Do you know who is our enemy and who is our friend? You may not like SUN for all its policies, but they are and always shall be part of the good guys (as one of the very few remaining). I can't believe reading such statements from someone who cares for open source and UNIX/Linux.
It is the only company that has not given in to the enemy in any way. Without SUN UNIX would have died a long time ago (in the real corporate world that is) and thus Linux and FreeBSD would have been much less relevant as well.
SUN wants to keep control to prevent abuse and beaurocracy. Whether you think this works and is necessary or not does not matter. Fact is, SUN has NEVER misused its control over API's, but instead has given away many products and standards without ever playing tricks or misusing its position (think about virtually any UNIX network protocol and influence in most UNIX API's).
MSFT is an entirely other story, they have misused almost each time they controlled some API's, even when it was a so called standard (HTML comes to ming). Why would it be different this time?
Please, don't forget who your enemy is and who your friend is, take just a bit of historical perspective!
What a pity I don't have moderation points now. Indeed cross platform with any MSFT API is an illusion (without government intervention), please LEARN FROM THE PAST.
As a mere programming language,.NET/C# has no real advantage to Java (on the contrary). The only weakness of Java is its GUI (Swing/AWT), which gave it an overall bad name. However Java is hughely successful as back-end language at the moment (many large companies, amongst which the one where I work, develop all their software exclusively in Java) and rightly so.
If you want to improve, better put a better GUI toolkit in Java instead of starting from scratch with an attempt to copy. Eclipse has proven it can be done.
The few things that might not be developed without and that are really necessary and useful (medicine comes to mind) is always mentioned by proponents to explain why we "must have" patents.
As if no progress was made until the 19th century (before which patents did not exist). This view is a scandalous ignorance of the history of our culture and science.
Should commerce on its own no longer develop new medicines: 90% of new medicines we can do without (they only make the healthcare system unsustainable, i.e. too expensive). The remaining 10% must be state funded: all that is really indispensible must not be left to commerce, since that is truely dangerous.
At the moment many states spend more and more on subsidies for healthcare (direct or indirect), much of which flows in the pockets of farma industry. It would be better to spend that public money on directly funding universities and researchers to develop those products that are truely needed.
Outside the US: logical, since it is anti-capitalist to counter such "innovation" (to use the words of verisign), and the US is the only true capitalist country.
Apparently broad groups of criminals think they have a capitalistic right to grab money (at the cost of others), i.e. steal. This is a perversion of the capitalistic system.
Yes this is a horrible perversion and deviation of UNIX.
Also, the so called disadvantages of init are void. It looks like he does not understand what init is.
Init is very simple: the kernel calls a program called "init" as soon as the kernel-part of booting is ready.
The "normal" init (there is a SYSV and a BSD variant, the SYSV variant being somewhat more complex) only reads a config file/etc/inittab to see what further program it should call. For each runlevel there is such a program.
Usually these are the init.d/rc shell scripts that sequentially carry out a number of initializations. Often there is a kind of master script such as rc2 (for runlevel 2) that calls further scripts in some order (those are usually in/etc/rc2.d/S*). But all this is just "usual" and could be completely modified without throwing away the standard init system.
If you want, you can configure inittab to call some multithreaded language to carry out some initializations or start background daemons (yes, a UNIX "service" is a daemon, heretic!) in parallel, speeding up the init process.
You can also simply use shell scripts instead of threads, but use shell background jobs (&) to do some things in parallel and then wait for each of them afterwards (the shell wait command), so you don't even need some multithreading for speeding up your boot process (the difference between multiple processes versus threads in this context is measured in milliseconds, not really a worthwhile advantage when it comes to boot time).
In short: it is an insane and heretic idea, that can only be bred by evil plans or by ignorance.
With OSS you get a customizable product with less (formal) vendor support. As a customer, this is cheap to buy AND gives you extra flexibility, but OTOH you need to buy service instead.
So you shift the cost of purchase to the cost of service, with the advantage of independance from a single vendor and possibility to customize the software more to your liking.
A standard (COTS) product can be produced off short. The service for OSS however must be (partially) provided by someone who is on-site, i.e. is harder to move off short. The whole idea of OSS as a business model is to sell a service, not a product.
