I think we're mostly agreed here, especially in that publication of works online should have equal weight compared to some mass public communication. I understand the similarities between posting something online and posting things in public places. However, I do not believe surfing the web or whatever form of researching information should be logged in the same manner. Additionally, e-mail, phone conversations and SMS messages are intended to be private communications. I think that in an emergency situation they can be intercepted ethically, but not just passively, automatically logged where they can be subject to theft and misuse. That methodology is an unnatural, artificial social construct just as much as complete anonymity is. But I don't think I need to tell you that; surely you've seen the numerous private and public thefts of PII on laptops and what have you.
Thanks for your reply, I really enjoyed reading it.
You say there is a fine line. The line may be fine, but the choice is still clear: when in doubt, preserve a right - do not take it away. Surely you don't disagree with innocence until proven guilty or the right to bear arms in order to overthrow an oppressive government. Both can lead to bad situations such as setting a guilty person free for lack of evidence or murder. Anonymity is, up to this point, a natural human treasure-just another freedom we have. Once you let a ounce of it go, it's never coming back.
While utilities such as telephone and power are "private", they are HEAVILY REGULATED and their ability to profit from their "natural monopoly" is preserved. This is practically a perfect parallel.
It's not a *perfect* parallel. I'd argue that electricity and water are critical for healthy standards of living. Even though the internet is important culturally, I can go without it for several weeks without serious detriment (whether you can stand it is another issue - see http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/ 14/2331212). Try going without water service for a few weeks.
Maybe I was unclear. I meant that private services aren't always subject to the same standards. The reasons for that are probably clear to you, I'm sure. It will be interesting (and surprising) if they view the cultural importance of the internet as grounds for equating it as a public utility to any degree.
Me too. But did you even bother to post to the FCC? If it's not worth even that much to you, you're just talking out your arse. It's not like these guys at the FCC are going to seek YOU out...
I did send a comment to the FCC. But I'd be much more satisfied knowing I could vote on an issue like this. It would be really interesting if we could collectively sponsor a citizen-owned-funded telecommunications network to carry the internet and so on. I digress though. Thanks again for the reply.
While I agree with your position, you should remember that the airwaves are a public space, therefore it is regulated by the public domain. The internet is carried by interconnected *private* machinery and is therefore not subject to the same principles. So too is it thus with telephone and other utilities. That's not to say I think it should be no-holds barred. I myself think that the internet should be neutral for the simple fact that it can be useful [and sometimes critical] to just about everyone. And let's face it. It's not like we're going to build a separate, public, broadband network. Good luck getting the people to pay *that* tax! Similarly, electricity is a private utility with massive public dependence, so the government keeps a justifiably watchful eye. May it be so with the internet, but I have my doubts that it will go through.
Clearly, you fail to realize that Germans have already removed their space bars. Surely you've used Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübert ragungsgesetz when talking about cattle marking and beef labelling supervision duties delegation law, or read about the Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswe rkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft.
Agreed. I think the subconcious goal is to NOT ever need interoperability between Windows and Linux - or rather, not need Microsoft at all! It's just like wanting political change. You can devote large amounts of time and energy to it, or you can do it in "baby steps". I think the latter is a cop out in the software world. It's not *that* hard for the whole planet to collectively write free software at least equal in quality. Plenty of evidence for that fact already.
What's funny is that Linux users secretly have a tricked-out Windows box for playing games because developers won't publish to Linux. Shucks, I wonder why! They buy Windows software! The problem is in short: we (especially businesses) are scared of life without Microsoft. Businesses don't want the risk and devotion of energy to new solutions based on idealism. That's where the consumer comes in. The consumers must, in a sense, be revolutionaries. How do you think Microsoft created an empire? With cooperation and interoperability? No.
I originally vowed never to use commercial Linux distributions like Suse precisely because I think it's outright hilarious to charge for something that's free because it comes with "support". That mentality is what forged the shackles tied to Microsoft's dungeon wall. No thanks.
I am convinced this ESR is a complete dumbass. What a bullshitting feel-gooder. Here's why I think this.
Open-source advocate Eric Raymond on winning over the iPod generation, the need for open source to conquer hearts and minds beyond geekdom, and why Linux advocates don't have much time to beat Microsoft.
Win over the iPod generation? Since when were we the iPod generation? You mean the generation that can't communicate worth a damn, one earbud hanging out? You mean the generation that consumes the latest craze without thinking twice? We don't need to convince anyone of anything other than making them learn about the computers they use! I say make everyone a hacker! We must stop creating and catering to people who want things to "just work". Those kind of people probably want the government or voting machines to "just work" too.
