I recommend to read the blog as it's more informative and it's also rather optimistic. Not just woes as the title would lead you to believe. Of course making the switch to free software takes work, but it's a great opportunity for constant improvement and as Mr. Shiessl points out, there is much digital waste to be cleaned up on exit from the proprietary.
Problem is a gigawatt isn't a measure of storage capacity, it's a rate equal to 1 billion Joules per second. Still, doing some quick calcs I conclude that this is actually a great way to store energy. I'm looking forward to better electricity prices in the future.
While this sounds like a great idea, it's going to be quietly retired after someone manages to match up the boss's "cleaning" activities with those of anyone else in the company.
"Wow, look how perfectly these accelerations overlay!"
To run a sovereign state, it is necessary for all systems to be based on free software and to be run on public infrastructure. That means no privately hosted cloud computing and no proprietary software. How else are we to ever find out how our government is run?
You might be interested in my podcast in the latest ep of which we talk about a fifth freedom...freedom of data access and user mobility(i.e. not to be locked in to a network/Cloud service). I've been meaning to write something more on this.
Second. I have to second that this question be asked. Matt seems to want to stay away from the ethical side of free software and just focus on the new hotness factor of "open source". It's kind of funny because I would hear about his posts since he generally included the exact phrase "free software" but when I would read his posts, there was nothing behind it so it seemed like keyword stuffing.
I'm not all that surprised but I am saddened that Canonical who claims to have a "free operating system for your desktop or laptop" seems to be moving away from user freedom as a core value. They have no problem with binary blobs in the kernel and their own service Ubuntu One is proprietary. I would like to hear how Matt sees Ubuntu returning (or not) to a focus on freedom.
I'm not sure if you read my comment closely. I do see his point as valid and we do need more eyeballs and hands on free software(not open source). I just don't want people to miss the forest for the trees. The trees are so many technical, popularity, and quality arguments that are posed by proprietary software developers to obscure a more pressing issue: user freedom. Note, I'm not talking just software freedom here. We need software to live our lives but we also use many services that seek to lock us in, categorize us, track us and direct us to perpetuate ourselves as good little consumers.
You posted as AC possibly because you feel your point of view is not popular on Slashdot but I really wonder. Aren't you concerned about your future freedom when so few companies control not just your communications, your periodicals, but the very instruments(your computer and devices) you use to take in this digital world?
We should be careful not to let Microsoft deflect the conversation about software away from the ethics of using software you can't change, provide to your neighbor, or improve when you need more features. If the OPs conclusion is that free software may not have this particular leg to stand on in the arena of technical superiority, we must point out that freedom is our primary concern and that we each focus on security to the extent that we must obtain additional security for our software.
This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software (security) is more important than your freedom. Shawn makes some good points about the technical quality of software and it's true there may not be enough eyeballs to find bugs in free software let alone hands to fix them. What Shawn would have us take from this article is that free software may not be technically superior. It's an attempt to frame the argument and shape what's people think is important in software. Unfortunately, if you care about software freedom, Microsoft's FXCop and PreFast-clean mean nothing. Their software disrespects you as a user and keeps pushing the limits in dividing and taking power away from their user base. Don't buy this line. Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.
I do believe this is the first I've seen a comment with slashies modded +5. /I, for one, welcome our new Fark overlords. //doesn't know full history of slashies
Like serial numbers, product keys, and activation before, automatic auditing like WGA is proving not to be as effective as Microsoft would like... this is surveillance plain and simple. Looks like I'm going to need to update my article on problems with non-free software... (Free Software or: How I Learned...).
Hi I'm Steve. I work for Microsoft and I'm going to ask you to keep buying Microsoft products. There's not much new here, we've decided make this software run only on Microsoft products so that should help you decide. If you don't use FAST, this probably won't affect you but we're looking for more ways to get you to use only Microsoft. Thanks!
This is a good comment. I have no mod points but I had to say that.
So the standard computer guy line should be: "If you buy an iPad, there's not much I can help with if it breaks. I can only help you with the simpler software things. If you want me to help you with this sort of a device in the future, I can make a recommendation on a more serviceable one."
1. Don't call it open source. Realize that the freedom aspect is as important for you as for the transparency of your "the people"-serving agency.
2. Always consider free software first when implementing a new feature or system. Use is contribution.
3. Learn to program and encourage others in your organization to do the same. It's not all about talent and can improve performance in nearly any job.
4. If you have written any scripts to help you use free software, release those under the (A)GPL.
5. Write, clarify, test and improve documentation. It's another important task that doesn't get enough attention in free software.