You can use JSP just like a template engine as well, if you want. Sun calls this JSP "model 2", i.e. use servlets for control, and only use JSP for the "view" just like any other template engine.
It has one advantage (I tried freemarker etc too), which purists might find a disadvantage: sometimes you can "sin" and use a tiny little bit of Java code on your JSP. Also most template engines have some built in logic for if/else or some even have some simple loop structures. Why learn yet another language (even if simple) when you can also use Java. Just restrict yourself and confine your JSP-java to the simplest possible use. It works well and is a practicle solution, while still giving a clean MVC structrure (which template engines try to force on you).
Interesting idea. OTOH, it was the enemy (concentrated in the WIPO) who introduced this term. So if they do not differentiate and have the nuances, why should we, the victims of copyrights, patents and trademarks (i.e. almost all normal people).
Lets generalize too and abolish them all. I think we can turn the "intelectual property" generalization to our advantage: If you convince people that in effect such laws try to make someone elses property that what is in their own brains (the intellect) it might create a backlash and a force which is needed to abolish all laws w.r.t. copyrights, patents and trademarks.
Extremism (of the IP proponents) causes an extreme counter reaction. One day the proponents shall regret that they went too far and could not limit their greed.
IP was necessary to build industry and science, but imagine where science and industry would go with no restrictions on what ideas can be extended and copied?
IP was not necessary at too al build science. Science has developed without IP. Until very recently IP was an unknown phenomenen in science; science could develop only through free exchange of information and ideas.
As for industry: it is hard to tell. IP laws have existed during most of the industrial era, though not much in the first third of it (19th century). The question is if industry and engineering would not have developed faster and better without IP. I do believe so, and noone has ever proven that IP is beneficial, other than the vague feeling that some companies might have invested less in R&D without it.
While that may be true, others might have invested more. Because IP protection enabled them to comfortably lean back and cash in on their "invention", and it killed competition by granting a monopoly to the "inventor" (which may just have been lucky in many cases).
I see more proof to the contrary: The Japanese economic wonder after WW2 developed without IP at all. It has stagnated in a time that IP laws were introduced, though stagnation has other causes as well. No matter what, it is my firm belief that IP only protects vested interests of large companies that can afford to buy ever more restrictive IP laws. They have only drawbacks for society, economy and our culture (even though some individuals might profit mightily from them).
No, you cannot make good IP from bad IP. The whole concept is twisted and harmful to civilization.
Science and civilization never would have developed if IP would have existed before the 20th century. In contrast it flourished without it.
I cannot find one good and beneficial example of IP today (don't start again about the cliche example w.r.t. pharmaindustry, they are a bunch of criminals as well and could/should be organized radically different).
I think/hope that the current idiocy and overdoing IP shall lead to a backlash, that it shall open the publics eyes and eventually lead to the total abolishment from everything that is related to it.
Actually I think the BIND solution, to mark certain zones as "delegation only" is very elegant, and should have been implemented sooner or later anyways. Even without the current abuse it makes sense, and it hardly adds any complexity to the code.
I was looking forward to it, but: - no 320x320 resultion (need it to use as an ebook reader) - quite heavy - no bluetooth?
Apparently there is still no ideal smartphone. Currently I have a SE P800, but it is too heavy, and its PDA function is not well thought out. Therefore I was looking forward to the Treo 600, but it has some fatal deficiencies as well.
So I have to conclude that, for the time being, it is still best to have a small and simple cellular phone with bluetooth and GPRS (for data) and use it optionally in combination with a bluetooth enabled PDA. Thanks to bluetooth, you can fetch your PDA and instantly use it without getting your phone, just leave it somewhere near you or in your pocket.
No no, the main argument for FreeBSD is its ease of system administration. Just cvsup once in a while, do a make world and mergemaster to merge new/etc & other config files and you're done. This way you can stay current for many years without ever reinstalling, even move your installation from machine to machine.
For me it is lazyness that keeps me stick with FreeBSD.
Correct, but Opera is produced in Norway, where software patents such as these do not exist.
Thus it won't have an effect on Opera.
