There are two types of piracy in my book: the for-profit pirates, and the tinkerers. The former is what the BSA is (or should be) focusing on, such as Russian mafia groups burning windows XP cds and selling them and profitting from the stolen software. I think almost everyone can agree this is unacceptable in any form, morally and ethically.
I generally agree with your comments, but I believe you are missing a key segment of pirates here. In addition to the "for-profit pirates" and the "tinkerers", we should be discussing the "ignorant/lazy IT departments".
The BSA's focus is directed at more than just Russian Mafia groups, and rightly so. The BSA is also focused on IT departments inside companies, and particularly those where the majority of their software is not properly licensed. This has probably been the case at most companies I have worked with, both large and small.
While I agree with you that on one hand, the "tinkerers" are providing a good knowledge base for future business revenue for software companies, those same tinkerers are the ones bringing their culture along with them from university into business. When they get their first job, and they are asked to acquire software to fill a certain need, they are often (not always) prone to follow old habits. So my conclusion is that the "tinkerers" group has a good side and a bad side for software companies. I'm not sure what the ratio of good to bad is here, but it certianly seems to me like this gives the BSA the ethical right to go after that group as well, if they deem it necessary.
There is or is *not* an equivalent to "Add/Remove Programs" in the majority of default Linux distro installs?
And there is or is *not* an equivalent to WMP in the majority of default Linux distro installs?
I'm not really interested right now in a religious discussion of whether you prefer this set of tools or that, just on the topic of whether they are bundled or not. I may personally think the Virtual Desktop functionality in Linux sucks, and I may really prefer another tool I like for Windows, but that's not the point.
The point is - Linux has virtual desktops. Windows has add/remove programs and media player. Different OS's have different things.
I was referring to features in the much more general sense of the overall product, not a specific window manager issue.
For example, something like "Add/Remove Programs" in windows - I understand that there are plenty of great options in Linux for package management and installation, and I also understand that in *some* distributions, one or another of those may come with the distribution, but it is certainly not the case for all (for example, my last installation of Mandrake), and when a point like this is brought up, the response is always, "but Linux has 100 different package managers to choose from, and all you have to do is download the one you want!".
Another example would be a top-quality media player - yes, Mandrake comes with some marginally useful player, but what you really want is mplayer - unfortunately it doesn't come with the distro. Luckily, it is at the tip of your fingers, or at least just a download, and a few hours of configuration and installation away.
The point here is: some may take for granted tools that are integrated or bundled with their OS - for example, virtual desktop management in Linux, while they may not realize that this is simply a bundled tool, and that doesn't mean it must be bundled with every OS in order for that OS to be considered a "good" OS. One person may place a higher priority on virtual desktops, while another may place a higher priority on media players.
What you call a "window-management feature" may be what another user calls an unnecessary bloatware add-on tool, and vice versa.
I find this curious - why is it that every time a feature in Windows is brought up, and the equivalent is missing in a "default" Linux install, the immediate, super-defensive answer is always "oh, just go search and download such and such free add-on program, install it, and it will do exactly what you want on Linux!".
But when the reverse occurs, and there are clearly many free and non-free tools available to do what you are describing on Windows, and it is just a matter of searching for them and downloading them, the same response doesn't occur to anyone?
Totally agree with your comments (what, actual rational discussion about a ms product on/. ?)...
But to point out the one key difference here - Windows and Office are both products that bring in $$. Media player is not a product that brings direct revenue - at best it is a product that helps to indirectly solidify the positions of other products.
Thus, considering the kind of project planning that must go on inside ms, I imagine that things like UI design get vastly different priorities. While the direct revenue products do seem to get appropriate priorities, such as UI design, security, useful functionality, etc., it seems to me that priorities for WMP are coming from an entirely different angle. At first it doesn't seem logical, but then in considering what the influential factors must be, it sort of seems to make some sense.
I could ask an equivalent question: would your own nation become more or less free if kidnapping was legallized?
I'll focus on this point - again, whether it sounds nice or not, this scenario involves "good" and "bad" tradeoffs. For people who don't want to be kidnapped (presumably everyone), obviously it would be bad for them if kidnapping was legalized, because it would most likely result in a decrease of freedom for this population. However, for those who want to be kidnappers, and who value their freedom to kidnap people more than their freedom to not be kidnapped, legalized kidnapping would actual be a net *increase* in their perceived freedom.
Same goes for slaves, but that is a slightly less convoluted case, because (1) it is historically realistic; and (2) typically it has been historically based on two definable, separate classes within the population, such as races - thus as a member of the class of potential slave owners, there would be no question about whether I value my freedom to not be a slave more or less than my freedom to have slaves - either I'm in the class that is in danger of being inslaved, or I am in the class that has the possibility of having slaves, but typically not both. Thus, in the slave case it is a bit more clear - good for slave masters, bad for slaves.
Now, I'm talking in very dispassionate terms right now, and that's one of the difficult things here - we are discussing something where there are clearly underlying ideas about absolute good and evil, and so it is more complex because all of the tradeoffs between more/less freedom I've described above also have to be weighed and superceeded by moral/ethical considerations about absolute good and evil.
On the other hand, I don't believe their is any absolute "good" or "evil" when we talk about free or non-free or open or closed software - I believe all of those have an appropriate time and place, and only zealots would claim that one of those is always good and the other is always evil.
So again it becomes more clear than such convoluted moral questions - this is simply a question about who gains what and who loses what. You say I'm going in circles and not reading/understanding/listening to your response, and I probably have the same feeling about you on this point. So I'm not sure if we will get further - but again, it is not a question about "would the world be more free if we had more open software" or whatever - it is a much simpler question, that can be analyzed at a much simpler level before interpolating out to the entire world - is programmer X that I've never met in Taiwan better off or worse off if I decide that he can't see my code? They didn't have it before, and they still won't have it - doesn't seem like I've taken anything away from them.
On the more practical note, maybe I just don't get how this works - I know compiling/distributing components on Linux is different than in Windows, but... my understanding is that these GPL rules would apply, for example, even in the case that I want to use an open-source component in my Windows application, and this particular component simply compiles to a DLL, and then I reference that DLL from my application. Clearly, if I simply build (or even download) the DLL, I am not making any "modification" to this code, yet I am still subject to the same rules under GPL for my entire referencing application, right? Or am I wrong about this?...
