I say definitely let people port things if they want to, although if people are asking you to port your program but nobody's stepping up to do it, your resources may be better spent improving your program on Linux instead. Ultimately, the more FLOSS, the better.
1. Good, working open source software can "pave the way" and convince people to try Linux. Many people don't know that open source exists, or don't believe that it can work, and proving them wrong without forcing them to change their entire OS is a very good idea.
2. Let people convert to open source software in stages. First switch to a free browser, then to free e-mail/IM clients, office suites, etc... And then, if you're not relying on any proprietary programs in Windows any more, why shouldn't you switch to a completely free OS? That was my reasoning for switching to Linux.
3. If a program is cross-platform, it can draw developers from all of those platforms, and improve more quickly.
4. Open source software should be about choice... Microsoft and other evil proprietary vendors try to get customer lock-in. We should never lock people into our platform if we can avoid it. People should be free to use free software no matter what platform they're running, and that's how we can show that we're better than Microsoft. Let's not sink to their level.
No, that's not it at all. John Stewart was not protesting the fact that the people on Crossfire have two opposing viewpoints, he wasn't saying that they shouldn't have viewpoints or that they shouldn't argue. He was saying that their positions were not intellectually honest... he said that he would be fine with honest, intelligent debate, but he compared their method of "debating" with professional wrestling. He accused them of just mouthing the party line, and doing theater, rather than honestly trying to approach the truth from their respective viewpoints.
Personally, I would also say that dualism is flawed, in that the world is too complicated to be considered in binary terms. I, for instance, am a Libertarian, and I don't think that either of the two Crossfire viewpoints represent me. My critiques come from a different perspective. The Nolan chart isn't perfect, but it does show that there is more than just Left and Right to consider when you're thinking about the political positions of different people.
As one of the Swarthmore students who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, I'd like to invite you to browse/download the memos from our website. This in fact is the website that Diebold scared Swarthmore into shutting down, which was the basis for our lawsuit. We were able to re-post the memos after we filed our counternotification
Also, if you are a student, or you know students who are interested in copyfighting/freedom of speech, please head on over to FreeCulture.org, an international student movement for free culture:-)
The SCDC indeed supports an RIAA boycott, but not a general boycott of all CDs. There are many non-evil independent record labels, most notably Magnatune (they are not evil). We're in favor of supporting artists, we just think supporting the RIAA actually hurts artists.
You know where to get the Diebold memos... from the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons! Also, you may be interested in reading about how our court case against Diebold is going (nothing much is happening, we're waiting for the judge to rule, he said it might take a few months) Finally, we're working on launching FreeCulture.org, the future home of the international student movement for Free Culture, we hope to have it running soon!
I made a post about this in the SCDC livejournal community, which I'll quote here:
Q: So why do people want electronic voting? What are the perceived benefits?
A: Electronic voting is largely popular because of the perception that it will fix problems like those experienced in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The Help America Vote Act made tons and tons of federal money available for voting technology, and companies like Diebold rushed into production with shoddy products in order to capture marketshare.
Of course, the irony is that with paperless (read: un-auditable) machines, there is both an increased risk of vote-counting problems (as the Diebold e-mail archive demonstrates) and NO MECHANISM to recount the votes. In other words, if another Florida happens, we'll basically just have to flip a coin.
One of the most important arguments in favor of electronic voting machines is that they will enable the disabled to vote unassisted. For instance, DRE's can tell blind people the options through headphones. This is a noble goal, and it is a valid reason to want to have electronic voting machines. The thing is, why is it not sufficient to make an electronic ballot-printing machine, which then could be verified by a blind person using a simple barcode scanner, or which could be printed with raised letters? Why must the voting be completely electronic (i.e. Direct Recording Electronic)? Is it right to say that just because a blind person may not be able to verify a printed paper ballot on their own, that nobody else should be allowed to verify their votes either? There are certainly ways that ballots could be designed that would allow blind people to verify their votes without assistance, but even if this were impossible, that wouldn't be a good reason to eliminate paper ballots, it is merely an argument for machines that aid in filling out and verifying the ballots.
Finally, there are the arguments that electronic voting allows us to tally votes cheaper and quicker. My response is that we should take the time and money to get our elections right. Also, DRE's aren't more efficient at tallying our votes if they don't record our votes at all.
