Google caches web pages it indexes. It might be nice if the good folks at google created something like archive.google.com - basically an historical reference to what was up on the web at the time google happened to spider. Maybe with queries by date. With hyperlinks rewritten to correspond to google's own saved cache of pages. Is the price of storage coming down faster than the volume of pages is going up?
There's a _lot_ of important stuff on the web. It's such a shame when information gets lost.
Exactly. I can see it now... In an effort to please each and every technophobe's desire to have their all-important feature be only one click away, Microsoft releases "Windows Flat". No menus. No directory trees. No dialogs. Instead, each and every pixel is assigned a function.
Ugh. I feel betrayed. So RAND licensing is not a hypothetical future problem - these terms are being applied to W3C standards now.
I have not purchased anything from Apple, IBM, Quark, et. al. for years. This kind of slimy behaviour only strengthens my resolve to continue my boycott.
Are the methods covered by these patents essential to a working SVG implementation? Can their cancerous inclusion be eradicated without killing the patient?
Well said. And if any and all are free to submit RFC's to the IETF, I propose that unless the W3C pulls their heads out of their asses, all current W3C standards be submitted in RFC format to the IETF. Smells like a code fork to me.
Of course I have little or no understanding of the copyright issues involved in this case. Would this be possible?
This would mean SVG became a multi-vendor consortium pushing a private specification. But let's face it - with the patents involved - that is precisely what it is.
Could someone elaborate on what Alan Cox is talking about here? Is the current SVG standard encumbered by patents? Is it about to be? How? Considering how long this standard has been promoted as an open solution to the mishmash of proprietary vector graphics solutions, this would be a tragedy and an insult.
So what criteria do you require of a license which makes our approval meaningless to you?
Well, as my sig subtly suggests, I personlly favor the GPL. That said, I also favor choice. I think that it is the developer's perogative to choose any license he or she chooses, up to and including the most restrictive proprietary licenses. Good licenses, like good code, should stand on their merits.
Your question is somewhat difficult to answer, because I already know what license I personally prefer. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't know what license to use. In that case, I think it's more useful to be able to review the panoply of available licenses, rather than a select few. I feel like the terms "open" or "open source" tend to confuse matters somewhat, because even among those licenses that qualify (according to the OSD), there can be vast differences.
Generalizations can be useful, but they can also be misleading. All "open source" licenses are not alike. For those about to enter the muck, I think this categorization might confuse more than enlighten. If I were starting from scratch, I would prefer to see an unbiased (ha;) collection/comparison of any/all available licenses, not just a clubbish few.
I appreciate your calm rhetoric. I'm a little acerbic sometimes. I apologize.
I appreciate the OSI providing a repository for licenses, and some comparitive analysis. But I think that function would be better served by an organization that did not exclude certain licenses. The distinction of a license being declared "open" by the OSI really doesn't mean anything to me.
Who cares if the OSI deigns to bless this or that license? Each license stands on its merits, regardless. As either a developer, or a user, it's the license itself you should be concerned about. This is just the pompous posturing of a self-proclaimed wanna-be authority: "I DEFINE blah blah blah, and so it is done". Phgfftht.
I've had the same experience as you. The online Linux community is wonderful. I still think there are niches where support companies can thrive, though. For example, you talk management into using Linux. Then, for whatever reason, you decide you'd like to move on. You don't want to leave your former coworkers in the dust. What do you do? Maybe they'll be able to find a replacement, maybe not. Maybe it will take a while. Being able to contract the work to someone with a good reputation in this arena, if only temporarily, would be a good thing. Management will always be (should be, anyway) concerned about continuity. If you can't quell their fears, Linux might not even get a toehold.
The GPL advocates that tend to piss me off the most are the ones who forget that I, as a software developer, have the right to choose what rights I grant to a user.
I'm a GPL advocate, and I agree with you. I will always argue that the GPL is the better license. But I will also alway agree that it's your choice, as a developer, to choose your own license. There's a big difference between believing fervently in something, and believing that everyone else should agree. I'll do my best to convince you I'm right, but I'll always stop short of, say, recommending legislation that would criminalize your different point of view.
It might seem rather Orwellian, but my great fear is that these sometime unruly discussions about software licensing may, in fact, wend their way to the Senate floor. They have, in fact: witness the DMCA. To anyone who has stinking rightious bug up their ass (which, ahem, includes me), I'd just like to say: let's remember which principles matter most. Good life, health, and happiness. Let's keep these cauldrons of principled "screw-you" stew from boiling over into misguided legislation. Really. Legislation, by definition, defines what is and isn't criminal. Let's not go there.
