The problem is you have to make the case that those are happening more and more frequently. I can point to some invention that changed the way life happened after it, and I can do that for probably a 300+ year span. I can't do it before that, simply because I don't know that much about life during those periods.
It's simply generational narcissism. We tend to think that our innovations that affect our lives are more important than they really are. That's Kurzweiler's error.
You're quite right. He's a smart guy. However, his pretense and presentation skills far outstrip any actual knowledge or insight he possesses. He's a showman, plain and simple. A good one, but I think anyone put off by slick talkers who don't actually say anything would be turned off by this guy.
I've heard a talk by this guy, and he comes off as a charlatan who likes the spotlight. He also tends to suffer from a lack of historical perspective - I'm sure there were many "innovations" made 300 years ago that made it seem like the same effect was at play - time has a way of winnowing out what proves revolutionary and what is forgotten.
There's no way to say whether the current period will look revolutionary until hundreds of years have passed. I don't think we're currently in a period that resembles that between 1450-1700.
Of course, it's easy to do that when you're Microsoft, and whatever you say/do is the de facto standard without the need to write a spec. Microsoft's actions are spec.
Good God, does everything have to be about Microsoft? In fact, run with that - does Linus want to be like MS?
Following a spec means you could code things wrong. Who wants to be wrong?
Software that is "right" but doesn't interact correctly with hardware or other software is useless. There's a better way that involves writing software that works and is useful, but I think that process is sometimes lost on Linus. He is incredibly dogmatic, and is in the position of being the only person in the community who can get by with that "my way or the highway" attitude.
For a good example of when refusing to settle petty differences goes wrong (due to spec-related issues), see the current situation with cdrecord. Linus is stubborn, Scilling is a pedantic ass, and right now we have a situation where kernels past 2.6.8 can't record cd's correctly without using either 1) ide-scsi, which is a dogcrap kludge, or 2) doing it as root. Fantastic guys, thanks.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I really don't think anyone in the thread was contesting the contrary. At worst, Linus is insane, at best, a pedant. In this case, anyway.
From my impression of the discussion it isn't specs he is against, but rather following those specs without being flexible enough to take reality into account.
From what I read, it seemed like people were trying to get him to soften his stance on that, and he seemed pretty adamant that he hates specs in any form or fashion.
Of course, it's easy to do that when you're Linus Torvalds, and whatever you say/do is the de facto standard without the need to write a spec. He's basically a walking spec. However, I'd invite him to consider what would happen if all the peons adopted his theory. Nothing would interoperate with anything else.
The only thing I can think of is that he defines a spec as something that is inherently written once, before implementation begins, and is strictly adhered to no matter what. However, I don't think any sane person would agree with that definition, I can't imagine that's what the other people in the thread meant by the word "spec," and I can't believe he'd imagine anyone else defending such a process in the first place.
So I do believe that Linus is being a bully again.
1) Not many computers cost $2K anymore. 2) When the 10-year-old gets a job, he'll find a computer, not a toy puppy. Unless he works for Sony, evidently.
Dunno man, maybe I'm too optimistic, but even though the aim is to promote those things, I'd *hope* that a University of all places would have a more balanced teaching approach. Even when my lecturers expressed preferences about technologies, processes or approaches during my CS degree, they were always at least trying to be fair minded about it...
You were lucky. College is generally a bastion of opinionated blowhards.
Regardless, you cannot at the same time promote a philosphy (in the advocacy sense) and be balanced regarding it. One of those will lose out by definition. If their statement were "We seek to present a forum for the discussion of Open Source technology, including advantages and disadvantages..." then that would be different. And a course that should be an elective (or part of an elective course) in any good CS program.
God you're a fucking moron. I use Linux and Apple half time each, wouldn't put Windows on your computer, but because I actually use my brain instead of spouting the typical fanboy crap I'm a shill. Go check the rest of my comments since you care so much. Dipshit.
Then you've simply created a tautology, he's no less a tourist than my cat would be if I gave them $20M to take her in space. The difference between him and NASA is he didn't earn his spot there, he *bought* it. He's an unqualified person who bought a ticket somewhere. Tour-ist.
