I guess your point is now that you'd prefer that I had written something that was easier to skim. You're free to dislike the style I chose, of course. I'm happy that I'm not always slave to writing in a strict AP style urgency weighted order that protects my point from readers who can't be bothered to follow a "continued on page 11" jump.
I wrote what I wrote in the style that felt right and it seems to have resonated with more than a few readers. I found that it flowed better laying out the foundation for my thoughts before trying to justify them. Perhaps you didn't notice that the entire blog was on the same subject. The statement culled in the slashdot summary wasn't buried, it was surrounded by context.
Am am unsurprised that people exist, such as yourself, who couldn't be bothered to read the post. It was long and didn't have many pictures. I did think you overstepped your case a bit with the invective, however.
1) Despite Google's claims to the contrary, their Google Talk service is not open and does improve the already sorry state of internet instant messaging. If this bothers you, please let Google know.
2) In various places within the article and summarized thusly in the concluding paragraph.
I'm curious what attributes you'd expect to see in a "more thoughtful" statement that don't exist in what I wrote.
I assure you, I wrote to be read and I spent quite a bit of time attempting to make a point via a coherent argument. Perhaps I failed at that endeavor, but judging from the bulk of the feedback I've gotten it looks like I succeeded on at least some level.
In any event, in that you've not chosen to read the article this thread is beyond a doubt an even greater waste of everybody's time.
Yes, but it's important to remember that the leaders in the Jabber community do not work for Google. They can't speak for Google and have only a little bit more insight into Google's plans than we do.
What we do know is that Google doesn't appear to consider S2S important enough to have built yet, and their public position on the subject is more discouraging than it is encouraging. It is not fairly clear that S2S is on its way.
That is your prerogative, of course. Myself, I am not sure they have something big planned and I do have doubts about their commitment to S2S in the future. Moreover, after combing their website and discussion forums, my doubts are even stronger than before. I'm not comfortable just assuming that it will all work out fine despite the evidence.
I do agree, though, that the potential in Google Talk is HUGE. And it's for the sake of that potential that I hope people start asking questions about S2S now, when we have a chance of influencing the decisions Google will make regarding their service.
If we wait until later we've missed our window of opportunity to let Google know that truly open S2S is important and that a federated approach causes more problems than it solves.
I don't think it's too early to start holding Google's feet to the fire over this issue, though. Their words and actions (thus far) on this issue do not seem encouraging to me. It looks more like they're taking an incremental approach towards their goal of a closed, federated network.
Anyone who would prefer to see Google Talk become an open network which actually makes use of the decentralized nature of XMPP should be concerned. Now is the appropriate time to voice those concerns.
I suppose you're basing this on the oft-repeated "God does not play dice" quote. Here are a few other Einstein quotes on religion, though, which are more pointed:
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Letter of 1946, Hoffman and Dukas]
"What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws." [The Private Albert Einstein]
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously." [New York Times Magazine November 9, 1930]
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events."
[Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium]
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." [Letter of 5 February 1921]
"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." [The World as I See It]
and finally
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a
wish addressed to a supernatural Being." [Einstein - The Human Side]
For udp traffic, you're completely correct. No about of incoming shaping on inbound udp traffic will allow you to throttle the data rate. This is because udp traffic is connectionless and basically "fire and forget". With tcp traffic, though, especially with well-behaved applications, inbound traffic shaping is quite effective.
I run pf on an openbsd bridge that sits inbetween my dsl hardware and my network and it shapes my inbound traffic very effectively. I can flood my inbound pipe with scp file transfers from the outside world and still use my VoIP telephone and interactive ssh with virtually no noticeable impact.
It's well worth doing and in practice it's quite effective even on inbound traffic.
Only if "like some 40%" means "an insignificant amount"
In 1997 Microsoft bought $150 million of special, non-voting Apple stock. $150 million bucks might sound like a lot of money, but remember that at the time Apple had over a billion dollars of cash on hand and a market cap in the 8 billion dollar range.
Microsoft's holdings in Apple today don't even make the top ten institutional holders. You are completely wrong, in other words.
I think you are overlooking or handwaving past the total pain in the ass that "dual booting" represents for people who actually have work to get done. People using VirtualPC today, and presumably on future Intel-based Macs are overwhelmingly NOT going to want to reboot to an entirely different operating system just to run the applications for which they require Windows compatibility. Closing all my native applications to reboot into Windows to run my handful of Windows apps is not at all the same experience as firing up XP inside Virtual PC and running it alongside my "real" apps in my "real" operating system. I suspect that most people will be of a similar mindset, making dual-booting an impractical and undesireable alternative.