And if we're not going there, then let's not get so uptight about disagreements about software licensing. I mean really. What are people afraid of?
Actually, RMS has attempted has attempted to disuade people from using the LGPL.
To all the GNU witchhunters, I would suggest that before you start your bonfires, that you actually take the time to readsome of the essays written to explain the philosophy behind GNU. I think if you do, you'll find what you read not so radical after all.
I'm sure Source Forge is littered with thousands of "Version 0.001" releases that will never make it to the actually useful stage
True. So is the world of commercial software. Few people have the comittment to take developement through to completion, no matter what the motivation.
Some people are motivated by money. But there are other motivations besides money. Why should anyone think that working in a paid, competitive environment with real customers, deliverables, and deadlines is the only way, or the most likely way, to produce high quality, sophisticated software?
If you were leading a charge into battle, would you rather be followed by paid conscripts, or people fighting on principle? Have you ever eaten an amazing meal that wasn't cooked in a restaraunt? Do you only attempt to excel at things that people pay you money for?
There's nothing wrong with wanting to earn a living. But there's also nothing wrong with devoting yourself to something just because you love doing it. Programming is intrinsically interesting to a/lot/ of people. Some of them are good at it, and some aren't, just like anything. So the people who want to earn a living programming are going to have to put up with these screwballs. The only way around that is if we legislate so many obstacles to programming, that we turn people's hobbies into crimes. If I could wish just one thing of our legislators, it would be don't create legislation that turns ordinary hard working caring people into criminals.
The lack of import filters is regrettable, but hardly surprising - as soon as they do work properly, Microsoft will make bloody sure to change the format again.
Bingo. Which presents another opportunity to reiterate an unoriginal idea that I really like. Compel Microsoft to publish specifications for all binary data formats (on disk and on the wire) as punishment for their abuse of monopoly power. This would put the competition on even footing. Instead of the competition wasting time reverse engineering (and contending with the the DMCA), they could compete on the merits (gasp) of their product(s). Please, please, god, make this come true.
Open API's are no substitute. "OK, you win then, we'll open our API's. Shucks." Later, backstage: "He he, they fell for it. Use OUR API's. Of course, to use our API's they'll have to write software for OUR products! Whoo hoo! Dopes!"
Re:The only chance the industry has against micros
on
Linux Office Suites
·
· Score: 2
...is StarOffice, in my opinion. If these guys can prevent MS from having the only application suite that can properly handle their monopoly-induced standard file formats, then there is *choice* in the industry. If StarOffice fails, then it's MSWord, MSExcel, and PowerPoint, for the forseeable future that will dominate business communications.
I don't know about StarOffice being the only worthy competitor here. Particularly when you argue, correctly, that we need more choice in the industry. But that's quibbling.
...it's usability, stability, and compatability that will make a success.
Right. When people claim Microsoft's dominance in the industry is due to their OS monopoly, I think they are missing an important point. People buy Microsoft to run applications. Microsoft applications. Until competitors can read/write Microsoft binary files without problems, nothing will change.
Therefore, the proper remedy (IMHO) to impose on Microsoft, as punishment for their abuse of monopoly power, is to make it easier for competitors to compete with Microsoft on their own turf. Microsoft should be compelled to openly publish the specifications for all binary data formats they use. Publishing API's is insufficient. Worse, misguided. Using MS API's implies, of course, that you are using Microsoft products. Some punishment. No, the remedy must make it possible for competitors to avoid the enormous time and expense, not to mention possible legal entanglements, of reverse engineering Microsoft binary data.
Then instead of asking "How well does StarOffice (et al.) import/export MS files?", we can ask "Does StarOffice provide the features I would like in an Office suite?". That would be progress.
Re:General Blustering and Posturing
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 2
Unfortunately, I think you're right. The mass of computer related professionals has no real organization. And like any other group, their opinions will run the gamut on this or any other issue. Not to mention, even the people who would like to shout in unison have families to support, jobs to worry about, etc.
"Blustering and Posturing". How frustrating. But true.
a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state.
Re:Have you ever been to these protests? They're s
on
Sklyarov Indicted
·
· Score: 2
Then escalate. If Dmitry is convicted, and you have the power, shut down any email servers you control for a week.
But even in the USofA, we must suffer diatribes about the merits of 'abstract, difficult to understand, unfriendly to business' concepts like 'freedom'. Bah. Freedom is Freedom. Damn to hell anyone who wants to take mine away.
