I used to be 100% behind the Gnome development team until they started making stupid decisions.
Stupid?
1) Ditching Enlightenment instead of helping 2) Ditching Imlib instead of modifying 3) Re-inventing the wheel for libraries instead of borrowing & re-writing.
Open source isn't about re-creating everything from scratch. Sure, its what the average new programmer does with their freedom because they're not aware of the breadth of existing applications or the complexity of starting over, but its still stupid.
I'd like to point out that very few people would have been upset about your not mentionning that you're from MS as your E-mail address is, after all, "@microsoft.com" at the top of every message.
I'm assuming that you don't have a problem with any of the Office related issues that have come up in previous anti-trust thoughts and discussions. For instance, MS Office in several versions, uses undocumented internal functions in Windows that are not available (as they are undocumented) to other Office application companies. When asked about these functions, MS at one time (in about 1993) responded that they were, in fact, to slow down MS Office and allow others to compete.
Hogwash.
Want to do more research on history before you get all upset about one message's meanings?
What is even more interesting is that if these are 14 billion light years away, then the x-rays emitted are 14 billion years old. That means that either this universe was that size 14 billion years ago (making the universe a _lot_ older that 14 billion years), there are conditions under which we receive this data faster than the speed of light, we are measuring the wrong data (pretty hard, but theoretical physics might tell us something related in a few years), etc.
What fascinated me even more was that they thought the heavy X-ray emissions might be coming from black holes... someone want to explain how 70 million (or even 2) black holes formed 14 billion years ago, 14 billion light years away from us?
My thought is that we might be near one of the "rims" of the universe and have been moving away from these point-sources ever since the beginning of the universe which may be expanding in certain regions faster than others. In this case, the X-rays have simply been following us and finally caught up...
What is VA's stance on the future of network computing, especially in the home? I've ranted on several occasions to friends and business partners that current technologies on Linux make it very possible to run a home PC as an application server with ultra-cheap X terminals in, for example, the kitchen, on the TV and in the bedroom. Is this the type of future work VA will consider?
Considering 3dfx's new 3500 card that supports hardware MPEG compression on capture, driver support is a really big deal these days. Capture cards are becoming much more powerful and much cheaper... it'd just be nice to use them.
It's nice to see Caldera get some money... but they're not the ones who made DR DOS what it was when Microsoft started crushing it.
Besides, if that lawsuit had actually gone to court, we would've finally had the facts heard about how Microsoft designed Windows 3.to be artificially slower on competing DOSs. This is still debated today (many claiming that, like other historical events, it didn't happen).
It's sad really, that $150 million will silence an honest fight for truth. But I guess it was really about money, not truth. Many other companies could've used that precedent... but we'll never know now.
Note: I was much more in favour of Caldera's suit than the DOJ's "Netscape" case... it had more meat on it.
For the sake of all those who want to actually read about these concepts at a level thats understandable to someone with any schooling, see my favorite books page and pick up Schrodinger's Kittens or Why quantum physics is strange, but not as strange as you think.
I have to agree. I've worked call-in tech support for Internet and User Friendly's call-ins just make me break my ribs laughing.
One of my experiences (the short version;-) is with a customer who was having problems with their Internet settings. I asked them if they could click the start button please, and then click on 'settings', yes, ok, I'll wait, etc.
Well, they were pretty slow, but finally I'd got to the point I wanted to be at and asked, "So, what does it say in the window?" and they answered "I don't know."
I don't know???
"Umm, why's that?" I asked... "Because the computer's at home, and I'm at work." "Oh," I continued, "were you following those instructions on your work computer?" "No, I was writing them down to do them when I get home..." "Our tech support hours are until 9PM, please, give me a call when you get home." and I hung up.
Did you really quote me before saying all that? Yes, you did. Lets see it again for the first time:
"If I author code under BSD license and you use it, you can change it and I won't get to benefit from those changes... that restricts me."
The restriction is my benefiting from changes to my code. Under the GPL, I will always be able to use modifications to my own code. Under BSD, I may not. You can take your changes private and I'll never see them or benefit from them.
