To be clear, I don't think it's bad that Sun has Open Sourced the things that they have. Yes, more options are good. I'm sure that both Open Solaris and Glassfish are cool. The thing is, neither of them will do as much good as Open Source Java would.
The difference between zero credible Open Source implementations and one is much greater than the difference between 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. Another free operating system is good, yes, but it doesn't have the same impact as the first one did. Another j2ee container is good, yes, but it doesn't have the same impact as the first one did.
We still don't have the first credible Open Source implementation of Java. That would make a much bigger difference than the nth (for n > 1) Open Source implementation of pretty much anything else.
...Sun releases a product which there are already credible Open Source versions of rather than what the community has been begging them for, an Open Source version of Java itself.
Open Solaris doesn't matter at this point since we have Linux. Glassfish doesn't matter at this point since we have JBoss. When will they stop doing things that don't matter and do something that will matter, like Open Sourcing Java?!?
Asside from the fact that I care about other people and don't want them to suffer without need, I advocate OSS for two main reasons. One, what other people use affects me. When they send me MS Word and MS Excel documents, I suffer. Two, I want them to be aware that not everyone out there uses Word. If you MUST use Word, at least be kind enough to send me documents in plain text or RTF.
Without goto a language is crippled. It is fairly easy to translate a Knuth algorithm into a language that has goto (C, BASIC, Perl, Common Lisp, Scheme (tail calls)). Translating into a language without goto sometimes requires enough changes that it isn't obviously the same algorithm.
Because the tool does not behave as described. When Bill Gates has been asked about DRM in recent interviews (including those linked from Slashdot) he has described it as a "reminder". Something to "remind" the consumer about the intellectual property rights of the producer.
However, it does not act as a "reminder". It does not just "remind" you to respect the producer's IP, it prevents you from doing some things entirely, even if they won't break any laws.
A system meant to "remind" the person at the keyboard not to break the law should leave the final judgement in the hands of the user.
As currently implemented, it is not a "reminder", but an enforcement mechanism. That is a very different beast.
The ethical thing for Microsoft to do would be to either change the software to match the rhetoric, or change the rhetoric to match the software. Right now, the software does not live up to the rhetoric, and that is not good.
...I would be very greatful if you could answer my question. I will repost it here for convenience:
In several interviews, Bill Gates has referred to Digital Rights Management (DRM) as "reminding" the user that they should respect copyrights.
If this truly is the Microsoft philosophy, will new versions of Windows Media Player offer the user the option of overriding the DRM if they know they are behaving legally (making legal backups, copying the material to other devices owned by the same user, etc.)? Is Microsoft willing to make the DRM truly just a "reminder"?
If not, does Microsoft have any plans to stop calling DRM a "reminder" and start using more accurate words to describe it?
In several interviews, Bill Gates has referred to Digital Rights Management (DRM) as "reminding" the user that they should respect copyrights.
If this truly is the Microsoft philosophy, will new versions of Windows Media Player offer the user the option of overriding the DRM if they know they are behaving legally (making legal backups, copying the material to other devices owned by the same user, etc.)? Is Microsoft willing to make the DRM truly just a "reminder"?
If not, does Microsoft have any plans to stop calling DRM a "reminder" and start using more accurate words to describe it?
Why does Sun keep releasing things the community does not need (another Open Source operating system, another Open Source database) instead of releasing what the community has been BEGGING for, namely an Open Source Java?
Slashdot Mirror
Now I know that I don't want to play WoW!
The MIT folks were doing this in 1981 and earlier. See ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/ AITR-619.pdf
Give them each a copy of The Open CD. It's got games and screensavers and a bunch of work-friendly Free Software on it too.
The difference between zero credible Open Source implementations and one is much greater than the difference between 1 and 2 or 2 and 3. Another free operating system is good, yes, but it doesn't have the same impact as the first one did. Another j2ee container is good, yes, but it doesn't have the same impact as the first one did.
We still don't have the first credible Open Source implementation of Java. That would make a much bigger difference than the nth (for n > 1) Open Source implementation of pretty much anything else.
Open Solaris doesn't matter at this point since we have Linux. Glassfish doesn't matter at this point since we have JBoss. When will they stop doing things that don't matter and do something that will matter, like Open Sourcing Java?!?
I seem to recall seeing Majel Baret say it on one of the specials around the time that Voyager was launched.
People slag Star Trek for having every alien be humanoid, but that is deliberate. Roddenberry wanted people to see the humanity in every character.
Personally, I don't watch much Sci Fi because most of it shows a future which sucks. Star Trek shows a future that I want to believe in.
There IS a place for modern Lisp books!
Asside from the fact that I care about other people and don't want them to suffer without need, I advocate OSS for two main reasons. One, what other people use affects me. When they send me MS Word and MS Excel documents, I suffer. Two, I want them to be aware that not everyone out there uses Word. If you MUST use Word, at least be kind enough to send me documents in plain text or RTF.
Without goto a language is crippled. It is fairly easy to translate a Knuth algorithm into a language that has goto (C, BASIC, Perl, Common Lisp, Scheme (tail calls)). Translating into a language without goto sometimes requires enough changes that it isn't obviously the same algorithm.
Because the tool does not behave as described. When Bill Gates has been asked about DRM in recent interviews (including those linked from Slashdot) he has described it as a "reminder". Something to "remind" the consumer about the intellectual property rights of the producer.
However, it does not act as a "reminder". It does not just "remind" you to respect the producer's IP, it prevents you from doing some things entirely, even if they won't break any laws.
A system meant to "remind" the person at the keyboard not to break the law should leave the final judgement in the hands of the user.
As currently implemented, it is not a "reminder", but an enforcement mechanism. That is a very different beast.
The ethical thing for Microsoft to do would be to either change the software to match the rhetoric, or change the rhetoric to match the software. Right now, the software does not live up to the rhetoric, and that is not good.
If this truly is the Microsoft philosophy, will new versions of Windows Media Player offer the user the option of overriding the DRM if they know they are behaving legally (making legal backups, copying the material to other devices owned by the same user, etc.)? Is Microsoft willing to make the DRM truly just a "reminder"?
If not, does Microsoft have any plans to stop calling DRM a "reminder" and start using more accurate words to describe it?
Why does Sun keep releasing things the community does not need (another Open Source operating system, another Open Source database) instead of releasing what the community has been BEGGING for, namely an Open Source Java?
...and I would buy one.
The p/o'd response basically sounds like "He's equating Fortran with FORTRAN-66 (or 77)".
I know that I do this too. When someone says "It's written in FORTRAN" I don't think Fortran-95, I think FORTRAN-77... and I'm usually right.
I suspect that there are two reasons for this:
Wake me when Java goes Open Source...