If I'm not mistaken, didn't Theo model SSHv2 after the commercial version. The SSHv2 protocol came first, then Theo made OpenSSH compatible, not the other way around. Granted, Ylonen went commercial with his product, but it was he who was the true visionary. Theo just hacked his own in likeness of him. Theo is a smart guy, but keep your respects in perspective.
Unrelated, but I saw it in another post...The rediculous argument for the GNU/Linux name. I read another perspective of the rationale being the name change was to distinguish what's meant when one talks about Linux. Such a stink was made about paying respect to the GNU community. RMS preached the angle about Linux just being the kernel and GNU was so massive in commarison and hence they deserve so much credit that the GNU name should come first. It's just another example of how software freedom fighters are more concernded about self egos than anything else. In the case of Theo, don't be blinded by his contributions. He provided enhancements, not inventions. The GNU foundation provided tools not an OS.
I just think it's about protecting their ego. Even though no harm was done and the only unethical behavior was peeking at your Christmas present before it's time. It's just ironic. When I attended college, I remember taking a few courses (at the time) required for my major, then having the school change the requirements. Two of the classes I took were no longer availible and I couldn't use them for anything other than tech skill points (which I had too many anyway). I got C's in the classes and they wouldn't let me drop them from by GPA either. There was no grandfather clause that covered their actions and I was told it's just unfortunate for me. No refund for my money or my wasted time. Just a sux to be you statement from the school. So having an education institute preach ethics just makes me laugh. In the end, at least I get to laugh every year when the college begs for money.
I agree with all the statements. Saying it's unethical pretty much sums up all of them, but saying it hurts anyone? The only people this unethical behavior hurts is the original author and the person performing the unethical behavior. The original author gets his ego hurt because he doesn't get the credit he deserves. The unethical person only hurts himself by dragging his own name through the mud.
I wish the people who really believe in free software could just step back for a second and drop all this GPL, IP protection, Linux vs GNU/Linux crap and grasp the concept that unethical behavior really doesn't need to be enforced by some stupid license. Let public image be the judge for those people.
And for the people who pay for something stolen that they could have gotten for free...? Yeah, you could say those folks get hurt from their own lack of knowledge. I suppose a court case and fine could help, but in the big picture, uninformed people will always get hurt. The solution to that is to educate the masses.
I'm not much of a developer, but it's your statement that draws me closer to the BSD world as opposed to the GPL camp. I know the GPL is suppose to be about protecting freedom, but the wording and personal actions of RMS himself (let's call it GNU/Linux blah blah blah) leads one to feel the GPL is more about people trying to protect ones egos than anything else. I never understood why anyone cared if someone ripped off a GPL/BSD project. Personally, yeah I think it's cheap and dirty, but who cares? The original code is still free. It's not like they copied it, sold it, and now you can't run it anymore without paying. People who do that sort of thing don't need to be chased out of town by some court case. Public image will do all the work by itself. Getting back to your statement, I think BSD license coders are more concerned about making their software availible to everyone (corporate and end users). GPL folks seem to be wrapped up more in the religion of what they interpret as being free. I think both licenses really protect ones ego as I think both require the credits to be distributed. So my previous statement is a bit strong. It's just my observations from hearing Debian like avocate groups compaired to FreeBSD/NetBSD advocate groups. I personally favor BSD and in general support free software.
I'll agree on the bsd comment, but they too seem to make their own niche. I love unix, but the dumb things I don't like about unix can't be nailed down to a particular version or distro. It's general dumb things. For example, take the advent of the/sbin directory. All unixes seem to use one now, but I still argue it's importance. Some say it's for "system binaries" or "root owned" binaries. Others will say that's the "static binary" directory. However, what's the point? Throw it all in/bin with a propper chmod. The same goes for/usr/local. Back in the day, I was left with the assumption that/usr/local was the location for apps that were "local" to that machine. Meaning that it might be a bin compilied for that cpu or a script that only runs on that one machine. No, now it's the junk bin for every non system app. That's what I though/usr was for. I think NetBSD was definitely on the right track with it's/usr/pkg structure. Very nice and neat but nothing more than a glorified reinvention of/usr/local. Personally, I opt for/opt when it comes to "optional" software. I find the problem with unix is that no one really agrees on even the simple standards. My vote for bsd is that at lease they put some thought into their systems, but still they're not perfect either. As for the standarized boot script arguments, I think they all lack in one way or the other.