Unless we can build an electronic voting system that can meet these specifications before the 2004 election, I have little confidence in any vote cast using DRE's, and I recommend at least a temporary return to old-fashioned hand-written and hand-counted paper ballots.
This is truly horrible... apparently Florida has decided that since it is not possible to do a recount for electronic voting machines, it is not necessary to attempt anything of the sort.
Realize that the next election might be hacked, support Rush Holt's Voter Confidence bill, and don't forget to get the Diebold memos from the SCDC.
The problem is that Downhill Battle is, first of all, providing this service for people who have not installed or cannot install iTunes (such as Linux users).
Secondly, they don't think that iTunes is a good idea, and they'd rather that people didn't use it at all. See their site iTunes is bogus.
Downhill Battle runs this thing. They are a non-profit music activism group dedicated to returning diversity to mainstream music. They are two very idealistic non-artists who definitely are not trying to boost their own sales. Hopefully they will choose well whom they support and publicly document their reasoning. Incidentally, they need help with the backend for the Recycler, so please contact them if you think you can help (and you are inclined to help them, of course).
That's true, that's why they qualified "independent labels" with the adjective "honest". Presumably they will only use the codes on HONEST indie labels, and hopefully they will have done enough research that they can say with confidence that the labels they support are "non-evil".
Sooner or later somebody will decide that I'm a troll, but until then... Read the Diebold e-mail archives and decide the merits of the case for yourself!
There is a reason that we did not post the e-mails piecemeal or "paraphrasing". That is because we had no way of knowing what would prove to be important. For instance, Diebold ran into trouble in California because the memos seem to show that they were using uncertified software in elections. The Californians were tipped off to this by some incorrect version numbers in the Diebold memos: version numbers newer than anything that had been approved by the gov't. We would never have imagined that these seemingly mundane e-mails which happened to mention versions would prove to be so vital.
Re:Why isn't this on the cover of Newsweek?
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 1
A reporter from Newsweek actually called me a week or two ago and talked to me for about half an hour on the phone. She said that she would propose the Diebold story to her boss. I never heard back from her, no story appeared. Presumably her boss nixed the story.
Can't post this too many times
on
More E-Voting SNAFUs
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Open Source projects should start using a system of "feature bounties", where a person can post a feature that they want implemented on the site, put down their money, and when enough other people chip in for that feature, some hacker works full time to get the feature working and earns the bounty. KDX, a closed-source BBS-like program for Mac and Windows, used a system like this when it was still freeware, the one programmer working on it suggested people should pay him bounties for features, and apparently some people did it. Now it's paid software, $30 for the client, but oh well, it was a good idea. The only issue is, will it destroy the community to have these "mercenary hackers" running around implementing features for cash and then moving on? Or will it make free software more robust?
I used to be a satisfied Red Hat user up until 7.3... it didn't "just work", the way that SuSE and Knoppix (with hard drive installation) do now, but I hacked around and got everything working, and I was very pleased with myself and Red Hat.
However, with the Red Hat 8 and 9 releases, I was shocked to discover that the distribution had suddenly begun to suck. It had become slow, unresponsive and honestly ugly. No matter what I did everything looked pixelated, and the new GUI looked dumb. There were innumerable minor problems, like XMMS not working out of the box, that made the entire distro just vaguely and unquantifiable annoying. All of my friends who tried the new versions reached similar conclusions.
Now, it is all becoming clear to me why I switched to using SuSE on my desktop and a Knoppix install on my laptop. Red Hat is not ready for the desktop! However, the fact that Red Hat isn't competent enough to build a working distro for consumers says nothing about the other distros of Linux. I have been handing out Knoppix CDs for free on my college campus with my club, the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons, and the response that has been coming back from my fellow students has been, "Yes! Linux is finally ready for the desktop! Normal consumers can use it right out of the box to actually accomplish work!" Red Hat should speak for itself.
Slashdot Mirror
I say definitely let people port things if they want to, although if people are asking you to port your program but nobody's stepping up to do it, your resources may be better spent improving your program on Linux instead. Ultimately, the more FLOSS, the better.
