However, the line is ``Linux is a Unix clone...'', when it ought to be Linux is a clone of the Unix kernel...''
Do you wish to stop this madness?
Remove the Linus preamble to the GPL.
Replace the line ``Linux is a Unix clone...'' with something to the effect of ``Linux is a clone of the Unix kernel; combined with the utilities and compilers of the GNU project(http://www.gnu.org), it forms a completely free operating system for your computer.''
That is it. You do not need to call it GNU/Linux, (RMS ought to have chosen a more marketable name than `GNU'), but if, as this editorial acknowledges, Linux would not exist without the GNU project, then why is it not acknowledged in the answer to the question ``What is Linux''?
This is not a small matter.
Web sites such as linux.org and li.org quote these lines from the kernel README essentially verbatim; so people looking for information about Linux(like clueless CNN reporters) will come away with half the story, and since reporters are only capable of telling half of any story to begin with...
No, it does not matter what other people think.
What does matter is the truth.
Which is, as the editorial notes, Linux would not exist without the work of Richard Stallman and the GNU project.
So, put it in writing.
In the kernel README, where it belongs. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
If the enquiry of the piece was ``Will commercialism help or hurt Linux?'', why are you asking representatives from the commercial world?
What kind of response do you think you are going to get?
One that will please your editor, no doubt.
Stupid journalists.
``Commercialism'' will not hurt free software; what will is the perception that proprietary software is acceptable or even necessary. In this respect, it is more important that RMS continue to do what he does ( I mean promote free software, not the GNU/Linux debate) than it is for Linus to go on blessing kernels. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
-1 point to CmdrTaco for burying it in a bunch of Quickies.
Both ``The Cathedral and the Bazaar'' and ``In the Beginning was the Command Line'' were written by programmers who were, in part, describing their introduction to Linux. The difference is one was written by an egotistical prick, and the other by a writer(you decide which is which).
There are many jewels for a fortune(6) file in Stephenson's piece.
It could almost be entitled ``The Re-Education of a Mac Bigot''.
;^)
The author expends a great deal of prose(well written!) wrestling with the fact that until a computer Operating System or software application does what you (the user) mean, you will have to learn to do what it means.
The Windows and Mac Operating Systems are just sick, sad, sorry interludes in the evolution of interaction between humans and computers.
--------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
(Reposted due to its relegation to -1 status, no doubt by one of/.'s many illiterate moderators. Cannot handle the truth? Fine. Ignore it. But do not censor it.)
You only fuel speculation that you are indeed functionally illiterate by linking to such tripe.
Not only that, but you lend credence to pundits who claim Linux is the ``domain of pimply geeks''.
If you wish to expand/. into ``News and Essays for Nerds'', get an editor who can read.
/. is a great site and provides a valuable service to...
...hmmm...
...``pimply geeks'' who like to vent their adolescent rage?
Well...if that is case...nevermind.
--------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
As far as ``The Origins of Open Source Software'' go, the origins lie in the egos of Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens.
Next!
A more considered view of Microsoft comes from people who were regarded as too inflammatory to ``sell'' free software to business and the masses (the raison d'être of the ``Open Source'' movement)---the FSF in the essay ``Is Microsoft the Great Satan?''.
--------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
There are numerous people in the free software community for whom English is not their first language. They have no trouble communicating ideas without using every vernacular profanity in the American lexicon.
If you think this essay had any merit, you are illiterate.
--------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
As Mitch was allowed to pass third grade (here I generously make the assumption that Mitch passed third grade) not having learned to spell experience, I understand how Mitch would give this friend a pass on simple common sense.
It's the media that establishes ideas in people, but I did not realize strength of the current attitudes about Internet users until a friend of mine was raped by someone from the Big Bad Internet. After the rape, which had taken place in her house, she went to her local hospital, where she was tested for sexually transmitted diseases, and her physical wounds treated.
From these two sentences it would appear that the rapist magically appeared in her house.