You're right! It's not spam, but to actually credit dirt bags like this for scrafing up domain names as "intellegent" or "opportunits", I think is just wrong.
I totally hate how expiring domain names are up for grabs the minute they expire, because it creates the very market for nasty tactics like snagging someones domain. Yeah it's legal, but the morality is just wrong.
I think there should be a waiting period after a domain name expires. Say a company goes out of buisness, decides not to renew, whatever the reason, that domain name should become void for a period of a year. After that point, then it becomes availible for purchase.
I just think that's the responsible thing to do with respect to the end consumer.
I like Apple, although I've never owned one or used one much. But I've always disagreed with the comments like how Apple revolutionized the market and so on. All their technology was based on existing technology. They really didn't bring anything "new" to the table. All they did was package it nicer.
Just like the now iPod revolution. The iPod is nothing "new". It's just a better package of an existing product. Apple to me is the king of selling a fad. They create a great product (ie: Apple Mac or iPod), then create the image of it's cool and low and behold the everyone wants one. Saying it's a fad is probably a little mean because Apple products really are "cool".
Probably the best way to sum Apple up is that Apple takes an existing technology puts a better UI to it. All their patents and such on innovations I think are a stretch.
I happen to agree that GNU deserves very considerable credit for Linux, far more so then any other component provided by others. The GNU/Linux campaign is perheaps unwise from the PR point of view, but it has all the moral justification it needs.
I agree that GNU deserves credit, but I totally disagree with the whole GNU/Linux campaign. Every GNU utility in Linux made reference to it's origin. Linux never claimed ownership of the utilities in it's OS. How can one morally justify the requirement of a name change?
The thing is, RMS had no need to be jealous as anyone who used Linux KNEW that the utilities were GNU. Just like anyone who used AT&T UNIX knew the "useful" utilities were BSD. And the way it was presented and justified by RMS himself. I know RMS is in denial, but if Linux is just a teeny weeny kernel and a collection of a few drivers, then make your own OS and be done with it. Hurd....? I'm willing to bet that if hurd ever did take off, RMS would start a new campain about how people should dump Linux for Hurd. It would certainly fit RMS's style of self interest. RMS and GNU is not about spreading freedom to the world, it's about spreading HIS view of freedom to the world. And his approach has historically been very draconian. Just think of the XEmacs vs Emacs days.
My own thoughts are of how hypocritical RMS really is with GNU. Using his own presence to force change down someone's throat. When I think of RMS, I think of the phrase, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". RMS has power just like Bill, and just like Bill I feel he abuses that power to brow beat others into submission. As much as I agree with the need of free and public software, I totally disagree with the viral GPL and the GNU ways.
The argument behind the GPL, I feel, is just weak. The slogan, "use the GPL for fear that someone will steal your code and lock it up" Is just bunk! Say you wrote some free software and you released the code publically. Say a corporate entity snags that code, makes a minor change or bug fix and sells it for millions. Who cares? Other free minded individuals have the same option to grab your code, make changes and rerelease the code for free. Your initial code was never "hyjacked". It was never stolen or locked up. It's still free and from that perspective, there's no need for the viral GPL protection.
However, there is one thing that GPL maybe protects and that's the ability for another party to grab your code and patent or copywrite it. That would indeed "lock it up". So on those grounds, I absolutely agree with the GPL. I feel the GPL should do nothing more than state that the following code can't be claimed as ownership by any other party. And that's where the license should end. Not even the requirement of stating it's origin. It's always nice to give credit, but why make it a requirement? It's a common curtiousy and nothing more.
