I just might complain to him after all. His theory doesn't mesh with reality, the hallmark of a lousy theory. Running through my inventory of ancient civilization, they're split roughly 50-50% between east-west and north-south river valleys.
I've pondered this question as well. But more than just "why can't they get a usable OS", I wonder "why can't they get a real server OS", and "why can't they get a secure OS."
The problem, as I see it, is internal corporate politics. Decision makers don't see the revenue benefits of usability, security and separate server and client systems. So they end up with interfaces that are only considered usable by fact that they are familiar, software firewalls that even M$ doesn't recommend, and "server" versions that are nothing more than the client versions with different defaults.
With HFS+ and UFS, you simply don't need to defrag. The very nature of the filesystems keeps things from getting too fragmented. It might get you some trivial performance advantages for some specialized activities, but for everyday use it's simply not needed.
The upside is that 95% of this is simply marketing to wow the Windows users raised on FAT. IMHO.
Our histories are ever colored by our ideologies. Here's another way of looking at it, through my own colored lenses...
At precisely the time that cheap 32 bit computers and cheap internet access became available, the world was ready for a free operating system. Whichever got a certain mindshare first would dominate for a long time. But USL tripped 386BSD just as it was leaving the starting gate. Then when it picked itself up, Bill Jolitz tripped it again. BSD didn't get the initial mindshare first.
Heck, according to some sources, Linux might have become a mere terminal for Minix if things had gone slightly different.
Where does GNU fit in? Well, the BSDs were complete operating environments. The BSD codebase was complete before GNU ever started. They didn't need GNU. But Linux needed an environment to run on top of it, so they grabbed stuff from all over, a lot of it being GNU. The GNU philosophy went along with it, as a lot of GNU people started developing on a 100% free system, instead of developing on Sun workstations.
What about commercialism? I would posit that the development nature of Linux caused it, rather than the licensing, or even the popularity (at least in the beginning). For a long time, in order to get a working Linux system, you needed to build it from scratch. This was time consuming and painful. In order to succeed, Linux NEEDED commercial distributions, so they arose.
Of course, it helped that Linux had a mild mannered and charismatic person at the helm. Linus has never pissed anyone off in public (that I know of). He's like a penguin, water just rolls off of him. Compare that to RMS and Theo.
Actually I do it the opposite. If someone pays me, then I'll use the GPL. But stuff that I do on my free time on weekends because it's fun, that I give away with as few strings as a possibly can.
If someone doesn't like it, then can always pay me to give them a GPL licensed copy of my stuff...
Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.
Which came first? It makes a difference. From my perspective, it's the popularity of Linux that attracted the commercial interest. There's more developers because they're more users, and more users because there are more developers.
Is this because of the licensing? Some would say so, but you need to take into account that Linux gained its initial popularity with developers at precisely the same time BSD was in an SCO-like battle with USL. In other words, there's some evidence that Linux was in the right place at the right time.
Not another one! I'm still trying to clean up the mess and restore the damage from the last flare?
What mess and damage, you ask? How should I know, I'm still looking for it. The media kept telling me there would be major problems, so it has to be around here somewhere.
Aha! That two year old battery in my smoke alarm is dead! Obviously the fault of solar flares.
Arabs are known to have had very advanced mathematical techniques very early on.
Prior to 850 BC?
Re:Well, since the conclusion of his last book
on
Human Accomplishment
·
· Score: 1
It was that as a race blacks have lower average intelligence and a much lower chance of producing a geniuses. The Bell Curve for blacks is shifted to the left.
Is intelligence inherited, aquired, or both? In other words, the old "nature versus nurture" debate. I'm inclined to go with a mix.
Unless intelligence is purely 100% genetic, then you will of course see differences in intelligence between races.
It's not racism, because you can point to significant periods in European history where achievement was nil. I'm talking about achievement, and not influence.
Non-mediterranean Europe prior to the Roman conquest had few achievements. Europe under feudalism had few achievements. But a cultural shift happened that caused an explosion of scientific, technological, and philosophical achievements. The spark for this probably came from the Middle East with some leavenings from Asia.
