By this logic a dictatorship is the only free system, because it includes the freedom to take away yours. And the system lives with that "freedom".
Re:Distributed version control gaining ground in F
on
Linus on GIT and SCM
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Richard Dawkins spent a good deal of time in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker" talking about what the gradualist and the punctuationist view of Darwinism is. His gripe was that the latter was sold as a whole new theory, opposing the old gradualist view. Dawkins was rightly pissed about this, because the latter is merely an improved version of the former. I feel the same about the Centralized vs. Distributed topic. The distributed system is basically a centralized system where EVERY COPY HAS FULL REVISION HISTORY.
There is still a central or main copy, otherwise you'd be herding a lot of slowly diverging forks! Most projects want to produce a release eventually and there is a main copy of sourcecode which the release is produced from.
Imo, the reason Linus dislikes SVN and CVS and pretty much everything else is because of speed, because most SCMs lack the ability to work with merging different copies of repositories and work on a commit level instead, and do not allow for easy development routing around the central copy.
Git has some great features. Speed, that the whole repository with revision history is mirrored, that it's consistent cryptographically, etc.
There is one part that I don't get and it's the decentralized part. Yeah, it is a big bonus that potentially any copy can take over would something happen to the main one or that developers can create branches and share code with each other without relying on a central server, but the part that bugs me is that according to Linus the right model is when there is a maintainer like him that avaits emails either sending him patches or giving him git repository addresses and telling him to pull. For most projects this is simply an unbelievably stupid idea, waiting for a person to judge your patches one by one. Most open source software on a small to medium level don't work this way.
Also, there is the fundamental misunderstanding that decentralized means that there is no central server/primary copy. This is patently false even in the case of Linux. Linus' tree is the central server. For 95% of the people THAT tree is the linux kernel. For 4.9999% it is the 'real' linux kernel. For the remaining 0.00001% or less, well those are the forks.
It's quite simple. There is a decentralized environment, but there exists a main/most influential copy. If you diverge too much from that main copy, that's a fork.
So I was saying that for small to medium scale projects pretending that there is no centralized server, just people's repository is stupid. For large scale projects it can work, like it does for Linux, but then you have a dedicated core team that is necessary in judging what goes in and what stays out. It doesn't matter if you call it people x's tree or commit right to the central repository. That is the same thing. The terminology Linus uses is annoying because it lies. Not Linus, but the terminology.
I defend against viruses by either downloading software from a gpg signed trusted debian repository, or compiling software from sourcecode.
Thing is, there is no 100% percent way, as you say. Noone wants "100% security" either, because it's impossible to have. But there are good methods to have a reasonable percentage of security and there are methods that don't guarantee a thing and only bring a marginal increase in security against unwanted code. Antivirus software is the latter. There is a huge fucking gap of security and usability between the "sound security practices" and "using a virus scanner" (The third option from the back and the second from the back on your list).
Let's face it. Anti Virus software is the day after pill. I daresay if someone relies on defending against viruses by antivirus software, the security model is already utterly, completely broken. So no, not including an anti virus software doesn't mean an operating system shouldn't employ design and tactics against viruses. Ars Technica is simply wrong.
They spent pages debunking the part that every reasonable player knew to be false and then basically said what amounted to 'oh yea that wasn't true either' to the real allegations that actually concern people. Then they played the high horse victim card.
It is sad. Eve Online is a good game, with crap management.
Lindzen is hardly credible. But the beauty of science is that a lead scientist can be ignored if he doesn't produce science and a layman can be taken seriously too, if he produces real science. Lindzen is emitting hot air, and possibly for the same reason he claimed the smoking and lung cancer connection is overstated.
Galileo was not rejected by the scientific consensus of his day. He was rejected by a dictatorical regime called the catholic church of his day.
What you fail to understand is that science currently sides with global warming because the facts and models that scientists are working on support global warming and noone managed to find a scientifically credible flaw in the facts and models. The smart global warming deniers only have to falsify global warming, which makes me wonder why didn't they do so, so far.
Please don't bring up the "oh we tried to tell them, but they wouldn't listen!" excuse. It is an overtly paranoid and delusional viewpoint to take. Science is not a democracy, but a tyranny of facts. Personal feelings and wishes are eliminated or reduced from the system of science.