1. Good, working open source software can "pave the way" and convince people to try Linux. Many people don't know that open source exists, or don't believe that it can work, and proving them wrong without forcing them to change their entire OS is a very good idea.
2. Let people convert to open source software in stages. First switch to a free browser, then to free e-mail/IM clients, office suites, etc... And then, if you're not relying on any proprietary programs in Windows any more, why shouldn't you switch to a completely free OS? That was my reasoning for switching to Linux.
3. If a program is cross-platform, it can draw developers from all of those platforms, and improve more quickly.
4. Open source software should be about choice... Microsoft and other evil proprietary vendors try to get customer lock-in. We should never lock people into our platform if we can avoid it. People should be free to use free software no matter what platform they're running, and that's how we can show that we're better than Microsoft. Let's not sink to their level.
No, that's not it at all. John Stewart was not protesting the fact that the people on Crossfire have two opposing viewpoints, he wasn't saying that they shouldn't have viewpoints or that they shouldn't argue. He was saying that their positions were not intellectually honest... he said that he would be fine with honest, intelligent debate, but he compared their method of "debating" with professional wrestling. He accused them of just mouthing the party line, and doing theater, rather than honestly trying to approach the truth from their respective viewpoints. Personally, I would also say that dualism is flawed, in that the world is too complicated to be considered in binary terms. I, for instance, am a Libertarian, and I don't think that either of the two Crossfire viewpoints represent me. My critiques come from a different perspective. The Nolan chart isn't perfect, but it does show that there is more than just Left and Right to consider when you're thinking about the political positions of different people.
As one of the Swarthmore students who was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, I'd like to invite you to browse/download the memos from our website. This in fact is the website that Diebold scared Swarthmore into shutting down, which was the basis for our lawsuit. We were able to re-post the memos after we filed our counternotification
:-)
Also, if you are a student, or you know students who are interested in copyfighting/freedom of speech, please head on over to FreeCulture.org, an international student movement for free culture
The SCDC indeed supports an RIAA boycott, but not a general boycott of all CDs. There are many non-evil independent record labels, most notably Magnatune (they are not evil). We're in favor of supporting artists, we just think supporting the RIAA actually hurts artists.
You know where to get the Diebold memos... from the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons! Also, you may be interested in reading about how our court case against Diebold is going (nothing much is happening, we're waiting for the judge to rule, he said it might take a few months) Finally, we're working on launching FreeCulture.org, the future home of the international student movement for Free Culture, we hope to have it running soon!
I made a post about this in the SCDC livejournal community, which I'll quote here:
Q: So why do people want electronic voting? What are the perceived benefits?
A: Electronic voting is largely popular because of the perception that it will fix problems like those experienced in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The Help America Vote Act made tons and tons of federal money available for voting technology, and companies like Diebold rushed into production with shoddy products in order to capture marketshare.
Of course, the irony is that with paperless (read: un-auditable) machines, there is both an increased risk of vote-counting problems (as the Diebold e-mail archive demonstrates) and NO MECHANISM to recount the votes. In other words, if another Florida happens, we'll basically just have to flip a coin.
One of the most important arguments in favor of electronic voting machines is that they will enable the disabled to vote unassisted. For instance, DRE's can tell blind people the options through headphones. This is a noble goal, and it is a valid reason to want to have electronic voting machines. The thing is, why is it not sufficient to make an electronic ballot-printing machine, which then could be verified by a blind person using a simple barcode scanner, or which could be printed with raised letters? Why must the voting be completely electronic (i.e. Direct Recording Electronic)? Is it right to say that just because a blind person may not be able to verify a printed paper ballot on their own, that nobody else should be allowed to verify their votes either? There are certainly ways that ballots could be designed that would allow blind people to verify their votes without assistance, but even if this were impossible, that wouldn't be a good reason to eliminate paper ballots, it is merely an argument for machines that aid in filling out and verifying the ballots.
Finally, there are the arguments that electronic voting allows us to tally votes cheaper and quicker. My response is that we should take the time and money to get our elections right. Also, DRE's aren't more efficient at tallying our votes if they don't record our votes at all.
Unless we can build an electronic voting system that can meet these specifications before the 2004 election, I have little confidence in any vote cast using DRE's, and I recommend at least a temporary return to old-fashioned hand-written and hand-counted paper ballots.
