I hit submit before I finished the above comment, guess thats what I get for doing too much at once....so here's the last bit.
Things are different when you're in a city with a metro area population of 1 million, and when you're in a town of under 10,000, and the two closest "cities" are 30 miles away and have 25,000 people, and the two closest real cities are 100+ miles away (I'm defining a "real city" as having more than 100k people).
While all that is true, the simple fact is I'm in the middle of nowhere, with populations that largely live in trailers and are missing teeth (I know I'm stereotyping, but there is a large amount of truth to it around here). They can't afford new radios, much less new cars.
All the local radio stations are owned by one company (not even clearchannel) and they're so badly run that they don't even notice when their equipment is malfunctioning, and nothing short of an FCC visit will get them to fix it. There's no way they're going to spend ANY money that they aren't legally required to spend, much less spend it on something that will only benefit a few, when those few, for the most part, already use XM or Sirius.
Sadly, what you suggest about unifying effort behind linux will not happen any time soon. Look around slashdot at the ubuntu vs debian vs redhat vs gentoo vs distribution x vs slackware flamewars that go on anytime anyone critizes anything about any one of them. Now expand that sense of overwhelming importance to the developers. Then add in a couple parts of pissed-off-teenager and about 12 parts each of vanity and ego. Then try to get them to work together.
You may get them to talk. Hell, you might even get them to start on something. Then someone will get pissed, and fork the project. And the division(s) will start all over again.
Until we can solve the problems caused by humans having an ego, open-source will always have this problem.
Well, if gamerscore is greater than whats possible, I'd agree thats a pretty good clue that something isn't right. I won't argue that issue, and given the "Cars" bit when its not yet released in addition, I won't argue that the guy is probably modding.
But don't bash the guy because he decides not to share what games he owns. Some people don't feel that is any of anyone else's business. Your argument (Who cared what games you've played, unless you've modded something?)is much like the arguments about encryption, searches, etc. You know the one. "Why not let $them do $thing if you have nothing to hide." It doesn't work in those cases, and it doesn't work here either.
You've seen what is happening with sites like facebook and myspace and people having real-life consequences (company A looks up applicant B and sees them doing activity C that HR person D doesn't like, so they don't get the job). I can't wait to see the outrage when people are getting passed over for jobs and such because they play Game XYZ. Or when the likes of Jack Thompson gets ahold of the fact that Politican Bob owns Bully! or some other over-hyped game he doesn't like.
Which is great. Except the local stations haven't modernized enough to use it. Whats worse is they have no intention of adding the data streams to their broadcast, since the local market is a) to stupid to make use of it, and b) too poor to buy new equipment that could make use of it.
Whoops! There goes the 2% of the Photoshop userbase for which that matters.
And this is exactly why some people hate linux, and the linux zealots. The linux community in general is helpful, but there's always a few that are willing to say "screw them, they don't really matter anyway".
Because at the moment, third party choices don't stand a chance.
Because the loony far-left and the whacky far-right are so vocal that everyone else gets drowned out.
I agree about having different views than the current admin without having ill will towards them -- I don't have any particular fondness for them, but I don't have a gut-wrenching hatred of them either. But those like me are being outshouted by the far-left and the far-right, mostly because we refuse to play their game.
Enjoy Canada. Nice place to visit, though I'm not sure I'd want to live there -- too cold for too long, though I've heard that some places near the pacific coast aren't too bad. And unless you're in DC, that nice safe city that has no guns, you're actually not all that likely to be shot -- worry more about 80 year old drivers near farmers markets.
But I dislike Ashcroft because of the damage he did while he was working for Missouri, both at the state level and while a senator. I will never trust that man to do anything to benefit anyone other than himself. He is a hypocritical man craving power, and does't care who he steps on to do it.
I really only have one complaint about Gonzales, and that is his statements in support of removing court oversight from the "war on terror", and his attempts at trying to expand police powers through the "war on drugs", although this isn't unique to him.
Wow....thats the first time I've been lumped in with the loony left. Somehow I'm even more insulted than most people throwing me in with the whacky right.
I'm not a "hate Bush, blame the US for all of the worlds problems" type person. I don't even have that much I dislike about Pres. Bush. I don't like the people he's chosen for various posts -- specifically his choices for AG. I disagree with picking people who think they're on a mission from god, and who try to enforce a far-right version of morality on the rest of us.
Knee-jerk reaction is the constant cries for more power for the government. As a so-called "conservative" the administration should be for LESS government, not more. I don't care about bank records, or phone calls -- they've always been able to get that information. I'm even OK with them using a court thats sworn to secrecy to get them. Knee-jerk is expanding their power to gather that information without warrants. To be blunt, the court is basically a rubber-stamp anyway, but at least it was there.