In my previous post, I've just given you concrete examples for both of these, based on real world situations that are occuring this very moment in Iraq. To answer your specific questions:
Hypervelocity railgun - more accuracy, efficiency, and less cost and effort involved in eliminating a fortified enemy target, for example a section of a mosque, surrounded by crowded civilian areas. If this sort of target could be eliminated without even having to enter the hostile territory, with great speed and accuracy, and without much effort or cost, then that seems to me like an improved way to eliminate this type of target while minimizing the risk of casualties to enter the area, or potentially miss the target with a less accurate weapon.
Metal Storm - as described previously, in a scenario where you have guerrilla soldiers moving from one position to another, with crowded civilian areas within the hostile territory, and your greatest chance to avoid civilian casualty is to catch them at a point before they reach the next crowded destination, but there are many indivual targets, then it seems reasonable that the highest probability to avoid civilian casualties is to have a weapon that is highly accurate and extremely fast (to take down as many indivual targets as possible). Without this type of weapon, it seems to me (IANAMA - i am not a miliatary analyst) - that the only options are (1) allow the enemy to fortify themselves in an even more crowded position and risk more casualties later; (2) use a less accurate, slower weapon to take down less of the enemy and increase risk of mis-targeted casualties; or (3) throw a big grenade in or drop a bomb, and get them all at once, and take the maximum civian casualties for an isolated area, rather than allowing multiple areas to be infiltrated.
Speed and accuracy make a lot of sense to me. I don't get it - so you would prefer slower, less accurate weapons?
Save casualties, by killing more of the other guys faster...
Exactly.
If you have a bunch of guys in ski masks running through the crowded streets with uzi's, trying to reach the crowded mosque where the religious people are trying to chant their hyms to Allah, the more of them you can take down before they cover more ground and get to the more populated areas and then get to the sacred religious sites, and the faster you can take them down, the better!
I can't believe you can debate against the idea that modern weapon technology can be developed (and is being developed) to reduce casualties - let's be more specific here perhaps - civilian or "innocent" casualties. Accuracy and speed of weapons are all about minimizing this type of collateral damage. Deny it all you want, but then go have a look at the statistics on the last Iraq war, and follow that backwards to previous wars, and you would obviously find an exponentially decreasing percentage of civilian casualties, even as the modern enemy takes even harsher "human shield" tactics to endanger civilians.
but they've still completely lost control because they're trying to respond to guerilla warfare, which by design does not provide nice easy targets to aim at, with massed, untargeted firepower.
I think you've just made the point yourself - if this doesn't make the case for more accuracy and speed and power in weaponry, I don't know what does. If you don't understand the "power" part of this, replace my scenario above with a hijacked armored vehicle or tank or crowded building or whatever other enclosed/shielded area, where the faster the enemy is eliminated, the less likely you are to have more civilian casulaties during the time that the enemy is finding ways to keep themselves surrounded by civilians.
If you really think modern warfare technology is about "shiny toys" and "things that go boom", well... you obviously are refusing to do any actual research or rational thinking.
The GPL, on the other hand, does nothing unless you willingly decide to modify code supplied under the GPL.
First, a point of clarification - my understanding is that these rules apply when you "incorporate" code, not when you "modify" code. In other words, if I encorporate a GPL'ed component in it's entirety into my closed-source project, are you saying the entire project can still stay closed as long as I don't modify anything in the GPL'ed component?
You're the one oversimplifing, because you said "at least two", but then only used exactly two in your example.
No, I believe my example applies universally - I don't care if there are 2 parties involved, or 5 million parties involved. In all cases, I postulate that the "do nothing" approach you are describing - i.e. neither increasing or decreasing - has absolutely no effect on any member of this population other than myself - in other words, if I incorporate a BSD-licensed component into my closed project and then I decide not to tell a single soul about it, then it has absolutely zero effect on the population of users that may potentially be interested in said component - there is no member of that population that gains or loses anything.
That is where I believe your slave analogy is much further off than my Borg analogy - in the slave analogy, you are describing a complex scenario of good/bad tradeoffs, that affect many different groups within the population in different ways, where there are almost certainly tradeoffs with any decision taken - which affect some members in a positive way and other members in a negative way.
On the other hand, the BSD license appears to increase benefit (access to code) for exactly one member of the population (the person incorporating it), and to neither increase or decrease anything for any other member of that population - no member of that population would have had my code before, and neither will they have it after. And it's really that simple...
Well, except for one case I think you've brought up during this discussion, and perhaps this becomes the actual substance of the debate - let me know if you agree or not - it appears that you consider the author of said code to have some sort of "right" to be fully aware at all times of who is using their code, in what way, and with what modifications, if any.
In the case of modifications - I can absolutely see the point. In the case of simply knowing who is using the code - well perhaps, that just seems like a personal choice to me. Personally I don't feel that I have a right, or want one, to know about every person that uses my (unmodified) code, unless that person wants to let me know - in which case, yes of course I'm happy to know about it. But if a secret government agency wants to use my component, and to keep it confidential, I'm generally ok with that, maybe unless they are using my component to commit genocide or something - but the point is - this is the most extreme case I can think of, and even then - it's like saying I manufacture a hammer, so I want to know about everyone who uses my hammer, even those who use the hammer to build concentration camps or whatever...
So I've tried to clearly indicate that I don't agree with you about the rest of the population - you are implying that all developers who buy into this theory have some sort of inalienable right to automatic "growth" by virtue of participating in the community - and that is exactly what I mean by Borg-istic...
But here's the crux of the matter for me: *if* the entire argument comes down to the author's rights, as described above, to know about usage, modifications, etc., then the terms of the license don't make sense to me - it seems like the GPL is written to take advantage of one argument (author's rights) in order to implement this collective/community idea which has additional affects on all members of the community, not just the author - in other words, it seems like the community gains and loss for the person inc
Thank you for the "lose" correction - also note that in the same sentence, I misspelled "choose" as "chose"... ;)
Regarding this "freedom to withhold freedom from others" - I believe this is deceptively over-simplified, and in the end false.