If it does, it proves to me the the US is acting as a dictator in the world: Others' laws are irrelevant in the US, but its laws are forced down the throats of the rest of the world.
Until now I have been avoiding it, but after this indeed I will never buy another CD again that is linked to these criminals. It is a scandal, settling for $2000 and, even worse, using this girl now in their propaganda war by forcing her to admit her wrongdoings and regret for the "poor artists" she hurt. It makes me sick.
Re:Faster startup times? Whatever...
on
MRAM in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
The question is how expensive MRAM shall be. It must be much cheaper than DRAM, i.e. 100GB MRAM must be affordable if you really want to replace harddisks (which would be a good thing indeed).
I agree that I was not very sublte, and that some types of information must be protected for higher reasons, such as privacy.
Though such exceptions do not change my main claims. Property laws are very old and widely accepted. However it is only since somewhat more than 100 years that property was extended to more than physical goods, i.e. to concepts and ideas.
The latter, I think, is a historical error and abberation that must be corrected ASAP.
Now some say that before 1900 the society was simpler and did not rely so mucb on innovation, so it could function without IP protection before but not anymore.
Well, I am not so sure, in fact I am pretty sure that todays society would function better without it. Of course numerous "business models" would no longer exist and some companies would disappear. But other things would be in its place. Do not underestimate what western civilisation accomplished between 1400 and 1900, almost completely without the concept of IP protection.
Then around 1900 some monopolies came to be, and it is my view that only then IP (copyright) was pushed through to protect vested interests of a minory, against the public interests.
In recent developments this concept has escalated so much that finally it becomes apparent to a larger public how harmful it is.
After a history of our civilisation since the end of the middle ages, around 1300, we had 600 years without IP, only quit recently it was introduced.
With this, IP is not such a natural and logical law as are things like general (physical) property laws, or laws generally accepted in all cultures to be just against murder and theft. It is a relatively recent "experiment" that, in my eyes, has failed. Only those that try to protect their monopolies try to make us believe that they are just and natural laws without which our civilisation could not exist.
You have a very limited view of world history. You talk about book authors and authors of music, having no incentive when they are not paid.
How do you think people like Voltaire, da Vinci, Proust, name almost any of the great literature writers, or painters or composers, "paid their bills"?!? Or Tolkien, to name a more recent example. He wrote his books over a period of 20 years. He didn't see a cent during that time, yet he was able to complete the books. Do you think he spent all those years with $$$-signs in his eyes? No, a real artist has idealism and an internal drive. With real fame he might reap some money afterwards, with or without book sales; many would even voluntarily pay for a book without necessity for copyrights etc.
Those are only needed for crap serial writers that you find so much nowadays. I think society can do without those. Same goes for music. I have sincere doubts that commerce and monetary reward has raised the level of quality, on the contrary it has perverted it.
In your reasoning, the concept of open source software would be impossible as well. You know, many people create something because, gaps, they like what they do and want to create something beautiful. Yes, hard to understand in these degenerated times, I know:(:(:(
I do consider music "information", since once it is a string of bits that's what it is. If you limit its use, it has wide implications for all kinds of other information sharing as well, since how do you want to (legally) differentiate between bits representing knowledge and bits representing audio, video or books? Also music is improved by copying and variations. Classical music is full of it, they built upon each other, "borrowed" themes from each other and made variations. That is how greatness grew. Without free "flow of information" it would not have been possible.
I think these times are very poor, innovation and freedom have already been limited greatly, and the future looks bleak. Once can only hope for a radical revolution w.r.t. the evil concept of intellectual property. In that sense, I must say, I admit the chinese culture (though they do have other problems at the moment w.r.t. human rights). They also have a rich history and still understand how important reuse of intellect and information is, and will not and cannot grasp this unnatural and harmful concept of constraining it by means of weird concepts like copyright and patents.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know who is our enemy and who is our friend? You may not like SUN for all its policies, but they are and always shall be part of the good guys (as one of the very few remaining). I can't believe reading such statements from someone who cares for open source and UNIX/Linux.
It is the only company that has not given in to the enemy in any way. Without SUN UNIX would have died a long time ago (in the real corporate world that is) and thus Linux and FreeBSD would have been much less relevant as well.