As for doing something about people dying in this country because of terrorism, is it worth giving up rights for an illusion of safety? Because thats ALL thats being accomplished, giving the masses the illusion that they're safe from the big bad terrorists. Take off your shoes before you get on the plane. No liquids on the plane. Keep everyone scared of the terrorists!
Until the "mob" breaks the law, the state should stay the hell out of it.
If that means you have 2 million pissed off muslims marching outside a newspaper office because of a cartoon, but they're not rioting, throwing things, beating people, etc, then a) they can intimidate the newspaper/cartoonist/reporter/whatever by their presence in such numbers and b) the state can't do a damn thing about it since they haven't violated any law. After all, the protesters have rights of free speach as well, do they not?
Would you have the government curtail the rights of the majority (non reporters) to protect the feelings (not rights, since the government wouldn't be the ones limiting the press in this case) of the minority?
Right, because the EU consists of every place worth a damn in the world.
EU != the world USA != the world (though I wish more of my countrymen would realize this)
France, the UK, Japan...hell, even Canada is more involved in world affairs than Finland, at least by the measure of providing material support to UN tasks.
Sadly, this country has been hijacked by those that use knee-jerk reactions and fear as their tools to stay in power, and those of us who can think logically about the rather small threat that terrorism presents are seen as "pro terrorist" since we don't want to give up the ideas this country was founded on, in order to have the illusion of safety.
I don't like either party all that much, but since I know they're not going to go away, can we at least go back to the system where repubs had the house and dems had the senate (or vice versa) so they'll simply spend all their time arguing and none of their time doing things that take away my rights or otherwise hurt me?
Because, of course, the GNU compilers and tools are the only ones out there, and nothing else exists.
For work stuff, I use MS's VS2005 for 90% of what I do, and Sun Java for the rest. Hobby work is almost entirely done in assembler -- then again, hobby work is aimed at microcontrollers, and debugging tends to be with an oscilloscope and hardware.
Free software would have happened with or without Stallman. It might have taken a little longer, or perhaps not. But it eventually would have happened anyway.
I'm not saying he wasn't useful, but the man isn't a god, and shouldn't be worshipped as such, although it seems that some zealots do.
Then again, Gates isn't evil incarnate, and Jobs & Woz aren't gods either, but there are plenty of people who view them as such.
His version of "free" is about as free as you can get. Yes, it does nothing to limit the "Tragedy of the Commons", as those limitions, by BEING limitations, make it less free.
Why is it such a problem for some GPL zealots (not all, and I'm not referring to you specifically) that some people (like me, for instance) prefer true freedom, even at the risk of allowing that freedom to be abused, rather than limited freedom that's considered "safe"?
To use a different, yet equally bad analogy: Why give up freedom for the illusion of sasfety? Specifically, why give up the freedom of expression in order to make people feel "safer" about flying -- like the guy who wrote that the head of the TSA should be fired on a bag containing his shampoo and shaving kit that was to be inspected by the TSA?
Go ahead, mod me down since I don't toe the GPL/slashdot party line, then claim it was for a bad analogy. I've said my piece, I'm not going to argue with you, since you all won't convince me, and I won't convince you all.
Because its YOUR camp that has some VERY vocal people doing damage to the public opinion of open source software as a whole because of their insistance that its their way or nothing at all, when that is simply not true.
Also because, while not being a fan of any particular political party, my political views are about as anti-socialist as you can get. Not conservative - I don't agree with those fruitcakes either. More of an indiviualist and capitalist mix. I don't see anything inherently wrong with making money, unlike some people around here (not necessarily you -- I don't know you well enough to say anything). I don't see any compelling need to help anyone else because they're down on their luck, or were born deaf/blind/mute/disfgured, etc. I ESPECIALLY don't feel the need to help stupid people. You either succeed through your knowledge, skills, abilities, and effort, or you fail. Yes, I know I'm cold-hearted. But because of my beliefs and outlook on life, I cannot stand anything that smacks of entitlement or socialism.
And what, exactly is wrong with that? If they've come up with something thats so hard to accomplish in the original version, and want to charge money for that improvment, they should be allowed to.
"Overall freedom" is a load of horse dung. People will make stuff available for free if they want to, and people will pay for what they want to. Ideology will not change that simple fact, no matter how much some people like to make fools of themselves insisting that the GPL is the ONLY way to "ensure free software" (not you, specifically -- I'm actually thinking of a couple of my former roommates). Where do people get the idea that because something is free, it must always be free, and anything based on it must be free too?