Among the courses to be offered: The Philosophy of Open Source, a series of LAMP courses, and a capstone course which will focus on OSS development practices. Courses will be offered both on-line and on-campus."
A class on the philosphy of open source? A whole semester? Yay indoctrination!
Bullshit. He's contriving some experiments - some of which are irrelevant to his work, some that can be done on earth, and some of which have well known results. He's there because he wants to be there, period, not because he needs to be. That's pleasure, not business. A tourist.
Curious. I thought the purpose of the GPL was to foster Free Software - that is, software I am free to modify to suit my purposes and share with others, as long as I share my modifications with others. It allows me to work off the backs of others, as long as I'm willing to allow others to work off of my back.
That's part of the ideology, but the original motivation, I believe, was simply to get away from binary hell.
Currently, a web service using GPL code has taken a shortcut by exploiting someone else's work... what are they giving back?
That still ignores the question of why web services should be singled out among all other possible uses.
Also, if one dissociates the concepts of distribution from "giving back," then one needs to build a repository for projects that never distributed anything but need to disclose their source code to remain in GPL compliance. Who runs that? How is is structured? Let me guess, the FSF will become the world's software repository too...
Most of those people are looking for a quick settlement. They put the figure low enough so that it's cheaper to settle than to fight, but sometimes, the other side does fight back.
That number can run well into the 10's of thousands of dollars and still be cheap enough to settle. That's high to me, and crap like that is why we all pay high insurance rates.
The purpose of the GPL was to ensure that if someone gives you software for trade or for free, that you don't end up screwed because you have some unmodifiable binary - that instead you have the source. In this case, these web companies are not giving you software. And I'll repeat an argument that's already been made, namely how is this different than a store that's not online? Or is this just another version of "Anyone who actually makes money has to pay to use GPL'd software even internally"?
The GPL, if it includes all the things it's been alleged to have planned, will alienate every single corporate user it has. At that point, it really will be for hippies living in their parents' basements.
Yeah, to be honest with you, if I could get a laptop that's functional enough to do the basics and both rugged and cheap enough that I could knock the shit out of it without caring, I'd buy it. Not to replace my main one, but still.
In the absence of an education system, you would need to show that shipping over a bunch of laptops is more useful than taking the equivalent amount of money and putting it toward some other, more sensible use. Like, for example, supporting teachers and construction of schools.
I assumed that such a program was tacitly assumed to be parallel. Obviously one doesn't ship a computer to a kid in tibet with the idea that its use will be well understood. The countries looking to use these are, I believe, going to roll them out in a classroom setting. I was using "no education" in a hyperbolic sense, sorry if it sounded literal.
In general, I agree with you - these will make the most impact in the..second world? I presume there's such a thing?
Slashdot Mirror
It's simply generational narcissism. We tend to think that our innovations that affect our lives are more important than they really are. That's Kurzweiler's error.
You're quite right. He's a smart guy. However, his pretense and presentation skills far outstrip any actual knowledge or insight he possesses. He's a showman, plain and simple. A good one, but I think anyone put off by slick talkers who don't actually say anything would be turned off by this guy.
There's no way to say whether the current period will look revolutionary until hundreds of years have passed. I don't think we're currently in a period that resembles that between 1450-1700.
Good God, does everything have to be about Microsoft? In fact, run with that - does Linus want to be like MS?
Following a spec means you could code things wrong. Who wants to be wrong?
Software that is "right" but doesn't interact correctly with hardware or other software is useless. There's a better way that involves writing software that works and is useful, but I think that process is sometimes lost on Linus. He is incredibly dogmatic, and is in the position of being the only person in the community who can get by with that "my way or the highway" attitude.
For a good example of when refusing to settle petty differences goes wrong (due to spec-related issues), see the current situation with cdrecord. Linus is stubborn, Scilling is a pedantic ass, and right now we have a situation where kernels past 2.6.8 can't record cd's correctly without using either 1) ide-scsi, which is a dogcrap kludge, or 2) doing it as root. Fantastic guys, thanks.