In regards to providing source code for derivatives works I think is rediculous, or even requiring derivative works to follow the same license I think is a restriction of freedom. Just so long as the initial algorythms are patent and copyright free is all that's necessary.
That to me is what donating code and freedom to use is all about. If you're donating out of goodness and not for fame, then you shouldn't be concerned about plagurism. If you truely believe in freedom as in freedom to make your own choice, then you shouldn't be concerned about how someone uses your code. You're only concern for freedom should be that what you release as free should always be free. That has nothing to do with derivative works and it's where I can't see the GPL gets off calling their philosophy based on freedom. The viral tatic of the GPL is just as draconian as a corporate license. Saying it stands for freedom really is a hypocritical statement in the face of true freedom.
You're right....just the opposite. I'm a Linux user moving away from Linux. I like to hack, but I just want something that works all the time. I now use NetBSD because it's clean and it works. Plus I mostly avoid all the GPL zealots with their misinformed idea of what open and free mean. I'll take free beer thank you!
I couldn't agree more. I firmly believe that a "pointing device" should only provide cursor movement and selection (ie: only one mouse button).
I know it's a flame to say such a thing, but I feel a "well written" gui should only need those two simple operations for full functionality. Things like right mouse clicks, double clicks, chords, and scroll wheels sould be for convience only and not an expectation of the gui. I think of it as a challenge to create a fully functioning gui with such minimal requirements.
That's not to say I don't enjoy having a scroll wheel or extra button or two on a pointing device, but I just don't feel that sould be a requirement for the gui.
So, although I never owned a mac, I've always admired the one button mouse concept. Although two button mice are nice, I always felt that Windows destroyed the gui by requiring such a pointing device. Then X Windows upped the bid with the three button mouse and the stupid backward compatible chording functionality (which always sucks).
Yes, my comment was highly biased as I'm in the white collar city of Rochester, NY. No jobs in my looking glass. I do agree there there are jobs in different areas. Appearently there's plenty of jobs in the NYC and NJ area as well as out in CA. That's my game plan now.
How about this one: Let's take the graduate from 10 years past, BS in EE (1995), and BS in CS (1993), and let's give him 8+ years in midrange UNIX administration. Think it'd be easy for that person to land a job?....yeah, so did I....still looking!
Excuse me but get a grip. It's easy to make a judgement call when things are in your favor (meaning I assume you have a job). I too am that all white married 2 kids American. BS in EE and BS in CS with 8+ years UNIX admin and Solaris certified with great experience working for large corps. Sorry, but the credentials are here...the job is not. My only crime was thinking I'd "easily" find another job in this land of layoffs. Instead of spouting your crap, you should just concider yourself fortunate. If anyone can be accused of being over-confident, it sounds like you.
That just about sums it up nicely! Let's not forget that if your an imported minority...America will "level the playing field" by tilting it in your favor.
Not to sound crass, but I think the key word here is luck. I too have 8+ years in UNIX admin, BS in EE and a BS in CS. Always had great reviews and many raises. Worked for Xerox, Kodak, and Cantor Fitzgerald. All big companies, all great experiences. I was laid off last year before Christmas. All part of the outsourcing fad. Anyway, I haven't been able to find a job yet. Still unemployed and no unemployment left to collect. From my view of the world, jobs are very limited. But that's just me. I've been very unlucky in my job search. Now with being out of the work force for so long, it's even harder to land employment. All I can say is if things are going well for you, then concider yourself fortunate. And if in your current job, you even remotely think things will turn bad (downsizing), imediately find a new job. Once you get laid off, it's very hard to get that next job. Trust me, employers are very prejudice about laid off employees. In my particular case, the whole department got whacked, but that doesn't matter. No matter how good you are, never think you have it made. After all, that's what I did, and what a mistake it was.
