No, the real "solution" is that space is discrete. There is not an infinite number of points in space between any two specific points except in abstract models (which are just that -- abstract.) The real universe is discrete. Zeno assumed space is continuous.
I've heard of these claims that the real world is discrete, but Physics hasn't yet been reworked, as far as I know, to accommodate this model. Relativity, in particular, seems quite challenging to reformulate, but I'm no Mathematical Physicist.
Seems like it's definitely not the simplist solution.
If something could pass through an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time, then wouldn't instantaneous travel to anywhere in the universe be possible?
No. For the same reason that the infinite series I gave above sums to a finite number.
Seems like you have more odd paradoxical problems like this with a discrete Universe. This tiny indivisible space/time you have to have with a discrete Universe. How long in time does it take to traverse? What's 1/2 that time? Oh? You can't have 1/2 that time, it's indivisible? How long does it take me to traverse it at 100 mph? 200 mph? 200,000 mph? If it's a discrete interval, seems I couldn't traverse it faster or slower. So, what does this imply? When I'm traveling "faster" I "pause" betweent he intervals less? Or what?
It seems to me that the discrete universe has you jumping from spot to spot in discrete intervals. That, to me, implies that travel to anywhere in the universe would be possible in some discrete jump.
They used to argue the same sort of things about negative numbers, but then their utility in showing direction proved too attractive to abandon them as "merely" abstract.
Similarly,
irrational numbers are used to model multiple dimensions.
Various concepts of infinity come into play in Calculus and topology, which may seem very abstract now, may someday prove to help us understand reality.
Non-euclidean geometries were once considered the height of useless abstraction, but have come in very handy in Relativity and String Theory.
All Maths are grounded in the Universe as they are discovered by our minds which are part of the Universe. If we can recognize a logical mathematics, then it is a recognition of a logical formalism that our minds can comprehend.
We didn't so much invent Mathematics as we discovered it.
That's your belief.
Yes, and your view is a belief also. In fact, all positions are beliefs, so what? You label it a belief as if it's a withering criticism, when in fact, it's just a definition.
I don't want to get into a deep epistemological discussion on Slashdot, of all places. I will point out that you can't prove your position any more than I can prove mine. You, however, would deny that a proof is anything but an empty manipulation of symbols, devoid of any meaning.
Mathematics is a developing language used to roughly model some aspects of observed behavior in the universe. Math isn't what the universe does --- math is a tool through which we understand a collection of observations about the universe.
We men "invent" math and logic. Right. Forget the observation that children are prewired for language and logic. Math and logic are at the base of our being. This is clear to me.
Yes, I'm a platonist. I see a theory in map theory is reminiscient of one in number theory. Is it because I invented it that way, or is there a mathematic truth that binds them together that I discovered through their similarity?
In the end, these are just appeals. I can't reason with someone who believes that reasoning is arbitrary.
Math works because it describes the Universe. We didn't so much invent Mathematics as we discovered it.
It's impossible to understand things like Motion or pretty much anything else without Math.
Logic is part of Math.
Goedel, a mathemetician even proved the limitations of Mathematics. So, only through rigorous Math can we truly understand that Math, or any formalism, is not the Universe.
If you want to resort to some sort of mystical understanding of the Universe that depend on Math and Logic, you're welcome to it.
Funny, that's what they said about MS and the Internet.
And, it was true then. It was too late for them to get out in front of the curve. They did, however, prove that they could play catchup to some extent.
Even here, the only Internet technology that they've really developed to a dominating position has been the browser.
The point about getting out in front of the curve with a technology is to get mindshare. MS still suffers for not having enough credibility in Internet technologies.
IBM wanted to get out ahead of the curve they saw as becoming an important force in the industry. Too late for MS to do that.
IBM wants to use high-quality OSS products/strategies against specific competitors. Those competitors include MS (and Sun). You'd have to convince MS to compete against itself or that they could negate OSS by using it themselves. Tough sell, as it would involve a substantial loss of revenue.
IBM wants to pump up their services and OSS needs lots of services. A possible angle for MS, but again, tough as they already have their own products for every niche that already have a support strategy in place, and that strategy doesn't involve opening up the source and let the community fix your bugs.
IBM wanted to field a line of mature products for the.com boom and using OSS was the shortest path. That boom has gone bust.
If I were to approach it, I might challenge MS to think outside the box and compete against themselves.