If I have a closed project, then I decide that developer X outside of my project does not have the "freedom" to view my code.
If I then decide to integrate a "BSD-licensed" component into my project, then I do not make any modification to X's "freedom" - X still has the same access to this component that he had before, and X still does not have access to my code.
On the other hand, if this component is a GPL component, it appears to me that I am in fact making a modification to X's "freedom" - X now has access to additional code that they did not have before. Thus, I can see the "virus-like" analogies that have been made about the GPL - it essentially spreads this "freedom" you are talking about like a virus.
But we are talking about increasing levels of freedom, never decreasing them - it doesn't appear to me that I have taken away anything from X by including a BSD component in my project - X will be in exactly the same state they were in before I chose to do so.
I think this is what my Borg analogy is really driving at - ultimately you are using the idea of X's "freedom" here to say that X has some sort of collective right to everything that falls within a certain domain, which to me seems very Borg-istic and sounds a lot like assimilation. I don't really call this "freedom" under any definition - any more than I would call the Borg's idea of participation collective a "freedom". I really do not see how this idea of "collective rights" or "collective consciousness" can be called a "freedom" under any straight-faced definition.
I think that virtually any defintion of freedom must include some basic components at the lowest level, whether we are talking about upper-case F or lower-case f:
It must involve at least two parties, party A and party B.
It must involve the concept of party A doing something that affects party B in such a way that party B has less of something than he would have if party A would not have done that in the first place.
In the case we are talking about here, this party B is not affected in any way by the actions of party A, under the BSD - thus I don't see how any claim to a change in the state of B's freedom can be made.
Exactly - as far as I know, the Prime Directive is a one-way guideline - "do not share advanced technology with less advanced civilizations" - it didn't say that Federation members couldn't integrate technology from outside the Federation - for example, when Voyager integrated Borg technology into their ship, it wasn't considered a violation of the Prime Directive - although it was certainly a controversial decision for other ethical reasons... But I'm sure there are countless cases when it was perfectly acceptable to integrate new technology from other civilizations into Federation technology, without necessarily having to give up all privacy of Federation technology in return. There may have been some cases in which an acceptable agreement or a trade was arranged, where each party decided to trade some technology - but I don't know of any case in which Enterprise was forced to give up some technology or information against their wishes, and they were still happy about it.
In this case, I'm using Prime Directive as the ST analogy to patents, or protected IP, or whatever guideline a company establishes by which they desire to prevent the whole world from gaining access to what they have...
The point here is that like the GPL, the Borg have no concept of a Prime Directive - they will happily share their technology with all civilizations, under their own terms, whether the civilization chooses these terms or not. Thus I suppose you could say that the Borg does of course have one degree less "freedom" than the GPL, in that at least with the GPL you get to choose whether you will be "assimilated" or not.
1. Thank you for the clarification/correction - I wouldn't have noticed the difference between Free and free;
2. If you don't mind, could you please clarify for me more precisely what the definition of "Free" is - based on your response I am under the impression it simply means "something which can be distributed without limitations". Is this correct?
Note - I am intentionally omitting the word free from this definition, in order to avoid a circular definition.
In any case, assuming I am generally correct on what Free means, I still am failing to see how GPL is Free under this definition - as in my Borg analogy, there is a huge "limitation" or "cost" or however you want to think of the impact of using a GPL'ed component - this limitation is the fact that I must loose my "freedom" (lowercase f) to chose keep any part of my IP private.
I am not trying to antagonize here - I really would like to be more clear on this argument, and to understand the various viewpoints on this topic.
But from that quick glance, the CPL is less "Free".
I've read many definitions of "free" on/., such as "free beer", "free liberty", "free bsd", etc. - and I am curious to know which of those definitions is being applied in this case.
Based on my star-trek defintions of free, here's what I am understanding:
CPL is "United Federation Free" - the universe is full of technology, feel free to find and integrate it when the inventor says it's ok - and feel free to continue to keep your other technology private so as not to break the prime directive.
GPL is "Borg Free" - feel free to join our community and gain access to any of our technology, but note that once you do, anything you create belongs to the collective.
I personally have a hard time understanding how GPL supporters can call this "more free" with a straight face.
So if we are question whether said laptop (car) is offered with the option to not have said software (stereo) preinstalled and packaged, we are talking about something that seems to be in the domain of the laptop manufacturer (car manufacturer), not the software manufacturer (stereo manufacturer).
I believe, if you look closely and not always brashly at what you see, that Microsoft is a Master at language-control propaganda methods.
Microsoft "Windows", "Word", "Excel", "Passport". They have, using copyright/trademark registration backed up by the full force of the U.S. Government, usurped a significant chunk of the English dictionary and grafted their own contemporary definitions.
Or maybe they are just good at coming up with simple, catchy product names...
Nice conspiracy theory though... can I borrow one of your tin-foil hats?
But if we are talking hypothetically about an AVI file, my understanding is that AVI formats are typically not contiguous, and therefore it is impossible to use an AVI file without actually having the full thing? In other words, if I a chunk of bytes that constitute a 10% segment of an 100-minute AVI file, it's not like I can view a 10-minute clip of the movie, right? Or even a single frame of the movie for that matter, right?
I'm not sure what the definition of "fair use" is, or what that relates to, but assuming it relates to some standard of being able to actually use the file in question, a segment of an AVI file (even if it is a 99.999% segment) does not seem usable in any way to me, without the remaining segments.
If we are talking about some contiguous format such as MPG or MP3 or something, I understand that is different.
What is the consensus regarding partial segments of files? If a hypothetical p2p (emule for example) user has a list of partially downloaded files in his queue, and allows some uploading while downloading segments - but then removes the file at the instant in which it is fully downloaded, then...
1. Does that technically still violate the rules? Is this hypothetical p2p user liable for sharing segments of an incomplete file?
2. Are the same red flags raised when ISP's are looking for uploaders, regardless of whether the uploader actually has a full copy or not? I'm guessing the answer to this is yes...