There is ALWAYS another choice for those with idological opposition to propriatary software, even with a lack of open-source alternatives: DO WITHOUT. It may not be an appealing option, but it IS a option.
Where do you people get the idea that once something is free, it, and everything based on it, must always be free?
You create something. You release it into the public domain. Joe comes along and modifies it, slaps a pretty package on it, and sells it on ebay (or wherever).
Why shouldn't Joe be allowed to add his own work to it, and make money off it? Did he not put his time and labor into it? Is it just that you don't like the idea of someone else making money off something that you had input into, and didn't get anything out of it?
I don't buy the "for the public good" arguments that get thrown around, since the original is still public domain -- anyone else can come along, take the original, modify it, and put THEIR version back into the public domain if they want -- nothing removed the original from the public domain.
A) If I release something into the public domain, the source is out there for anyone to use any way they want. B) If someone decides to take it, package it, and sell it, I'm fine with that. You see, they're free to do so since there are no strings attached. C) If someone decides to build on the source, or incorporate it into something else, and sell THAT, I still don't mind, since they're free to do with it as they wish.
THAT is true free software. Anything with ANY* license attached, by nature, restricts that freedom.
*The BSD License might the exception proving the rule, since the only real restriction is including credit for the original source.
Those of us who do non-open source freeware tend to be very focused in one area, usually relating to a hobby, not writing more generic stuff with mass appeal (mp3 or other media players, for example). None of the developers I know that fall into this category would want to take on running a repository, including myself - I just don't have the time it'd take. We all have pages devoted to our hobbies, and the software is available through those pages, for people who are interested. Not saying a repository wouldn't be useful, it just that most of the people I know with stuff to offer would simply rather spend their time on their hobbies.
Not saying anything about you, specifically, but the developers I'm referring to view the computer as a tool to further their hobby, NOT a hobby in and of itself, which also lends to them not wanting to maintain a freeware repository.
Slashdot Mirror
I hit submit before I finished the above comment, guess thats what I get for doing too much at once....so here's the last bit.
Things are different when you're in a city with a metro area population of 1 million, and when you're in a town of under 10,000, and the two closest "cities" are 30 miles away and have 25,000 people, and the two closest real cities are 100+ miles away (I'm defining a "real city" as having more than 100k people).
While all that is true, the simple fact is I'm in the middle of nowhere, with populations that largely live in trailers and are missing teeth (I know I'm stereotyping, but there is a large amount of truth to it around here). They can't afford new radios, much less new cars.
All the local radio stations are owned by one company (not even clearchannel) and they're so badly run that they don't even notice when their equipment is malfunctioning, and nothing short of an FCC visit will get them to fix it. There's no way they're going to spend ANY money that they aren't legally required to spend, much less spend it on something that will only benefit a few, when those few, for the most part, already use XM or Sirius.
I wish I had mod points.
Sadly, what you suggest about unifying effort behind linux will not happen any time soon. Look around slashdot at the ubuntu vs debian vs redhat vs gentoo vs distribution x vs slackware flamewars that go on anytime anyone critizes anything about any one of them. Now expand that sense of overwhelming importance to the developers. Then add in a couple parts of pissed-off-teenager and about 12 parts each of vanity and ego. Then try to get them to work together.
You may get them to talk. Hell, you might even get them to start on something. Then someone will get pissed, and fork the project. And the division(s) will start all over again.
Until we can solve the problems caused by humans having an ego, open-source will always have this problem.
Well, if gamerscore is greater than whats possible, I'd agree thats a pretty good clue that something isn't right. I won't argue that issue, and given the "Cars" bit when its not yet released in addition, I won't argue that the guy is probably modding.
But don't bash the guy because he decides not to share what games he owns. Some people don't feel that is any of anyone else's business. Your argument (Who cared what games you've played, unless you've modded something?)is much like the arguments about encryption, searches, etc. You know the one. "Why not let $them do $thing if you have nothing to hide." It doesn't work in those cases, and it doesn't work here either.
You've seen what is happening with sites like facebook and myspace and people having real-life consequences (company A looks up applicant B and sees them doing activity C that HR person D doesn't like, so they don't get the job). I can't wait to see the outrage when people are getting passed over for jobs and such because they play Game XYZ. Or when the likes of Jack Thompson gets ahold of the fact that Politican Bob owns Bully! or some other over-hyped game he doesn't like.
Which is great. Except the local stations haven't modernized enough to use it. Whats worse is they have no intention of adding the data streams to their broadcast, since the local market is a) to stupid to make use of it, and b) too poor to buy new equipment that could make use of it.