Race had nothing to do with it, cultural attitudes did. During most of Chinese civilization, Europe was a barbarian backwater. Instead of pointing fingers at corporate global expansionists, which has nothing much to do with achievement, it would be better to discover which cultural attitudes lead to more scientific, economic, philosophical and literary achievements. Why did Europe never get a Confucious? Why did Korea never get a Newton? Those answers would be highly instructive.
This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.
Though there may be no legal demands to open the code, there are many other pressures to do so. One big one is economic incentive to avoid closed forks. This was probably the biggest factor leading to the opening of Darwin.
But a more subtle incentive, and one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply that it's the right thing to do. When you don't treat your users as potential thieves, but with respect, you tend to find that they will gladly open their derivative bits without you even asking. I've get patches to my own BSD licensed works, without asking for them. They spontaneously come in.
The reason for this is community, not licensing. When you deliberately exclude people from your community, they of course will not participate in it. BSDi was always a part of the BSD community, and has always contributed huge chunks of *original* code to BSD projects. But the FSF never made NeXT feel welcome, so they had to hound and badger them into opening the ObjC frontend. Maybe if the GNU project hadn't been so isolationist, they wouldn't have had to ask in the first place.
When you treat people like theives, you'll find that people are theives. When you treat them with respect, you'll find that most will behave quite respectably.
Gee, what you're talking about sounds an awful lot like government. Armies, tanks, soldiers... And last I checked, Israel was not an anarchy, but a government.
I'm not arguing that anarchy would be a stable situation. That's why I originally called myself a "part-time" anarcho-capitalist. The rest of the time I'm a minarchist.
But be that as it may, I still don't see how the BSD license applies to the occupied territories in Israel. You're really stretching here, aren't you?
Actually, his mom was a Republican (or at least registered that way). I found this out from him later. But does it really matter? After all, MY mom is a Republican. He called my mom an "evil #$*&% stupid $&@#". I'm glad I held my temper and didn't knock him across the room for that!
Sigh. What I absolutely cannot stand is people like you that must characterize Bush as someone who is 100% evil, wrong, and stupid. He could help an old lady across the street tomorrow, and people like you would bitch about it.
The Republicans did exactly the same thing to Clinton in the nineties. I didn't like it then either.
Attitudes like this are dangerous. They won't do anything to get us out of Iraq. They won't do anything to rollback Homeland Security. They reason they won't do anything is because you so focused on the man that you don't have any time left to oppose the policies. Your own home team supported those policies (the voting records in Congress indicate they did), but you're too busy shitting your pants over Bush to have any time to take your own party to task.
I don't like Bush. I didn't vote for him. But I don't have to center my whole life around hating him.
Re:Troll? Care to explain your modding parent down
on
FreeBSD 4.9 Released
·
· Score: 1
One of the points of the license is to allow for others to use it in their closed source software.
Gee, for a while there, you started to sound like one of those GNU people saying GTK+ was better than Qt because it wasn't under the GPL...
There are thousands of GPL hackers doing free development work for corporations like Redhat. Why this free work under the GPL gets paid more than the free work under the BSD license is a something I just can't see.
So what if Redhat let's me turn around and redistribute their distro? It still doesn't put food on the table. All it means is that I'm not getting paid by SuSE or Mandrake either. Unpaid work is unpaid work is unpaid work. If you wish to do unpaid work for corporations, please be my guest. But don't go pointing fingers at me saying I'm getting paid less for my unpaid work than you are for yours. It's silly.
People *DO* get paid by Redhat for writing GPL code. But that's not because of the license, but because Redhat hired them. In the same manner, people at Apple and The Weather Channel get paid for writing BSD code as well.
Gore was vice president for eight years. I'm judging him by the adminstration he belonged to. Back then the world still hated our guts. We still had a terrorist attack against the world trade center. We still went into Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, etc. The first government "hand slap" against Microsoft happened during those years. It was that administration that proposed the clipper chip. It was people associated with that administration that warned against the dangers of rap music and video games.