3. What if I never actually gain a full copy of the file? Am I ultimately liable for sharing something that I never even really had? I see some interesting prospects for p2p apps here, which could potentially do some excessive "scratch" downloading, to make sure I am providing enough segments back to the community that I am not a leech, but at the same time, to make sure that I am never actually sharing segments of anything for which I intend to at some point have a full copy downloaded...
You know.. its funny but flash can now fill exactly the void to which you yourself refer to here [slashdot.org]. Good gui, cross-platform, possibility for rich clients.
Wow, you are right - I totally forgot about that discussion - we are basically answering many of the questions that were brought up there! Interesting - the slashdot world goes round and round...
Yes, if MS can take over and make XAML the dominant format, then it will win.
This is the one area where I think we are looking at this from different angles. In my opinion, there is no question about whether XAML will be the "dominant format" for it's target platform, which is Windows native apps. In other words, IMHO the question you are posing above is not even relevant.
Let me try to clarify - I believe that XAML is first and foremost designed as a technology for replacing the way standalone Windows apps (non-browser, non-internet, etc.) are built, from the UI perspective.
There are already many solutions for creating native apps using XML layout
On the (dominant) Windows native platform? I'm not sure I am familiar with any good examples of what you are talking about here - surely none that would be considered as having the potential to become the de-facto "easy" way to build Windows apps.
The fact that it will be a standard markup language that facilitates browser download, and thus makes it possible to deliver these apps over the web through a browser, is just an added benefit - although once the full vision comes into scope, it is a HUGE benefit, and obviously makes this technology much more than what I am claiming is it's primary goal. But I want to stress that this doesn't change the primary goal - to make it easy to build native Windows apps.
Thus, there is no question about whether this has the potential to become the dominant way to build apps on it's target platform - standalone native Windows apps - because if that's the direction MS says Windows apps should go, that's the direction it will go. Not that this will be the only way to build apps on Windows in the future, but that it will be by far the easiest - just as MFC was by far easier than C with low-level APIS, and then VB/COM was by far easier than MFC, and then.NET is far easier (and more powerful) than VB/COM, etc... This is just the next generation of that Windows GUI technology. However, the main difference this time around is that this technology has the potential to cause browser (internet) GUI technologies to converge with native windows technologies.
Thus, the question about whether this could replace Flash (and all other non-native browser technologies) is not a question about which is easier or more powerful, etc., as a framework for building dynamic (and interactive - touchee) web applications - it is a question about whether this is the technology that will finally bring native Windows apps "into" the browser.
However, there is still hope for MXML and XUL to fit into the picture.. perhaps.
Only as long as the browser maintains it's status as an acceptable outlet for "non-standard" or "non-native" applications. Some day, I believe there will be full convergence between native apps and delivery through the internet, perhaps no longer with the browser as we know it today. The idea that every website will support it's own proprietary or non-native (yes even throwing HTML into this category) UI technology will become a relic of the past. Some day, going to slashdot and posting a comment will be no different than opening up Outlook and reading my mail. Slashdot will have a fully customized user-interface, but it will be done in such a way that the actual GUI I use is a fully native Windows-rendered GUI, not something that requires non-native browser-based protocols and standards in order to be rendered. A button will always be a win32 button, and a checkbox will always be a win32 checkbox, and more importantly, the background will be a win32 Window, not a browser panel that is being rendered with text. There will be no need to render tables and images to make things look like frames and panels and sub-windows - these will simply be actual win32 frames, panels, and sub-windows, on an actual win32 window. Right now the browser is basically at the point we were at with lots of DOS applications back when Win3.1 was just release
Essentially I believe you are correct - however, one minor point for clarification:
Yes, XAML apps are similar to HTML pages, but they, like HTML, also need a scripting part to actually do something and not just be static.
I do not believe that the true intention here is for apps to use any sort of "scripting" technology as has been used in past web application platforms such as ASP. It would be more accurate to say that the application code is written in an actual (non-scripting).NET language, which (I'm only guessing) is then compiled to a binary assembly to run on the.NET CLR. The compiled assembly is most likely downloaded and delivered (partially or completely) over the web along with the XAML page, or perhaps there is some server technology that allows some of this binary to be run from the server without even downloading the assembly.
The point is, I'm pretty sure we are not talking about *scripting* as the main purpose - although there may also be the ability to do some scripting.
Avalon is not really about providing dynamic "web pages", which is, at least based on my probably outdated understanding, what Flash is about...
Avalon is about providing actual *native* Win32 applications, but doing so with a simple XML-based format, and potentially in a way that is deliverable over the internet. The key difference between this and all other browser-based technologies that have preceeded this (including Flash and Applets) is the *native* part. Technically, it has been possible to do truly native stuff from the browser with ActiveX controls, but obviously this is an attempt at a technology which is far more robust, secure, and appropriate for web-based and non-web-based apps.
Will Avalon replace the need for Flash altogether? Perhaps some day, when "skinning" ability in native windows apps is so strong that you can easily throw a very fancy skin on a custom native win32 app as easily as you could design a Flash app with the same look and feel. But until then, Flash will still have it's place as a framework for "flashy" web-based apps that do not require the native win32 look-and-feel.
Yes, I know I'm using the word win32 a lot here, along with native - but let me clarify - that is just an example, since we are talking about Avalon within the Windows platform. But obviously once this XAML technology gains the potential to be "native" to any desktop system, such as GTK or KDE - so what I am talking about still applies, and even moreso - we are not talking about providing Flash-based apps that run on the native "Flash platform" which is a plugin inside the browser - we are talking about providing actual native apps that run on the platform of the desktop OS.
And in the end once the ability to do this becomes as easy (and "standard") as writing HTML, but combines the power of both native apps and fancy customizable look-and-feel of Flash apps, it starts to become clear that this is a new way of doing things over the internet that has the potential to make all of the other technologies in the browser (including HTML and Flash) become legacy.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two types of piracy in my book: the for-profit pirates, and the tinkerers. The former is what the BSA is (or should be) focusing on, such as Russian mafia groups burning windows XP cds and selling them and profitting from the stolen software. I think almost everyone can agree this is unacceptable in any form, morally and ethically.