All these posters are clearly missing that there is a reason why underage kids are sent to school. It would be much better entertainment not to go to school at all for a lot of them. Guess what, this is one of the reasons why they have adult parents that are supposed to be more experienced and knowledgeable, so they know that it is in the interest of kids to learn. Schools should make sure they do, not by trying to entertain them like in a circus, but by strictly checking their knowledge and if they fail, well making them repeat grade. This of course assumes that their parents know their kids best interests. Kids are not there to be entertained but to make them learn and some entertainment can be of use in achieving that.
The best teachers I've had in highschool demanded the most, but had the most interesting lessons aswell. So what if the kid doesn't want to learn? It's because he/she doesn't realise yet that it's important. So make him fail the subject and repeat grade in the worst case. He'll thank you later in life.
Entertaining kids is overrated, just tell them more and demand more from them. That is better than playful analogies.
Sure, most teachers aren't good enough to do both, but it's that handful of wonderful teachers for whom teaching while entertaining come naturally that can instill a lifelong love of learning. It makes me sad to think you have never found learning entertaining. I can remember classes in music, film, physics, mathematics, literature and history that were great fun and in which I learned a great deal.
I pray that yours is not a widespread point of view on Slashdot because it could mean that our educational system has failed worse than I thought or that there is a high correlation between people who take an interest in technical matters and those that have no soul.
There is a difference between something being deeply interesting, "cool" and entertaining. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc. are interesting, fascinating, but not entertaining on the level entertainment is commonly used, that is games, movies and pop music. School involves studying, exercise. Learning only by entertainment is very very hard.
I'd appreciate that you wouldn't make far reaching assumptions based on a short post of mine. Especially if you happen to be wrong about it. I have been lucky to have great teachers in high school and it was a joy to learn in their classes. They made mathematics, physics and history interesting, but their goal wasn't to entertain me, but to teach me.
Either you're teaching them something or you're entertaining them. Pick one. A 13y old is more than capable of learning about a lot of things, because for example I remember doing so at that age. Science education in the USA is notoriously less than what could and should be taught.
I find it kind of sad. Yeah, the world probably needs the capitalistic natural selection to move forward, but I'd wish the kids would aspire for something else too, apart from trying to be rich.
The kid's idea is stupid anyway, sure you can roleplay very basic things with it by providing an analogy, but that analogy doesn't work consistently and does not allow for a deeper understanding of chemistry. So unless you are satisfied with the "iron card and oxigen card equals rust card", it does not allow for a deeper understanding. Don't tell me kids are not supposed to learn more at that (around twelve) age, you're probably expecting too little of them.
Either this kid is a gifted one, in which case he'd better spending his time working on something that has use or he's not and probably articles like this are doing a disservice by encouraging him and by taking his idea seriously. The kid apparently has charisma, but that is only enough for deluding people.
Talking about public education, initiatives like this boy's degrade education. For example not teaching children proper algorithms for basic multiplication, division and addition but instead encouraging them to come up with their own reasoning is the equivalent of starting a coding project with two tonnes of sand and some heavy metals. Most of the kids fail at it. It is not against self development and creativity to build upon the work of others, as progress is incremental.
Sadly too many people think that all there is to a representative democracy is to vote once every four years and then the government can do whatever it likes without any repecussions.
Actually, you're wrong, but I'm also not citizen of the USA.
A constitutional republic (which is a country like the USA) is a type of democracy, where while the majority rules, the minority rights are protected by law.
Yeah. The EPO doesn't carry any force though. Everyone can create an organization that collects descriptions of certain things, but it is not enforced by law.
Good luck with that. The average voter thinks that the Internet is the little blue 'e' icon on their desktop, and that Windows is a type of computer (the other type of computer is a Mac). They don't even know about FOSS or could scarcely give a hoot how it's affected by Microsoft, or how software patents affect innovation in general.
There is a reason I hate cynical, trying to be realistic assessments. The problem with it is that by taking a view like that, no progress is possible. I deliberately overshoot what I think is the current average state of affairs both in politics and in computing. I _expect_ a voter or citizen to know the basics of what is a democracy, I _expect_ that an average person knows the basics of how a computer works. The reason is simple trends. It will continue to be important knowing about the basic operating principles of a democratic society and will increase in importance. It's going to grow much more important in the future to know about computers since computing is really only getting more widespead and slowly embedded in most everyday aspects of life.
I encourage people to do so. Shooting for the average never helps, it lowers the average in the wrong direction.
(Also, I think your view that tries to be realistic is exaggerated)
I for one don't feel like working around patents. I decided to ignore them completely. Yeah, I'm from Europe. If they ever institute software patents here I will continue to ignore them as a form of civil disobedience.