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Theo model SSHv2 after the commercial version. The SSHv2 protocol came first, then Theo made OpenSSH compatible, not the other way around. Granted, Ylonen went commercial with his product, but it was he who was the true visionary. Theo just hacked his own in likeness of him. Theo is a smart guy, but keep your respects in perspective.
Unrelated, but I saw it in another post...The rediculous argument for the GNU/Linux name. I read another perspective of the rationale being the name change was to distinguish what's meant when one talks about Linux. Such a stink was made about paying respect to the GNU community. RMS preached the angle about Linux just being the kernel and GNU was so massive in commarison and hence they deserve so much credit that the GNU name should come first. It's just another example of how software freedom fighters are more concernded about self egos than anything else. In the case of Theo, don't be blinded by his contributions. He provided enhancements, not inventions. The GNU foundation provided tools not an OS.
Make check payible to Theo?.....
Yeah, but he would have to pay for his own GNU/beer! However, he's free to talk about it all he want's.
I just think it's about protecting their ego. Even though no harm was done and the only unethical behavior was peeking at your Christmas present before it's time. It's just ironic. When I attended college, I remember taking a few courses (at the time) required for my major, then having the school change the requirements. Two of the classes I took were no longer availible and I couldn't use them for anything other than tech skill points (which I had too many anyway). I got C's in the classes and they wouldn't let me drop them from by GPA either. There was no grandfather clause that covered their actions and I was told it's just unfortunate for me. No refund for my money or my wasted time. Just a sux to be you statement from the school. So having an education institute preach ethics just makes me laugh. In the end, at least I get to laugh every year when the college begs for money.
"harms the user?"
I agree with all the statements. Saying it's unethical pretty much sums up all of them, but saying it hurts anyone? The only people this unethical behavior hurts is the original author and the person performing the unethical behavior. The original author gets his ego hurt because he doesn't get the credit he deserves. The unethical person only hurts himself by dragging his own name through the mud.
I wish the people who really believe in free software could just step back for a second and drop all this GPL, IP protection, Linux vs GNU/Linux crap and grasp the concept that unethical behavior really doesn't need to be enforced by some stupid license. Let public image be the judge for those people.
And for the people who pay for something stolen that they could have gotten for free...? Yeah, you could say those folks get hurt from their own lack of knowledge. I suppose a court case and fine could help, but in the big picture, uninformed people will always get hurt. The solution to that is to educate the masses.
I'm not much of a developer, but it's your statement that draws me closer to the BSD world as opposed to the GPL camp. I know the GPL is suppose to be about protecting freedom, but the wording and personal actions of RMS himself (let's call it GNU/Linux blah blah blah) leads one to feel the GPL is more about people trying to protect ones egos than anything else. I never understood why anyone cared if someone ripped off a GPL/BSD project. Personally, yeah I think it's cheap and dirty, but who cares? The original code is still free. It's not like they copied it, sold it, and now you can't run it anymore without paying. People who do that sort of thing don't need to be chased out of town by some court case. Public image will do all the work by itself. Getting back to your statement, I think BSD license coders are more concerned about making their software availible to everyone (corporate and end users). GPL folks seem to be wrapped up more in the religion of what they interpret as being free. I think both licenses really protect ones ego as I think both require the credits to be distributed. So my previous statement is a bit strong. It's just my observations from hearing Debian like avocate groups compaired to FreeBSD/NetBSD advocate groups. I personally favor BSD and in general support free software.