Dual-booting is the province of geeks who like tinkering with their machines. It's not a viable solution for the majority of users with needs which span platforms.
VirtualPC and Office for Mac are applications which I find very useful. This will not change at all when Macs switch to Intel processors. I expect to enjoy better VirtualPC performance (although it's just fine even now with the burden of architecture differences) but I don't expect to no longer want it.
Again, you have pegged yourself as a bad financial risk to them because it actually seems to occurr to you to *use* your insurance instead of simply paying the premiums each month as if they were a tax.
I reject the notion that "using" insurance equates to filing claims. I happily pay my insurance premiums for home and auto and I hope to never have to file a claim. But I do consider myself to be "using" my insurance to help me get a good night's sleep each night and not worry that a catastrophic loss will ruin me financially.
It's false to presume that an insured did not receiving a benefit from their policy simply because they didn't have to file a claim. Being covered, even if it's not utilized, is a benefit.
There are people in this community who will continue to lobby against legal downloads no matter what the terms or what technology is used. I swear, sometimes I think that if Linus himself started a company that sold no-DRM OGG Vorbis songs for a penny a piece and you got a free blowjob from Natalie Portman with every 10 purchased tracks that we'd still see posts on slashdot justifying P2P piracy because we didn't get to pick out Natalie's outfit when she showed up at our parent's basement to deliver.
There are people who read news like this who are encouraged that market is beginning to respond (as markets always do) and there are people who read this news and get grumpy because it just got a little bit more difficult to continue to rationalize their greedy piracy.
So in other words, you agree with me but you wanted to use my comment as a springboard to go off on your little tirade about how minimizing apps doesn't suit your style or working.
Why? Maybe because I don't run my apps maximized to full screen.
Are you seriously so wedded to the concept of virtual dekstops that you try to make them serve every windowing need? Minimizing an app and switching to an alternate desktop are completely different activities with completely different goals and results.
Enlightenment was NOT perfectly functional in 1998. Even the Enlightenment developers knew it. Why on earth you're so defensive about that fact now, seven years later, is totally beyond comprehension.
Well it's not surprising both that you were wowed by E and that you chose Windowmaker.
In 1998, Enlightenment was nothing more than a fancy screenshot generation tool, it was not a worthwhile working environment for people who actually had things they needed to do with their computers. Recall that Enlightenment had themes and skins a full year before they even got around to letting you minimize a running application.
In 1998 E was pretty and useless.
Whether or not Enlightenment has today moved past these curious development priorities is open to debate.
No, no, you misunderstand. I didn't mean "wasted media" in the sense that I only listened to one of the songs. I meant that when I buy a CD I rip it on to my computer and then never touch the physical disc again.
It's wasted in the sense that the physical media is completely and totally irrelevant to me. I own dozens of CDs that I've never actually directly listened to. I listen to the ripped songs and the CDs are in a box in a closet.
I've also got dozens of albums that I bought for a single track and have grown to love and appreciate the whole album after spending some time with it. I'm with you 100% on that angle.
Your use of the words "retain" and "remain" demonstrate that you're really missing one critical point. You can't remove the freeness from BSD code.
You are making the mistaken leap of logic that code which is used in a non-BSD application somehow affects the original code. Code, once released under the BSD license, has a 100% survival rate. It will in all cases retain its freedom. It will in all cases remain available and BSD licensed.
The only issue at hand is the disposition of other code, written by other people, which in some way interacts with the originally donated code. It is the status of this new, independent code written by other people that is in question.
With the GPL, the second developer has no freedom of choice -- they are bound by the GPL to GPL the code that they produce. With the BSD license, the second developer retains their freedom of choice to release their code as they see fit. This, however, in no way affects the availability or viability of the original code which is still just as BSD as it has always been and always will be.
The notion that you can harm code by using it is demonstrably not true.
You could just as easily say that the GPL does not promote further selfless behavior. Rather, it enforces reciprocity by denying other developers the freedom to choose their own license for the code they write.
The BSD license does not deny anyone anything. You said it yourself "BSD allows". GPL disallows.
I'd futher argue that when someone releases their code under the GPL because they are compelled to do so by the license that it hardly qualifies as "selfless" behavior. They're just meeting the obligation required of them by the license on the code they chose to use. The GPL is not spreading or promoting selfless behavior in that event. It's just denying that developer the freedom to choose an alternate license on the code that they wrote as a byproduct of using the original code.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the article is a dupe maybe he was wrong the first time it was posted but right this time.
