If I choose to buy a program that solves a problem no one else has solved, that is evil? Just because the author wants to get a few bucks for his/her effort, that is evil? If so, then I've been lied to my whole life.
Clearly, you don't get it even on the most basic level.
Free in Free Software refers to liberty, not cost.
very little of the old "I told you so"... very mature and honest.
"Very little"? Did you even read it? The whole thing was an "I told you so." He was the most vocal critic of BitKeeper since the beginning and that's about the same time he started most heavily adopting the "proprietary software is bad even when convenient" angle. Now that BitKeeper is gone, he's gone ranting about how right he was even though it was just one clause in the BitKeeper license that caused the whole snafu, not the fact that the software as a whole was proprietary.
Amongst all his gloating, he's very careful to criticise McVoy and place the blame for using BitKeeper squarely on those nebulous "Linux kernel developers," conveniently forgetting to mention it was ultimately Linus's decision to adopt BitKeeper. Not very honest.
"McVoy first blustered and threatened, but ultimately chose to go home and take his ball with him"
Here Stallman resorts to characterizing McVoy as a tantrum-throwing child. Not very mature. McVoy offered the use of BitKeeper for free on open source products and all the open source / free software community has done is bitch and moan since with RMS at the forefront.
Don't get me wrong, I use free software wherever I can for both practical and philosophical reasons. But on the other hand I'm not going to scream armageddon and bloody murder if I have to install a piece of gratis proprietary software here and there in order to get real work done. But its RMS's brand of extremism that hurts free software more than it helps it.
Now I'll grant that the BitKeeper anti-reverse-engineering clause was just plain stupid and I don't particularly agree with Linus choosing to use BitKeeper for official kernel development. But still, you're not going to get proprietary vendors to change their mind about open source if you kick them in the stomach after they've taken a step in the right direction.
He did tell people so.
McVoy is a tantrum-throwing child.
Are you at all familiar with what has gone on?
And lastly, I suspect there is more "extremism" in people that *cry out "extremism"* constantly in debates than in RMS.
Already did this with DNG. It's derived from TIFF and works fine.
Why is everyone duplicating effort? Just to be "more open"? Jesus jesus jesus..
No, not to be "more open". To be more open. The quotation marks you used imply that being more open would not really make it more open.
Having said that, your post suggests that you either do not understand the issue (of openness) or consider it irrelevant. Either way, it seems odd that you should openly decry it.
even a graduate degree just is not sufficient experience to be architecting major projects, unless you're incredibly gifted.
I presume that dialoguing with the young chap is required for determining the presence or absence of said giftedness?
Sorry for the self-reply...
I find it fascinating that my above post was modded 'Troll'. Offtopic, certainly... but Troll?
The modding implies something (and seemingly contradictory):
- the moderator understood my intent to ridicule
- the moderator feels 'architecting' is valid, whereas 'dialouging' is not
In retrospect, I suppose I should have architected my previous post better.
and no gentoo users commenting on how they've already recompiled their entire system with the new optimizations. Or maybe they're just waiting for some free resources to open a browser.
No need to wait for system resources. Just do anything cpu intensive like compiling or video encoding with the assistance of your friendly neighborhood "nice" command.
Setting the niceness high means the program in question will allow other programs (like the web browser) to "cut in line" in cpu usage.
Set the niceness high enough, and your program will chug along slowly and use resources as available (very little if you have lot of stuff going; pretty much full if you close stuff down) thereby not bringing your system to a crawl...
It should however be noted that programs used this way will finish last with girls.
Moderated interesting? Well, true, in some sense, I suppose. But also terribly uninsightful. I won't even address most of the off-the-wall hypothesizing.
No one but the three people involved in this fiasco *really* knows what happened to get this situation to the stage where people begin a verbal free-fire in public.
Saying so doesn't make it true.
The simplest and most blatantly obvious explanation is that McVoy freaked over and acted like a jerk, then decided to start spreading FUD with a little help from his unexpectedly misguided friend Linus.
Until more information comes out from McVoy, there really is no reason to give him any more credibility than he already squandered.
It is time to move on.
Agreed. But there is no need to make up stories about what must have really happened, when it is pretty clear what did happen.
Ok, I don't read The Register much, but the titles of the "related articles" caught my eye. Pretty tough to figure out which side they are on:
'Cool it, Linus' - Bruce Perens
Torvalds knifes Tridgell
The Larry and Linus Show: personalities vs principles?
Linus Torvalds in bizarre attack on open source
Linus Torvalds defers closed source crunch
There is such a thing as truth. Maybe they are just sacrificing US style balanced coverage in favour of it.
If RMS reads that line he'll have a freaking heart attack!
Not that I pay attention to the guy, but under his definition of Linux (just the kernel) that statement("Linux founder and leader Linus Torvalds..") would be quite correct.
Now if you said "GNU/Linux founder and leader, Linus..." he'd get pissed. In fact, I think that would be funny
I find it astonishing when a person revels in their own ignorance.
Do you understand why RMS professes the things he does? If you don't, why debase him? If you do, why debase him?
