On one hand, a new printing system sounds really cool. Good that it's backwards compatible, sounds like it can provide some really neat features, but...
On the other hand, I'm not all that excited about a system that seems to encourage non-free printer drivers. Because that's what this is; the core is free, but large portions of the drivers are probably going to be proprietary.
I know some people will probably say I'm just being a whiny free software person, and maybe I am. But look at where proprietary drivers has gotten, oh, windows. You just can't depend on them. The stability of the GNU/Linux system is something we all trumpet, so why toss that out when it comes to something like your printing?
Then, let's look at experiences so far with proprietary drivers on Linux. My roommate complains all the time about his SBLive driver. It only works with some kernel versions, isn't stable, etc. I know that this isn't the same as kernel modules, but it still makes me nervous.
I'm all for new capabilities for my favorite operating system, but let's not forget the freedom that got us here in the first place. Support those manufacturers who make their specs openly available, and support free software.
I see this as Sendmail, Inc. realizing that their market on Unix systems is starting to evaporate. These days, many admins are realizing that there are much better alternatives to sendmail (like exim, postfix, qmail), and happily, most of these are under good, open source licenses.
Sendmail needs to get their act together and remove years of cruft, or they'll soon find themselves welcome only on WinNT.
-- Ian Peters
Re:Combat Armor isn't that far off, after all...
on
Project Grizzly
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it does say it'll stop bullets. Specifically, sabot rounds from a 12 guage shotgun.
Look; our very existense depends on the conditions of our solar system (at least we believe so). So, assume for the moment that there is only one viable solar system in the Universe. It immediately follows that, if we exist to observe the Universe, we must live in that solar system. This in no way implies the ``obvious'' existance of other solar systems.
We're not being naive. You are. Look up the Anthropic principle sometime. Were there only one planet in the Universe, odds are we'd be on it, as we're life forms capable of observation. Our viewpoint is biased by this. It does not follow immediately that there are other solar systems, despite the size of the Universe.
PNG's compress better than GIF's (5% to 25%) in almost every other case.
There's a vast difference between having an honest to god alpha channel and a simple transparent color. PNG's/do/ still compress better, and an alpha'd PNG image will look antialiased against whatever background you put it against, as opposed to GIF images, where you will frequently see light and dark background versions.
I can do without animations.:-)
So don't go around accusing others of looking stupid for preferring PNG. There are reasons.
I just spoke with the Red Hat IPO center at E*TRADE. If you got the "no shares for you!" message, this was a mistake. The directed shares have not yet been allocated. All the information the operator had was that they are in the process as we speak, but the alert message was in error.
I don't think that this license change is enough. This is not yet free software. What if I want to use it with FreeBSD, or GNU/Hurd, or whatever the next system I'm interested in is?
This is not truly free software. Find an alternative package, or use the last version released under a BSD license. And I hope RedHat doesn't change their mind.
Thank you for writing this reply. This is what I was trying to say in my reply to the red-yellow-green proposal comment, but you have said it much better.
You're taking a very biased approach to your color coding. True, you can do more with a BSD licensed program than a GPL licensed program. But try this scenario on for size:
I'm a faithful user of program foo. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market. Here's the problem. If foo was under a BSD license, there's no reason foo++ has to be free software. So now foo++ costs $400, and if we want the new features, we've got to reimplement them.
But if foo were a GPL licensed program, anybody who creates foo++ has to release it back under the GPL if they want to distribute it. In other words, people aren't able to take our work, extend it, and refuse to share it back.
I don't know about you, but when I see a new project, I'm much more comfortable to hear that it's under the GPL than any other license. True, I can't take that code and go commercial with it, but the good thing is, no one else can either.
Maybe Richard Stallman was right in insisting that the only true free software was under the GPL?
Sigh... RMS has never insisted on this. Go to the gnu web page some time, look at the official list of GNU software. You'll find many pieces that aren't under the [L]GPL.
We should start projects to recreate all partially free software in GPL or BSD licensed form, and _keep_ it that way.