I generally agree with your comments, but I believe you are missing a key segment of pirates here. In addition to the "for-profit pirates" and the "tinkerers", we should be discussing the "ignorant/lazy IT departments".
The BSA's focus is directed at more than just Russian Mafia groups, and rightly so. The BSA is also focused on IT departments inside companies, and particularly those where the majority of their software is not properly licensed. This has probably been the case at most companies I have worked with, both large and small.
While I agree with you that on one hand, the "tinkerers" are providing a good knowledge base for future business revenue for software companies, those same tinkerers are the ones bringing their culture along with them from university into business. When they get their first job, and they are asked to acquire software to fill a certain need, they are often (not always) prone to follow old habits. So my conclusion is that the "tinkerers" group has a good side and a bad side for software companies. I'm not sure what the ratio of good to bad is here, but it certianly seems to me like this gives the BSA the ethical right to go after that group as well, if they deem it necessary.
So to clarify...
There is or is *not* an equivalent to "Add/Remove Programs" in the majority of default Linux distro installs?
And there is or is *not* an equivalent to WMP in the majority of default Linux distro installs?
I'm not really interested right now in a religious discussion of whether you prefer this set of tools or that, just on the topic of whether they are bundled or not. I may personally think the Virtual Desktop functionality in Linux sucks, and I may really prefer another tool I like for Windows, but that's not the point.
The point is - Linux has virtual desktops. Windows has add/remove programs and media player. Different OS's have different things.
I was referring to features in the much more general sense of the overall product, not a specific window manager issue.
For example, something like "Add/Remove Programs" in windows - I understand that there are plenty of great options in Linux for package management and installation, and I also understand that in *some* distributions, one or another of those may come with the distribution, but it is certainly not the case for all (for example, my last installation of Mandrake), and when a point like this is brought up, the response is always, "but Linux has 100 different package managers to choose from, and all you have to do is download the one you want!".
Another example would be a top-quality media player - yes, Mandrake comes with some marginally useful player, but what you really want is mplayer - unfortunately it doesn't come with the distro. Luckily, it is at the tip of your fingers, or at least just a download, and a few hours of configuration and installation away.
The point here is: some may take for granted tools that are integrated or bundled with their OS - for example, virtual desktop management in Linux, while they may not realize that this is simply a bundled tool, and that doesn't mean it must be bundled with every OS in order for that OS to be considered a "good" OS. One person may place a higher priority on virtual desktops, while another may place a higher priority on media players.
What you call a "window-management feature" may be what another user calls an unnecessary bloatware add-on tool, and vice versa.
I find this curious - why is it that every time a feature in Windows is brought up, and the equivalent is missing in a "default" Linux install, the immediate, super-defensive answer is always "oh, just go search and download such and such free add-on program, install it, and it will do exactly what you want on Linux!".
But when the reverse occurs, and there are clearly many free and non-free tools available to do what you are describing on Windows, and it is just a matter of searching for them and downloading them, the same response doesn't occur to anyone?
This is different from windows, how?
Subtle difference, actually...
"Having everything 'just work' once it's set up"
In contrast, Windows XP 'just works', period.
Totally agree with your comments (what, actual rational discussion about a ms product on /. ?)...
But to point out the one key difference here - Windows and Office are both products that bring in $$. Media player is not a product that brings direct revenue - at best it is a product that helps to indirectly solidify the positions of other products.
Thus, considering the kind of project planning that must go on inside ms, I imagine that things like UI design get vastly different priorities. While the direct revenue products do seem to get appropriate priorities, such as UI design, security, useful functionality, etc., it seems to me that priorities for WMP are coming from an entirely different angle. At first it doesn't seem logical, but then in considering what the influential factors must be, it sort of seems to make some sense.
I could ask an equivalent question: would your own nation become more or less free if kidnapping was legallized?
I'll focus on this point - again, whether it sounds nice or not, this scenario involves "good" and "bad" tradeoffs. For people who don't want to be kidnapped (presumably everyone), obviously it would be bad for them if kidnapping was legalized, because it would most likely result in a decrease of freedom for this population. However, for those who want to be kidnappers, and who value their freedom to kidnap people more than their freedom to not be kidnapped, legalized kidnapping would actual be a net *increase* in their perceived freedom.
Same goes for slaves, but that is a slightly less convoluted case, because (1) it is historically realistic; and (2) typically it has been historically based on two definable, separate classes within the population, such as races - thus as a member of the class of potential slave owners, there would be no question about whether I value my freedom to not be a slave more or less than my freedom to have slaves - either I'm in the class that is in danger of being inslaved, or I am in the class that has the possibility of having slaves, but typically not both. Thus, in the slave case it is a bit more clear - good for slave masters, bad for slaves.
Now, I'm talking in very dispassionate terms right now, and that's one of the difficult things here - we are discussing something where there are clearly underlying ideas about absolute good and evil, and so it is more complex because all of the tradeoffs between more/less freedom I've described above also have to be weighed and superceeded by moral/ethical considerations about absolute good and evil.
On the other hand, I don't believe their is any absolute "good" or "evil" when we talk about free or non-free or open or closed software - I believe all of those have an appropriate time and place, and only zealots would claim that one of those is always good and the other is always evil.
So again it becomes more clear than such convoluted moral questions - this is simply a question about who gains what and who loses what. You say I'm going in circles and not reading/understanding/listening to your response, and I probably have the same feeling about you on this point. So I'm not sure if we will get further - but again, it is not a question about "would the world be more free if we had more open software" or whatever - it is a much simpler question, that can be analyzed at a much simpler level before interpolating out to the entire world - is programmer X that I've never met in Taiwan better off or worse off if I decide that he can't see my code? They didn't have it before, and they still won't have it - doesn't seem like I've taken anything away from them.
On the more practical note, maybe I just don't get how this works - I know compiling/distributing components on Linux is different than in Windows, but... my understanding is that these GPL rules would apply, for example, even in the case that I want to use an open-source component in my Windows application, and this particular component simply compiles to a DLL, and then I reference that DLL from my application. Clearly, if I simply build (or even download) the DLL, I am not making any "modification" to this code, yet I am still subject to the same rules under GPL for my entire referencing application, right? Or am I wrong about this?...