I've never used Frontpage, so I don't really understand what the big hoopla is. I can certainly understand people wanting a WYSIWYG html editor. But why doesn't Mozilla fit the bill? What would Nvu provide that a Mozilla with a few more features could not?
Note that I am not arguing that Nvu efforts should be directed towards Mozilla. Rather, I am wondering why you think this is a "HUGE leap forward". Not having ever used Frontpage or Dreamweaver, I seek enlightenment.
Nope, I was definitely thinking of "freedom." The ONLY way to posess complete freedom is to be a dictator.
You're thinking "license", in the older sense of the word. It is still a synonym for "freedom" though, but has a different connotation. It implies a lack of constraint.
Under a genuine anarchist society, the murderers, slavers and rapists would have a constraint, and that constraint is that the public won't tolerate it. They'll shoot back! I'm serious. Even in today's statist society, if someone murdered my mom, I would hunt them down and kill them. The job of the police in this situation is to protect the murderer from me!
Bringing this back to software licenses. The BSD license give no one the permission to murder, enslave or rape. No one. It boggles the mind that people have to compare the freedom of the BSD license to anarchy, because the two exist in completely different domains. Even if it is firm in your mind that an anarchy can only exist in a split second before it degrades into savage warlord feudalism, it doesn't matter, because the BSD license doesn't apply to that situation. Duh!
<rant> Take your damned blinders off and join the real world. Yes, Bush had a lot of big campaign donors. So did Gore. So does every candidate. Maybe Nader didn't take any from for-profit corporations, but he's far from clean in the "no special interests" department.
Yeah, as you can tell, you just hit my hot button. It's been getting hotter over the last year, and it finally blew. You're the lucky one I get to spew on. This isn't directed at Democrats, because the Republicans do the exact same thing when they don't have a president in office.
I'm sick and tired of this football mentality the US has about politics. You act like it's a damned football game, rooting for the home team and booing the visiting team. If you're a Democrat then your attitude is that a Republican president can do nothing right. If you're a Republican, then off course the Democratic incumbent is Evil Incarnate. Both sides seem to forget that there's very little real difference between the two.
Is [Clinton|Bush] really at fault for every evil in the world? You guys certainly act like it.
Would we still have this patent problem if Gore was in office? Of course we would, you nimwits! Would we still have the MPAA and RIAA? Considering the overwhelming support those two organizations have among Democratic office holders, the answer is again an obvious yes. Would we still be in Iraq? Considering Clinton's military activity, if Gore was anything like him we would be knee deep in conflict somewhere. The only difference would be a higher probability of UN support. BFD!
Now if Buchanan, Nader or Brown had won the election (by some miracle), then things would have been different. But they still wouldn't provide the perfect paradise everyone claims Bush is denying to them.
Sidenote: Someone I know made his opinion known in a very emotional way. "Evil #$*&% stupid $&@# Republicans!", he said. Then ten minutes later in the conversation, "I can't understand why my mom voted for Bush." Did he realize he just called his mother "Evil #$*&% stupid $&@#"? I somehow doubt it.
I don't like Bush. I voted for Brown (while holding my nose). Bush isn't my "home team quarterback". But that's no excuse for me to insert some jab at him with every post I make. All it does for you is to proclaim your home team allegiance. Nothing more.
Would you say anarchy promotes more freedom than any form of government?
As a part time anarcho-capitalist, I would. That you would think otherwise leads me to believe that you have misdefined the word. Perhaps you were thinking of "equality", "security", or "convenience" instead. These are all qualities that the GPL possesses in one form or another. It also possesses the quality of "freedom", but owned, copyrighted and licensed software will never be as free (in the FSF sense) that unowned, uncopyrighted and unlicensed (public domain) software is.
Slashdot Mirror
I just might complain to him after all. His theory doesn't mesh with reality, the hallmark of a lousy theory. Running through my inventory of ancient civilization, they're split roughly 50-50% between east-west and north-south river valleys.
I've pondered this question as well. But more than just "why can't they get a usable OS", I wonder "why can't they get a real server OS", and "why can't they get a secure OS."