Take Apple's strategy of supporting an OSS-based OS (Darwin) and adding in strategic closed source bits to productize it. Perhaps they could move some small fraction of their $40 Billion war chest into support Darwin itself. Could you imagine the boost that Darwin would get from $4-$5 Billion? (Only 10-12% of the MS Cash holdings.) This could energize their developers on their current products to take OSS seriously and spur them to produce better products.
Perhaps more importantly, this could sap mindshare and community away from Linux. How many Enterprises would field an MS-supported Open Source OS before Linux? A lot, I think.
Actually the latest in the Darwin CVS is not so much a microkernel anymore. According to the latest reports, the kernel is now a more FreeBSD 4.4 smooshed together with Mach for a more monolithic architecture. This was to overcome the inherent performance issues with micro-kernel design.
That's a familiar story. I recall hearing that the OSF/1 developers, which was originally based on Mach, did exactly the same kinds of things to get acceptable performance.
The only OSF/1 system to see much use was from Digital (now Compaq, I mean HP), with their Unix for the Alpha, originally called DEC OSF/1, then Digital UNIX and then Digital Tru64 UNIX, then Compaq Tru64 UNIX and now, pant, pant, I hear that another name change is in the works under HP.
The GPL is a contract. Accept it or not, but you can't use the code if you can't accept it.
Not quite, the GPL only covers distribution, it explicitally states that use is outside its scope.
You're right, I should have said "Accept it or don't modify and distribute the code, or binaries resulting from the code."
In the context of the discussion, I did mean "use" as "modify" because that's what the original poster was referring to, his right to use the code to make it fit his purposes.
From what I remember, the license Apple used for Darwin only permits things to be contributed.. (eg. you can't fork it like you could Linux or *BSD, but you can give them code). If this is right, that is not open source/free software. You could look at it as Apple leeching free development without giving anything back.
Hopefully I'm wrong on this....
I think you're wrong, as I don't see the restrictions you are referring to in The Apple Public Source License, which covers Darwin. But, the language is legalese so maybe I'm missing it.
Could anyone who knows more about this stuff clarify what is happening? I am assuming that JordanH is not _the_ Jordan H.:-P.
No, I'm not _the_ Jordan H, but I am _a_ Jordan H. See my brief bio for details. Also, see this journal entry describing a time when I tried to play off my name for a joke.
Darwin also incorporates a full implementation of BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) UNIX, welded on top of the Mach kernel.
and
Darwin wraps a customized version of 4.4 BSD-Lite2 kernel and userspace around Mach. It includes many of the POSIX APIs, exporting them to user-space, and abstracts Darwin's file system and networking. Darwin's BSD also provides the process model, basic security policies, and threading support for Mac OS X.
I guess seeing that much of Darwin is based on the 4.4BSD(-lite2) code, then this is "fair enough" for you.
From what I can tell, Mach is a very bare bones kernel here, not providing a process model or networking, etc.
You clearly don't have a fucking clue about business, or business users, or business purchasers, or business administrators. Cost makes up a 10% sway on the final choice. Period.
Go back and read what I wrote. I never said anything about one model being more attractive than another based just on seat-licensed costs, certainly not for all buyers. In fact, I tried to point out that the costs were different, not less.
I did point out where some customers realized that the different costs involved with Linux/OSS, like POS systems, were beneficial to their application.
The support model doesn't work either. Business expects to BUY, not to license. Hence the exodus from MS at the moment. Buying makes them confident that they're getting a decent product (even when they're not) - paying for support means they KNOW they're getting shit.
Now you're all over the place. First, cost doesn't matter, but now, they won't purchase licenses. You yourself point out that they shell out $800 every few years to MS per seat. Guess what? That's not to buy anything other than a license.
You accuse me of not understanding business, but you're demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of business software purchasing decisions. They pay for support all the time. Why do you think big business shells out so much yearly to Oracle and IBM for Database software? For yearly support contracts on Mainframe software?
Businesses clearly do factor in support costs in their decisions. They've been told by MS that they won't have to pay for support if they just purchase the latest commodity OS and productivity applications, but that's not really true and they know it now. They know that the legions of MSCEs that keep their email and servers going aren't free and that these are support costs.
Even when there is a clearly better and cheaper alternative from a technical viewpoint, it will often not be chosen. Business attaches a high value to a high price, and is prepared to pay the price.
This is clearly a gross oversimplification. Why is iPlanet so marginalized vs. Apache? Apache is clearly better and cheaper and it wins.