Whoops! There goes the 2% of the Photoshop userbase for which that matters.
And this is exactly why some people hate linux, and the linux zealots. The linux community in general is helpful, but there's always a few that are willing to say "screw them, they don't really matter anyway".
Ouch. Hadn't seen that one. Guess the guy was worse than I thought.
Because at the moment, third party choices don't stand a chance.
Because the loony far-left and the whacky far-right are so vocal that everyone else gets drowned out.
I agree about having different views than the current admin without having ill will towards them -- I don't have any particular fondness for them, but I don't have a gut-wrenching hatred of them either. But those like me are being outshouted by the far-left and the far-right, mostly because we refuse to play their game.
Enjoy Canada. Nice place to visit, though I'm not sure I'd want to live there -- too cold for too long, though I've heard that some places near the pacific coast aren't too bad. And unless you're in DC, that nice safe city that has no guns, you're actually not all that likely to be shot -- worry more about 80 year old drivers near farmers markets.
I shouldn't feed the blatant troll, but oh well.
I don't hate anyone.
But I dislike Ashcroft because of the damage he did while he was working for Missouri, both at the state level and while a senator. I will never trust that man to do anything to benefit anyone other than himself. He is a hypocritical man craving power, and does't care who he steps on to do it.
I really only have one complaint about Gonzales, and that is his statements in support of removing court oversight from the "war on terror", and his attempts at trying to expand police powers through the "war on drugs", although this isn't unique to him.
Wow....thats the first time I've been lumped in with the loony left. Somehow I'm even more insulted than most people throwing me in with the whacky right.
I'm not a "hate Bush, blame the US for all of the worlds problems" type person. I don't even have that much I dislike about Pres. Bush. I don't like the people he's chosen for various posts -- specifically his choices for AG. I disagree with picking people who think they're on a mission from god, and who try to enforce a far-right version of morality on the rest of us.
Knee-jerk reaction is the constant cries for more power for the government. As a so-called "conservative" the administration should be for LESS government, not more. I don't care about bank records, or phone calls -- they've always been able to get that information. I'm even OK with them using a court thats sworn to secrecy to get them. Knee-jerk is expanding their power to gather that information without warrants. To be blunt, the court is basically a rubber-stamp anyway, but at least it was there.
As for doing something about people dying in this country because of terrorism, is it worth giving up rights for an illusion of safety? Because thats ALL thats being accomplished, giving the masses the illusion that they're safe from the big bad terrorists. Take off your shoes before you get on the plane. No liquids on the plane. Keep everyone scared of the terrorists!
I agree there, but that doesn't mean I have to like the current bunch of greedy idiots.
Until the "mob" breaks the law, the state should stay the hell out of it.
If that means you have 2 million pissed off muslims marching outside a newspaper office because of a cartoon, but they're not rioting, throwing things, beating people, etc, then a) they can intimidate the newspaper/cartoonist/reporter/whatever by their presence in such numbers and b) the state can't do a damn thing about it since they haven't violated any law. After all, the protesters have rights of free speach as well, do they not?
Would you have the government curtail the rights of the majority (non reporters) to protect the feelings (not rights, since the government wouldn't be the ones limiting the press in this case) of the minority?
Right, because the EU consists of every place worth a damn in the world.
EU != the world
USA != the world (though I wish more of my countrymen would realize this)
France, the UK, Japan...hell, even Canada is more involved in world affairs than Finland, at least by the measure of providing material support to UN tasks.
Sadly, this country has been hijacked by those that use knee-jerk reactions and fear as their tools to stay in power, and those of us who can think logically about the rather small threat that terrorism presents are seen as "pro terrorist" since we don't want to give up the ideas this country was founded on, in order to have the illusion of safety.
I don't like either party all that much, but since I know they're not going to go away, can we at least go back to the system where repubs had the house and dems had the senate (or vice versa) so they'll simply spend all their time arguing and none of their time doing things that take away my rights or otherwise hurt me?
Because, of course, the GNU compilers and tools are the only ones out there, and nothing else exists.
For work stuff, I use MS's VS2005 for 90% of what I do, and Sun Java for the rest. Hobby work is almost entirely done in assembler -- then again, hobby work is aimed at microcontrollers, and debugging tends to be with an oscilloscope and hardware.
Free software would have happened with or without Stallman. It might have taken a little longer, or perhaps not. But it eventually would have happened anyway.
I'm not saying he wasn't useful, but the man isn't a god, and shouldn't be worshipped as such, although it seems that some zealots do.