How did the rapist get there? --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
If these suits were given the source code to the software, they would no longer fund us to improve it. Instead, they would give the task to over-worked, under-paid, inexperienced USAF people who have too much to do as it is. The over-all quality of the software would decrease. The field -- the end users -- would suffer. We know this from first-hand experience. This is fact, not conjecture.
I would urge you to retell this story in full, or at least as much as possible while keeping the parties anonymous. It would be a helpful example.
Although it may be true that no one outside the USAF would want to improve the code, it is almost certain that someone would learn from it; ``one man's trash is another man's treasure'' and such.
If your company's revenue is dependent upon a single application which you maintain, rather than developing new ones, I see where your company would have a problem. Again, more information on your company's situation would be helpful.
The equivalent of ``Intellectual Property'' in the military would of course be ``National Security''.
I would see that as being the only reason why your code could not be freed. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Therein lies the problem. Or lay the problem, as it is too late now to do what should have been done.
The whole ``Open Source'' crusade seems to have been based upon the premise that ``free software'' would be unpalatable to the business community; the term ``free software'' was ambiguous, and the licenses were anti-commercial.
In the case of the term ``free software'', a great favor would have been done for all by explaining, ``When I say `free software', I mean [...]''; in other words---educating people.
Nothing good is accomplished through puerile presumptions like ``The `suits' won't grok `free software'; we'll call it `Open Source', but (wink, wink) we know what that means...''. The discord we see today is, in part, due to this sort of intellectual dishonesty.
In the case of licenses, a forward thinking person could easily have seen that this should have been the aim of the ``Open Source'' movement: a single license.
This fictional über-license would have been crafted through cooperation between the legal departments of various concerned and interested companies, this cooperation is what ``Open Source'' advocates ought to have facilitated.
Perhaps it is not too late. As you are the applicant for the mark ``Open Source'', please correct this oversight. Retain a lawyer to carefully examine the existing source licenses for similarities and draft a license that satifies the free software community and the business community.
It will probably need several revisions. That is fine. Debate is good.
If consensus cannot be reached, then we can come to the conclusion that some already have: there is free software, and there is proprietary software...and ne'er the twain shall meet.
--------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
As used by hackers, specifically describes a person who habitually reasons from obviously or demonstrably incorrect premises and cannot be persuaded by evidence to do otherwise; it is not generally used in its other senses, i.e., to describe a person with a native incapacity to reason correctly, or a clown. Indeed, in hackish experience many fools are capable of reasoning all too effectively in executing their errors. See also cretin, loser, fool file, the.
But the real reason for the re-labeling is a
marketing one. We're trying to pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a winning product, but our positioning, in the past, has been awful. The term ``free software'' has a load of fatal baggage; to a businessperson, it's too redolent of fanaticism and flakiness and strident anti-commercialism.
Mainstream corporate CEOs and CTOs will never buy ``free software'', manifestos and clenched fists and all. But if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software licenses and change the label to ``open source'' - that, they'll buy.
Why, because he allows Jon Katz to post here?I'm guessing you're one of those types who claims to defend free speech too.
No, because the heading for this story was originally "Sutdents Sue over Difficult Class". The Katz deconstruction is referenced because that was where the "functionally illiterate" dig at CmdrTaco was made. I, like that author, am only half joking.
Now that you mention it, though, yes...I would consider someone to be functionally illiterate if they thought Katz to be an informative or engaging writer.
It is not a matter of free speech. One must have expressed an idea before it can be supressed.
As far as HCI goes:
<cliche>
"Only the nipple is intuitive. Everything else must be learned."
</cliche>
Any debate about Windows vs. Mac WIMP superiority is countered by four little words:Look And Feel Lawsuit.The most ardent defenders of "Intellectual Property" are usually those who have engaged in the most raping and pillaging of the same. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
CmdrTaco is functionally illiterate(well...maybe just dyslexic).*
There is no point in continuing the WIMP "ease of use" fallacy; the efforts of GNOME and KDE should be redirected towards voice recognition and control, and AI. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
purchased their computers with an Operating System preinstalled,
will never install any Operating System on a computer, including the one they own,
do not know what an "Operating System" is,
therefore, this and all other articles related to the installation of Linux are moot.
