HURD wasn't started till much later, in 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd
The operating system of GNU was started in 1983, work on the kernel wasn't till much later.
Yep, that's definitely part of what drove this, and why Jeff Moe of Lulzbot offered the bounty to add 3d model support. We've wanted it for a long time, but didn't expect it so soon!
Heya,
You're right actually, I missed submitting that. MediaGoblin is basically what you can think of as a free software, decentralized replacement to media publishing systems like YouTube/Flickr/SoundCloud... and now moving into the Thingiverse space.:)
You're right, it isn't the "threshold pledge" system, and it is directed donations in a large way. Even so, when we had the conversations with the FSF initially about the campaign, the conversation was really a "Are we going with the FSF or with Kickstarter?" type of conversation, and what we said was "we'd like to go with you, but there's a whole set of things that Kickstarter does that you don't yet." But the FSF implemented them, retooling a ton of their infrastructure specifically for this campaign: the list of rewards that you can select from, a progress bar that auto-updates as the campaign goes along, the list that you get subscribed to when donating so you can hear updates as the project goes along, and a bunch of other things: these are things that Kickstarter had that the FSF didn't, but the FSF developed those tools so that they can better support campaigns that run in this way for free software projects.
So you're right that it's not an assurance contract system, but there are other crowdfunding platforms that have been on the rise that have been (rightly) lumped together when describing the rise of project crowdfunding. And the campaign that we set out is one that fits the type of patterns that projects fundraising under those systems have been using. So while it's not an assurance contract system, I think it's also incorrect to redcuce Kickstarter and friends to just assurance contracts. And the fact that the FSF did significant retooling of its infrastructure to reflect those changes is I think quite noteworthy.
Hi!
You're welcome to submit in whatever thematic style you like (steampunk, fantasy, zombie office attack) as long as it matches the style guide (perspective, lighting, etc). We'll have that out soon. I'd love to have a lot of variety in content!
If you can setup offline synchronization and data encryption, there is no reason to not use cloud computing.
If your provider does not support this, then it's time to change it.
See, the thing about that kind of backup system? It takes effort, which is precisely why people have been switching to cloud computing. I hear plenty of people making this kind of snarky remark who use cloud computing. But how many of them are backing up?
Furthermore, if you're going to the effort of maintaining a backup, in most cases it's just as easy to run a local free and open source software equivalent. So in that case, why bother using "cloud computing" at all?
You're right as for there being no hardware support for decoding Ogg Theora. I don't know enough about that to make a comment (I wonder if it is possible to make such a thing but whether or not it just hasn't been implemented). As for the rest though, the quality argument is simply not true... it looks as if in some circumstances, in fact, theora comes out on top. But even if that isn't true, we can see that it's close enough that it isn't a significant difference.
As for the submarine patent stuff, that's FUD... every codec technically has that threat. But Theora is the only one not known to have any current patent issues. h.264 has several known patent issues, but of course Apple is not worried because they are in control of that. But what about everyone else? In fact, unlike Theora, where steps have been taken to avoid patent issues, the dangers of patents are already known when it comes to h.264.
Please don't spread this obvious bullshit. One codec may have patent issues but nobody can find them. One codec has obvious and known patent problems and may have even more that nobody has found. If you're going to make an attack on the former for patent issues, you'd better not be supporting the latter.
The post's parent appears to be replying to this, but for some reason didn't actually reply by by pressing "reply to this" or whatever, as the threading is lost. So I don't think it's an unreasonable comment to make.
Actually, we've stripped all the redundant lines out of the adoptable lines in the database well before we launched. Including that one, including try, except, blah blah.:)
And Miro *IS* written in python, fwiw.
Linux boxes are rootable. They *should* be rootable. The only time they aren't are when you don't have control any more (because of DRM & etc). But then they are only Linux in as much as the Kernel goes, not as much as the kind of Linux that Linux users advocate. I've recovered a broken plenty of times by popping in a boot cd and chrooting it.
The only time a system can be protected from this type of stuff is if it's encrypted. But then again, that's only protecting someone from accessing information you want to keep private, not protecting from reinstalling your operating system.
Why do you care if non-free python, C, or whatever apps run on your computer? Code is code, and websites aren't what they used to be. The web has become a platform for client/server applications. So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.
I would think slashdot would know better what Stallman means by when he says free or non-free software. Generally these webapps area available at no cost anyway, and obviously that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the classic ideas of free software, not whether or not it is okay to sell software. I just think that should be clear here.
Anyway, if we do argue that applications are moving into the web sphere, (which most web 2.0 advocates of course do,) then this is indeed something important to think about within the domain of free software.