SUN wants to keep control to prevent abuse and beaurocracy. Whether you think this works and is necessary or not does not matter. Fact is, SUN has NEVER misused its control over API's, but instead has given away many products and standards without ever playing tricks or misusing its position (think about virtually any UNIX network protocol and influence in most UNIX API's).
MSFT is an entirely other story, they have misused almost each time they controlled some API's, even when it was a so called standard (HTML comes to ming). Why would it be different this time?
Please, don't forget who your enemy is and who your friend is, take just a bit of historical perspective!
What a pity I don't have moderation points now. Indeed cross platform with any MSFT API is an illusion (without government intervention), please LEARN FROM THE PAST.
.NET/C# has no real advantage to Java (on the contrary). The only weakness of Java is its GUI (Swing/AWT), which gave it an overall bad name. However Java is hughely successful as back-end language at the moment (many large companies, amongst which the one where I work, develop all their software exclusively in Java) and rightly so.
As a mere programming language,
If you want to improve, better put a better GUI toolkit in Java instead of starting from scratch with an attempt to copy. Eclipse has proven it can be done.
Fully agree, all patents must be abolished.
The few things that might not be developed without and that are really necessary and useful (medicine comes to mind) is always mentioned by proponents to explain why we "must have" patents.
As if no progress was made until the 19th century (before which patents did not exist). This view is a scandalous ignorance of the history of our culture and science.
Should commerce on its own no longer develop new medicines: 90% of new medicines we can do without (they only make the healthcare system unsustainable, i.e. too expensive). The remaining 10% must be state funded: all that is really indispensible must not be left to commerce, since that is truely dangerous.
At the moment many states spend more and more on subsidies for healthcare (direct or indirect), much of which flows in the pockets of farma industry. It would be better to spend that public money on directly funding universities and researchers to develop those products that are truely needed.
Outside the US: logical, since it is anti-capitalist to counter such "innovation" (to use the words of verisign), and the US is the only true capitalist country.
Nowadays is called an anti-capitalism.
Apparently broad groups of criminals think they have a capitalistic right to grab money (at the cost of others), i.e. steal. This is a perversion of the capitalistic system.
Yes this is a horrible perversion and deviation of UNIX.
/etc/inittab to see what further program it should call. For each runlevel there is such a program.
/etc/rc2.d/S*). But all this is just "usual" and could be completely modified without throwing away the standard init system.
Also, the so called disadvantages of init are void. It looks like he does not understand what init is.
Init is very simple: the kernel calls a program called "init" as soon as the kernel-part of booting is ready.
The "normal" init (there is a SYSV and a BSD variant, the SYSV variant being somewhat more complex) only reads a config file
Usually these are the init.d/rc shell scripts that sequentially carry out a number of initializations. Often there is a kind of master script such as rc2 (for runlevel 2) that calls further scripts in some order (those are usually in
If you want, you can configure inittab to call some multithreaded language to carry out some initializations or start background daemons (yes, a UNIX "service" is a daemon, heretic!) in parallel, speeding up the init process.
You can also simply use shell scripts instead of threads, but use shell background jobs (&) to do some things in parallel and then wait for each of them afterwards (the shell wait command), so you don't even need some multithreading for speeding up your boot process (the difference between multiple processes versus threads in this context is measured in milliseconds, not really a worthwhile advantage when it comes to boot time).
In short: it is an insane and heretic idea, that can only be bred by evil plans or by ignorance.
With OSS you get a customizable product with less (formal) vendor support.
As a customer, this is cheap to buy AND gives you extra flexibility, but OTOH you need to buy service instead.
So you shift the cost of purchase to the cost of service, with the advantage of independance from a single vendor and possibility to customize the software more to your liking.
A standard (COTS) product can be produced off short. The service for OSS however must be (partially) provided by someone who is on-site, i.e. is harder to move off short.
The whole idea of OSS as a business model is to sell a service, not a product.
JSP is a servlet, it gets generated and compiled into a servlet. SO to say that JSP is better than servlets is a bit stupid, to say the least.
SUN recommends to use JSP directly only for simple and small apps, and to use servlets for control and JSP just for rendering for more complex things.
See sun's recommendation for more info and for JSP model 1 versus model 2.