If these were among the first of such articles, there would be no objection, however, that is not the case.
Free software promotes freedom and sharing; if you treat it as just another consumable item, that is all you will get out of it. Go to a friendly neighborhood Installfest rather than buying the latest copy of Red Hat from Barnes & Noble and installing it alone. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Have lawyers create a body of incomprehensible law and you will need a lawyer to interpret it.
Rather like the present American systems of government and justice, no?
Apparently, there was an amendment to the Constitution that would have prevented lawyers from holding elected office; there is disagreement over whether or not it was actually ratified. At the time, everyone's attention was focused on the, shall we say, small difference of opinion between the States on an unrelated matter.
The programmer analogy is apt, though. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Kinda like IBM ever supporting an operating system developed collaboratively over the Internet, huh?
If so, lawyers who have spent the past 20 years struggling with the issues of intellectual property protection for software might in the future find themselves all dressed up with no place to go.
Naturally, many IP lawyers disagree vehemently with this supposition. Marc E. Brown, a partner in the San Jose, Calif., office of Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly L.L.P., says that this is "a very futuristic, pie-in-the-sky kind of discussion. It is inconceivable to me that by the time I retire, [software intellectual property] issues aren't going to still be here."
Yes, I hope you die a slow, painful death. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
You must be if you cannot see the humour in comparing four "Baby Bills" with the horsemen of the Apocalypse.
Humour.
I guess you cannot see it through all the piss.
Nobody who understands free software gives two shits about Bill Gates or Microsoft. --------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
6:3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.
6:4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
6:5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
6:7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
--------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
To those who use Microsoft Office and/or repeat the tired mantra "desktop applications are required for an operating system's viability on the desktop...":
What, where, when, why, and how do you use it?
What applications do you use; for what do you use them; what or how many features of each application, etcetera?
--------------------------------- "The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Slashdot Mirror
Hold it right there.
No it is not.
It is a kernel.
UNIX(tm) is an operating system.
Repeat after me kids, S-Y-S-T-E-M.
Of which, the kernel is but a part.
However, the line is ``Linux is a Unix
clone...'', when it ought to be Linux is
a clone of the Unix kernel...''
Do you wish to stop this madness?
with something to the effect of ``Linux is a clone
of the Unix kernel; combined with the utilities
and compilers of the GNU project(http://www.gnu.org),
it forms a completely free operating system for
your computer.''
That is it. You do not need to call it
GNU/Linux, (RMS ought to have chosen a more
marketable name than `GNU'), but if, as this
editorial acknowledges, Linux would not
exist without the GNU project, then why is it
not acknowledged in the answer to the question
``What is Linux''?
This is not a small matter.
Web sites such as linux.org and li.org quote
these lines from the kernel README essentially
verbatim; so people looking for information about
Linux(like clueless CNN reporters) will come away
with half the story, and since reporters are only
capable of telling half of any story to begin with...
No, it does not matter what other people think.
What does matter is the truth.
Which is, as the editorial notes, Linux would
not exist without the work of Richard Stallman
and the GNU project.
So, put it in writing.
In the kernel README, where it belongs.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
IDC?
Minolta?
If the enquiry of the piece was ``Will
commercialism help or hurt Linux?'', why are you
asking representatives from the commercial world?
What kind of response do you think you are
going to get?
One that will please your editor, no doubt.
Stupid journalists.
``Commercialism'' will not hurt free software;
what will is the perception that proprietary
software is acceptable or even necessary. In this
respect, it is more important that RMS continue
to do what he does ( I mean promote free
software, not the GNU/Linux debate) than it is for
Linus to go on blessing kernels.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
That little exchange deserves its own
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
More of a novella, really, but...