Then again, Gates isn't evil incarnate, and Jobs & Woz aren't gods either, but there are plenty of people who view them as such.
I'm no fan of Stallman or the GPL, but at least he usually makes an attempt at being polite. Crazy, sure. But usually a polite crazy man.
And while I like OpenBSD, Theo comes across as an ass most of the time.
Six of one, half-dozen of the other. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Except in this case, neither is costing money.
His version of "free" is about as free as you can get. Yes, it does nothing to limit the "Tragedy of the Commons", as those limitions, by BEING limitations, make it less free.
Why is it such a problem for some GPL zealots (not all, and I'm not referring to you specifically) that some people (like me, for instance) prefer true freedom, even at the risk of allowing that freedom to be abused, rather than limited freedom that's considered "safe"?
To use a different, yet equally bad analogy: Why give up freedom for the illusion of sasfety? Specifically, why give up the freedom of expression in order to make people feel "safer" about flying -- like the guy who wrote that the head of the TSA should be fired on a bag containing his shampoo and shaving kit that was to be inspected by the TSA?
Go ahead, mod me down since I don't toe the GPL/slashdot party line, then claim it was for a bad analogy. I've said my piece, I'm not going to argue with you, since you all won't convince me, and I won't convince you all.
Well, whaddaya know...I learned something today :)
I'm probably wrong, but I thought the core and mantle were hot as a result of pressure, not from radioactive decay.
Because its YOUR camp that has some VERY vocal people doing damage to the public opinion of open source software as a whole because of their insistance that its their way or nothing at all, when that is simply not true.
Also because, while not being a fan of any particular political party, my political views are about as anti-socialist as you can get. Not conservative - I don't agree with those fruitcakes either. More of an indiviualist and capitalist mix. I don't see anything inherently wrong with making money, unlike some people around here (not necessarily you -- I don't know you well enough to say anything). I don't see any compelling need to help anyone else because they're down on their luck, or were born deaf/blind/mute/disfgured, etc. I ESPECIALLY don't feel the need to help stupid people. You either succeed through your knowledge, skills, abilities, and effort, or you fail. Yes, I know I'm cold-hearted. But because of my beliefs and outlook on life, I cannot stand anything that smacks of entitlement or socialism.
And what, exactly is wrong with that? If they've come up with something thats so hard to accomplish in the original version, and want to charge money for that improvment, they should be allowed to.
"Overall freedom" is a load of horse dung. People will make stuff available for free if they want to, and people will pay for what they want to. Ideology will not change that simple fact, no matter how much some people like to make fools of themselves insisting that the GPL is the ONLY way to "ensure free software" (not you, specifically -- I'm actually thinking of a couple of my former roommates). Where do people get the idea that because something is free, it must always be free, and anything based on it must be free too?
There is ALWAYS another choice for those with idological opposition to propriatary software, even with a lack of open-source alternatives: DO WITHOUT. It may not be an appealing option, but it IS a option.
Where do you people get the idea that once something is free, it, and everything based on it, must always be free?
You create something. You release it into the public domain. Joe comes along and modifies it, slaps a pretty package on it, and sells it on ebay (or wherever).
Why shouldn't Joe be allowed to add his own work to it, and make money off it? Did he not put his time and labor into it? Is it just that you don't like the idea of someone else making money off something that you had input into, and didn't get anything out of it?
I don't buy the "for the public good" arguments that get thrown around, since the original is still public domain -- anyone else can come along, take the original, modify it, and put THEIR version back into the public domain if they want -- nothing removed the original from the public domain.
A) If I release something into the public domain, the source is out there for anyone to use any way they want.
B) If someone decides to take it, package it, and sell it, I'm fine with that. You see, they're free to do so since there are no strings attached.
C) If someone decides to build on the source, or incorporate it into something else, and sell THAT, I still don't mind, since they're free to do with it as they wish.
THAT is true free software. Anything with ANY* license attached, by nature, restricts that freedom.
*The BSD License might the exception proving the rule, since the only real restriction is including credit for the original source.
Those of us who do non-open source freeware tend to be very focused in one area, usually relating to a hobby, not writing more generic stuff with mass appeal (mp3 or other media players, for example). None of the developers I know that fall into this category would want to take on running a repository, including myself - I just don't have the time it'd take. We all have pages devoted to our hobbies, and the software is available through those pages, for people who are interested. Not saying a repository wouldn't be useful, it just that most of the people I know with stuff to offer would simply rather spend their time on their hobbies.
Not saying anything about you, specifically, but the developers I'm referring to view the computer as a tool to further their hobby, NOT a hobby in and of itself, which also lends to them not wanting to maintain a freeware repository.