He's pushed for entrepreneurs and businesses to get involved in open source.
Why? It makes sense for Intel or ATI to open driver sources so Linux users will buy their hardware, but why would Apple release the source code to an Application like Logic Pro, for which they can charge a huge sum because it's a unique proprietary product?
As an open-source ambassador, he's prepared to push some uncomfortable notions. "We need to be prepared to go to the rights holders for these proprietary codecs and say, we'll give you money, give us a license," he said. This is something that the Linux community has a huge antipathy to doing because we've got all this idealism about open source.
You're damn right we do. I'd say, "Fuck your license. Not only can make a product at least as good ourselves, but we'll be able to find out exactly what's happening behind the cute little windows and icons if we like. This is not just about the fact that we can see or use the code on Linux. This is about our freedom to compute and our right to know what our machines are computing. As if we can't live without them!
Ah, geeks. We caught up with him, where else, at World Science Fiction Convention in San Diego.
More stereotyping of "geeks". As if these geeks, as defined, are the only people who use Linux. I don't attend Sci-Fi conventions or collect anime. Believe it or not, I use Linux for reasons other than technological novelty!
Q: What will it take to get Linux to work as smoothly with something like an iPod as well as an iPod works with a Mac (or at least my Windows machine)?
A: It will take somebody who's prepared to buy the rights for those technologies on behalf of the Linux community and then distribute them as a product.
No it won't. It will take people's realization that there are other products than iPods and/or Apple's use of a standard, open, easy-to-understand driver for their iPods. Or we'll just learn to hack it and we'll be done with it.
I view comprising with the proprietary codec vendors as a tactical move designed to get us larger end user market shares, so that in the end we can push more things to the open.
Linux doesn't need market share, because Linux is free. And I do mean as in beer. It does not exist to take over the market. It exists to combat the freedoms that our current market apprehends.
Q: Tell us more.
A: It's a big deal because the Intel announcement is going to put tremendous pressure on ATI and nVidia to do more in the direction of open source itself and the question will be, who gets there first.
Gee, I wonder why they did that.
Why should we seek to dethrone operating systems? That goal would incite war among distributions to create a commercialized, shiny-button OS that doesn't even resemble Linux. If that happens - if Linux somehow morphed into some strange half-breed - those who want something that embodies Linux's current philosophies will create a new Linux. If
"Stuart Cohen, CEO of OSDL, said during an interview with vnunet.com at the LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco that it's 'inevitable' that Microsoft will release a version of Office to run on Linux within the 'next couple of years'.
I said when reading this article that it's 'inevitable' that I will never install a version of office to run on Linux... ever.
You know what happens when I run into a WMV or WMA or a Real movie or any other crap proprietary format? I hit the back button. Wow, big deal, now we can "easily" and "legally" watch movies on eBaum's. It'll have to be a little more than 'chilly' downstairs for me to put Real on any computer I own.
I believe this to be irrefutable evidence that he is a nutjob. It also passes scientific community standards because his behavior is both predictable and subsequent experiments are repeatable. That behavior is nutjobby.
Everyone hates advertising anyway. Just make good products, you idiots! God help us when nanotech is mainstream. We'll be getting spyware bots latching onto our brainstems. Popups integrated into your perception of reality on the lowest level. The only escape is suicide.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your reply, I really enjoyed reading it.
You say there is a fine line. The line may be fine, but the choice is still clear: when in doubt, preserve a right - do not take it away. Surely you don't disagree with innocence until proven guilty or the right to bear arms in order to overthrow an oppressive government. Both can lead to bad situations such as setting a guilty person free for lack of evidence or murder. Anonymity is, up to this point, a natural human treasure-just another freedom we have. Once you let a ounce of it go, it's never coming back.
Maybe I was unclear. I meant that private services aren't always subject to the same standards. The reasons for that are probably clear to you, I'm sure. It will be interesting (and surprising) if they view the cultural importance of the internet as grounds for equating it as a public utility to any degree. I did send a comment to the FCC. But I'd be much more satisfied knowing I could vote on an issue like this. It would be really interesting if we could collectively sponsor a citizen-owned-funded telecommunications network to carry the internet and so on. I digress though. Thanks again for the reply.
While I agree with your position, you should remember that the airwaves are a public space, therefore it is regulated by the public domain. The internet is carried by interconnected *private* machinery and is therefore not subject to the same principles. So too is it thus with telephone and other utilities. That's not to say I think it should be no-holds barred. I myself think that the internet should be neutral for the simple fact that it can be useful [and sometimes critical] to just about everyone. And let's face it. It's not like we're going to build a separate, public, broadband network. Good luck getting the people to pay *that* tax! Similarly, electricity is a private utility with massive public dependence, so the government keeps a justifiably watchful eye. May it be so with the internet, but I have my doubts that it will go through.