The problem, as I see it, is internal corporate politics. Decision makers don't see the revenue benefits of usability, security and separate server and client systems. So they end up with interfaces that are only considered usable by fact that they are familiar, software firewalls that even M$ doesn't recommend, and "server" versions that are nothing more than the client versions with different defaults.
With HFS+ and UFS, you simply don't need to defrag. The very nature of the filesystems keeps things from getting too fragmented. It might get you some trivial performance advantages for some specialized activities, but for everyday use it's simply not needed.
The upside is that 95% of this is simply marketing to wow the Windows users raised on FAT. IMHO.
Our histories are ever colored by our ideologies. Here's another way of looking at it, through my own colored lenses...
At precisely the time that cheap 32 bit computers and cheap internet access became available, the world was ready for a free operating system. Whichever got a certain mindshare first would dominate for a long time. But USL tripped 386BSD just as it was leaving the starting gate. Then when it picked itself up, Bill Jolitz tripped it again. BSD didn't get the initial mindshare first.
Heck, according to some sources, Linux might have become a mere terminal for Minix if things had gone slightly different.
Where does GNU fit in? Well, the BSDs were complete operating environments. The BSD codebase was complete before GNU ever started. They didn't need GNU. But Linux needed an environment to run on top of it, so they grabbed stuff from all over, a lot of it being GNU. The GNU philosophy went along with it, as a lot of GNU people started developing on a 100% free system, instead of developing on Sun workstations.
What about commercialism? I would posit that the development nature of Linux caused it, rather than the licensing, or even the popularity (at least in the beginning). For a long time, in order to get a working Linux system, you needed to build it from scratch. This was time consuming and painful. In order to succeed, Linux NEEDED commercial distributions, so they arose.
Of course, it helped that Linux had a mild mannered and charismatic person at the helm. Linus has never pissed anyone off in public (that I know of). He's like a penguin, water just rolls off of him. Compare that to RMS and Theo.
Actually I do it the opposite. If someone pays me, then I'll use the GPL. But stuff that I do on my free time on weekends because it's fun, that I give away with as few strings as a possibly can.
If someone doesn't like it, then can always pay me to give them a GPL licensed copy of my stuff...
Of the Free Unices, GNU/Linux has the most commercial interest, the most users, and the most developers.
Which came first? It makes a difference. From my perspective, it's the popularity of Linux that attracted the commercial interest. There's more developers because they're more users, and more users because there are more developers.
Is this because of the licensing? Some would say so, but you need to take into account that Linux gained its initial popularity with developers at precisely the same time BSD was in an SCO-like battle with USL. In other words, there's some evidence that Linux was in the right place at the right time.
Not another one! I'm still trying to clean up the mess and restore the damage from the last flare?
What mess and damage, you ask? How should I know, I'm still looking for it. The media kept telling me there would be major problems, so it has to be around here somewhere.
Aha! That two year old battery in my smoke alarm is dead! Obviously the fault of solar flares.
Arabs are known to have had very advanced mathematical techniques very early on.
Prior to 850 BC?
It was that as a race blacks have lower average intelligence and a much lower chance of producing a geniuses. The Bell Curve for blacks is shifted to the left.
Is intelligence inherited, aquired, or both? In other words, the old "nature versus nurture" debate. I'm inclined to go with a mix.
Unless intelligence is purely 100% genetic, then you will of course see differences in intelligence between races.
It's not racism, because you can point to significant periods in European history where achievement was nil. I'm talking about achievement, and not influence.
Non-mediterranean Europe prior to the Roman conquest had few achievements. Europe under feudalism had few achievements. But a cultural shift happened that caused an explosion of scientific, technological, and philosophical achievements. The spark for this probably came from the Middle East with some leavenings from Asia.
Race had nothing to do with it, cultural attitudes did. During most of Chinese civilization, Europe was a barbarian backwater. Instead of pointing fingers at corporate global expansionists, which has nothing much to do with achievement, it would be better to discover which cultural attitudes lead to more scientific, economic, philosophical and literary achievements. Why did Europe never get a Confucious? Why did Korea never get a Newton? Those answers would be highly instructive.