You can use JSP just like a template engine as well, if you want. Sun calls this JSP "model 2", i.e. use servlets for control, and only use JSP for the "view" just like any other template engine.
It has one advantage (I tried freemarker etc too), which purists might find a disadvantage: sometimes you can "sin" and use a tiny little bit of Java code on your JSP. Also most template engines have some built in logic for if/else or some even have some simple loop structures. Why learn yet another language (even if simple) when you can also use Java. Just restrict yourself and confine your JSP-java to the simplest possible use. It works well and is a practicle solution, while still giving a clean MVC structrure (which template engines try to force on you).
Interesting idea. OTOH, it was the enemy (concentrated in the WIPO) who introduced this term. So if they do not differentiate and have the nuances, why should we, the victims of copyrights, patents and trademarks (i.e. almost all normal people).
Lets generalize too and abolish them all. I think we can turn the "intelectual property" generalization to our advantage: If you convince people that in effect such laws try to make someone elses property that what is in their own brains (the intellect) it might create a backlash and a force which is needed to abolish all laws w.r.t. copyrights, patents and trademarks.
Extremism (of the IP proponents) causes an extreme counter reaction. One day the proponents shall regret that they went too far and could not limit their greed.
IP was not necessary at too al build science. Science has developed without IP. Until very recently IP was an unknown phenomenen in science; science could develop only through free exchange of information and ideas.
As for industry: it is hard to tell. IP laws have existed during most of the industrial era, though not much in the first third of it (19th century). The question is if industry and engineering would not have developed faster and better without IP. I do believe so, and noone has ever proven that IP is beneficial, other than the vague feeling that some companies might have invested less in R&D without it.
While that may be true, others might have invested more. Because IP protection enabled them to comfortably lean back and cash in on their "invention", and it killed competition by granting a monopoly to the "inventor" (which may just have been lucky in many cases).
I see more proof to the contrary: The Japanese economic wonder after WW2 developed without IP at all. It has stagnated in a time that IP laws were introduced, though stagnation has other causes as well. No matter what, it is my firm belief that IP only protects vested interests of large companies that can afford to buy ever more restrictive IP laws. They have only drawbacks for society, economy and our culture (even though some individuals might profit mightily from them).
Therefore it must be abolished.
No, you cannot make good IP from bad IP. The whole concept is twisted and harmful to civilization.
Science and civilization never would have developed if IP would have existed before the 20th century. In contrast it flourished without it.
I cannot find one good and beneficial example of IP today (don't start again about the cliche example w.r.t. pharmaindustry, they are a bunch of criminals as well and could/should be organized radically different).
I think/hope that the current idiocy and overdoing IP shall lead to a backlash, that it shall open the publics eyes and eventually lead to the total abolishment from everything that is related to it.
I just installed it, together with the lines:
/etc/named.conf.
zone "com" { type delegation-only; };
zone "net" { type delegation-only; };
in
Works very well, the solution was really elegant.
I think it shall be installed very quickly by all ISP's, just in case and even if verisign stops and undoes their criminal move. Just in case...
Actually I think the BIND solution, to mark certain zones as "delegation only" is very elegant, and should have been implemented sooner or later anyways. Even without the current abuse it makes sense, and it hardly adds any complexity to the code.
I was looking forward to it, but:
- no 320x320 resultion (need it to use as an ebook reader)
- quite heavy
- no bluetooth?
Apparently there is still no ideal smartphone.
Currently I have a SE P800, but it is too heavy, and its PDA function is not well thought out. Therefore I was looking forward to the Treo 600, but it has some fatal deficiencies as well.
So I have to conclude that, for the time being, it is still best to have a small and simple cellular phone with bluetooth and GPRS (for data) and use it optionally in combination with a bluetooth enabled PDA. Thanks to bluetooth, you can fetch your PDA and instantly use it without getting your phone, just leave it somewhere near you or in your pocket.
But there's still no FreeSBD support from ATI. So even if ATI has some frames/s more, for me NVidia is the only choice.
NVidia has FreeBSD drivers, ATI has not.