Except when you have no other competing corporation to give your business. Oh well. Who needs the internet anyway?
...as if you could get one to play around with in the first place.
Clearly, you fail to realize that Germans have already removed their space bars. Surely you've used Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübert ragungsgesetz when talking about cattle marking and beef labelling supervision duties delegation law, or read about the Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswe rkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft.
Agreed. I think the subconcious goal is to NOT ever need interoperability between Windows and Linux - or rather, not need Microsoft at all! It's just like wanting political change. You can devote large amounts of time and energy to it, or you can do it in "baby steps". I think the latter is a cop out in the software world. It's not *that* hard for the whole planet to collectively write free software at least equal in quality. Plenty of evidence for that fact already.
What's funny is that Linux users secretly have a tricked-out Windows box for playing games because developers won't publish to Linux. Shucks, I wonder why! They buy Windows software! The problem is in short: we (especially businesses) are scared of life without Microsoft. Businesses don't want the risk and devotion of energy to new solutions based on idealism. That's where the consumer comes in. The consumers must, in a sense, be revolutionaries. How do you think Microsoft created an empire? With cooperation and interoperability? No.
I originally vowed never to use commercial Linux distributions like Suse precisely because I think it's outright hilarious to charge for something that's free because it comes with "support". That mentality is what forged the shackles tied to Microsoft's dungeon wall. No thanks.
I hate Microsoft because of STEVE BALLMER.
Microsofts beneficial pricing policy? How about Linux'snonexistent pricing policy?
Actually it's not a pet peeve. It's EVERYONE'S peeve.
I am convinced this ESR is a complete dumbass. What a bullshitting feel-gooder. Here's why I think this.
Win over the iPod generation? Since when were we the iPod generation? You mean the generation that can't communicate worth a damn, one earbud hanging out? You mean the generation that consumes the latest craze without thinking twice? We don't need to convince anyone of anything other than making them learn about the computers they use! I say make everyone a hacker! We must stop creating and catering to people who want things to "just work". Those kind of people probably want the government or voting machines to "just work" too.
Why? It makes sense for Intel or ATI to open driver sources so Linux users will buy their hardware, but why would Apple release the source code to an Application like Logic Pro, for which they can charge a huge sum because it's a unique proprietary product?
You're damn right we do. I'd say, "Fuck your license. Not only can make a product at least as good ourselves, but we'll be able to find out exactly what's happening behind the cute little windows and icons if we like. This is not just about the fact that we can see or use the code on Linux. This is about our freedom to compute and our right to know what our machines are computing. As if we can't live without them!
More stereotyping of "geeks". As if these geeks, as defined, are the only people who use Linux. I don't attend Sci-Fi conventions or collect anime. Believe it or not, I use Linux for reasons other than technological novelty!
No it won't. It will take people's realization that there are other products than iPods and/or Apple's use of a standard, open, easy-to-understand driver for their iPods. Or we'll just learn to hack it and we'll be done with it.
Linux doesn't need market share, because Linux is free. And I do mean as in beer. It does not exist to take over the market. It exists to combat the freedoms that our current market apprehends.
Gee, I wonder why they did that.
Why should we seek to dethrone operating systems? That goal would incite war among distributions to create a commercialized, shiny-button OS that doesn't even resemble Linux. If that happens - if Linux somehow morphed into some strange half-breed - those who want something that embodies Linux's current philosophies will create a new Linux. If
I said when reading this article that it's 'inevitable' that I will never install a version of office to run on Linux ... ever.
You know what happens when I run into a WMV or WMA or a Real movie or any other crap proprietary format? I hit the back button. Wow, big deal, now we can "easily" and "legally" watch movies on eBaum's. It'll have to be a little more than 'chilly' downstairs for me to put Real on any computer I own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc4MzqBFxZE&search= ballmer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvbWLfr-Z4s&search= ballmer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj3FOHc-fgA&search= ballmer
I believe this to be irrefutable evidence that he is a nutjob. It also passes scientific community standards because his behavior is both predictable and subsequent experiments are repeatable. That behavior is nutjobby.
Because they are busted and overpriced anyway.
Everyone hates advertising anyway. Just make good products, you idiots! God help us when nanotech is mainstream. We'll be getting spyware bots latching onto our brainstems. Popups integrated into your perception of reality on the lowest level. The only escape is suicide.