- 650 thousand civilians dead since the 2003 invasion. Total population: 28 million.
- 20 billion dollars of iraqi money was stolen by the US appointed "manager" for Iraq.
- Another 20 billion dollars from the US Govt. is being spent in Iraq supposedly for reconstruction. Millions of dollars are given to Haliburton, etc. in triple or more digit percentage profits.
- There are 30000 mercenaries in the service of foreign companies in Iraq, above the law, mostly caring about their own safety even at the price of serious damage to the iraqis. It is not isolated cases, a lot of the mercenary companies actively promote themselves with videos showing how they "protect" their client, while disregarding the safety of the natives (firing at cars that come too close - less than 50-100 meters, bumping cars out of the way and that kind of stuff).
- The iraqis you mentioned working on the base are selection bias. They wouldn't work on a fucking military base run by the USA, if they were hostile against you. Or even if they were, they wouldn't show it.
So yeah, you can reconstruct the houses you've bombed from the iraqis' own money, but don't expect them to thank you, especially if a few relatives were killed either directly or indirectly due to the US. Statistically, there isn't anyone in Iraq who hasn't lost a relative.
Look, I understand what you or the lower ranks of the military personnel try to do. I do believe most of you are there against your will and while there, you're trying to help. But, you need to understand that there is a reason why the military and the police is separate. Iraq isn't in a war, but in a state of unrest. You can't apply military methods to an occupation because the people generally speaking don't trust you. To win their trust you'd need to stop thinking like the military and start thinking like police. You'd need to take even more risk by not approaching every situation as a military matter. You'd have a lot more american casualties, but either that and try to bring peace, or you should just pull out before doing more damage.
You need to look at this from the iraqis point of view. From their POV, they had a dictator, but it was their countrymen, then a foreign country landed troops on them, things were bombed, then a lot of people started to die, they see that while you preach freedom and democracy their government is literally a puppet of the USA, the media setup by the USA is biased to the end, the iraqi oil revenue is used to rebuild their own country so it's not like you're doing any favors for them, the common soldiers like you treat them as a potential military threat, they have no national identity, etc.
Baghdad has the green zone, an ultimate symbol of occupation. You can't expect the average iraqi to distinguish your mood when you're following orders from your politicians or when you're in the charitable mood. They think that "We were just following orders" is not a valid defense, rightly so. In my opinion the whole "I oppose the politicians but support the troops" is not a valid viewpoint, because the troops are human too. They have a brain to think and if they don't, only they can be faulted for that. When you join the military you agree that you're willing to risk death and that you're supposed to follow orders even when you're disagreeing with them because they come from corrupt politicians pawing their own agenda. You are supposed to stick to your ethics when a superior orders you to do something unethical. Lack of forsight is not innocence, it is just stupidity on the behalf of military personnel.
Slashdot Mirror
By this logic a dictatorship is the only free system, because it includes the freedom to take away yours. And the system lives with that "freedom".
Richard Dawkins spent a good deal of time in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker" talking about what the gradualist and the punctuationist view of Darwinism is. His gripe was that the latter was sold as a whole new theory, opposing the old gradualist view. Dawkins was rightly pissed about this, because the latter is merely an improved version of the former. I feel the same about the Centralized vs. Distributed topic. The distributed system is basically a centralized system where EVERY COPY HAS FULL REVISION HISTORY.
There is still a central or main copy, otherwise you'd be herding a lot of slowly diverging forks! Most projects want to produce a release eventually and there is a main copy of sourcecode which the release is produced from.
Imo, the reason Linus dislikes SVN and CVS and pretty much everything else is because of speed, because most SCMs lack the ability to work with merging different copies of repositories and work on a commit level instead, and do not allow for easy development routing around the central copy.
Git has some great features. Speed, that the whole repository with revision history is mirrored, that it's consistent cryptographically, etc.
There is one part that I don't get and it's the decentralized part. Yeah, it is a big bonus that potentially any copy can take over would something happen to the main one or that developers can create branches and share code with each other without relying on a central server, but the part that bugs me is that according to Linus the right model is when there is a maintainer like him that avaits emails either sending him patches or giving him git repository addresses and telling him to pull. For most projects this is simply an unbelievably stupid idea, waiting for a person to judge your patches one by one. Most open source software on a small to medium level don't work this way.
Also, there is the fundamental misunderstanding that decentralized means that there is no central server/primary copy. This is patently false even in the case of Linux. Linus' tree is the central server. For 95% of the people THAT tree is the linux kernel. For 4.9999% it is the 'real' linux kernel. For the remaining 0.00001% or less, well those are the forks.