This make my blood curdle. This man has a wife and two children. He is a guest of the United States of America. And he has been put in jail to await prosecutions for what?! - talking to a group of computer professionals about the weaknesses inherent to particular encryption technologies!
The "freedom" we love to chatter about is not merely an abstraction, an interesting conversation at a summer BBQ, a fly in the ointment of our libertarian campaigns. Freedom is real. Dmitry's children can't see their father. He's been branded a criminal. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Give Dmitry freedom! Give him freedom in a country founded on the principle of freedom!
If Dmitry is not freed, I propose that everyone with the capability of shutting down an email server do so upon his conviction.
The value of Corel to Linux community has always been their ownership of their application assets. Divorcing the applications from the Linux side of the business is a net loss for Linux.
What's to become of Wordperfect and friends? This is one less incentive to port them, or parts of them, to Linux. In fact, it may provide less incentive to support them on Linux period.
Of course if these products weren't held hostage by proprietary licences, we wouldn't be in this dilemna now, would we?
If you really need that app that only runs on Linux or BeOS or whatever, you don't have time to reboot your machine to get at it.
I think your statement contradicts itself. If you need that app, you'll do what it takes. Each OS has it's own unique repertoire of applications. Using the right app for the job will save a lot more time than it takes to reboot. It might even make the impossible possible. Not everyone can afford dedicated hardware for each OS.
Since all ESR really cares about is that no one threatens his physical person, property, or time; then he certainly won't object to my redefining the word "flerbage".
Entry: flerbage
Function: noun
1: the leitmotif of a pompous windbag
"...more flerbage from ESR".
Of course, if ESR feels compelled to spend time defending "his" (as in/his property/) definition of the word, then I have certainly stepped on his toes, haven't I? Gosh, I hope he doesn't come after me with his big pistol.
I think it's inappropriate to say that the FSF is "forcing" people, or would like "force" people, to use their license. Their only attempts at coersion, that I'm aware of, have been via open discussion. About the only thing to be afraid of, as far as I can see, is someone saying something you don't agree with, in the hopes that they might persuade others to their cause.
The only way that saying that I think all software should be released under the GPL should threaten you, is if you're afraid someone might agree. Or maybe enough people will agree such that proprietary software will go the way of the dinasaurs. I hope people are afraid of that. But I don't think it's fair to criticize free speech, which is what you're doing when you say the movement is attempting to "force" people to abandon proprietary software.
Should be called "Fatty Software"
on
Mob Software
·
· Score: 2
Software should be written while you smoke a big fatty.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. I had a knee-jerk idea:
Google caches web pages it indexes. It might be nice if the good folks at google created something like archive.google.com - basically an historical reference to what was up on the web at the time google happened to spider. Maybe with queries by date. With hyperlinks rewritten to correspond to google's own saved cache of pages. Is the price of storage coming down faster than the volume of pages is going up?
There's a _lot_ of important stuff on the web. It's such a shame when information gets lost.
Exactly. I can see it now... In an effort to please each and every technophobe's desire to have their all-important feature be only one click away, Microsoft releases "Windows Flat". No menus. No directory trees. No dialogs. Instead, each and every pixel is assigned a function.
Oh my god, I better go patent this...
Ugh. I feel betrayed. So RAND licensing is not a hypothetical future problem - these terms are being applied to W3C standards now .
I have not purchased anything from Apple, IBM, Quark, et. al. for years. This kind of slimy behaviour only strengthens my resolve to continue my boycott.
Are the methods covered by these patents essential to a working SVG implementation? Can their cancerous inclusion be eradicated without killing the patient?
Well said. And if any and all are free to submit RFC's to the IETF, I propose that unless the W3C pulls their heads out of their asses, all current W3C standards be submitted in RFC format to the IETF. Smells like a code fork to me.
Of course I have little or no understanding of the copyright issues involved in this case. Would this be possible?
This would mean SVG became a multi-vendor consortium pushing a private specification. But let's face it - with the patents involved - that is precisely what it is.
Could someone elaborate on what Alan Cox is talking about here? Is the current SVG standard encumbered by patents? Is it about to be? How? Considering how long this standard has been promoted as an open solution to the mishmash of proprietary vector graphics solutions, this would be a tragedy and an insult.
So what criteria do you require of a license which makes our approval meaningless to you?
Well, as my sig subtly suggests, I personlly favor the GPL. That said, I also favor choice. I think that it is the developer's perogative to choose any license he or she chooses, up to and including the most restrictive proprietary licenses. Good licenses, like good code, should stand on their merits.