In my previous post, I've just given you concrete examples for both of these, based on real world situations that are occuring this very moment in Iraq. To answer your specific questions:
Hypervelocity railgun - more accuracy, efficiency, and less cost and effort involved in eliminating a fortified enemy target, for example a section of a mosque, surrounded by crowded civilian areas. If this sort of target could be eliminated without even having to enter the hostile territory, with great speed and accuracy, and without much effort or cost, then that seems to me like an improved way to eliminate this type of target while minimizing the risk of casualties to enter the area, or potentially miss the target with a less accurate weapon.
Metal Storm - as described previously, in a scenario where you have guerrilla soldiers moving from one position to another, with crowded civilian areas within the hostile territory, and your greatest chance to avoid civilian casualty is to catch them at a point before they reach the next crowded destination, but there are many indivual targets, then it seems reasonable that the highest probability to avoid civilian casualties is to have a weapon that is highly accurate and extremely fast (to take down as many indivual targets as possible). Without this type of weapon, it seems to me (IANAMA - i am not a miliatary analyst) - that the only options are (1) allow the enemy to fortify themselves in an even more crowded position and risk more casualties later; (2) use a less accurate, slower weapon to take down less of the enemy and increase risk of mis-targeted casualties; or (3) throw a big grenade in or drop a bomb, and get them all at once, and take the maximum civian casualties for an isolated area, rather than allowing multiple areas to be infiltrated.
Speed and accuracy make a lot of sense to me. I don't get it - so you would prefer slower, less accurate weapons?
Save casualties, by killing more of the other guys faster...
Exactly.
If you have a bunch of guys in ski masks running through the crowded streets with uzi's, trying to reach the crowded mosque where the religious people are trying to chant their hyms to Allah, the more of them you can take down before they cover more ground and get to the more populated areas and then get to the sacred religious sites, and the faster you can take them down, the better!
I can't believe you can debate against the idea that modern weapon technology can be developed (and is being developed) to reduce casualties - let's be more specific here perhaps - civilian or "innocent" casualties. Accuracy and speed of weapons are all about minimizing this type of collateral damage. Deny it all you want, but then go have a look at the statistics on the last Iraq war, and follow that backwards to previous wars, and you would obviously find an exponentially decreasing percentage of civilian casualties, even as the modern enemy takes even harsher "human shield" tactics to endanger civilians.
but they've still completely lost control because they're trying to respond to guerilla warfare, which by design does not provide nice easy targets to aim at, with massed, untargeted firepower.
I think you've just made the point yourself - if this doesn't make the case for more accuracy and speed and power in weaponry, I don't know what does. If you don't understand the "power" part of this, replace my scenario above with a hijacked armored vehicle or tank or crowded building or whatever other enclosed/shielded area, where the faster the enemy is eliminated, the less likely you are to have more civilian casulaties during the time that the enemy is finding ways to keep themselves surrounded by civilians.
If you really think modern warfare technology is about "shiny toys" and "things that go boom", well... you obviously are refusing to do any actual research or rational thinking.
The GPL, on the other hand, does nothing unless you willingly decide to modify code supplied under the GPL.
First, a point of clarification - my understanding is that these rules apply when you "incorporate" code, not when you "modify" code. In other words, if I encorporate a GPL'ed component in it's entirety into my closed-source project, are you saying the entire project can still stay closed as long as I don't modify anything in the GPL'ed component?
You're the one oversimplifing, because you said "at least two", but then only used exactly two in your example.
No, I believe my example applies universally - I don't care if there are 2 parties involved, or 5 million parties involved. In all cases, I postulate that the "do nothing" approach you are describing - i.e. neither increasing or decreasing - has absolutely no effect on any member of this population other than myself - in other words, if I incorporate a BSD-licensed component into my closed project and then I decide not to tell a single soul about it, then it has absolutely zero effect on the population of users that may potentially be interested in said component - there is no member of that population that gains or loses anything.
That is where I believe your slave analogy is much further off than my Borg analogy - in the slave analogy, you are describing a complex scenario of good/bad tradeoffs, that affect many different groups within the population in different ways, where there are almost certainly tradeoffs with any decision taken - which affect some members in a positive way and other members in a negative way.
On the other hand, the BSD license appears to increase benefit (access to code) for exactly one member of the population (the person incorporating it), and to neither increase or decrease anything for any other member of that population - no member of that population would have had my code before, and neither will they have it after. And it's really that simple...
Well, except for one case I think you've brought up during this discussion, and perhaps this becomes the actual substance of the debate - let me know if you agree or not - it appears that you consider the author of said code to have some sort of "right" to be fully aware at all times of who is using their code, in what way, and with what modifications, if any.
In the case of modifications - I can absolutely see the point. In the case of simply knowing who is using the code - well perhaps, that just seems like a personal choice to me. Personally I don't feel that I have a right, or want one, to know about every person that uses my (unmodified) code, unless that person wants to let me know - in which case, yes of course I'm happy to know about it. But if a secret government agency wants to use my component, and to keep it confidential, I'm generally ok with that, maybe unless they are using my component to commit genocide or something - but the point is - this is the most extreme case I can think of, and even then - it's like saying I manufacture a hammer, so I want to know about everyone who uses my hammer, even those who use the hammer to build concentration camps or whatever...
So I've tried to clearly indicate that I don't agree with you about the rest of the population - you are implying that all developers who buy into this theory have some sort of inalienable right to automatic "growth" by virtue of participating in the community - and that is exactly what I mean by Borg-istic...
But here's the crux of the matter for me: *if* the entire argument comes down to the author's rights, as described above, to know about usage, modifications, etc., then the terms of the license don't make sense to me - it seems like the GPL is written to take advantage of one argument (author's rights) in order to implement this collective/community idea which has additional affects on all members of the community, not just the author - in other words, it seems like the community gains and loss for the person inc
Thank you for the "lose" correction - also note that in the same sentence, I misspelled "choose" as "chose"...
;)
Regarding this "freedom to withhold freedom from others" - I believe this is deceptively over-simplified, and in the end false.
If I have a closed project, then I decide that developer X outside of my project does not have the "freedom" to view my code.