I'm noticing the tag 'gonvidia', and it's true... as in terms of hardware, Nvidia does seem to be the best. But as in terms of the linux community, they pretty much create problems for everyone. And yes, I know, to the end user that's not always apparent. But the linux desktop really would be a lot farther along if it weren't for nvidia's refusal to open up to the free software community.
If Intel's new open source graphic drivers suck, then obviously yes, that's shitty. But between them and nvidia, if you're going to praise one or the other in the Linux community, it shouldn't be nvidia. Intel's graphic cards still don't support GLSL and the like, but at least you can run an open source driver and it works.
Would I like cheeper Mac's, of course, but that doesn't mean I advocate hamstringing their ability to decide the direction of their own products.
It's not just an issue of them deciding what to do with their products. It's a matter of them deciding what you can do with the products you've bought from them.
Apple's monopoly is worse than Microsoft's. They have a monopoly on both software and hardware.
I'm sorry, but if my motherboard breaks on my machine, I should be allowed to replace it with whatever motherboard I want. If I bought software, I should be able to install it wherever I want.
This isn't about them controlling their stuff. It's about them controlling yours.
There was a serious threat that the government was going to fork. Then they switched to a distributed VCS, everything went better, and world hunger ended.
Until, of course, the next week, when a brand new flamewar erupted on the mailing list.... the mix of politics and free and open source philosophy and development styles... it was just inevitable...
And now I work for the Participatory Culture Foundation on Miro, so now I also have an open source job, too. But at my previous job even (also as python programmer at a web development company), I was hired because of the skills I learned in the open source community. I actually don't have a degree in Computer Science, I have a degree in the humanities. But I've always been a hobbyist, so it's been a second education for me. One of the best programmers I've ever known followed nearly the same path. So, hell yes I know people who fit that bill.
My recommendation is to get involved in coding, yes, but also in local user groups. This isn't the reason I originally began attending, but find a local python, linux, ruby, whatever's your interest user group, and learn. Eventually start participating, give talks on things you've learned and done. It'll make you an attractive hire. Often, people who are the head of their technology departments work here, or programmers who are asked by their bosses to recruit will mention their company is hiring, or whatever. (I've taken on that role before.)
The point is that good companies want good people, and the best people don't even necessarily have a degree... what really matters is that they are passionate and engaged in the kind of work they'll be doing.
Besides, it's fun anyway! So what are you waiting for? Get out there and code! Hang out at some user groups! It's all free education and morally rewarding!
This sounds like a story totally worthy of slashdot's front page.
Almost makes me wish that Slashdot had made a post informing us that Mario had fireflower powers again in Mario Galaxy again, as soon as that information became available!
In 1995, the Computer Science Department at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) began
an effort to bring more women into its undergraduate computer science (CS) program.
At that time, just 7% (7 out of 96) of entering freshman computer science majors at
Carnegie Mellon were women. Five years later, the percentage of women in the entering
class had increased fivefold. In 1999, women were 38% of the incoming first-year
computer science class (50 out of 130)2 ; in the fall of 2000, approximately 40% of the
entering class were women.
I saw the woman responsible for making this change speak. She described that the way that they made that change in computer science enrollment was by focusing on changing perspective and creating a community where women felt comfortable being part of the program.
Now I'm sure that no Slashdot reader will intentionally watch any "sport" that has judges determine the winner, but their wives/girlfriends might seize control of the remote because they want to know who is the best at that ribbon twirling thing.
The main reason women are lacking in the tech industry is because of perception that women do not belong there. Way to perpetrate that.
What I think you're missing is the difference between "I can do something" and "I should do something".
This almost falls under my personal definition of torment as the woman did seek the girl out (if she hadnt and the girl had just found this fake boy online i would classify it as forthelulz and absolutely hilarious) with the intent to fuck with her, but that's the glory of the internet. You can fuck with anyone you want to (verbally, or would it be textually?) and pretend to be whoever you want, whatever you want, believe whatever you want, and just run with it.
Are you saying the reason it isn't torment is because the tormentor is anonymous? That doesn't seem logical definition of torment to me.
Slashdot Mirror
HURD wasn't started till much later, in 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurd The operating system of GNU was started in 1983, work on the kernel wasn't till much later.
Yep, that's definitely part of what drove this, and why Jeff Moe of Lulzbot offered the bounty to add 3d model support. We've wanted it for a long time, but didn't expect it so soon!