The fact that RMS has the courage to speak for his convictions despite the masses ridiculing him for it endlessly is worthy of admiration. Do you have that strong conviction in anything?
Furthermore... have you any cogent argument for why RMS's arguments for GNU/Linux are wrong? (Note: I wrote *wrong*; not unpleasant, uncomfortable, inconvenient, not fun, et cetera.)
I should mention, that I am yet to one say "GNU/Linux" and have probably typed it for the first time here... but that does not change matters of course. (Just want to preempt moronic "zealot" ad hominem attacks.)
Larry is an immoral insane person and linus had no right to yell at tridge for larry's actions.
Yessireebob!
It astonishes me how practically everyone replying to your post clearly hasn't a clue what they are talking about. Not even worth trying to explain to them though... if someone couldn't read and/or comprehend the point in the previous armada of posts in 4-5 past slashdot stories, they're not about to start now.
You do realize I was being silly, right? The US is actually obligated under some treaties to respond to piracy attempts if near. Presumably, there are indeed some Navy ships near LA.
Even without treaties, the US wouldn't just ignore the ship. It you start letting pirates attack ships off LA, they'll start attacking actual cruise ships and whatnot.
This doesn't mean, of course, that they will arrive quickly...
There might be a 'regrettable' amount of damages inflicted 'before the US could get there', and it might turn into a rescue operation because the ship isn't seaworthy anymore.
*grin*
No, I did not at all realise you were being silly. Glad to hear it now though. =)
And I understand what you mean... though, admittedly, even the "let's wait till they are ransacked" is rather on the dubious side. (in morality, not in you claiming it might happen)
Hey, it's not the US's concern, is it? You want US protection, you either fly a US flag or you stay in US waters. Um, duh.
If whatever tiny Caribbean they're flying under wants to save their ass, they can go right ahead. Of course, who knows how good their Navy is, and how long does it take to get from the Caribbean to LA anyway?
You're quite right.
I think the US should also formally revoke all police and military protection from convicts, democrats, and people charged with crimes.
It is definitely more work to setup (though, if you are computer literate you doubtless will be able to do it, so long as you pay close attention to the Handbook) but more rewarding in the end.
For me, other than that I found Gentoo to be the distribution that really started teaching me about linux, Gentoo was my eventual "only choice" because of the range of programs I use.
I found no other distribution had *all* the programs I use in their native software repositories. And installing from third-party repositories eventually caused me problems on other systems. (SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu and Xandros were my other linux attempts.)
So, let me heartily suggest, if you do make a decision to try out linux; do some research about programs first to make sure you can get the software you need with the distro you choose.
If you do go with Gentoo, I (and the myriad other forum users at http://forums.gentoo.org/ will be happy to help you). If you'd like some pre-installation tips or help with figuring out linux equivelant programs send me a private message at http://forums.gentoo.org/ (username: danuvius) and I'll be happy to help you out.
Re:Opera and Firefox [selective figures]
on
Opera 8 Released
·
· Score: 1
The guy capitalizes "free" and "free software". You're arguing with a zealot.
Because everyone knows "free software" and "Free Software" mean the same thing, right? Is ignorance really a bliss, maxpublic?
What I reacted on in your post had nothing to do with the oh-so traditional Firefox vs. Opera flamewar.
It was the statement that could easily be read as that the open-source model had achieved much more than the proprietary in just a forth of the time. That was what I found unreasonable and triggered my reaction.
As much as I like the idea of open source software, I think lots of its fanbase behave rather singlemindedly and I guess that annoys me. Personally I don't think there is such a thing as a "perfect" development model which applies to everything.
I know nothing about the oh-so traditional Firefox vs. Opera battle... other than the plethora of overreactions I got on my post.
The Free Software model did in fact allow more to be achieved in a short period of time (short in terms of firefox development only). Firefox may be standing on the shoulders on Netscape; but then Opera could have done the same had they been producing Free Software. Or Opera could have purchased an existing browser engine and modify/change/adapt/evolve it to their needs and vision.
I never suggested innate technological superiority or programming brilliance behind Firefox. I suggested that it is because it is Free Software that it was able to capitalise so well on the opportunity that Opera failed to take advantage of.
Lastly, in response to your prior suggestion that Firefox users are mostly converts from Netscape: I was an Internet Explorer user who switched to Firefox. Not everyone hung on to the garbage Netscape browsers that were produced post-Netscape 3.4. Not all of Firefox's userbase is people who upgraded from Netscape. (Especcially as Netscape did not have the market-share that Firefox has for quite a while.)
Slashdot Mirror
Free in Free Software refers to liberty, not cost.
McVoy is a tantrum-throwing child.
Are you at all familiar with what has gone on?
And lastly, I suspect there is more "extremism" in people that *cry out "extremism"* constantly in debates than in RMS.
Errr... would the website answer the question of "What is OpenRAW going to do?"
No, I'm asking seriously. I didn't RTFA.
All I was suggested in my earlier post is that if their aim is to create a more open format, than that is a valid aim.