I think its a rightful suit. Uri Geller is famous for spoon bending, etc. Whether its lucrative or not is more or less irrelevant. The point is that his "likeness" (a spoon bender, with his name) is being used to make money for a corporation without his permission.
To the average person, trying to figure out which car came out in what year and what features it has is extremely difficult as it is. Sure, names 'spice it up', but they don't help things any.
The "Escort 4" would obviously be the 4th incarnation of the Ford Escort. The problem is that car companies release cars every year, whether there really are new features or not (different colour and moulding, that's all?).
You know, maybe if you read over what you wrote you'll figure it out all on your own.
Ok, done? Here's a clue: 4.0 isn't finished yet so it's not modular yet so they can't release the code as the NDA parts aren't (probably) completely separate yet.
Why don't you just join the XFree86 team and then work toward having 4.x's all more open?
You're quite correct. The whole idea of using a 'version name' appended to a product name is for marketing. Marketing people hate version numbers; engineers think they're cool, but that's a Dilbert discussion.
Intel switched from generation numbering to naming once their marketing people really took over the place. AMD switched its K7 to Athlon... although allowed it to be the K7 for a long time, and the next _generational_ chip for them will probably be code-named K8.
Ever looked at the version numbers in IE? Look at the build number. Download it today, then in three weeks. Probably a 300 build jump... especially in companies that are big marketers, you don't really want your clients to think they have to keep upgrading until you're making money from it, so version numbers (at the build level) are irrelevant.
I can see Bill Gates keeping his two bottles on his big executive desk for visitors. I can't imagine him getting rid of them or doing anything but laughing. His corporate marketing people would probably be pissed as heck, but he'll probably get a kick out of it.
BSD is free, period.... to people who want to use the code, not the author.
Why not the author?
If I author code under BSD license and you use it, you can change it and I won't get to benefit from those changes... that restricts me.
Under the GPL, I'm free to use any changes anyone else has made to my software. We all are. It then slowly becomes our software. No one company can claim its theirs at all.
1) I am not a gun expert. 2) Here is more information about FUD about purely plastic weapons 3) I had both of these in mind when I wrote my response -- my main point was the proposal that (hardware/etc.) hackers start thinking about drafting better proposals for airlines.
The whole idea of open-sourcing the software is that although one person can look for loopholes to use, another can find the same loopholes to fix. Thus the L0PHT.
The key to my idea was that anything not recognised as human would be put on screen for "scroll-through" by the human operator. They wouldn't see a picture of you naked; they'd see pictures of all the parts of you with non-human bits (hope you didn't get a big piercing somewhere silly).
Take a modern 80% plastic weapon with a metal barrel and put the barrel in your carry-on. You tell me if they recognise it (especially with the sights removed -- you won't need them much in a hijacking; you don't want to actually have to shoot).
I think your statement that "There is nothing we can do to prevent a determined individual or group from commiting an act of terrorism" is pretty close to the truth.
What we need to realise (as the army often does when evaluating war) is that there _will_ be casualties. After realising that, we decide where the minimal point is; do we need to add full display body scanners? Well, do they prevent said determined persons? No. Will they prevent drug smugglers? Maybe. Are there other ways to prevent drug smuggling? Yes. Do we need the scanners? No. (Hypothetically speaking).
What we also need is more universal use of known terrorist face shots being forced on customs / security officials for recognition. Its not like the CIA/CSIS/FBI/etc. doesn't have a good list of desciptions with photos. Sure, its not complete, but this would help a lot.
I'm with you... I didn't have to do any ASM recoding this year, but I have to agree with your stance. Many people have asked me if Y2K was over hyped. I usually say 'yes and no' -- that is, it wasn't hyped enough to get businesses to react as quickly as they should have (upper management) but it was hyped too much as an end of the world scenario (bunkers and food stores and the like).
I have to concur... I've told people to go to Deja on many occasions and they're befuddled because they don't know what its about by looking at the page at all....
Slashdot Mirror
I used to be 100% behind the Gnome development team until they started making stupid decisions.
Stupid?
1) Ditching Enlightenment instead of helping
2) Ditching Imlib instead of modifying
3) Re-inventing the wheel for libraries instead of borrowing & re-writing.