Heya, You're right actually, I missed submitting that. MediaGoblin is basically what you can think of as a free software, decentralized replacement to media publishing systems like YouTube/Flickr/SoundCloud... and now moving into the Thingiverse space. :)
Heya Karl,
You're right, it isn't the "threshold pledge" system, and it is directed donations in a large way. Even so, when we had the conversations with the FSF initially about the campaign, the conversation was really a "Are we going with the FSF or with Kickstarter?" type of conversation, and what we said was "we'd like to go with you, but there's a whole set of things that Kickstarter does that you don't yet." But the FSF implemented them, retooling a ton of their infrastructure specifically for this campaign: the list of rewards that you can select from, a progress bar that auto-updates as the campaign goes along, the list that you get subscribed to when donating so you can hear updates as the project goes along, and a bunch of other things: these are things that Kickstarter had that the FSF didn't, but the FSF developed those tools so that they can better support campaigns that run in this way for free software projects.
So you're right that it's not an assurance contract system, but there are other crowdfunding platforms that have been on the rise that have been (rightly) lumped together when describing the rise of project crowdfunding. And the campaign that we set out is one that fits the type of patterns that projects fundraising under those systems have been using. So while it's not an assurance contract system, I think it's also incorrect to redcuce Kickstarter and friends to just assurance contracts. And the fact that the FSF did significant retooling of its infrastructure to reflect those changes is I think quite noteworthy.
It's not totally down but super slow. I guess that'll teach me to include all those high resolution .png files in our release notes. :)
Not sure how serious you are, but as in terms of "dates" the contest dates are set in the rules: http://lpc.opengameart.org/content/lpc-rules
And if you want to "buy it"... well you can donate to us here! :)
Hi! You're welcome to submit in whatever thematic style you like (steampunk, fantasy, zombie office attack) as long as it matches the style guide (perspective, lighting, etc). We'll have that out soon. I'd love to have a lot of variety in content!
I'm the one who coined the name, and yes... it's been pointed out already: http://evan.status.net/notice/1367418
I have a good sense of humor about it, though. :)
See, the thing about that kind of backup system? It takes effort, which is precisely why people have been switching to cloud computing. I hear plenty of people making this kind of snarky remark who use cloud computing. But how many of them are backing up?
Furthermore, if you're going to the effort of maintaining a backup, in most cases it's just as easy to run a local free and open source software equivalent. So in that case, why bother using "cloud computing" at all?
You're right as for there being no hardware support for decoding Ogg Theora. I don't know enough about that to make a comment (I wonder if it is possible to make such a thing but whether or not it just hasn't been implemented). As for the rest though, the quality argument is simply not true... it looks as if in some circumstances, in fact, theora comes out on top. But even if that isn't true, we can see that it's close enough that it isn't a significant difference.
As for the submarine patent stuff, that's FUD... every codec technically has that threat. But Theora is the only one not known to have any current patent issues. h.264 has several known patent issues, but of course Apple is not worried because they are in control of that. But what about everyone else? In fact, unlike Theora, where steps have been taken to avoid patent issues, the dangers of patents are already known when it comes to h.264.
Please don't spread this obvious bullshit. One codec may have patent issues but nobody can find them. One codec has obvious and known patent problems and may have even more that nobody has found. If you're going to make an attack on the former for patent issues, you'd better not be supporting the latter.
The post's parent appears to be replying to this, but for some reason didn't actually reply by by pressing "reply to this" or whatever, as the threading is lost. So I don't think it's an unreasonable comment to make.
Actually, we've stripped all the redundant lines out of the adoptable lines in the database well before we launched. Including that one, including try, except, blah blah. :)
And Miro *IS* written in python, fwiw.
Linux boxes are rootable. They *should* be rootable. The only time they aren't are when you don't have control any more (because of DRM & etc). But then they are only Linux in as much as the Kernel goes, not as much as the kind of Linux that Linux users advocate. I've recovered a broken plenty of times by popping in a boot cd and chrooting it.
The only time a system can be protected from this type of stuff is if it's encrypted. But then again, that's only protecting someone from accessing information you want to keep private, not protecting from reinstalling your operating system.
Why do you care if non-free python, C, or whatever apps run on your computer? Code is code, and websites aren't what they used to be. The web has become a platform for client/server applications. So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.
"from the beware-hidden-dollarsign dept"
I would think slashdot would know better what Stallman means by when he says free or non-free software. Generally these webapps area available at no cost anyway, and obviously that's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the classic ideas of free software, not whether or not it is okay to sell software. I just think that should be clear here.
Anyway, if we do argue that applications are moving into the web sphere, (which most web 2.0 advocates of course do,) then this is indeed something important to think about within the domain of free software.