This is what the GNU project is! All GNU software is free software. Not all under the GPL, but all free. Even if a program like rdist, under a BSD license, is taken non-free, we still have the older version under a BSD license. This cannot be taken back from us.
Where'd you get this idea? Look at what makes up the GNU system. The FSF clearly recognizes that things like the BSD license, the XFree86 license, etc are all free software. Hell, RMS recognizes that Qt 2.0 is free software. All the FSF says is that the GPL and LGPL guarantee that software will remain free, whereas things like BSD (as evidenced in this case) do not.
First, a minor point: RMS has done useful things for the free software movement, such as, I don't know, write a free compiler, EMACS, and provide a rallying point and the planning for a complete, free system. RMS himself points out that he is not a part of the open source movement.
Yes, people get tired of his ranting about GNU/Linux and Free Software. I get tired of it, too. But that doesn't mean it's not important. Don't disregard the message because of the messenger. It's no accident that we find ourselves here with a high quality, free operating system (note, that's an entire system, not just a kernel) to use. RMS didn't write it all. FSF-sponsored projects didn't write it all. But GNU played a large part in making sure it all got written.
As to your last point, Tom is welcome to poke all the fun he wants to. But this is a discussion community, where people discuss things. So everyone is welcome to a reaction, and if that happens to be that Tom is exploring new ways to carry out his vendetta against RMS, well, sorry. As to myself, if Tom's article was humour, well, then I guess I'm just dour.
Tom Christiansen got insulted when Stallman asked for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl documentation for use in GNU.
Thanks for the history. I'd been wondering what Tom has against RMS.
It doesn't change the fact that the free software community is both older than the GNU project, and much larger includes people who doesn't even consider GNU to be "real" free software, since the GPL contains too many restrictions.
True. And I'm sure that if Tom had tried debating the issues themselves, he would have gotten a more positive response (hopefully!) than the one he is getting. You don't have to agree with Stallman; many folks don't! But I think the man deserves more respect, at least, than many in the community, and especially Tom, have been giving him.
I don't understand what Tom has against RMS, but I wish he would come right out and say it. This "satire" was merely insulting, rather than clever, and it failed to make any point, except that Tom has a problem with RMS.
Yes, Stallman can be annoying. Yes, he can be stubborn. Yes, sometimes we all wish he'd just shut up. But he's an idealist, he believes in something, and he follows his beliefs. If you look at what RMS has done, you won't find any ulterior motives, or hidden agendas. He believes in free software, he promotes free software (not himself, as many believe), and most of all, he has worked for (and written!) free software.
Please, compare the rude, offensive, selfish nature of this post with the eloquence of RMS's post of several days ago. I think you'll find a world of difference.
Standard disclaimers: I don't work for the FSF or GNU, I have an email address @gnu.org because I write free software. My beliefs are my own, yada yada yada.
I won't try to convert you (I know that a mailer is a very personal choice), but I should point out that all of the key-bindings are completely configurable in mutt, so if you think "n" is a better choice, you can make it so. And mutt does have a scroll down feature.
I don't mean to be insulting, but what are you talking about? Read RMS's submission again. The/only/ time he mentions ESR is in the context of recommending him as a speaker. The post was not addressed to ESR, it merely spoke about RMS, and how he feels about the two movements. RMS wasn't dueling with anyone, he was merely stating his views.
RMS labored for years in relative obscurity during the so-called "dark ages" of the 80's with little pay, writing software that you use every day. I think he's fully capable of deciding when he needs to get a new job, and when his place has been filled, without some slashdot pundit helping him decide.
Disclaimer: Yes, I have an email address at gnu.org. This doesn't mean that I follow RMS in lock-step; this means that I have contributed to free software and needed an email alias and shell account.
Disclaimer: I have a lot of respect for ESR, for his code contributions, the Jargon File, and his work as an Open Source advocate.
I really don't understand how ESR could have written this response, if he really read what RMS wrote (and followed this link, where RMS lays out some of the differences between Free Software and Open Source). I would suggest that everyone here read this link, if you haven't yet.