I guess your point is now that you'd prefer that I had written something that was easier to skim. You're free to dislike the style I chose, of course. I'm happy that I'm not always slave to writing in a strict AP style urgency weighted order that protects my point from readers who can't be bothered to follow a "continued on page 11" jump.
I wrote what I wrote in the style that felt right and it seems to have resonated with more than a few readers. I found that it flowed better laying out the foundation for my thoughts before trying to justify them. Perhaps you didn't notice that the entire blog was on the same subject. The statement culled in the slashdot summary wasn't buried, it was surrounded by context.
Am am unsurprised that people exist, such as yourself, who couldn't be bothered to read the post. It was long and didn't have many pictures. I did think you overstepped your case a bit with the invective, however.
1) Despite Google's claims to the contrary, their Google Talk service is not open and does improve the already sorry state of internet instant messaging. If this bothers you, please let Google know.
2) In various places within the article and summarized thusly in the concluding paragraph.
I'm curious what attributes you'd expect to see in a "more thoughtful" statement that don't exist in what I wrote.
I assure you, I wrote to be read and I spent quite a bit of time attempting to make a point via a coherent argument. Perhaps I failed at that endeavor, but judging from the bulk of the feedback I've gotten it looks like I succeeded on at least some level.
In any event, in that you've not chosen to read the article this thread is beyond a doubt an even greater waste of everybody's time.
Yes, but it's important to remember that the leaders in the Jabber community do not work for Google. They can't speak for Google and have only a little bit more insight into Google's plans than we do.
What we do know is that Google doesn't appear to consider S2S important enough to have built yet, and their public position on the subject is more discouraging than it is encouraging. It is not fairly clear that S2S is on its way.
That is your prerogative, of course. Myself, I am not sure they have something big planned and I do have doubts about their commitment to S2S in the future. Moreover, after combing their website and discussion forums, my doubts are even stronger than before. I'm not comfortable just assuming that it will all work out fine despite the evidence.
I do agree, though, that the potential in Google Talk is HUGE. And it's for the sake of that potential that I hope people start asking questions about S2S now, when we have a chance of influencing the decisions Google will make regarding their service.
If we wait until later we've missed our window of opportunity to let Google know that truly open S2S is important and that a federated approach causes more problems than it solves.
Suit yourself.
I don't think it's too early to start holding Google's feet to the fire over this issue, though. Their words and actions (thus far) on this issue do not seem encouraging to me. It looks more like they're taking an incremental approach towards their goal of a closed, federated network.
Anyone who would prefer to see Google Talk become an open network which actually makes use of the decentralized nature of XMPP should be concerned. Now is the appropriate time to voice those concerns.
Jabber's use of a dedicated SSL port is legacy and deprecated behavior, in favor of using STARTTLS to negotiate SSL on the normal port.
That's how they "get off".
"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Letter of 1946, Hoffman and Dukas]
"What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws." [The Private Albert Einstein]
"The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously." [New York Times Magazine November 9, 1930]
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events." [Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium]
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning." [Letter of 5 February 1921]
"An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." [The World as I See It]
and finally
"Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being." [Einstein - The Human Side]
Well, you're right AND you're wrong.
For udp traffic, you're completely correct. No about of incoming shaping on inbound udp traffic will allow you to throttle the data rate. This is because udp traffic is connectionless and basically "fire and forget". With tcp traffic, though, especially with well-behaved applications, inbound traffic shaping is quite effective.
I run pf on an openbsd bridge that sits inbetween my dsl hardware and my network and it shapes my inbound traffic very effectively. I can flood my inbound pipe with scp file transfers from the outside world and still use my VoIP telephone and interactive ssh with virtually no noticeable impact.
It's well worth doing and in practice it's quite effective even on inbound traffic.
In 1997 Microsoft bought $150 million of special, non-voting Apple stock. $150 million bucks might sound like a lot of money, but remember that at the time Apple had over a billion dollars of cash on hand and a market cap in the 8 billion dollar range.
Microsoft's holdings in Apple today don't even make the top ten institutional holders. You are completely wrong, in other words.
There is no lost revenue if you drive away nonpaying people.
What exactly is the "consequence" which would have to be suffered through? The absence of people who aren't going to spend any money anyway?
How does withholding support and upgrades constitute "coming after you"?
I think you are overlooking or handwaving past the total pain in the ass that "dual booting" represents for people who actually have work to get done. People using VirtualPC today, and presumably on future Intel-based Macs are overwhelmingly NOT going to want to reboot to an entirely different operating system just to run the applications for which they require Windows compatibility. Closing all my native applications to reboot into Windows to run my handful of Windows apps is not at all the same experience as firing up XP inside Virtual PC and running it alongside my "real" apps in my "real" operating system. I suspect that most people will be of a similar mindset, making dual-booting an impractical and undesireable alternative.