I'm noticing the tag 'gonvidia', and it's true... as in terms of hardware, Nvidia does seem to be the best. But as in terms of the linux community, they pretty much create problems for everyone. And yes, I know, to the end user that's not always apparent. But the linux desktop really would be a lot farther along if it weren't for nvidia's refusal to open up to the free software community.
If Intel's new open source graphic drivers suck, then obviously yes, that's shitty. But between them and nvidia, if you're going to praise one or the other in the Linux community, it shouldn't be nvidia. Intel's graphic cards still don't support GLSL and the like, but at least you can run an open source driver and it works.
Would I like cheeper Mac's, of course, but that doesn't mean I advocate hamstringing their ability to decide the direction of their own products.
It's not just an issue of them deciding what to do with their products. It's a matter of them deciding what you can do with the products you've bought from them.
Apple's monopoly is worse than Microsoft's. They have a monopoly on both software and hardware.
I'm sorry, but if my motherboard breaks on my machine, I should be allowed to replace it with whatever motherboard I want. If I bought software, I should be able to install it wherever I want.
This isn't about them controlling their stuff. It's about them controlling yours.
Uhm... so Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian, and Debian has supported ARM for like... forever. Ubuntu just hasn't followed suit until now.
Not to say this isn't significant. Just give Debian some credit.
There was a serious threat that the government was going to fork. Then they switched to a distributed VCS, everything went better, and world hunger ended.
Until, of course, the next week, when a brand new flamewar erupted on the mailing list.... the mix of politics and free and open source philosophy and development styles... it was just inevitable...
/me raises his hand
And now I work for the Participatory Culture Foundation on Miro, so now I also have an open source job, too. But at my previous job even (also as python programmer at a web development company), I was hired because of the skills I learned in the open source community. I actually don't have a degree in Computer Science, I have a degree in the humanities. But I've always been a hobbyist, so it's been a second education for me. One of the best programmers I've ever known followed nearly the same path. So, hell yes I know people who fit that bill.
My recommendation is to get involved in coding, yes, but also in local user groups. This isn't the reason I originally began attending, but find a local python, linux, ruby, whatever's your interest user group, and learn. Eventually start participating, give talks on things you've learned and done. It'll make you an attractive hire. Often, people who are the head of their technology departments work here, or programmers who are asked by their bosses to recruit will mention their company is hiring, or whatever. (I've taken on that role before.)
The point is that good companies want good people, and the best people don't even necessarily have a degree... what really matters is that they are passionate and engaged in the kind of work they'll be doing.
Besides, it's fun anyway! So what are you waiting for? Get out there and code! Hang out at some user groups! It's all free education and morally rewarding!
This sounds like a story totally worthy of slashdot's front page. Almost makes me wish that Slashdot had made a post informing us that Mario had fireflower powers again in Mario Galaxy again, as soon as that information became available!
Is that GTK? It doesn't look like QT. And what window manager is that theme from? Just curious.
This isn't true, and I have the evidence to back it. Read this paper from Carnegie Mellon. An excerpt:
In 1995, the Computer Science Department at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) began an effort to bring more women into its undergraduate computer science (CS) program. At that time, just 7% (7 out of 96) of entering freshman computer science majors at Carnegie Mellon were women. Five years later, the percentage of women in the entering class had increased fivefold. In 1999, women were 38% of the incoming first-year computer science class (50 out of 130)2 ; in the fall of 2000, approximately 40% of the entering class were women.
I saw the woman responsible for making this change speak. She described that the way that they made that change in computer science enrollment was by focusing on changing perspective and creating a community where women felt comfortable being part of the program.
By looking at the numbers, it seems that worked.
That doesn't make this quote any less sexist:
Now I'm sure that no Slashdot reader will intentionally watch any "sport" that has judges determine the winner, but their wives/girlfriends might seize control of the remote because they want to know who is the best at that ribbon twirling thing.
The main reason women are lacking in the tech industry is because of perception that women do not belong there. Way to perpetrate that.
What I think you're missing is the difference between "I can do something" and "I should do something".
This almost falls under my personal definition of torment as the woman did seek the girl out (if she hadnt and the girl had just found this fake boy online i would classify it as forthelulz and absolutely hilarious) with the intent to fuck with her, but that's the glory of the internet. You can fuck with anyone you want to (verbally, or would it be textually?) and pretend to be whoever you want, whatever you want, believe whatever you want, and just run with it.
Are you saying the reason it isn't torment is because the tormentor is anonymous? That doesn't seem logical definition of torment to me.