ESR can claim all he wants that our community has only taken off in the last year or so with the advent of the term Open Source. This all depends on what you mean by taken off! If you mean, as a platform we've managed to attract the interest of developers who want to make money and push non-free software, than yes, I guess we have. But I think we were doing fine when we were writing software that we love, that works well, and that is *free*.
RMS may be a zealot, if that's a term you like. But I think RMS is lucky. He's lucky to be one of those people that really believes something, and can live by his beliefs. I would urge everyone to remember, while you're celebrating the newfound popularity of Linux and the GNU system, to remember what got us here. We wouldn't have such a solid, fully featured operating system without free software. The interests of big companies and investors with tons of money didn't get us here; we got ourselves here, by insisting on free software.
One of the things that caught my attention in this article was all of the talk about SGI working with Linux, Irix and Linux converging, etc. When SGI released XFS, many people on different forums assumed that this code would drop right on in and become the new Linux file system. The reality, of course, is that much hacking remains before this goes in, if this goes in, to the Linux kernel proper.
I've got to wonder about what will happen as code contributions come increasingly from corporations dropping large bundles into our laps, as opposed to small patches here and there, or a recognized kernel hacker, who already knows how things work, and how Linus prefers code, setting out to rewrite something.
There was a lot of talk about the Linus burnouts during the 2.1.x process, and I don't know if large contributions like XFS would help or hinder this. Hopefully, we'll see corporations get better at contributing to Linux, as well as see our beloved kernel hackers get better at working with corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
On one hand, a new printing system sounds really cool. Good that it's backwards compatible, sounds like it can provide some really neat features, but...
On the other hand, I'm not all that excited about a system that seems to encourage non-free printer drivers. Because that's what this is; the core is free, but large portions of the drivers are probably going to be proprietary.
I know some people will probably say I'm just being a whiny free software person, and maybe I am. But look at where proprietary drivers has gotten, oh, windows. You just can't depend on them. The stability of the GNU/Linux system is something we all trumpet, so why toss that out when it comes to something like your printing?
Then, let's look at experiences so far with proprietary drivers on Linux. My roommate complains all the time about his SBLive driver. It only works with some kernel versions, isn't stable, etc. I know that this isn't the same as kernel modules, but it still makes me nervous.
I'm all for new capabilities for my favorite operating system, but let's not forget the freedom that got us here in the first place. Support those manufacturers who make their specs openly available, and support free software.
--
Ian Peters
I see this as Sendmail, Inc. realizing that their market on Unix systems is starting to evaporate. These days, many admins are realizing that there are much better alternatives to sendmail (like exim, postfix, qmail), and happily, most of these are under good, open source licenses.
Sendmail needs to get their act together and remove years of cruft, or they'll soon find themselves welcome only on WinNT.
--
Ian Peters
Actually, it does say it'll stop bullets. Specifically, sabot rounds from a 12 guage shotgun.
--
Ian Peters
Would someone please tell me how this post of mine is flamebait? I responded factually to an incorrect statement.
I don't understand moderation sometimes...
--
Ian Peters
No, this argument is incorrect!
Look; our very existense depends on the conditions of our solar system (at least we believe so). So, assume for the moment that there is only one viable solar system in the Universe. It immediately follows that, if we exist to observe the Universe, we must live in that solar system. This in no way implies the ``obvious'' existance of other solar systems.
In short, your obvious fact is wrong.
--
Ian Peters
We're not being naive. You are. Look up the Anthropic principle sometime. Were there only one planet in the Universe, odds are we'd be on it, as we're life forms capable of observation. Our viewpoint is biased by this. It does not follow immediately that there are other solar systems, despite the size of the Universe.
--
Ian Peters
Question to any moderators / Rob: Why hasn't this post been moderated down yet? Do we need more moderator points available?
True, the post he/she is replying to was in error, but this response is just plain insulting.
--
Ian Peters
- PNG's compress better than GIF's (5% to 25%) in almost every other case.
- There's a vast difference between having an honest to god alpha channel and a simple transparent color. PNG's
/do/ still compress better, and an alpha'd PNG image will look antialiased against whatever background you put it against, as opposed to GIF images, where you will frequently see light and dark background versions. - I can do without animations.