6. Submit bug reports and encourage others in your organization to do the same.
I felt a great disturbance in the Blogosphere, as if millions of rants were posted but were abruptly truncated at 140 characters. I fear something terrible has happened.
I started this post with the idea that I would make a joke similar to what RMS says about piracy requiring guns and ships but when I stopped to think about the words pirate and piracy, it really is odd that they're used when software is executed outside the limits of a license. It's totally reasonable in the face of ridiculous license terms to want to get past all that and just use the software. That's why we've gone from no product keys to product keys to activation and now to automatic auditing like Windows Genuine Advantage. With invasive tools like WGA that can scan your system and send who-knows-what back to the developer even holding your system hostage against bug and security fixes, I'm starting to feel like piracy is closer to what's happening on the developer side of the equation. Just another reason to shift to free(as in freedom) software...
Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have championed the use of the word free to make sure user freedom stays in sight as the primary goal. Free is ambiguous as it can mean free of cost or free as in freedom and there are lesser known meanings(sugar-free) but those two are the main ones. RMS, the FSF and others have chosen the word free to rally around for a reason. Its the best choice in having a debate about user freedom.
Open on the other hand means many things to many people. It might mean that your backside is open to corporate exploration. It might mean that a store is open for business. It might mean that something exists somewhere on the spectrum from opaque to transparent. If you're going to care about something, care about freedom, not openness. Don't support legislation that attempts to define open, ouvert, etc. Support legislation that upholds free, freedom, libre, etc.
There is nothing special about a "Linux LiveCD" that ensures that the programs on it can be trusted. Most distributions still include binary blobs in their corresponding source code that can bring the kinds of problems for which Microsoft Windows is advocated against in the article. Thankfully at this point, you can get machines that run a free bios, support wireless, and run 100% free software. Depending on the value of your target and the determination of your attacker there is a software solution for you.
Tried this and it works. I bet he didn't have anything to do with this though because he doesn't seem to understand more basic things on the Internet than referrer urls.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.floschi.info.nyud.net/2010/03/quality-over-time-in-munich/ may work at some point in the future.
I recommend to read the blog as it's more informative and it's also rather optimistic. Not just woes as the title would lead you to believe. Of course making the switch to free software takes work, but it's a great opportunity for constant improvement and as Mr. Shiessl points out, there is much digital waste to be cleaned up on exit from the proprietary.
Who'd have thunk it would be an unmanned submersible that would first become self-aware?
/Oh, please let it be nuclear powered.
Problem is a gigawatt isn't a measure of storage capacity, it's a rate equal to 1 billion Joules per second. Still, doing some quick calcs I conclude that this is actually a great way to store energy. I'm looking forward to better electricity prices in the future.
This would also employ like 1 milllion people so...yeah. 5 birds.
While this sounds like a great idea, it's going to be quietly retired after someone manages to match up the boss's "cleaning" activities with those of anyone else in the company.
"Wow, look how perfectly these accelerations overlay!"
To run a sovereign state, it is necessary for all systems to be based on free software and to be run on public infrastructure. That means no privately hosted cloud computing and no proprietary software. How else are we to ever find out how our government is run?
You might be interested in my podcast in the latest ep of which we talk about a fifth freedom...freedom of data access and user mobility(i.e. not to be locked in to a network/Cloud service). I've been meaning to write something more on this.
Second. I have to second that this question be asked. Matt seems to want to stay away from the ethical side of free software and just focus on the new hotness factor of "open source". It's kind of funny because I would hear about his posts since he generally included the exact phrase "free software" but when I would read his posts, there was nothing behind it so it seemed like keyword stuffing.
I'm not all that surprised but I am saddened that Canonical who claims to have a "free operating system for your desktop or laptop" seems to be moving away from user freedom as a core value. They have no problem with binary blobs in the kernel and their own service Ubuntu One is proprietary. I would like to hear how Matt sees Ubuntu returning (or not) to a focus on freedom.
I'm not sure if you read my comment closely. I do see his point as valid and we do need more eyeballs and hands on free software(not open source). I just don't want people to miss the forest for the trees. The trees are so many technical, popularity, and quality arguments that are posed by proprietary software developers to obscure a more pressing issue: user freedom. Note, I'm not talking just software freedom here. We need software to live our lives but we also use many services that seek to lock us in, categorize us, track us and direct us to perpetuate ourselves as good little consumers.
You posted as AC possibly because you feel your point of view is not popular on Slashdot but I really wonder. Aren't you concerned about your future freedom when so few companies control not just your communications, your periodicals, but the very instruments(your computer and devices) you use to take in this digital world?