Your question is somewhat difficult to answer, because I already know what license I personally prefer. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who doesn't know what license to use. In that case, I think it's more useful to be able to review the panoply of available licenses, rather than a select few. I feel like the terms "open" or "open source" tend to confuse matters somewhat, because even among those licenses that qualify (according to the OSD), there can be vast differences.
Generalizations can be useful, but they can also be misleading. All "open source" licenses are not alike. For those about to enter the muck, I think this categorization might confuse more than enlighten. If I were starting from scratch, I would prefer to see an unbiased (ha;) collection/comparison of any/all available licenses, not just a clubbish few.
I appreciate your calm rhetoric. I'm a little acerbic sometimes. I apologize.
I appreciate the OSI providing a repository for licenses, and some comparitive analysis. But I think that function would be better served by an organization that did not exclude certain licenses. The distinction of a license being declared "open" by the OSI really doesn't mean anything to me.
Who cares if the OSI deigns to bless this or that license? Each license stands on its merits, regardless. As either a developer, or a user, it's the license itself you should be concerned about. This is just the pompous posturing of a self-proclaimed wanna-be authority: "I DEFINE blah blah blah, and so it is done". Phgfftht.
I've had the same experience as you. The online Linux community is wonderful. I still think there are niches where support companies can thrive, though. For example, you talk management into using Linux. Then, for whatever reason, you decide you'd like to move on. You don't want to leave your former coworkers in the dust. What do you do? Maybe they'll be able to find a replacement, maybe not. Maybe it will take a while. Being able to contract the work to someone with a good reputation in this arena, if only temporarily, would be a good thing. Management will always be (should be, anyway) concerned about continuity. If you can't quell their fears, Linux might not even get a toehold.
The GPL advocates that tend to piss me off the most are the ones who forget that I, as a software developer, have the right to choose what rights I grant to a user.
I'm a GPL advocate, and I agree with you. I will always argue that the GPL is the better license. But I will also alway agree that it's your choice, as a developer, to choose your own license. There's a big difference between believing fervently in something, and believing that everyone else should agree. I'll do my best to convince you I'm right, but I'll always stop short of, say, recommending legislation that would criminalize your different point of view.
It might seem rather Orwellian, but my great fear is that these sometime unruly discussions about software licensing may, in fact, wend their way to the Senate floor. They have, in fact: witness the DMCA. To anyone who has stinking rightious bug up their ass (which, ahem, includes me), I'd just like to say: let's remember which principles matter most. Good life, health, and happiness. Let's keep these cauldrons of principled "screw-you" stew from boiling over into misguided legislation. Really. Legislation, by definition, defines what is and isn't criminal . Let's not go there.
And if we're not going there, then let's not get so uptight about disagreements about software licensing. I mean really. What are people afraid of?
That's almost certainly a misquote.
Actually, RMS has attempted has attempted to disuade people from using the LGPL.
To all the GNU witchhunters, I would suggest that before you start your bonfires, that you actually take the time to read some of the essays written to explain the philosophy behind GNU. I think if you do, you'll find what you read not so radical after all.
I'm sure Source Forge is littered with thousands of "Version 0.001" releases that will never make it to the actually useful stage
True. So is the world of commercial software. Few people have the comittment to take developement through to completion, no matter what the motivation.
Some people are motivated by money. But there are other motivations besides money. Why should anyone think that working in a paid, competitive environment with real customers, deliverables, and deadlines is the only way, or the most likely way, to produce high quality, sophisticated software?
If you were leading a charge into battle, would you rather be followed by paid conscripts, or people fighting on principle? Have you ever eaten an amazing meal that wasn't cooked in a restaraunt? Do you only attempt to excel at things that people pay you money for?
There's nothing wrong with wanting to earn a living. But there's also nothing wrong with devoting yourself to something just because you love doing it. Programming is intrinsically interesting to a /lot/ of people. Some of them are good at it, and some aren't, just like anything. So the people who want to earn a living programming are going to have to put up with these screwballs. The only way around that is if we legislate so many obstacles to programming, that we turn people's hobbies into crimes. If I could wish just one thing of our legislators, it would be don't create legislation that turns ordinary hard working caring people into criminals.
The lack of import filters is regrettable, but hardly surprising - as soon as they do work properly, Microsoft will make bloody sure to change the format again.
Bingo. Which presents another opportunity to reiterate an unoriginal idea that I really like. Compel Microsoft to publish specifications for all binary data formats (on disk and on the wire) as punishment for their abuse of monopoly power. This would put the competition on even footing. Instead of the competition wasting time reverse engineering (and contending with the the DMCA), they could compete on the merits (gasp) of their product(s). Please, please, god, make this come true.