:-)
So don't go around accusing others of looking stupid for preferring PNG. There are reasons.--
Ian Peters
I could be wrong, but if it's a TNT2 chip inside, which is already supported by XFree86 3.3.4, probably pretty good.
--
Ian Peters
I just spoke with the Red Hat IPO center at E*TRADE. If you got the "no shares for you!" message, this was a mistake. The directed shares have not yet been allocated. All the information the operator had was that they are in the process as we speak, but the alert message was in error.
--
Ian Peters
I don't think that this license change is enough. This is not yet free software. What if I want to use it with FreeBSD, or GNU/Hurd, or whatever the next system I'm interested in is?
This is not truly free software. Find an alternative package, or use the last version released under a BSD license. And I hope RedHat doesn't change their mind.
--
Ian Peters
Thank you for writing this reply. This is what I was trying to say in my reply to the red-yellow-green proposal comment, but you have said it much better.
--
Ian Peters
You're taking a very biased approach to your color coding. True, you can do more with a BSD licensed program than a GPL licensed program. But try this scenario on for size:
I'm a faithful user of program foo. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market. Here's the problem. If foo was under a BSD license, there's no reason foo++ has to be free software. So now foo++ costs $400, and if we want the new features, we've got to reimplement them.
But if foo were a GPL licensed program, anybody who creates foo++ has to release it back under the GPL if they want to distribute it. In other words, people aren't able to take our work, extend it, and refuse to share it back.
I don't know about you, but when I see a new project, I'm much more comfortable to hear that it's under the GPL than any other license. True, I can't take that code and go commercial with it, but the good thing is, no one else can either.
--
Ian Peters
Maybe Richard Stallman was right in insisting that the only true free software was under the GPL?
... RMS has never insisted on this. Go to the gnu web page some time, look at the official list of GNU software. You'll find many pieces that aren't under the [L]GPL.
Sigh
We should start projects to recreate all partially free software in GPL or BSD licensed form, and _keep_ it that way.
This is what the GNU project is! All GNU software is free software. Not all under the GPL, but all free. Even if a program like rdist, under a BSD license, is taken non-free, we still have the older version under a BSD license. This cannot be taken back from us.
--
Ian Peters
Where'd you get this idea? Look at what makes up the GNU system. The FSF clearly recognizes that things like the BSD license, the XFree86 license, etc are all free software. Hell, RMS recognizes that Qt 2.0 is free software. All the FSF says is that the GPL and LGPL guarantee that software will remain free, whereas things like BSD (as evidenced in this case) do not.
--
Ian Peters
First, a minor point: RMS has done useful things for the free software movement, such as, I don't know, write a free compiler, EMACS, and provide a rallying point and the planning for a complete, free system. RMS himself points out that he is not a part of the open source movement.
Yes, people get tired of his ranting about GNU/Linux and Free Software. I get tired of it, too. But that doesn't mean it's not important. Don't disregard the message because of the messenger. It's no accident that we find ourselves here with a high quality, free operating system (note, that's an entire system, not just a kernel) to use. RMS didn't write it all. FSF-sponsored projects didn't write it all. But GNU played a large part in making sure it all got written.
As to your last point, Tom is welcome to poke all the fun he wants to. But this is a discussion community, where people discuss things. So everyone is welcome to a reaction, and if that happens to be that Tom is exploring new ways to carry out his vendetta against RMS, well, sorry. As to myself, if Tom's article was humour, well, then I guess I'm just dour.
--
Ian Peters
Tom Christiansen got insulted when Stallman asked for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl documentation for use in GNU.
Thanks for the history. I'd been wondering what Tom has against RMS.
It doesn't change the fact that the free software community is both older than the GNU project, and much larger includes people who doesn't even consider GNU to be "real" free software, since the GPL contains too many restrictions.