If I then decide to integrate a "BSD-licensed" component into my project, then I do not make any modification to X's "freedom" - X still has the same access to this component that he had before, and X still does not have access to my code.
On the other hand, if this component is a GPL component, it appears to me that I am in fact making a modification to X's "freedom" - X now has access to additional code that they did not have before. Thus, I can see the "virus-like" analogies that have been made about the GPL - it essentially spreads this "freedom" you are talking about like a virus.
But we are talking about increasing levels of freedom, never decreasing them - it doesn't appear to me that I have taken away anything from X by including a BSD component in my project - X will be in exactly the same state they were in before I chose to do so.
I think this is what my Borg analogy is really driving at - ultimately you are using the idea of X's "freedom" here to say that X has some sort of collective right to everything that falls within a certain domain, which to me seems very Borg-istic and sounds a lot like assimilation. I don't really call this "freedom" under any definition - any more than I would call the Borg's idea of participation collective a "freedom". I really do not see how this idea of "collective rights" or "collective consciousness" can be called a "freedom" under any straight-faced definition.
I think that virtually any defintion of freedom must include some basic components at the lowest level, whether we are talking about upper-case F or lower-case f:
It must involve at least two parties, party A and party B.
It must involve the concept of party A doing something that affects party B in such a way that party B has less of something than he would have if party A would not have done that in the first place.
In the case we are talking about here, this party B is not affected in any way by the actions of party A, under the BSD - thus I don't see how any claim to a change in the state of B's freedom can be made.
Exactly - as far as I know, the Prime Directive is a one-way guideline - "do not share advanced technology with less advanced civilizations" - it didn't say that Federation members couldn't integrate technology from outside the Federation - for example, when Voyager integrated Borg technology into their ship, it wasn't considered a violation of the Prime Directive - although it was certainly a controversial decision for other ethical reasons... But I'm sure there are countless cases when it was perfectly acceptable to integrate new technology from other civilizations into Federation technology, without necessarily having to give up all privacy of Federation technology in return. There may have been some cases in which an acceptable agreement or a trade was arranged, where each party decided to trade some technology - but I don't know of any case in which Enterprise was forced to give up some technology or information against their wishes, and they were still happy about it.
In this case, I'm using Prime Directive as the ST analogy to patents, or protected IP, or whatever guideline a company establishes by which they desire to prevent the whole world from gaining access to what they have...
The point here is that like the GPL, the Borg have no concept of a Prime Directive - they will happily share their technology with all civilizations, under their own terms, whether the civilization chooses these terms or not. Thus I suppose you could say that the Borg does of course have one degree less "freedom" than the GPL, in that at least with the GPL you get to choose whether you will be "assimilated" or not.
1. Thank you for the clarification/correction - I wouldn't have noticed the difference between Free and free;
2. If you don't mind, could you please clarify for me more precisely what the definition of "Free" is - based on your response I am under the impression it simply means "something which can be distributed without limitations". Is this correct?
Note - I am intentionally omitting the word free from this definition, in order to avoid a circular definition.
In any case, assuming I am generally correct on what Free means, I still am failing to see how GPL is Free under this definition - as in my Borg analogy, there is a huge "limitation" or "cost" or however you want to think of the impact of using a GPL'ed component - this limitation is the fact that I must loose my "freedom" (lowercase f) to chose keep any part of my IP private.
I am not trying to antagonize here - I really would like to be more clear on this argument, and to understand the various viewpoints on this topic.
Thanks.
But from that quick glance, the CPL is less "Free".
/., such as "free beer", "free liberty", "free bsd", etc. - and I am curious to know which of those definitions is being applied in this case.
I've read many definitions of "free" on
Based on my star-trek defintions of free, here's what I am understanding:
CPL is "United Federation Free" - the universe is full of technology, feel free to find and integrate it when the inventor says it's ok - and feel free to continue to keep your other technology private so as not to break the prime directive.
GPL is "Borg Free" - feel free to join our community and gain access to any of our technology, but note that once you do, anything you create belongs to the collective.
I personally have a hard time understanding how GPL supporters can call this "more free" with a straight face.
Just wanted to point out...
In this analogy:
car manufacturers == DELL
stereo manufacturers == MICROSOFT
So if we are question whether said laptop (car) is offered with the option to not have said software (stereo) preinstalled and packaged, we are talking about something that seems to be in the domain of the laptop manufacturer (car manufacturer), not the software manufacturer (stereo manufacturer).
For anyone who is interested in this theme, you may want to check out this fairly interesting and entertaining book.
I believe, if you look closely and not always brashly at what you see, that Microsoft is a Master at language-control propaganda methods.
Microsoft "Windows", "Word", "Excel", "Passport". They have, using copyright/trademark registration backed up by the full force of the U.S. Government, usurped a significant chunk of the English dictionary and grafted their own contemporary definitions.
Or maybe they are just good at coming up with simple, catchy product names...
Nice conspiracy theory though... can I borrow one of your tin-foil hats?
You're new around here, aren't you?
;-)
Wow, combining physics metaphors and anti-anti-MS-fud, Somebody mod this guy up...
But if we are talking hypothetically about an AVI file, my understanding is that AVI formats are typically not contiguous, and therefore it is impossible to use an AVI file without actually having the full thing? In other words, if I a chunk of bytes that constitute a 10% segment of an 100-minute AVI file, it's not like I can view a 10-minute clip of the movie, right? Or even a single frame of the movie for that matter, right?
I'm not sure what the definition of "fair use" is, or what that relates to, but assuming it relates to some standard of being able to actually use the file in question, a segment of an AVI file (even if it is a 99.999% segment) does not seem usable in any way to me, without the remaining segments.
If we are talking about some contiguous format such as MPG or MP3 or something, I understand that is different.
What is the consensus regarding partial segments of files? If a hypothetical p2p (emule for example) user has a list of partially downloaded files in his queue, and allows some uploading while downloading segments - but then removes the file at the instant in which it is fully downloaded, then...
1. Does that technically still violate the rules? Is this hypothetical p2p user liable for sharing segments of an incomplete file?