Dual-booting is the province of geeks who like tinkering with their machines. It's not a viable solution for the majority of users with needs which span platforms.
VirtualPC and Office for Mac are applications which I find very useful. This will not change at all when Macs switch to Intel processors. I expect to enjoy better VirtualPC performance (although it's just fine even now with the burden of architecture differences) but I don't expect to no longer want it.
I reject the notion that "using" insurance equates to filing claims. I happily pay my insurance premiums for home and auto and I hope to never have to file a claim. But I do consider myself to be "using" my insurance to help me get a good night's sleep each night and not worry that a catastrophic loss will ruin me financially.
It's false to presume that an insured did not receiving a benefit from their policy simply because they didn't have to file a claim. Being covered, even if it's not utilized, is a benefit.
There are people in this community who will continue to lobby against legal downloads no matter what the terms or what technology is used. I swear, sometimes I think that if Linus himself started a company that sold no-DRM OGG Vorbis songs for a penny a piece and you got a free blowjob from Natalie Portman with every 10 purchased tracks that we'd still see posts on slashdot justifying P2P piracy because we didn't get to pick out Natalie's outfit when she showed up at our parent's basement to deliver.
There are people who read news like this who are encouraged that market is beginning to respond (as markets always do) and there are people who read this news and get grumpy because it just got a little bit more difficult to continue to rationalize their greedy piracy.
How did you react?
So in other words, you agree with me but you wanted to use my comment as a springboard to go off on your little tirade about how minimizing apps doesn't suit your style or working.
I see.
Why? Maybe because I don't run my apps maximized to full screen.
Are you seriously so wedded to the concept of virtual dekstops that you try to make them serve every windowing need? Minimizing an app and switching to an alternate desktop are completely different activities with completely different goals and results.
Enlightenment was NOT perfectly functional in 1998. Even the Enlightenment developers knew it. Why on earth you're so defensive about that fact now, seven years later, is totally beyond comprehension.
Well it's not surprising both that you were wowed by E and that you chose Windowmaker.
In 1998, Enlightenment was nothing more than a fancy screenshot generation tool, it was not a worthwhile working environment for people who actually had things they needed to do with their computers. Recall that Enlightenment had themes and skins a full year before they even got around to letting you minimize a running application.
In 1998 E was pretty and useless.
Whether or not Enlightenment has today moved past these curious development priorities is open to debate.
Of course, but that doesn't change my point. Please re-read my comment within the context of the discussion at hand.
No, no, you misunderstand. I didn't mean "wasted media" in the sense that I only listened to one of the songs. I meant that when I buy a CD I rip it on to my computer and then never touch the physical disc again.
It's wasted in the sense that the physical media is completely and totally irrelevant to me. I own dozens of CDs that I've never actually directly listened to. I listen to the ripped songs and the CDs are in a box in a closet.
I've also got dozens of albums that I bought for a single track and have grown to love and appreciate the whole album after spending some time with it. I'm with you 100% on that angle.
Your use of the words "retain" and "remain" demonstrate that you're really missing one critical point. You can't remove the freeness from BSD code.
You are making the mistaken leap of logic that code which is used in a non-BSD application somehow affects the original code. Code, once released under the BSD license, has a 100% survival rate. It will in all cases retain its freedom. It will in all cases remain available and BSD licensed.
The only issue at hand is the disposition of other code, written by other people, which in some way interacts with the originally donated code. It is the status of this new, independent code written by other people that is in question.
With the GPL, the second developer has no freedom of choice -- they are bound by the GPL to GPL the code that they produce. With the BSD license, the second developer retains their freedom of choice to release their code as they see fit. This, however, in no way affects the availability or viability of the original code which is still just as BSD as it has always been and always will be.
The notion that you can harm code by using it is demonstrably not true.
You could just as easily say that the GPL does not promote further selfless behavior. Rather, it enforces reciprocity by denying other developers the freedom to choose their own license for the code they write.
The BSD license does not deny anyone anything. You said it yourself "BSD allows". GPL disallows.
I'd futher argue that when someone releases their code under the GPL because they are compelled to do so by the license that it hardly qualifies as "selfless" behavior. They're just meeting the obligation required of them by the license on the code they chose to use. The GPL is not spreading or promoting selfless behavior in that event. It's just denying that developer the freedom to choose an alternate license on the code that they wrote as a byproduct of using the original code.