Lands that extend east-west had a much better chance of developing that north-south land
You mean like the Nile and Euphrates river valleys?
This situation encourages companies *not* to contribute their code, because if they keep it proprietary, they have an advantage over the original developers.
Though there may be no legal demands to open the code, there are many other pressures to do so. One big one is economic incentive to avoid closed forks. This was probably the biggest factor leading to the opening of Darwin.
But a more subtle incentive, and one that the FSF completely ignores, is simply that it's the right thing to do. When you don't treat your users as potential thieves, but with respect, you tend to find that they will gladly open their derivative bits without you even asking. I've get patches to my own BSD licensed works, without asking for them. They spontaneously come in.
The reason for this is community, not licensing. When you deliberately exclude people from your community, they of course will not participate in it. BSDi was always a part of the BSD community, and has always contributed huge chunks of *original* code to BSD projects. But the FSF never made NeXT feel welcome, so they had to hound and badger them into opening the ObjC frontend. Maybe if the GNU project hadn't been so isolationist, they wouldn't have had to ask in the first place.
When you treat people like theives, you'll find that people are theives. When you treat them with respect, you'll find that most will behave quite respectably.
I'll be voting for any breathing organism that has a chance of beating Bush.
I know people like this. "I'll root for any team that's playing against the Raiders."
Gee, what you're talking about sounds an awful lot like government. Armies, tanks, soldiers... And last I checked, Israel was not an anarchy, but a government.
I'm not arguing that anarchy would be a stable situation. That's why I originally called myself a "part-time" anarcho-capitalist. The rest of the time I'm a minarchist.
But be that as it may, I still don't see how the BSD license applies to the occupied territories in Israel. You're really stretching here, aren't you?
Actually, his mom was a Republican (or at least registered that way). I found this out from him later. But does it really matter? After all, MY mom is a Republican. He called my mom an "evil #$*&% stupid $&@#". I'm glad I held my temper and didn't knock him across the room for that!
Sigh. What I absolutely cannot stand is people like you that must characterize Bush as someone who is 100% evil, wrong, and stupid. He could help an old lady across the street tomorrow, and people like you would bitch about it.
The Republicans did exactly the same thing to Clinton in the nineties. I didn't like it then either.
Attitudes like this are dangerous. They won't do anything to get us out of Iraq. They won't do anything to rollback Homeland Security. They reason they won't do anything is because you so focused on the man that you don't have any time left to oppose the policies. Your own home team supported those policies (the voting records in Congress indicate they did), but you're too busy shitting your pants over Bush to have any time to take your own party to task.
I don't like Bush. I didn't vote for him. But I don't have to center my whole life around hating him.
One of the points of the license is to allow for others to use it in their closed source software.
Gee, for a while there, you started to sound like one of those GNU people saying GTK+ was better than Qt because it wasn't under the GPL...
There are thousands of GPL hackers doing free development work for corporations like Redhat. Why this free work under the GPL gets paid more than the free work under the BSD license is a something I just can't see.
So what if Redhat let's me turn around and redistribute their distro? It still doesn't put food on the table. All it means is that I'm not getting paid by SuSE or Mandrake either. Unpaid work is unpaid work is unpaid work. If you wish to do unpaid work for corporations, please be my guest. But don't go pointing fingers at me saying I'm getting paid less for my unpaid work than you are for yours. It's silly.
People *DO* get paid by Redhat for writing GPL code. But that's not because of the license, but because Redhat hired them. In the same manner, people at Apple and The Weather Channel get paid for writing BSD code as well.
Gore was vice president for eight years. I'm judging him by the adminstration he belonged to. Back then the world still hated our guts. We still had a terrorist attack against the world trade center. We still went into Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, etc. The first government "hand slap" against Microsoft happened during those years. It was that administration that proposed the clipper chip. It was people associated with that administration that warned against the dangers of rap music and video games.