We should be careful not to let Microsoft deflect the conversation about software away from the ethics of using software you can't change, provide to your neighbor, or improve when you need more features. If the OPs conclusion is that free software may not have this particular leg to stand on in the arena of technical superiority, we must point out that freedom is our primary concern and that we each focus on security to the extent that we must obtain additional security for our software.
This is precisely the kind of argument you become susceptible to if you think that an attribute of software (security) is more important than your freedom. Shawn makes some good points about the technical quality of software and it's true there may not be enough eyeballs to find bugs in free software let alone hands to fix them. What Shawn would have us take from this article is that free software may not be technically superior. It's an attempt to frame the argument and shape what's people think is important in software. Unfortunately, if you care about software freedom, Microsoft's FXCop and PreFast-clean mean nothing. Their software disrespects you as a user and keeps pushing the limits in dividing and taking power away from their user base. Don't buy this line. Choose freedom first and interested parties will take care of attributes like security, ease-of-use, and compatibility over time.
I do believe this is the first I've seen a comment with slashies modded +5.
/I, for one, welcome our new Fark overlords.
//doesn't know full history of slashies
WAT? WATTF!
Like serial numbers, product keys, and activation before, automatic auditing like WGA is proving not to be as effective as Microsoft would like... this is surveillance plain and simple. Looks like I'm going to need to update my article on problems with non-free software... (Free Software or: How I Learned...).
Hi I'm Steve. I work for Microsoft and I'm going to ask you to keep buying Microsoft products. There's not much new here, we've decided make this software run only on Microsoft products so that should help you decide. If you don't use FAST, this probably won't affect you but we're looking for more ways to get you to use only Microsoft. Thanks!
This is a good comment. I have no mod points but I had to say that.
So the standard computer guy line should be: "If you buy an iPad, there's not much I can help with if it breaks. I can only help you with the simpler software things. If you want me to help you with this sort of a device in the future, I can make a recommendation on a more serviceable one."
1. Don't call it open source. Realize that the freedom aspect is as important for you as for the transparency of your "the people"-serving agency.
2. Always consider free software first when implementing a new feature or system. Use is contribution.
3. Learn to program and encourage others in your organization to do the same. It's not all about talent and can improve performance in nearly any job.
4. If you have written any scripts to help you use free software, release those under the (A)GPL.
5. Write, clarify, test and improve documentation. It's another important task that doesn't get enough attention in free software.
6. Submit bug reports and encourage others in your organization to do the same.
I felt a great disturbance in the Blogosphere, as if millions of rants were posted but were abruptly truncated at 140 characters. I fear something terrible has happened.
So does this compete with string theory or have a chance modifying it to an eventual theory of everything?
Guess I registered whyhasntmicrosoftdeniedthewindows7backdoor.com for nought.
I started this post with the idea that I would make a joke similar to what RMS says about piracy requiring guns and ships but when I stopped to think about the words pirate and piracy, it really is odd that they're used when software is executed outside the limits of a license. It's totally reasonable in the face of ridiculous license terms to want to get past all that and just use the software. That's why we've gone from no product keys to product keys to activation and now to automatic auditing like Windows Genuine Advantage. With invasive tools like WGA that can scan your system and send who-knows-what back to the developer even holding your system hostage against bug and security fixes, I'm starting to feel like piracy is closer to what's happening on the developer side of the equation. Just another reason to shift to free(as in freedom) software...
No, that's power.
Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have championed the use of the word free to make sure user freedom stays in sight as the primary goal. Free is ambiguous as it can mean free of cost or free as in freedom and there are lesser known meanings(sugar-free) but those two are the main ones. RMS, the FSF and others have chosen the word free to rally around for a reason. Its the best choice in having a debate about user freedom. Open on the other hand means many things to many people. It might mean that your backside is open to corporate exploration. It might mean that a store is open for business. It might mean that something exists somewhere on the spectrum from opaque to transparent. If you're going to care about something, care about freedom, not openness. Don't support legislation that attempts to define open, ouvert, etc. Support legislation that upholds free, freedom, libre, etc.
There is nothing special about a "Linux LiveCD" that ensures that the programs on it can be trusted. Most distributions still include binary blobs in their corresponding source code that can bring the kinds of problems for which Microsoft Windows is advocated against in the article. Thankfully at this point, you can get machines that run a free bios, support wireless, and run 100% free software. Depending on the value of your target and the determination of your attacker there is a software solution for you.
Tried this and it works. I bet he didn't have anything to do with this though because he doesn't seem to understand more basic things on the Internet than referrer urls.