I'll agree on the bsd comment, but they too seem to make their own niche. I love unix, but the dumb things I don't like about unix can't be nailed down to a particular version or distro. It's general dumb things. For example, take the advent of the /sbin directory. All unixes seem to use one now, but I still argue it's importance. Some say it's for "system binaries" or "root owned" binaries. Others will say that's the "static binary" directory. However, what's the point? Throw it all in /bin with a propper chmod. The same goes for /usr/local. Back in the day, I was left with the assumption that /usr/local was the location for apps that were "local" to that machine. Meaning that it might be a bin compilied for that cpu or a script that only runs on that one machine. No, now it's the junk bin for every non system app. That's what I though /usr was for. I think NetBSD was definitely on the right track with it's /usr/pkg structure. Very nice and neat but nothing more than a glorified reinvention of /usr/local. Personally, I opt for /opt when it comes to "optional" software. I find the problem with unix is that no one really agrees on even the simple standards. My vote for bsd is that at lease they put some thought into their systems, but still they're not perfect either. As for the standarized boot script arguments, I think they all lack in one way or the other.
Sounds like a big capacitor to me!
You're right! It's not spam, but to actually credit dirt bags like this for scrafing up domain names as "intellegent" or "opportunits", I think is just wrong.
I totally hate how expiring domain names are up for grabs the minute they expire, because it creates the very market for nasty tactics like snagging someones domain. Yeah it's legal, but the morality is just wrong.
I think there should be a waiting period after a domain name expires. Say a company goes out of buisness, decides not to renew, whatever the reason, that domain name should become void for a period of a year. After that point, then it becomes availible for purchase.
I just think that's the responsible thing to do with respect to the end consumer.
I think I understand the comment.
I like Apple, although I've never owned one or used one much. But I've always disagreed with the comments like how Apple revolutionized the market and so on. All their technology was based on existing technology. They really didn't bring anything "new" to the table. All they did was package it nicer.
Just like the now iPod revolution. The iPod is nothing "new". It's just a better package of an existing product. Apple to me is the king of selling a fad. They create a great product (ie: Apple Mac or iPod), then create the image of it's cool and low and behold the everyone wants one. Saying it's a fad is probably a little mean because Apple products really are "cool".
Probably the best way to sum Apple up is that Apple takes an existing technology puts a better UI to it. All their patents and such on innovations I think are a stretch.
I agree that GNU deserves credit, but I totally disagree with the whole GNU/Linux campaign. Every GNU utility in Linux made reference to it's origin. Linux never claimed ownership of the utilities in it's OS. How can one morally justify the requirement of a name change?
The thing is, RMS had no need to be jealous as anyone who used Linux KNEW that the utilities were GNU. Just like anyone who used AT&T UNIX knew the "useful" utilities were BSD. And the way it was presented and justified by RMS himself. I know RMS is in denial, but if Linux is just a teeny weeny kernel and a collection of a few drivers, then make your own OS and be done with it. Hurd....? I'm willing to bet that if hurd ever did take off, RMS would start a new campain about how people should dump Linux for Hurd. It would certainly fit RMS's style of self interest. RMS and GNU is not about spreading freedom to the world, it's about spreading HIS view of freedom to the world. And his approach has historically been very draconian. Just think of the XEmacs vs Emacs days.
My own thoughts are of how hypocritical RMS really is with GNU. Using his own presence to force change down someone's throat. When I think of RMS, I think of the phrase, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". RMS has power just like Bill, and just like Bill I feel he abuses that power to brow beat others into submission. As much as I agree with the need of free and public software, I totally disagree with the viral GPL and the GNU ways.
The argument behind the GPL, I feel, is just weak. The slogan, "use the GPL for fear that someone will steal your code and lock it up" Is just bunk! Say you wrote some free software and you released the code publically. Say a corporate entity snags that code, makes a minor change or bug fix and sells it for millions. Who cares? Other free minded individuals have the same option to grab your code, make changes and rerelease the code for free. Your initial code was never "hyjacked". It was never stolen or locked up. It's still free and from that perspective, there's no need for the viral GPL protection.
However, there is one thing that GPL maybe protects and that's the ability for another party to grab your code and patent or copywrite it. That would indeed "lock it up". So on those grounds, I absolutely agree with the GPL. I feel the GPL should do nothing more than state that the following code can't be claimed as ownership by any other party. And that's where the license should end. Not even the requirement of stating it's origin. It's always nice to give credit, but why make it a requirement? It's a common curtiousy and nothing more.