This is truly horrible... apparently Florida has decided that since it is not possible to do a recount for electronic voting machines, it is not necessary to attempt anything of the sort. Realize that the next election might be hacked, support Rush Holt's Voter Confidence bill, and don't forget to get the Diebold memos from the SCDC.
The problem is that Downhill Battle is, first of all, providing this service for people who have not installed or cannot install iTunes (such as Linux users). Secondly, they don't think that iTunes is a good idea, and they'd rather that people didn't use it at all. See their site iTunes is bogus.
Downhill Battle runs this thing. They are a non-profit music activism group dedicated to returning diversity to mainstream music. They are two very idealistic non-artists who definitely are not trying to boost their own sales. Hopefully they will choose well whom they support and publicly document their reasoning. Incidentally, they need help with the backend for the Recycler, so please contact them if you think you can help (and you are inclined to help them, of course).
That's true, that's why they qualified "independent labels" with the adjective "honest". Presumably they will only use the codes on HONEST indie labels, and hopefully they will have done enough research that they can say with confidence that the labels they support are "non-evil".
A post on Downhill Battle says they need help automating the redemption. Applescript, anyone? Something else?
Sooner or later somebody will decide that I'm a troll, but until then... Read the Diebold e-mail archives and decide the merits of the case for yourself! There is a reason that we did not post the e-mails piecemeal or "paraphrasing". That is because we had no way of knowing what would prove to be important. For instance, Diebold ran into trouble in California because the memos seem to show that they were using uncertified software in elections. The Californians were tipped off to this by some incorrect version numbers in the Diebold memos: version numbers newer than anything that had been approved by the gov't. We would never have imagined that these seemingly mundane e-mails which happened to mention versions would prove to be so vital.
A reporter from Newsweek actually called me a week or two ago and talked to me for about half an hour on the phone. She said that she would propose the Diebold story to her boss. I never heard back from her, no story appeared. Presumably her boss nixed the story.
Just a reminder to check out the Diebold memos for yourself. Find some more juicy stuff and get it in the news!
Open Source projects should start using a system of "feature bounties", where a person can post a feature that they want implemented on the site, put down their money, and when enough other people chip in for that feature, some hacker works full time to get the feature working and earns the bounty. KDX, a closed-source BBS-like program for Mac and Windows, used a system like this when it was still freeware, the one programmer working on it suggested people should pay him bounties for features, and apparently some people did it. Now it's paid software, $30 for the client, but oh well, it was a good idea. The only issue is, will it destroy the community to have these "mercenary hackers" running around implementing features for cash and then moving on? Or will it make free software more robust?
Hey folks, I know I've posted this in previous stories, but the more people read the memos, the safer our democracy is :-)
Browse & Download the memos
And if you kill the SCDC website, you can get a complete list of mirrors at papertrailpatriots.org and Why-War.
You can get the memos at the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons website... this is the campus group that was started by the two students who are suing Diebold.
I used to be a satisfied Red Hat user up until 7.3... it didn't "just work", the way that SuSE and Knoppix (with hard drive installation) do now, but I hacked around and got everything working, and I was very pleased with myself and Red Hat.
However, with the Red Hat 8 and 9 releases, I was shocked to discover that the distribution had suddenly begun to suck. It had become slow, unresponsive and honestly ugly. No matter what I did everything looked pixelated, and the new GUI looked dumb. There were innumerable minor problems, like XMMS not working out of the box, that made the entire distro just vaguely and unquantifiable annoying. All of my friends who tried the new versions reached similar conclusions.
Now, it is all becoming clear to me why I switched to using SuSE on my desktop and a Knoppix install on my laptop. Red Hat is not ready for the desktop! However, the fact that Red Hat isn't competent enough to build a working distro for consumers says nothing about the other distros of Linux. I have been handing out Knoppix CDs for free on my college campus with my club, the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons, and the response that has been coming back from my fellow students has been, "Yes! Linux is finally ready for the desktop! Normal consumers can use it right out of the box to actually accomplish work!" Red Hat should speak for itself.
Parent is a Goatse link, mod it down. Who's the sicko who modded up this Anonymous Coward in the first place?