I agree wholeheartedly, but I really don't think anyone in the thread was contesting the contrary. At worst, Linus is insane, at best, a pedant. In this case, anyway.
From what I read, it seemed like people were trying to get him to soften his stance on that, and he seemed pretty adamant that he hates specs in any form or fashion.
Of course, it's easy to do that when you're Linus Torvalds, and whatever you say/do is the de facto standard without the need to write a spec. He's basically a walking spec. However, I'd invite him to consider what would happen if all the peons adopted his theory. Nothing would interoperate with anything else.
The only thing I can think of is that he defines a spec as something that is inherently written once, before implementation begins, and is strictly adhered to no matter what. However, I don't think any sane person would agree with that definition, I can't imagine that's what the other people in the thread meant by the word "spec," and I can't believe he'd imagine anyone else defending such a process in the first place. So I do believe that Linus is being a bully again.
Though it was, in this case, actually more accurate.
1) Not many computers cost $2K anymore. 2) When the 10-year-old gets a job, he'll find a computer, not a toy puppy. Unless he works for Sony, evidently.
You were lucky. College is generally a bastion of opinionated blowhards.
Regardless, you cannot at the same time promote a philosphy (in the advocacy sense) and be balanced regarding it. One of those will lose out by definition. If their statement were "We seek to present a forum for the discussion of Open Source technology, including advantages and disadvantages..." then that would be different. And a course that should be an elective (or part of an elective course) in any good CS program.
Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't scream balance.
God you're a fucking moron. I use Linux and Apple half time each, wouldn't put Windows on your computer, but because I actually use my brain instead of spouting the typical fanboy crap I'm a shill. Go check the rest of my comments since you care so much. Dipshit.
Then you've simply created a tautology, he's no less a tourist than my cat would be if I gave them $20M to take her in space. The difference between him and NASA is he didn't earn his spot there, he *bought* it. He's an unqualified person who bought a ticket somewhere. Tour-ist.
Wow, that was insightful. Most people who hate iTunes don't know how to use it.
A class on the philosphy of open source? A whole semester? Yay indoctrination!
PC World seems to disagree.
Bullshit. He's contriving some experiments - some of which are irrelevant to his work, some that can be done on earth, and some of which have well known results. He's there because he wants to be there, period, not because he needs to be. That's pleasure, not business. A tourist.
He's a guy who paid $20 million to get into space. That's a tourist.
Or, I dunno, when you can barely keep the last one down.
That's part of the ideology, but the original motivation, I believe, was simply to get away from binary hell.
Currently, a web service using GPL code has taken a shortcut by exploiting someone else's work... what are they giving back?
That still ignores the question of why web services should be singled out among all other possible uses.
Also, if one dissociates the concepts of distribution from "giving back," then one needs to build a repository for projects that never distributed anything but need to disclose their source code to remain in GPL compliance. Who runs that? How is is structured? Let me guess, the FSF will become the world's software repository too...
That number can run well into the 10's of thousands of dollars and still be cheap enough to settle. That's high to me, and crap like that is why we all pay high insurance rates.
The GPL, if it includes all the things it's been alleged to have planned, will alienate every single corporate user it has. At that point, it really will be for hippies living in their parents' basements.
You left out the piece of shit deadbeats who file frivolous lawsuits based on bullshit injury claims.
Yeah, and it doesn't help that they're generally dumb as a chair.
Yeah, to be honest with you, if I could get a laptop that's functional enough to do the basics and both rugged and cheap enough that I could knock the shit out of it without caring, I'd buy it. Not to replace my main one, but still.
I assumed that such a program was tacitly assumed to be parallel. Obviously one doesn't ship a computer to a kid in tibet with the idea that its use will be well understood. The countries looking to use these are, I believe, going to roll them out in a classroom setting. I was using "no education" in a hyperbolic sense, sorry if it sounded literal.
In general, I agree with you - these will make the most impact in the..second world? I presume there's such a thing?