I agree that people purchasing software often don't understand the issues and will assume that more money is necessarily better. That's exactly why I appealed to not just insert a per-seat license cost for Linux in the hopes that it would help. It's best to educate people on the real costs. Sometimes, like in the case of Sherwin-Williams and Burlington Coat Factory, they weigh the options and see that they can deploy Linux cheaply exactly because there are no per seat license costs and they have many tens of thousands of seats. If we insert a phony per seat license cost, then Linux loses this advantage in the equation.
If it were a simple matter of raising cost to increase sales, then the proprietary vendors would just continue to raise their costs vs. Linux and always win. Why don't you see these reverse price wars? Because businessmen do, in fact factor in costs.
There's a proper term for this scenario, but all in all, it will validate that Linux might be worth-while.
Yes, this argument is flawed, as the number of people using a software much less it's lisence doesn't make software good or bad. "Look at windows!";)
As you say, it's a flawed argument.
It sends entirely the wrong message. Better to educate corporate types now that there is an alternative to seat-licensed software.
Corporate types will be disappointed if they try to apply their present software purchasing and licensing mindset to OSS and GPL'd software. This disappointment might translate to a backlash against Linux/OSS and GPL'd software in the future.
They need to start thinking in terms of very low cost to deploy many seats with some fixed support cost for deployment + some fixed cost for development/enhancement/customization + some support cost per seat.
In their present application deployment models, they cost out per-seat licenses + large initial application development costs + typically very small ongoing enhancement/customization costs and + some support cost per seat.
Some are starting to see the no-seat-licensing model as attractive for POS and the like. Best they truly understand what OSS costs are rather than give in to the natural inclination to not rethink.
So give them a non-exclusive license, wrapped up in a contract.
A non-exclusive license doesn't address the original poster's complaint that these patents are going to be used against other Open Source vendors in the future.
There's only one answer to that question. Red Hat wants to retain the ability to leverage these patents against other Open Source companies.
No other answer comes to mind?
If you were running a business, would you trust the FSF or ANYBODY else to use their patent portfolio to defend YOU in case of a hostile patent infringement suit?
This would give the FSF a lot of leverage over Red Hat that they might choose to use in the future. RMS, or his successors at the helm of the FSF, might require you to do all sorts of things that are against the interests of Red Hat as a business with this leverage.
War is nasty and requires us to have a lot of dangerous and potentially abused weapons at our disposal. Patent lawsuits are similar in this regard.
You don't criticize a country for having dangerous weapons, only for using them immorally. Wait until Red Hat abuses their position, then criticize. Until then, I think it's best to be circumspect.
If you don't agree, how do you propose that Red Hat protect themselves from patent lawsuits? Assign their patents to the FSF and hope that the FSF defends them and doesn't make any onerous demands in the meantime? Is that your only solution?
What's not to get? These companies are all under intense competitive pressure from RedHat and they are going to save costs and, hopefully, improve quality by consolidating their development and release efforts.
Each company separately could follow LSB and other standards, but that would be duplicating efforts.
Each company targets different geographical markets and brings their own customer's interests into the new consolidated release. They also each have various partnerships and aliances that they bring into the consolidated efforts.
I wouldn't be surprised to see these companies merge at some point in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
UntiedLinux!
I've heard of these claims that the real world is discrete, but Physics hasn't yet been reworked, as far as I know, to accommodate this model. Relativity, in particular, seems quite challenging to reformulate, but I'm no Mathematical Physicist.
Seems like it's definitely not the simplist solution.
No. For the same reason that the infinite series I gave above sums to a finite number.
Seems like you have more odd paradoxical problems like this with a discrete Universe. This tiny indivisible space/time you have to have with a discrete Universe. How long in time does it take to traverse? What's 1/2 that time? Oh? You can't have 1/2 that time, it's indivisible? How long does it take me to traverse it at 100 mph? 200 mph? 200,000 mph? If it's a discrete interval, seems I couldn't traverse it faster or slower. So, what does this imply? When I'm traveling "faster" I "pause" betweent he intervals less? Or what?
It seems to me that the discrete universe has you jumping from spot to spot in discrete intervals. That, to me, implies that travel to anywhere in the universe would be possible in some discrete jump.
But, like you say, what the hell do I know?
They used to argue the same sort of things about negative numbers, but then their utility in showing direction proved too attractive to abandon them as "merely" abstract.
Similarly, irrational numbers are used to model multiple dimensions.
Various concepts of infinity come into play in Calculus and topology, which may seem very abstract now, may someday prove to help us understand reality.
Non-euclidean geometries were once considered the height of useless abstraction, but have come in very handy in Relativity and String Theory.