Open source isn't about re-creating everything from scratch. Sure, its what the average new programmer does with their freedom because they're not aware of the breadth of existing applications or the complexity of starting over, but its still stupid.
I'd like to point out that very few people would have been upset about your not mentionning that you're from MS as your E-mail address is, after all, "@microsoft.com" at the top of every message.
I'm assuming that you don't have a problem with any of the Office related issues that have come up in previous anti-trust thoughts and discussions. For instance, MS Office in several versions, uses undocumented internal functions in Windows that are not available (as they are undocumented) to other Office application companies. When asked about these functions, MS at one time (in about 1993) responded that they were, in fact, to slow down MS Office and allow others to compete.
Hogwash.
Want to do more research on history before you get all upset about one message's meanings?
What is even more interesting is that if these are 14 billion light years away, then the x-rays emitted are 14 billion years old. That means that either this universe was that size 14 billion years ago (making the universe a _lot_ older that 14 billion years), there are conditions under which we receive this data faster than the speed of light, we are measuring the wrong data (pretty hard, but theoretical physics might tell us something related in a few years), etc.
... someone want to explain how 70 million (or even 2) black holes formed 14 billion years ago, 14 billion light years away from us?
...
What fascinated me even more was that they thought the heavy X-ray emissions might be coming from black holes
My thought is that we might be near one of the "rims" of the universe and have been moving away from these point-sources ever since the beginning of the universe which may be expanding in certain regions faster than others. In this case, the X-rays have simply been following us and finally caught up
What is VA's stance on the future of network computing, especially in the home? I've ranted on several occasions to friends and business partners that current technologies on Linux make it very possible to run a home PC as an application server with ultra-cheap X terminals in, for example, the kitchen, on the TV and in the bedroom. Is this the type of future work VA will consider?
Considering 3dfx's new 3500 card that supports hardware MPEG compression on capture, driver support is a really big deal these days. Capture cards are becoming much more powerful and much cheaper ... it'd just be nice to use them.
It's nice to see Caldera get some money ... but they're not the ones who made DR DOS what it was when Microsoft started crushing it.
... but we'll never know now.
... it had more meat on it.
Besides, if that lawsuit had actually gone to court, we would've finally had the facts heard about how Microsoft designed Windows 3.to be artificially slower on competing DOSs. This is still debated today (many claiming that, like other historical events, it didn't happen).
It's sad really, that $150 million will silence an honest fight for truth. But I guess it was really about money, not truth. Many other companies could've used that precedent
Note: I was much more in favour of Caldera's suit than the DOJ's "Netscape" case
For the sake of all those who want to actually read about these concepts at a level thats understandable to someone with any schooling, see my favorite books page and pick up Schrodinger's Kittens or Why quantum physics is strange, but not as strange as you think.
We just need a good OpenGL driver ... that's all we ask ;-)
I'm sure that their marketing team is unaware of the open source team. It'll hit us eventually, I should think.
I have to agree. I've worked call-in tech support for Internet and User Friendly's call-ins just make me break my ribs laughing.
;-) is with a customer who was having problems with their Internet settings. I asked them if they could click the start button please, and then click on 'settings', yes, ok, I'll wait, etc.
... ..."
One of my experiences (the short version
Well, they were pretty slow, but finally I'd got to the point I wanted to be at and asked, "So, what does it say in the window?" and they answered "I don't know."
I don't know???
"Umm, why's that?" I asked
"Because the computer's at home, and I'm at work."
"Oh," I continued, "were you following those instructions on your work computer?"
"No, I was writing them down to do them when I get home
"Our tech support hours are until 9PM, please, give me a call when you get home." and I hung up.
Yes, these things _are_ funny.
Did you really quote me before saying all that? Yes, you did. Lets see it again for the first time:
... that restricts me."
"If I author code under BSD license and you use it, you can change it and I won't get to benefit from those changes
The restriction is my benefiting from changes to my code. Under the GPL, I will always be able to use modifications to my own code. Under BSD, I may not. You can take your changes private and I'll never see them or benefit from them.