You suggest that there exists a standard that is already open. If that is the case than I would assume it is either:
- less open than it could be (yeah, yeah; groan, moan, et cetera)
or
- technically less than it could be
If you RTFA, I'd be curious to hear whether I am way off base or not.
No, not to be "more open". To be more open. The quotation marks you used imply that being more open would not really make it more open.
Having said that, your post suggests that you either do not understand the issue (of openness) or consider it irrelevant. Either way, it seems odd that you should openly decry it.
Though... I can't help... but wonder... wasn't the competition-at-large about building the smallest of something?
Thanks. I'll take a look. ;)
I find it fascinating that my above post was modded 'Troll'. Offtopic, certainly... but Troll?
The modding implies something (and seemingly contradictory):
- the moderator understood my intent to ridicule
- the moderator feels 'architecting' is valid, whereas 'dialouging' is not
In retrospect, I suppose I should have architected my previous post better.
I presume that dialoguing with the young chap is required for determining the presence or absence of said giftedness?
ELITIST JERK!!
You have to lean forward against its neck while you ride.
Hug the ostrich as you go. Show it you care.
That way you *can't* fall off!!
No need to wait for system resources. Just do anything cpu intensive like compiling or video encoding with the assistance of your friendly neighborhood "nice" command.
Setting the niceness high means the program in question will allow other programs (like the web browser) to "cut in line" in cpu usage.
Set the niceness high enough, and your program will chug along slowly and use resources as available (very little if you have lot of stuff going; pretty much full if you close stuff down) thereby not bringing your system to a crawl...
It should however be noted that programs used this way will finish last with girls.
I highly recommend taking some english classes--enough said.
The simplest and most blatantly obvious explanation is that McVoy freaked over and acted like a jerk, then decided to start spreading FUD with a little help from his unexpectedly misguided friend Linus.
Until more information comes out from McVoy, there really is no reason to give him any more credibility than he already squandered. Agreed. But there is no need to make up stories about what must have really happened, when it is pretty clear what did happen.
Not everything is subjective.
Do you understand why RMS professes the things he does? If you don't, why debase him? If you do, why debase him?
The fact that RMS has the courage to speak for his convictions despite the masses ridiculing him for it endlessly is worthy of admiration. Do you have that strong conviction in anything?
Furthermore... have you any cogent argument for why RMS's arguments for GNU/Linux are wrong? (Note: I wrote *wrong*; not unpleasant, uncomfortable, inconvenient, not fun, et cetera.)
I should mention, that I am yet to one say "GNU/Linux" and have probably typed it for the first time here... but that does not change matters of course. (Just want to preempt moronic "zealot" ad hominem attacks.)
It astonishes me how practically everyone replying to your post clearly hasn't a clue what they are talking about. Not even worth trying to explain to them though... if someone couldn't read and/or comprehend the point in the previous armada of posts in 4-5 past slashdot stories, they're not about to start now.
No, I did not at all realise you were being silly. Glad to hear it now though. =)
And I understand what you mean... though, admittedly, even the "let's wait till they are ransacked" is rather on the dubious side. (in morality, not in you claiming it might happen)
I think the US should also formally revoke all police and military protection from convicts, democrats, and people charged with crimes.
PROFIT!!!!
That's pretty fucked up.
You mentioned Gentoo.
It is definitely more work to setup (though, if you are computer literate you doubtless will be able to do it, so long as you pay close attention to the Handbook) but more rewarding in the end.
For me, other than that I found Gentoo to be the distribution that really started teaching me about linux, Gentoo was my eventual "only choice" because of the range of programs I use.
I found no other distribution had *all* the programs I use in their native software repositories. And installing from third-party repositories eventually caused me problems on other systems. (SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu and Xandros were my other linux attempts.)
So, let me heartily suggest, if you do make a decision to try out linux; do some research about programs first to make sure you can get the software you need with the distro you choose.
If you do go with Gentoo, I (and the myriad other forum users at http://forums.gentoo.org/ will be happy to help you). If you'd like some pre-installation tips or help with figuring out linux equivelant programs send me a private message at http://forums.gentoo.org/ (username: danuvius) and I'll be happy to help you out.
The Free Software model did in fact allow more to be achieved in a short period of time (short in terms of firefox development only). Firefox may be standing on the shoulders on Netscape; but then Opera could have done the same had they been producing Free Software. Or Opera could have purchased an existing browser engine and modify/change/adapt/evolve it to their needs and vision.
I never suggested innate technological superiority or programming brilliance behind Firefox. I suggested that it is because it is Free Software that it was able to capitalise so well on the opportunity that Opera failed to take advantage of.
Lastly, in response to your prior suggestion that Firefox users are mostly converts from Netscape: I was an Internet Explorer user who switched to Firefox. Not everyone hung on to the garbage Netscape browsers that were produced post-Netscape 3.4. Not all of Firefox's userbase is people who upgraded from Netscape. (Especcially as Netscape did not have the market-share that Firefox has for quite a while.)