All Maths are grounded in the Universe as they are discovered by our minds which are part of the Universe. If we can recognize a logical mathematics, then it is a recognition of a logical formalism that our minds can comprehend.
- We didn't so much invent Mathematics as we discovered it.
That's your belief.Yes, and your view is a belief also. In fact, all positions are beliefs, so what? You label it a belief as if it's a withering criticism, when in fact, it's just a definition.
I don't want to get into a deep epistemological discussion on Slashdot, of all places. I will point out that you can't prove your position any more than I can prove mine. You, however, would deny that a proof is anything but an empty manipulation of symbols, devoid of any meaning.
We men "invent" math and logic. Right. Forget the observation that children are prewired for language and logic. Math and logic are at the base of our being. This is clear to me.
Yes, I'm a platonist. I see a theory in map theory is reminiscient of one in number theory. Is it because I invented it that way, or is there a mathematic truth that binds them together that I discovered through their similarity?
In the end, these are just appeals. I can't reason with someone who believes that reasoning is arbitrary.
It's impossible to understand things like Motion or pretty much anything else without Math. Logic is part of Math.
Goedel, a mathemetician even proved the limitations of Mathematics. So, only through rigorous Math can we truly understand that Math, or any formalism, is not the Universe.
If you want to resort to some sort of mystical understanding of the Universe that depend on Math and Logic, you're welcome to it.
That's funny, I think the exact opposite, seeing that nobody had any sort of answer to Zeno's Paradoxes at all until Calculus was developed.
Careful! Running Doom III at it's highest settings on that machine might be more realism than you'd want.
The solution is that the arrow can pass through an infinite number of points in a finite amount of time.
In other words, the sum of
Seeing as the average temperature of the Universe is less than 3 degrees Kelvin, I think water-cooling might be inappropriate.
And, it was true then. It was too late for them to get out in front of the curve. They did, however, prove that they could play catchup to some extent.
Even here, the only Internet technology that they've really developed to a dominating position has been the browser.
The point about getting out in front of the curve with a technology is to get mindshare. MS still suffers for not having enough credibility in Internet technologies.
IBM is an OSS advocate because:
If I were to approach it, I might challenge MS to think outside the box and compete against themselves.
Take Apple's strategy of supporting an OSS-based OS (Darwin) and adding in strategic closed source bits to productize it. Perhaps they could move some small fraction of their $40 Billion war chest into support Darwin itself. Could you imagine the boost that Darwin would get from $4-$5 Billion? (Only 10-12% of the MS Cash holdings.) This could energize their developers on their current products to take OSS seriously and spur them to produce better products.
Perhaps more importantly, this could sap mindshare and community away from Linux. How many Enterprises would field an MS-supported Open Source OS before Linux? A lot, I think.
That's a familiar story. I recall hearing that the OSF/1 developers, which was originally based on Mach, did exactly the same kinds of things to get acceptable performance.
The only OSF/1 system to see much use was from Digital (now Compaq, I mean HP), with their Unix for the Alpha, originally called DEC OSF/1, then Digital UNIX and then Digital Tru64 UNIX, then Compaq Tru64 UNIX and now, pant, pant, I hear that another name change is in the works under HP.
- The GPL is a contract. Accept it or not, but you can't use the code if you can't accept it.
Not quite, the GPL only covers distribution, it explicitally states that use is outside its scope.You're right, I should have said "Accept it or don't modify and distribute the code, or binaries resulting from the code."
In the context of the discussion, I did mean "use" as "modify" because that's what the original poster was referring to, his right to use the code to make it fit his purposes.
Hopefully I'm wrong on this....
I think you're wrong, as I don't see the restrictions you are referring to in The Apple Public Source License, which covers Darwin. But, the language is legalese so maybe I'm missing it.
I note that the Open Source Initiative includes The Apple Public Source License on their list of approved licenses.
No, I'm not _the_ Jordan H, but I am _a_ Jordan H. See my brief bio for details. Also, see this journal entry describing a time when I tried to play off my name for a joke.
You might not see this if you don't actually look into it. Like, maybe start at that link I provided?
From this discussion of the history of Darwin we read:
andI guess seeing that much of Darwin is based on the 4.4BSD(-lite2) code, then this is "fair enough" for you.
From what I can tell, Mach is a very bare bones kernel here, not providing a process model or networking, etc.
Not exactly fair to claim this as embracing a free BSD base, as OSX is not free, portable, and open-source.
No, but Darwin, on which OSX is based, is free, portable and open-source. Oh, and it's based on a free BSD base (with a Mach microkernel).