I think its a rightful suit. Uri Geller is famous for spoon bending, etc. Whether its lucrative or not is more or less irrelevant. The point is that his "likeness" (a spoon bender, with his name) is being used to make money for a corporation without his permission.
Identity theft?
To the average person, trying to figure out which car came out in what year and what features it has is extremely difficult as it is. Sure, names 'spice it up', but they don't help things any.
The "Escort 4" would obviously be the 4th incarnation of the Ford Escort. The problem is that car companies release cars every year, whether there really are new features or not (different colour and moulding, that's all?).
You know, maybe if you read over what you wrote you'll figure it out all on your own.
Ok, done? Here's a clue: 4.0 isn't finished yet so it's not modular yet so they can't release the code as the NDA parts aren't (probably) completely separate yet.
Why don't you just join the XFree86 team and then work toward having 4.x's all more open?
You're quite correct. The whole idea of using a 'version name' appended to a product name is for marketing. Marketing people hate version numbers; engineers think they're cool, but that's a Dilbert discussion.
... although allowed it to be the K7 for a long time, and the next _generational_ chip for them will probably be code-named K8.
... especially in companies that are big marketers, you don't really want your clients to think they have to keep upgrading until you're making money from it, so version numbers (at the build level) are irrelevant.
...
Intel switched from generation numbering to naming once their marketing people really took over the place. AMD switched its K7 to Athlon
Ever looked at the version numbers in IE? Look at the build number. Download it today, then in three weeks. Probably a 300 build jump
Just my $0.02
I can see Bill Gates keeping his two bottles on his big executive desk for visitors. I can't imagine him getting rid of them or doing anything but laughing. His corporate marketing people would probably be pissed as heck, but he'll probably get a kick out of it.
BSD is free, period.... to people who want to use the code, not the author.
... that restricts me.
Why not the author?
If I author code under BSD license and you use it, you can change it and I won't get to benefit from those changes
Under the GPL, I'm free to use any changes anyone else has made to my software. We all are. It then slowly becomes our software. No one company can claim its theirs at all.
I prefer the definition of freedom of the latter.
1) I am not a gun expert.
2) Here is more information about FUD about purely plastic weapons
3) I had both of these in mind when I wrote my response -- my main point was the proposal that (hardware/etc.) hackers start thinking about drafting better proposals for airlines.
The whole idea of open-sourcing the software is that although one person can look for loopholes to use, another can find the same loopholes to fix. Thus the L0PHT.
The key to my idea was that anything not recognised as human would be put on screen for "scroll-through" by the human operator. They wouldn't see a picture of you naked; they'd see pictures of all the parts of you with non-human bits (hope you didn't get a big piercing somewhere silly).
Ever field-stripped a weapon?
Take a modern 80% plastic weapon with a metal barrel and put the barrel in your carry-on. You tell me if they recognise it (especially with the sights removed -- you won't need them much in a hijacking; you don't want to actually have to shoot).
I think your statement that "There is nothing we can do to prevent a determined individual or group from commiting an act of terrorism" is pretty close to the truth.
What we need to realise (as the army often does when evaluating war) is that there _will_ be casualties. After realising that, we decide where the minimal point is; do we need to add full display body scanners? Well, do they prevent said determined persons? No. Will they prevent drug smugglers? Maybe. Are there other ways to prevent drug smuggling? Yes. Do we need the scanners? No. (Hypothetically speaking).
What we also need is more universal use of known terrorist face shots being forced on customs / security officials for recognition. Its not like the CIA/CSIS/FBI/etc. doesn't have a good list of desciptions with photos. Sure, its not complete, but this would help a lot.
I'm with you ... I didn't have to do any ASM recoding this year, but I have to agree with your stance. Many people have asked me if Y2K was over hyped. I usually say 'yes and no' -- that is, it wasn't hyped enough to get businesses to react as quickly as they should have (upper management) but it was hyped too much as an end of the world scenario (bunkers and food stores and the like).
Hey, a non-drunk-sounding post ;-)
... I've told people to go to Deja on many occasions and they're befuddled because they don't know what its about by looking at the page at all....
I have to concur
A program (I think its called Waterfall) on Windows does this already.
It watches your % CPU use and throttles the CPU accordingly.