1 point to CmdrTaco for mentioning it.
-1 point to CmdrTaco for burying it in a bunch
of Quickies.
Both ``The Cathedral and the Bazaar'' and
``In the Beginning was the Command Line'' were
written by programmers who were, in part,
describing their introduction to Linux. The
difference is one was written by an egotistical
prick, and the other by a writer(you decide which
is which).
There are many jewels for a fortune(6) file in
Stephenson's piece.
It could almost be entitled ``The
Re-Education of a Mac Bigot''.
;^)
The author expends a great deal of prose(well
written!) wrestling with the fact that until a
computer Operating System or software application
does what you (the user) mean, you will have to
learn to do what it means.
The Windows and Mac Operating Systems are just
sick, sad, sorry interludes in the evolution of
interaction between humans and computers.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
(Reposted due to its relegation to -1 status, no /.'s many illiterate moderators.
doubt by one of
Cannot handle the truth? Fine. Ignore it. But do
not censor it.)
You only fuel speculation that you are indeed
functionally illiterate by linking to such tripe.
Not only that, but you lend credence to pundits
who claim Linux is the ``domain of pimply geeks''.
If you wish to expand /. into ``News and Essays
for Nerds'', get an editor who can read.
/. is a great site and provides a valuable
service to...
...hmmm...
...``pimply geeks'' who like to vent their
adolescent rage?
Well...if that is case...nevermind.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
plagerism of the books in the bibliography,
sandwiched by As far as ``The Origins of Open Source Software''
go, the origins lie in the egos of Eric Raymond
and Bruce Perens.
Next!
A more considered view of Microsoft comes from
people who were regarded as too inflammatory to
``sell'' free software to business and the masses
(the raison d'être of the ``Open Source''
movement)---the FSF in the essay
``Is Microsoft the Great Satan?''.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Was Daddy absent or unattentive?
I know how that is. :^(
My sympathies.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
There are numerous people in the free software
community for whom English is not their first
language. They have no trouble communicating ideas
without using every vernacular profanity in the
American lexicon.
If you think this essay had any merit, you are illiterate.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
The facts matter.
Otherwise, we have ``mob rule''. Lynchings.
War.
Certainly, rapists ought to be punished.
Just as certain, the universe punishes
stupidity.
Confucius say ``Those who invite Tiger to
lunch, are.''
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
You only fuel speculation that you are indeed
functionally illiterate by linking to such
tripe.
Not only that, but you lend credence to pundits
who claim Linux is the ``domain of pimply geeks''.
If you wish to expand /. into ``News and Essays
for Nerds'', get an editor who can read.
/. is a great site and provides a valuable
service to...
...hmmm...
...``pimply geeks'' who like to vent their
adolescent rage?
Well...if that is case...nevermind.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
I generously make the assumption that Mitch
passed third grade) not having learned to spell
experience, I understand how Mitch
would give this friend a pass on simple common
sense.
From these two sentences it would appear that
the rapist magically appeared in her house.
How did the rapist get there?
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
I would urge you to retell this story in full, or at least as much as possible while keeping the parties anonymous. It would be a helpful example.
Although it may be true that no one outside the USAF would want to improve the code, it is almost certain that someone would learn from it; ``one man's trash is another man's treasure'' and such.
If your company's revenue is dependent upon a single application which you maintain, rather than developing new ones, I see where your company would have a problem. Again, more information on your company's situation would be helpful.
The equivalent of ``Intellectual Property'' in the military would of course be ``National Security''.
I would see that as being the only reason why your code could not be freed.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Therein lies the problem. Or lay the problem,
as it is too late now to do what should
have been done.
The whole ``Open Source'' crusade seems to have
been based upon the premise that ``free software''
would be unpalatable to the business community;
the term ``free software'' was ambiguous, and the
licenses were anti-commercial.