More like claiming that Solaris is based on AT&T Unix, which it is.
If you received the original bits under the GPL, then the other contributors to the code have an ethical claim over the derivative bits.
The GPL is a contract. Accept it or not, but you can't use the code if you can't accept it.
What's unethical about entering into a contract and following it?
I bid 100 quatloos for the newcomers.
Go back and read what I wrote. I never said anything about one model being more attractive than another based just on seat-licensed costs, certainly not for all buyers. In fact, I tried to point out that the costs were different, not less.
I did point out where some customers realized that the different costs involved with Linux/OSS, like POS systems, were beneficial to their application.
Now you're all over the place. First, cost doesn't matter, but now, they won't purchase licenses. You yourself point out that they shell out $800 every few years to MS per seat. Guess what? That's not to buy anything other than a license.
You accuse me of not understanding business, but you're demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of business software purchasing decisions. They pay for support all the time. Why do you think big business shells out so much yearly to Oracle and IBM for Database software? For yearly support contracts on Mainframe software?
Businesses clearly do factor in support costs in their decisions. They've been told by MS that they won't have to pay for support if they just purchase the latest commodity OS and productivity applications, but that's not really true and they know it now. They know that the legions of MSCEs that keep their email and servers going aren't free and that these are support costs.
This is clearly a gross oversimplification. Why is iPlanet so marginalized vs. Apache? Apache is clearly better and cheaper and it wins.
I agree that people purchasing software often don't understand the issues and will assume that more money is necessarily better. That's exactly why I appealed to not just insert a per-seat license cost for Linux in the hopes that it would help. It's best to educate people on the real costs. Sometimes, like in the case of Sherwin-Williams and Burlington Coat Factory, they weigh the options and see that they can deploy Linux cheaply exactly because there are no per seat license costs and they have many tens of thousands of seats. If we insert a phony per seat license cost, then Linux loses this advantage in the equation.
If it were a simple matter of raising cost to increase sales, then the proprietary vendors would just continue to raise their costs vs. Linux and always win. Why don't you see these reverse price wars? Because businessmen do, in fact factor in costs.
Yes, this argument is flawed, as the number of people using a software much less it's lisence doesn't make software good or bad. "Look at windows!" ;)
As you say, it's a flawed argument.
It sends entirely the wrong message. Better to educate corporate types now that there is an alternative to seat-licensed software.
Corporate types will be disappointed if they try to apply their present software purchasing and licensing mindset to OSS and GPL'd software. This disappointment might translate to a backlash against Linux/OSS and GPL'd software in the future.
They need to start thinking in terms of very low cost to deploy many seats with some fixed support cost for deployment + some fixed cost for development/enhancement/customization + some support cost per seat.
In their present application deployment models, they cost out per-seat licenses + large initial application development costs + typically very small ongoing enhancement/customization costs and + some support cost per seat.
Some are starting to see the no-seat-licensing model as attractive for POS and the like. Best they truly understand what OSS costs are rather than give in to the natural inclination to not rethink.
A non-exclusive license doesn't address the original poster's complaint that these patents are going to be used against other Open Source vendors in the future.
No? Why not?
There's only one answer to that question. Red Hat wants to retain the ability to leverage these patents against other Open Source companies.
No other answer comes to mind?
If you were running a business, would you trust the FSF or ANYBODY else to use their patent portfolio to defend YOU in case of a hostile patent infringement suit?
This would give the FSF a lot of leverage over Red Hat that they might choose to use in the future. RMS, or his successors at the helm of the FSF, might require you to do all sorts of things that are against the interests of Red Hat as a business with this leverage.
War is nasty and requires us to have a lot of dangerous and potentially abused weapons at our disposal. Patent lawsuits are similar in this regard.
You don't criticize a country for having dangerous weapons, only for using them immorally. Wait until Red Hat abuses their position, then criticize. Until then, I think it's best to be circumspect.
If you don't agree, how do you propose that Red Hat protect themselves from patent lawsuits? Assign their patents to the FSF and hope that the FSF defends them and doesn't make any onerous demands in the meantime? Is that your only solution?
Each company separately could follow LSB and other standards, but that would be duplicating efforts.
Each company targets different geographical markets and brings their own customer's interests into the new consolidated release. They also each have various partnerships and aliances that they bring into the consolidated efforts.
I wouldn't be surprised to see these companies merge at some point in the future.
With the foldup keyboards you can get, PDAs make an excellent notetaking device for classes, too.