Open API's are no substitute. "OK, you win then, we'll open our API's. Shucks." Later, backstage: "He he, they fell for it. Use OUR API's. Of course, to use our API's they'll have to write software for OUR products! Whoo hoo! Dopes!"
I don't know about StarOffice being the only worthy competitor here. Particularly when you argue, correctly, that we need more choice in the industry. But that's quibbling.
Right. When people claim Microsoft's dominance in the industry is due to their OS monopoly, I think they are missing an important point. People buy Microsoft to run applications. Microsoft applications. Until competitors can read/write Microsoft binary files without problems, nothing will change.
Therefore, the proper remedy (IMHO) to impose on Microsoft, as punishment for their abuse of monopoly power, is to make it easier for competitors to compete with Microsoft on their own turf. Microsoft should be compelled to openly publish the specifications for all binary data formats they use. Publishing API's is insufficient. Worse, misguided. Using MS API's implies, of course, that you are using Microsoft products. Some punishment. No, the remedy must make it possible for competitors to avoid the enormous time and expense, not to mention possible legal entanglements, of reverse engineering Microsoft binary data.
Then instead of asking "How well does StarOffice (et al.) import/export MS files?", we can ask "Does StarOffice provide the features I would like in an Office suite?". That would be progress.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. The mass of computer related professionals has no real organization. And like any other group, their opinions will run the gamut on this or any other issue. Not to mention, even the people who would like to shout in unison have families to support, jobs to worry about, etc.
"Blustering and Posturing". How frustrating. But true.
Treaties.
From Merriam-Webster:
a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state.
Then escalate. If Dmitry is convicted, and you have the power, shut down any email servers you control for a week.
He is not being charged for TALKING but for trying to sell his program in US.
What's the difference?
I'm awake. ;)
But even in the USofA, we must suffer diatribes about the merits of 'abstract, difficult to understand, unfriendly to business' concepts like 'freedom'. Bah. Freedom is Freedom. Damn to hell anyone who wants to take mine away.
This make my blood curdle. This man has a wife and two children. He is a guest of the United States of America. And he has been put in jail to await prosecutions for what?! - talking to a group of computer professionals about the weaknesses inherent to particular encryption technologies!
The "freedom" we love to chatter about is not merely an abstraction, an interesting conversation at a summer BBQ, a fly in the ointment of our libertarian campaigns. Freedom is real. Dmitry's children can't see their father. He's been branded a criminal. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Give Dmitry freedom! Give him freedom in a country founded on the principle of freedom!
If Dmitry is not freed, I propose that everyone with the capability of shutting down an email server do so upon his conviction.
The value of Corel to Linux community has always been their ownership of their application assets. Divorcing the applications from the Linux side of the business is a net loss for Linux.
What's to become of Wordperfect and friends? This is one less incentive to port them, or parts of them, to Linux. In fact, it may provide less incentive to support them on Linux period.
Of course if these products weren't held hostage by proprietary licences, we wouldn't be in this dilemna now, would we?
If you really need that app that only runs on Linux or BeOS or whatever, you don't have time to reboot your machine to get at it.
I think your statement contradicts itself. If you need that app, you'll do what it takes. Each OS has it's own unique repertoire of applications. Using the right app for the job will save a lot more time than it takes to reboot. It might even make the impossible possible. Not everyone can afford dedicated hardware for each OS.
Since all ESR really cares about is that no one threatens his physical person, property, or time; then he certainly won't object to my redefining the word "flerbage".
/his property/) definition of the word, then I have certainly stepped on his toes, haven't I? Gosh, I hope he doesn't come after me with his big pistol.
Entry: flerbage
Function: noun
1: the leitmotif of a pompous windbag
"...more flerbage from ESR".
Of course, if ESR feels compelled to spend time defending "his" (as in
I think it's inappropriate to say that the FSF is "forcing" people, or would like "force" people, to use their license. Their only attempts at coersion, that I'm aware of, have been via open discussion. About the only thing to be afraid of, as far as I can see, is someone saying something you don't agree with, in the hopes that they might persuade others to their cause.
The only way that saying that I think all software should be released under the GPL should threaten you, is if you're afraid someone might agree. Or maybe enough people will agree such that proprietary software will go the way of the dinasaurs. I hope people are afraid of that. But I don't think it's fair to criticize free speech, which is what you're doing when you say the movement is attempting to "force" people to abandon proprietary software.
Software should be written while you smoke a big fatty.