It's quite simple. There is a decentralized environment, but there exists a main/most influential copy. If you diverge too much from that main copy, that's a fork.
So I was saying that for small to medium scale projects pretending that there is no centralized server, just people's repository is stupid. For large scale projects it can work, like it does for Linux, but then you have a dedicated core team that is necessary in judging what goes in and what stays out. It doesn't matter if you call it people x's tree or commit right to the central repository. That is the same thing. The terminology Linus uses is annoying because it lies. Not Linus, but the terminology.
...and just download this documentary. It sounds interesting.
I have both keys on my webserver. It is not located in the USA. Have fun litigating... :)
I defend against viruses by either downloading software from a gpg signed trusted debian repository, or compiling software from sourcecode.
Thing is, there is no 100% percent way, as you say. Noone wants "100% security" either, because it's impossible to have. But there are good methods to have a reasonable percentage of security and there are methods that don't guarantee a thing and only bring a marginal increase in security against unwanted code. Antivirus software is the latter. There is a huge fucking gap of security and usability between the "sound security practices" and "using a virus scanner" (The third option from the back and the second from the back on your list).
Let's face it. Anti Virus software is the day after pill. I daresay if someone relies on defending against viruses by antivirus software, the security model is already utterly, completely broken. So no, not including an anti virus software doesn't mean an operating system shouldn't employ design and tactics against viruses. Ars Technica is simply wrong.
They spent pages debunking the part that every reasonable player knew to be false and then basically said what amounted to 'oh yea that wasn't true either' to the real allegations that actually concern people. Then they played the high horse victim card.
It is sad. Eve Online is a good game, with crap management.
Way to go do a Sony and ignore the biggest market in the world. Although I guess the reaction is the same, not many people want the thing anyway...
Lindzen is hardly credible. But the beauty of science is that a lead scientist can be ignored if he doesn't produce science and a layman can be taken seriously too, if he produces real science. Lindzen is emitting hot air, and possibly for the same reason he claimed the smoking and lung cancer connection is overstated.
Galileo was not rejected by the scientific consensus of his day. He was rejected by a dictatorical regime called the catholic church of his day.
What you fail to understand is that science currently sides with global warming because the facts and models that scientists are working on support global warming and noone managed to find a scientifically credible flaw in the facts and models. The smart global warming deniers only have to falsify global warming, which makes me wonder why didn't they do so, so far.
Please don't bring up the "oh we tried to tell them, but they wouldn't listen!" excuse. It is an overtly paranoid and delusional viewpoint to take. Science is not a democracy, but a tyranny of facts. Personal feelings and wishes are eliminated or reduced from the system of science.
Repeat after me: Romania is not part of the USA. Defamation, jury and other shit like that doesn't apply.
All these posters are clearly missing that there is a reason why underage kids are sent to school. It would be much better entertainment not to go to school at all for a lot of them. Guess what, this is one of the reasons why they have adult parents that are supposed to be more experienced and knowledgeable, so they know that it is in the interest of kids to learn. Schools should make sure they do, not by trying to entertain them like in a circus, but by strictly checking their knowledge and if they fail, well making them repeat grade. This of course assumes that their parents know their kids best interests. Kids are not there to be entertained but to make them learn and some entertainment can be of use in achieving that.
The best teachers I've had in highschool demanded the most, but had the most interesting lessons aswell. So what if the kid doesn't want to learn? It's because he/she doesn't realise yet that it's important. So make him fail the subject and repeat grade in the worst case. He'll thank you later in life.
Entertaining kids is overrated, just tell them more and demand more from them. That is better than playful analogies.
I'd appreciate that you wouldn't make far reaching assumptions based on a short post of mine. Especially if you happen to be wrong about it. I have been lucky to have great teachers in high school and it was a joy to learn in their classes. They made mathematics, physics and history interesting, but their goal wasn't to entertain me, but to teach me.
By proper I mean that works, gets the job done and doesn't require higher mathematics education.
Btw, to reply in style to your question, yes.
Either you're teaching them something or you're entertaining them. Pick one. A 13y old is more than capable of learning about a lot of things, because for example I remember doing so at that age. Science education in the USA is notoriously less than what could and should be taught.
I find it kind of sad. Yeah, the world probably needs the capitalistic natural selection to move forward, but I'd wish the kids would aspire for something else too, apart from trying to be rich.