2. Are the same red flags raised when ISP's are looking for uploaders, regardless of whether the uploader actually has a full copy or not? I'm guessing the answer to this is yes...
3. What if I never actually gain a full copy of the file? Am I ultimately liable for sharing something that I never even really had? I see some interesting prospects for p2p apps here, which could potentially do some excessive "scratch" downloading, to make sure I am providing enough segments back to the community that I am not a leech, but at the same time, to make sure that I am never actually sharing segments of anything for which I intend to at some point have a full copy downloaded...
...before the chip cuts the engine.
And that was an V6 - I'm sure the V8 could do a lot better than that. So yeah, when I read 125, it was a bit of an anti-climax for me too...
You know.. its funny but flash can now fill exactly the void to which you yourself refer to here [slashdot.org]. Good gui, cross-platform, possibility for rich clients.
Wow, you are right - I totally forgot about that discussion - we are basically answering many of the questions that were brought up there! Interesting - the slashdot world goes round and round...
Yes, if MS can take over and make XAML the dominant format, then it will win.
.NET is far easier (and more powerful) than VB/COM, etc... This is just the next generation of that Windows GUI technology. However, the main difference this time around is that this technology has the potential to cause browser (internet) GUI technologies to converge with native windows technologies.
This is the one area where I think we are looking at this from different angles. In my opinion, there is no question about whether XAML will be the "dominant format" for it's target platform, which is Windows native apps. In other words, IMHO the question you are posing above is not even relevant.
Let me try to clarify - I believe that XAML is first and foremost designed as a technology for replacing the way standalone Windows apps (non-browser, non-internet, etc.) are built, from the UI perspective.
There are already many solutions for creating native apps using XML layout
On the (dominant) Windows native platform? I'm not sure I am familiar with any good examples of what you are talking about here - surely none that would be considered as having the potential to become the de-facto "easy" way to build Windows apps.
The fact that it will be a standard markup language that facilitates browser download, and thus makes it possible to deliver these apps over the web through a browser, is just an added benefit - although once the full vision comes into scope, it is a HUGE benefit, and obviously makes this technology much more than what I am claiming is it's primary goal. But I want to stress that this doesn't change the primary goal - to make it easy to build native Windows apps.
Thus, there is no question about whether this has the potential to become the dominant way to build apps on it's target platform - standalone native Windows apps - because if that's the direction MS says Windows apps should go, that's the direction it will go. Not that this will be the only way to build apps on Windows in the future, but that it will be by far the easiest - just as MFC was by far easier than C with low-level APIS, and then VB/COM was by far easier than MFC, and then
Thus, the question about whether this could replace Flash (and all other non-native browser technologies) is not a question about which is easier or more powerful, etc., as a framework for building dynamic (and interactive - touchee) web applications - it is a question about whether this is the technology that will finally bring native Windows apps "into" the browser.
However, there is still hope for MXML and XUL to fit into the picture.. perhaps.
Only as long as the browser maintains it's status as an acceptable outlet for "non-standard" or "non-native" applications. Some day, I believe there will be full convergence between native apps and delivery through the internet, perhaps no longer with the browser as we know it today. The idea that every website will support it's own proprietary or non-native (yes even throwing HTML into this category) UI technology will become a relic of the past. Some day, going to slashdot and posting a comment will be no different than opening up Outlook and reading my mail. Slashdot will have a fully customized user-interface, but it will be done in such a way that the actual GUI I use is a fully native Windows-rendered GUI, not something that requires non-native browser-based protocols and standards in order to be rendered. A button will always be a win32 button, and a checkbox will always be a win32 checkbox, and more importantly, the background will be a win32 Window, not a browser panel that is being rendered with text. There will be no need to render tables and images to make things look like frames and panels and sub-windows - these will simply be actual win32 frames, panels, and sub-windows, on an actual win32 window. Right now the browser is basically at the point we were at with lots of DOS applications back when Win3.1 was just release
Essentially I believe you are correct - however, one minor point for clarification:
.NET language, which (I'm only guessing) is then compiled to a binary assembly to run on the .NET CLR. The compiled assembly is most likely downloaded and delivered (partially or completely) over the web along with the XAML page, or perhaps there is some server technology that allows some of this binary to be run from the server without even downloading the assembly.
Yes, XAML apps are similar to HTML pages, but they, like HTML, also need a scripting part to actually do something and not just be static.
I do not believe that the true intention here is for apps to use any sort of "scripting" technology as has been used in past web application platforms such as ASP. It would be more accurate to say that the application code is written in an actual (non-scripting)
The point is, I'm pretty sure we are not talking about *scripting* as the main purpose - although there may also be the ability to do some scripting.
Avalon is not really about providing dynamic "web pages", which is, at least based on my probably outdated understanding, what Flash is about...
Avalon is about providing actual *native* Win32 applications, but doing so with a simple XML-based format, and potentially in a way that is deliverable over the internet. The key difference between this and all other browser-based technologies that have preceeded this (including Flash and Applets) is the *native* part. Technically, it has been possible to do truly native stuff from the browser with ActiveX controls, but obviously this is an attempt at a technology which is far more robust, secure, and appropriate for web-based and non-web-based apps.
Will Avalon replace the need for Flash altogether? Perhaps some day, when "skinning" ability in native windows apps is so strong that you can easily throw a very fancy skin on a custom native win32 app as easily as you could design a Flash app with the same look and feel. But until then, Flash will still have it's place as a framework for "flashy" web-based apps that do not require the native win32 look-and-feel.
Yes, I know I'm using the word win32 a lot here, along with native - but let me clarify - that is just an example, since we are talking about Avalon within the Windows platform. But obviously once this XAML technology gains the potential to be "native" to any desktop system, such as GTK or KDE - so what I am talking about still applies, and even moreso - we are not talking about providing Flash-based apps that run on the native "Flash platform" which is a plugin inside the browser - we are talking about providing actual native apps that run on the platform of the desktop OS.
And in the end once the ability to do this becomes as easy (and "standard") as writing HTML, but combines the power of both native apps and fancy customizable look-and-feel of Flash apps, it starts to become clear that this is a new way of doing things over the internet that has the potential to make all of the other technologies in the browser (including HTML and Flash) become legacy.