No no, the main argument for FreeBSD is its ease of system administration. Just cvsup once in a while, do a make world and mergemaster to merge new /etc & other config files and you're done. This way you can stay current for many years without ever reinstalling, even move your installation from machine to machine.
For me it is lazyness that keeps me stick with FreeBSD.
Even though WIPO is evil, it is not yet linked to software patents. The EU does not have them (yet).
Correct, but Opera is produced in Norway, where software patents such as these do not exist.
Thus it won't have an effect on Opera.
If it does, it proves to me the the US is acting as a dictator in the world: Others' laws are irrelevant in the US, but its laws are forced down the throats of the rest of the world.
Until now I have been avoiding it, but after this indeed I will never buy another CD again that is linked to these criminals. It is a scandal, settling for $2000 and, even worse, using this girl now in their propaganda war by forcing her to admit her wrongdoings and regret for the "poor artists" she hurt. It makes me sick.
The question is how expensive MRAM shall be. It must be much cheaper than DRAM, i.e. 100GB MRAM must be affordable if you really want to replace harddisks (which would be a good thing indeed).
I agree that I was not very sublte, and that some types of information must be protected for higher reasons, such as privacy.
Though such exceptions do not change my main claims. Property laws are very old and widely accepted. However it is only since somewhat more than 100 years that property was extended to more than physical goods, i.e. to concepts and ideas.
The latter, I think, is a historical error and abberation that must be corrected ASAP.
Now some say that before 1900 the society was simpler and did not rely so mucb on innovation, so it could function without IP protection before but not anymore.
Well, I am not so sure, in fact I am pretty sure that todays society would function better without it. Of course numerous "business models" would no longer exist and some companies would disappear. But other things would be in its place. Do not underestimate what western civilisation accomplished between 1400 and 1900, almost completely without the concept of IP protection.
Then around 1900 some monopolies came to be, and it is my view that only then IP (copyright) was pushed through to protect vested interests of a minory, against the public interests.
In recent developments this concept has escalated so much that finally it becomes apparent to a larger public how harmful it is.
After a history of our civilisation since the end of the middle ages, around 1300, we had 600 years without IP, only quit recently it was introduced.
With this, IP is not such a natural and logical law as are things like general (physical) property laws, or laws generally accepted in all cultures to be just against murder and theft. It is a relatively recent "experiment" that, in my eyes, has failed. Only those that try to protect their monopolies try to make us believe that they are just and natural laws without which our civilisation could not exist.
You have a very limited view of world history. You talk about book authors and authors of music, having no incentive when they are not paid.
:( :( :(
How do you think people like Voltaire, da Vinci, Proust, name almost any of the great literature writers, or painters or composers, "paid their bills"?!? Or Tolkien, to name a more recent example. He wrote his books over a period of 20 years. He didn't see a cent during that time, yet he was able to complete the books. Do you think he spent all those years with $$$-signs in his eyes? No, a real artist has idealism and an internal drive. With real fame he might reap some money afterwards, with or without book sales; many would even voluntarily pay for a book without necessity for copyrights etc.
Those are only needed for crap serial writers that you find so much nowadays. I think society can do without those. Same goes for music. I have sincere doubts that commerce and monetary reward has raised the level of quality, on the contrary it has perverted it.
In your reasoning, the concept of open source software would be impossible as well. You know, many people create something because, gaps, they like what they do and want to create something beautiful. Yes, hard to understand in these degenerated times, I know
I do consider music "information", since once it is a string of bits that's what it is. If you limit its use, it has wide implications for all kinds of other information sharing as well, since how do you want to (legally) differentiate between bits representing knowledge and bits representing audio, video or books? Also music is improved by copying and variations. Classical music is full of it, they built upon each other, "borrowed" themes from each other and made variations. That is how greatness grew. Without free "flow of information" it would not have been possible.
I think these times are very poor, innovation and freedom have already been limited greatly, and the future looks bleak. Once can only hope for a radical revolution w.r.t. the evil concept of intellectual property. In that sense, I must say, I admit the chinese culture (though they do have other problems at the moment w.r.t. human rights). They also have a rich history and still understand how important reuse of intellect and information is, and will not and cannot grasp this unnatural and harmful concept of constraining it by means of weird concepts like copyright and patents.