I've never used Frontpage, so I don't really understand what the big hoopla is. I can certainly understand people wanting a WYSIWYG html editor. But why doesn't Mozilla fit the bill? What would Nvu provide that a Mozilla with a few more features could not?
Note that I am not arguing that Nvu efforts should be directed towards Mozilla. Rather, I am wondering why you think this is a "HUGE leap forward". Not having ever used Frontpage or Dreamweaver, I seek enlightenment.
Nope, I was definitely thinking of "freedom." The ONLY way to posess complete freedom is to be a dictator.
You're thinking "license", in the older sense of the word. It is still a synonym for "freedom" though, but has a different connotation. It implies a lack of constraint.
Under a genuine anarchist society, the murderers, slavers and rapists would have a constraint, and that constraint is that the public won't tolerate it. They'll shoot back! I'm serious. Even in today's statist society, if someone murdered my mom, I would hunt them down and kill them. The job of the police in this situation is to protect the murderer from me!
Bringing this back to software licenses. The BSD license give no one the permission to murder, enslave or rape. No one. It boggles the mind that people have to compare the freedom of the BSD license to anarchy, because the two exist in completely different domains. Even if it is firm in your mind that an anarchy can only exist in a split second before it degrades into savage warlord feudalism, it doesn't matter, because the BSD license doesn't apply to that situation. Duh!
Bush campaign donors
<rant>
Take your damned blinders off and join the real world. Yes, Bush had a lot of big campaign donors. So did Gore. So does every candidate. Maybe Nader didn't take any from for-profit corporations, but he's far from clean in the "no special interests" department.
Yeah, as you can tell, you just hit my hot button. It's been getting hotter over the last year, and it finally blew. You're the lucky one I get to spew on. This isn't directed at Democrats, because the Republicans do the exact same thing when they don't have a president in office.
I'm sick and tired of this football mentality the US has about politics. You act like it's a damned football game, rooting for the home team and booing the visiting team. If you're a Democrat then your attitude is that a Republican president can do nothing right. If you're a Republican, then off course the Democratic incumbent is Evil Incarnate. Both sides seem to forget that there's very little real difference between the two.
Is [Clinton|Bush] really at fault for every evil in the world? You guys certainly act like it.
Would we still have this patent problem if Gore was in office? Of course we would, you nimwits! Would we still have the MPAA and RIAA? Considering the overwhelming support those two organizations have among Democratic office holders, the answer is again an obvious yes. Would we still be in Iraq? Considering Clinton's military activity, if Gore was anything like him we would be knee deep in conflict somewhere. The only difference would be a higher probability of UN support. BFD!
Now if Buchanan, Nader or Brown had won the election (by some miracle), then things would have been different. But they still wouldn't provide the perfect paradise everyone claims Bush is denying to them.
Sidenote: Someone I know made his opinion known in a very emotional way. "Evil #$*&% stupid $&@# Republicans!", he said. Then ten minutes later in the conversation, "I can't understand why my mom voted for Bush." Did he realize he just called his mother "Evil #$*&% stupid $&@#"? I somehow doubt it.
I don't like Bush. I voted for Brown (while holding my nose). Bush isn't my "home team quarterback". But that's no excuse for me to insert some jab at him with every post I make. All it does for you is to proclaim your home team allegiance. Nothing more.
Would you say anarchy promotes more freedom than any form of government?
As a part time anarcho-capitalist, I would. That you would think otherwise leads me to believe that you have misdefined the word. Perhaps you were thinking of "equality", "security", or "convenience" instead. These are all qualities that the GPL possesses in one form or another. It also possesses the quality of "freedom", but owned, copyrighted and licensed software will never be as free (in the FSF sense) that unowned, uncopyrighted and unlicensed (public domain) software is.
There's a problem with USB support in FreeBSD? That's news to me. Every USB device I have works flawlessly out of the box.
Here's my impression of the Linux camp. It's not accurate, but it seems to be the dominant noise:
"2.4.97 is here! Yeah! We finally get [bugfix|VM|whatever]! Now the world will take us serisouly. Anyone who sticks with 2.4.96 is a loser!"
Repeat for every minor release...