The kid's idea is stupid anyway, sure you can roleplay very basic things with it by providing an analogy, but that analogy doesn't work consistently and does not allow for a deeper understanding of chemistry. So unless you are satisfied with the "iron card and oxigen card equals rust card", it does not allow for a deeper understanding. Don't tell me kids are not supposed to learn more at that (around twelve) age, you're probably expecting too little of them.
Either this kid is a gifted one, in which case he'd better spending his time working on something that has use or he's not and probably articles like this are doing a disservice by encouraging him and by taking his idea seriously. The kid apparently has charisma, but that is only enough for deluding people.
Talking about public education, initiatives like this boy's degrade education. For example not teaching children proper algorithms for basic multiplication, division and addition but instead encouraging them to come up with their own reasoning is the equivalent of starting a coding project with two tonnes of sand and some heavy metals. Most of the kids fail at it. It is not against self development and creativity to build upon the work of others, as progress is incremental.
Sadly too many people think that all there is to a representative democracy is to vote once every four years and then the government can do whatever it likes without any repecussions.
Actually, you're wrong, but I'm also not citizen of the USA.
A constitutional republic (which is a country like the USA) is a type of democracy, where while the majority rules, the minority rights are protected by law.
Yeah. The EPO doesn't carry any force though. Everyone can create an organization that collects descriptions of certain things, but it is not enforced by law.
Where is the $699 SCO license fee troll when you need him? Now is his chance to be ontopic...
I encourage people to do so. Shooting for the average never helps, it lowers the average in the wrong direction.
(Also, I think your view that tries to be realistic is exaggerated)
I for one don't feel like working around patents. I decided to ignore them completely. Yeah, I'm from Europe. If they ever institute software patents here I will continue to ignore them as a form of civil disobedience.
A few fun facts:
- 650 thousand civilians dead since the 2003 invasion. Total population: 28 million.
- 20 billion dollars of iraqi money was stolen by the US appointed "manager" for Iraq.
- Another 20 billion dollars from the US Govt. is being spent in Iraq supposedly for reconstruction. Millions of dollars are given to Haliburton, etc. in triple or more digit percentage profits.
- There are 30000 mercenaries in the service of foreign companies in Iraq, above the law, mostly caring about their own safety even at the price of serious damage to the iraqis. It is not isolated cases, a lot of the mercenary companies actively promote themselves with videos showing how they "protect" their client, while disregarding the safety of the natives (firing at cars that come too close - less than 50-100 meters, bumping cars out of the way and that kind of stuff).
- The iraqis you mentioned working on the base are selection bias. They wouldn't work on a fucking military base run by the USA, if they were hostile against you. Or even if they were, they wouldn't show it.
So yeah, you can reconstruct the houses you've bombed from the iraqis' own money, but don't expect them to thank you, especially if a few relatives were killed either directly or indirectly due to the US. Statistically, there isn't anyone in Iraq who hasn't lost a relative.
Look, I understand what you or the lower ranks of the military personnel try to do. I do believe most of you are there against your will and while there, you're trying to help. But, you need to understand that there is a reason why the military and the police is separate. Iraq isn't in a war, but in a state of unrest. You can't apply military methods to an occupation because the people generally speaking don't trust you. To win their trust you'd need to stop thinking like the military and start thinking like police. You'd need to take even more risk by not approaching every situation as a military matter. You'd have a lot more american casualties, but either that and try to bring peace, or you should just pull out before doing more damage.
You need to look at this from the iraqis point of view. From their POV, they had a dictator, but it was their countrymen, then a foreign country landed troops on them, things were bombed, then a lot of people started to die, they see that while you preach freedom and democracy their government is literally a puppet of the USA, the media setup by the USA is biased to the end, the iraqi oil revenue is used to rebuild their own country so it's not like you're doing any favors for them, the common soldiers like you treat them as a potential military threat, they have no national identity, etc.
Baghdad has the green zone, an ultimate symbol of occupation. You can't expect the average iraqi to distinguish your mood when you're following orders from your politicians or when you're in the charitable mood. They think that "We were just following orders" is not a valid defense, rightly so. In my opinion the whole "I oppose the politicians but support the troops" is not a valid viewpoint, because the troops are human too. They have a brain to think and if they don't, only they can be faulted for that. When you join the military you agree that you're willing to risk death and that you're supposed to follow orders even when you're disagreeing with them because they come from corrupt politicians pawing their own agenda. You are supposed to stick to your ethics when a superior orders you to do something unethical. Lack of forsight is not innocence, it is just stupidity on the behalf of military personnel.