In the case of the term ``free software'', a great
favor would have been done for all by explaining,
``When I say `free software', I mean [...]''; in
other words---educating people.
Nothing good is accomplished through puerile
presumptions like ``The `suits' won't grok `free
software'; we'll call it `Open Source', but
(wink, wink) we know what that means...''.
The discord we see today is, in part, due to this
sort of intellectual dishonesty.
In the case of licenses, a forward thinking
person could easily have seen that this should
have been the aim of the ``Open Source''
movement: a single license.
This fictional über-license would have been
crafted through cooperation between the legal
departments of various concerned and interested
companies, this cooperation is what ``Open
Source'' advocates ought to have facilitated.
Perhaps it is not too late. As you are the
applicant for the mark ``Open Source'', please
correct this oversight. Retain a lawyer to
carefully examine the existing source licenses
for similarities and draft a license that
satifies the free software community and the
business community.
It will probably need several revisions. That
is fine. Debate is good.
If consensus cannot be reached, then we can
come to the conclusion that some already have:
there is free software, and there is proprietary
software...and ne'er the twain shall meet.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
The job of ensuring the term "Open Source"
means Jack Shit(tm)?
Job well done.
Thank goodness for RMS.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
A clone of the UNIX(tm) computer Operating
System, made possible with tools from the Free
Software Foundation...but more generally: "fun".
It comes with a free spell checker, too.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
No, because the heading for this story was
originally "Sutdents Sue over Difficult
Class". The Katz deconstruction is referenced
because that was where the "functionally
illiterate" dig at CmdrTaco was made. I, like
that author, am only half joking.
Now that you mention it, though, yes...I would
consider someone to be functionally illiterate
if they thought Katz to be an informative
or engaging writer.
It is not a matter of free speech. One must
have expressed an idea before it can be supressed.
As far as HCI goes:
<cliche>
"Only the nipple is intuitive.
Everything else must be learned."
</cliche>
Any debate about Windows vs. Mac WIMP
superiority is countered by four little words:Look
And Feel Lawsuit.The most ardent defenders of
"Intellectual Property" are usually those who have
engaged in the most raping and pillaging of the same.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
just dyslexic).*
of use" fallacy; the efforts of GNOME and KDE
should be redirected towards voice recognition
and control, and AI.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Just stop posting them.
94.9%(guesstimate) of computer owners...
- purchased their computers with an Operating
- will never install any Operating System
- do not know what an "Operating System" is,
therefore, this and all other articles related toSystem preinstalled,
on a computer, including the one they own,
the installation of Linux are moot.
If these were among the first of such articles,
there would be no objection, however, that is not
the case.
Free software promotes freedom and sharing; if
you treat it as just another consumable item,
that is all you will get out of it. Go to a
friendly neighborhood Installfest rather than
buying the latest copy of Red Hat from Barnes &
Noble and installing it alone.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
(no matter how poorly written)...is to put
"Linux" in its title.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Have lawyers create a body of incomprehensible
law and you will need a lawyer to interpret it.
Rather like the present American systems of
government and justice, no?
Apparently, there was an amendment to the
Constitution that would have prevented lawyers
from holding elected office; there is
disagreement over whether or not it was actually
ratified. At the time, everyone's attention was
focused on the, shall we say, small difference
of opinion between the States on an unrelated
matter.
The programmer analogy is apt, though.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
developed collaboratively over the Internet, huh?
Yes, I hope you die a slow, painful death.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Like you?
You must be if you cannot see the humour in
comparing four "Baby Bills" with the horsemen of
the Apocalypse.
Humour.
I guess you cannot see it through all the piss.
Nobody who understands free software gives two
shits about Bill Gates or Microsoft.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
To those who use Microsoft Office and/or repeat
the tired mantra "desktop applications are
required for an operating system's viability on
the desktop...":
What, where, when, why, and how do you use it?
What applications do you use; for what do you
use them; what or how many features of each
application, etcetera?
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,