is), a degree is always going to be a de facto necessity for higher-level jobs. People such as your self are simply very very rare.
I'm inclined to agree with the grandparent and disagree with you. When I first tried Linux in 1998 I got my ass handed to me. I actually *was* still running DOS and Win3.11 (my computer was very slow), so the comparison is analogous to your own. While I agree with your list of advantages Linux had over Windows, the things which posed a problem to me far outweighed the benefits.
Thing is, if you look at these shortcomings, they are the same complaints you hear to today. Only today, we are light-years ahead of where we were, and the momentum we're gaining is accelerating our progress exponentially. All of the above points are borderline on being completely solved, and since I don't see any reason for us to stop improving we will inevitably be better than Microsoft.
Most computer users aren't Aunt Tillie, and they don't feel any particular loyalty to MS. I am confident that, when presented with a better alternative, they will switch.
All that aside, you seem to be talking about Enterprise Development Platforms (is this what the Gnome language debate is all about?), and I really have no idea what the hell any of that stuff is. All the real programs I've ever used on any platform were your standard fair C/C++ deals, and that's what I myself write. When people start talking about Java, .NET, XUL, XPCOM, DOM, XBEL, CORBA, Bonobo, Components, Platforms... my eyes glaze over. What exactly is the debate about here? Do we need a VB for Linux or something?
1600 scientists, include[sic] over 100 NOBEL LAUREATES, agree that human activity is causing global warming.
A consensus has nothing to do with science; that's politics. Science is based around proving/disproving a testable hypothesis. Show me the proof of global warming.
There isn't conclusive proof that this rate will stay the same, and us ADD people aren't convinced with the correlation == causality argument. That is, the mere fact that the Earth's temperature is rising in tandem with our CO2 emissions doesn't prove that our CO2 emissions our causing the rise of the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, the fact that Mars has global warming as well strengthens the case for increased solar activity being responsible for our rising temperature.
When I started reading your post, it was scored at 4. By the time I finished, it was a 3. I doubt it will make it through the whole discussion alive, since you have been labeled a heretic by the Green Church. I think these forums would be more productive when discussing Global Warming if the proponents of that theory would focus more on moderating up comments they like, as opposed to moderating down their critics.
Because we have massive balls.
...who doesn't even own a TV? While puzzling over whether rich actors demanding more money from their richer bosses is "right" or "wrong" might be interesting to the budding moral philosopher (read: wankster), I can't bring myself to care. TV == shit. All other opinions are false. My fair and balanced assessment of the situation is clearly spot-on, don't bother to dispute it.