True. And I'm sure that if Tom had tried debating the issues themselves, he would have gotten a more positive response (hopefully!) than the one he is getting. You don't have to agree with Stallman; many folks don't! But I think the man deserves more respect, at least, than many in the community, and especially Tom, have been giving him.
--
Ian Peters
I don't understand what Tom has against RMS, but I wish he would come right out and say it. This "satire" was merely insulting, rather than clever, and it failed to make any point, except that Tom has a problem with RMS.
Yes, Stallman can be annoying. Yes, he can be stubborn. Yes, sometimes we all wish he'd just shut up. But he's an idealist, he believes in something, and he follows his beliefs. If you look at what RMS has done, you won't find any ulterior motives, or hidden agendas. He believes in free software, he promotes free software (not himself, as many believe), and most of all, he has worked for (and written!) free software.
Please, compare the rude, offensive, selfish nature of this post with the eloquence of RMS's post of several days ago. I think you'll find a world of difference.
Standard disclaimers: I don't work for the FSF or GNU, I have an email address @gnu.org because I write free software. My beliefs are my own, yada yada yada.
--
Ian Peters
I won't try to convert you (I know that a mailer is a very personal choice), but I should point out that all of the key-bindings are completely configurable in mutt, so if you think "n" is a better choice, you can make it so. And mutt does have a scroll down feature.
--
Ian Peters
Both mutt and exmh are built on the MH (or nmh) mailkits.
You're mistaken. Mutt isn't built upon anything but mutt.
--
Ian Peters
I don't mean to be insulting, but what are you talking about? Read RMS's submission again. The /only/ time he mentions ESR is in the context of recommending him as a speaker. The post was not addressed to ESR, it merely spoke about RMS, and how he feels about the two movements. RMS wasn't dueling with anyone, he was merely stating his views.
--
Ian Peters
RMS labored for years in relative obscurity during the so-called "dark ages" of the 80's with little pay, writing software that you use every day. I think he's fully capable of deciding when he needs to get a new job, and when his place has been filled, without some slashdot pundit helping him decide.
--
Ian Peters
Obi-Wan Kenobi? :-)
--
Ian Peters
Disclaimer: Yes, I have an email address at gnu.org. This doesn't mean that I follow RMS in lock-step; this means that I have contributed to free software and needed an email alias and shell account.
Disclaimer: I have a lot of respect for ESR, for his code contributions, the Jargon File, and his work as an Open Source advocate.
I really don't understand how ESR could have written this response, if he really read what RMS wrote (and followed this link, where RMS lays out some of the differences between Free Software and Open Source). I would suggest that everyone here read this link, if you haven't yet.
ESR can claim all he wants that our community has only taken off in the last year or so with the advent of the term Open Source. This all depends on what you mean by taken off! If you mean, as a platform we've managed to attract the interest of developers who want to make money and push non-free software, than yes, I guess we have. But I think we were doing fine when we were writing software that we love, that works well, and that is *free*.
RMS may be a zealot, if that's a term you like. But I think RMS is lucky. He's lucky to be one of those people that really believes something, and can live by his beliefs. I would urge everyone to remember, while you're celebrating the newfound popularity of Linux and the GNU system, to remember what got us here. We wouldn't have such a solid, fully featured operating system without free software. The interests of big companies and investors with tons of money didn't get us here; we got ourselves here, by insisting on free software.
--
Ian Peters
One of the things that caught my attention in this article was all of the talk about SGI working with Linux, Irix and Linux converging, etc. When SGI released XFS, many people on different forums assumed that this code would drop right on in and become the new Linux file system. The reality, of course, is that much hacking remains before this goes in, if this goes in, to the Linux kernel proper.
I've got to wonder about what will happen as code contributions come increasingly from corporations dropping large bundles into our laps, as opposed to small patches here and there, or a recognized kernel hacker, who already knows how things work, and how Linus prefers code, setting out to rewrite something.
There was a lot of talk about the Linus burnouts during the 2.1.x process, and I don't know if large contributions like XFS would help or hinder this. Hopefully, we'll see corporations get better at contributing to Linux, as well as see our beloved kernel hackers get better at working with corporations.
--
Ian Peters