In regards to providing source code for derivatives works I think is rediculous, or even requiring derivative works to follow the same license I think is a restriction of freedom. Just so long as the initial algorythms are patent and copyright free is all that's necessary.
That to me is what donating code and freedom to use is all about. If you're donating out of goodness and not for fame, then you shouldn't be concerned about plagurism. If you truely believe in freedom as in freedom to make your own choice, then you shouldn't be concerned about how someone uses your code. You're only concern for freedom should be that what you release as free should always be free. That has nothing to do with derivative works and it's where I can't see the GPL gets off calling their philosophy based on freedom. The viral tatic of the GPL is just as draconian as a corporate license. Saying it stands for freedom really is a hypocritical statement in the face of true freedom.
As long as the flamebait is on...
You're right....just the opposite. I'm a Linux user moving away from Linux. I like to hack, but I just want something that works all the time. I now use NetBSD because it's clean and it works. Plus I mostly avoid all the GPL zealots with their misinformed idea of what open and free mean. I'll take free beer thank you!
I couldn't agree more. I firmly believe that a "pointing device" should only provide cursor movement and selection (ie: only one mouse button).
I know it's a flame to say such a thing, but I feel a "well written" gui should only need those two simple operations for full functionality. Things like right mouse clicks, double clicks, chords, and scroll wheels sould be for convience only and not an expectation of the gui. I think of it as a challenge to create a fully functioning gui with such minimal requirements.
That's not to say I don't enjoy having a scroll wheel or extra button or two on a pointing device, but I just don't feel that sould be a requirement for the gui.
So, although I never owned a mac, I've always admired the one button mouse concept. Although two button mice are nice, I always felt that Windows destroyed the gui by requiring such a pointing device. Then X Windows upped the bid with the three button mouse and the stupid backward compatible chording functionality (which always sucks).
Yes, my comment was highly biased as I'm in the white collar city of Rochester, NY. No jobs in my looking glass. I do agree there there are jobs in different areas. Appearently there's plenty of jobs in the NYC and NJ area as well as out in CA. That's my game plan now.
How about this one: Let's take the graduate from 10 years past, BS in EE (1995), and BS in CS (1993), and let's give him 8+ years in midrange UNIX administration. Think it'd be easy for that person to land a job?....yeah, so did I....still looking!
Excuse me but get a grip. It's easy to make a judgement call when things are in your favor (meaning I assume you have a job). I too am that all white married 2 kids American. BS in EE and BS in CS with 8+ years UNIX admin and Solaris certified with great experience working for large corps. Sorry, but the credentials are here...the job is not. My only crime was thinking I'd "easily" find another job in this land of layoffs. Instead of spouting your crap, you should just concider yourself fortunate. If anyone can be accused of being over-confident, it sounds like you.
That just about sums it up nicely! Let's not forget that if your an imported minority...America will "level the playing field" by tilting it in your favor.
Not to sound crass, but I think the key word here is luck. I too have 8+ years in UNIX admin, BS in EE and a BS in CS. Always had great reviews and many raises. Worked for Xerox, Kodak, and Cantor Fitzgerald. All big companies, all great experiences. I was laid off last year before Christmas. All part of the outsourcing fad. Anyway, I haven't been able to find a job yet. Still unemployed and no unemployment left to collect. From my view of the world, jobs are very limited. But that's just me. I've been very unlucky in my job search. Now with being out of the work force for so long, it's even harder to land employment. All I can say is if things are going well for you, then concider yourself fortunate. And if in your current job, you even remotely think things will turn bad (downsizing), imediately find a new job. Once you get laid off, it's very hard to get that next job. Trust me, employers are very prejudice about laid off employees. In my particular case, the whole department got whacked, but that doesn't matter. No matter how good you are, never think you have it made. After all, that's what I did, and what a mistake it was.