YYDDMM format is not a good format for computing. Generally, regardless of cultural format (I'm in the US, we use the completely scatterbrained Month/Day/Year format) stored format should be some variation on YYMMDD or YYYYMMDD. That way you can do comparisons and sorts on the dates, and have them come out right.
The Ancient Greeks (pagan) were also heavily into numerology, Pythagoras and his followers in particular. Many neopagan religions are based at least in part on the Greeks.
From what I understand, the Mayans were also very big on numerology.
Some poorly written programms used 9/9/99 as an indicator that there was no date. Of course, they'd have unpredictable problems today.
Some old systems used the text string "9999" as an end of file marker, and if a program on such a system was written badly enough to not zero pad the day and month, the date would be read as end of file. Any sane programmer would store today at least as "990909", the ANSI recommendation for date storage has for many years been "1999.09.09".
That's not inside information, it's history of the mainstream computing industry. Saying that the G4 is the second age of Apple computing is almost as bad as saying the Netfinity is the second age of IBM computing. Talking about "Second Ages" is talking about how something fits in with history, and saying a company as old and changed as Apple is only just starting its second age is absurd.
Apple getting rid of Amelio wasn't the "end of the first age", Amelio wasn't even in Apple until 1996, when the company was already almost 20 years old and already through with several major tranformations, both in product lines and in management. How was the loss of Amelio any more the end of an age than the loss of Scully, or Jobs? Regardless of how you feel about those people, they were far more significant to the company.
Debian has distributed ISO images for as long as I can remember. Get more info at http://cdimage.debian.org. Usually, you have to get it from one of the mirrors listed there, but lots of mirrors are down right now, so you can get it directly.
Red Hat doesn't distribute ISO images directly to the public, but I was able to find a few sites with them with just a few clicks on a search engine. Also, the directories on RedHat's FTP site precisely match the directories on the CD. I've burned bootable RedHat CD's, just by mirroring the directory from the server, and using the right switches in mkisofs.
How do you get that. The first age of Apple is clearly the Apple ][ Era. They were at the forefront of the new, blossoming, personal computer market, before IBM and its clones hit the market like a ton of bricks. I'd say the second age was the Macintosh age, with their Anti-Orwellian, personal empowerment bent. Their third age kinda started in two steps, first with the Macintosh II, then with the G3, as they moved from a completely closed, monolithic design to a more open (compared to the early Macs), expandible, modern design, their ads started to focus more on the professional designer, rather than the rebel artist that was the early Mac target. The G4 system, far from revolutionary, looks like it's a power and performance boost for their third age systems, but nothing as earth shattering as the beginning of a new era.
If there is a new era forming at Apple, it's the iMacs and it's relatives that are making it. It's a return to the completely closed, unexpandable, monolithic design, but with a more network-centric approach than before. I'd still be reluctant to call that a new age either.
However you count it, you can't say that Apple is just starting their Second Age now, that is very short sighted.
I noticed they've stopped advertising NDS support. Have they given up? What was the point of their cross-licensing agreement then? Can't someone come up with a decent NDS client for Linux? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would gladly pay money for it.
You may be right about your momentum point, I certainly have no references which I can confirm either presentation of his second law, only that most schools teach the law as f=ma, not f=mv'+vm'. However, there are other points where Newton's laws produce incorrect results. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation does not produce correct results if the objects are moving toward or away from each other rapidly. It assumes the change in relative location would have an instant effect on the change in force, yet this is not the case. Also, while Newton's laws do explain most features of orbits, they don't predict effects such as the precession of orbits like Mercury's. The bottom line is, some of Newton's laws of Mechanics have been shown to be not strictly accurate. However, for most conventional applications, they are certainly accurate within the precision required, and are quite useful.
Yes, that is a plausible compromise between the Bible's decription of creation, and the theories of evolution. Many people I know subscribe to such ideas. The people who are calling themselves "Creationists", and are trying to get Creationism taught in schools along with or instead of Evolution Theory, are saying something completely different. To summarize, from The Creation Research Society (one of the big organizations pushing for creationism education), Creationism consists of the following principles: * The Bible is the written Word of God. Genesis is simple historical truth, and should be taken literally; * All basic types of creatures, including man, are direct creations of God. Minor changes within those types might have occured since then; * Noah's flood was a historic, worldwide event; * Christ is the savior.
As you can see, this agenda is pretty hard to swallow for anyone non-christian. It is also solidly outside the realm of science, and should not be taught as such, particularly not in the public schools, which are forbidden to endorse one religion over others.
In addition, Creationists generally either assign a specific age to the earth of something between five and six thousand years old, or at least say it's no more than ten thousand years old. This flies in the face of hard observational evidence and theories of not just evolution, but physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology.
There is no way that Newton's theory will ever be falsified. Not even Einstein's theory did that!
According to Newton's theories (he did have more than one theory, you know), as long as you apply a constant force to an object, its velocity will increase according to the simple equation F=ma, indefinately. Einstein's theories show that to be patently false. Newton's theories of mechanics are known to be incorrect, but are still taught because they are an excellent approximation of what will happen during most student's experiences, they are easier to calculate, and they are easier to comprehend. A good science teacher will make sure students know that they are just approximations.
If you are going to argue loudly on behalf of science, make sure you've got your science straight first.
Your speciation example is much better. It shows that the theories of evolution have continued to hold up under new and different observation, confirming the theory.
Note that no reputable scientist would say "This is the one and only truth of the universe". Scientific theory is merely the best ideas we have right now of how the world works. Theories last until a better idea comes along. Scientifically speaking, Creationism is not a better idea than Evolution, it doesn't hold up to vast amounts of observational evidence in biology, geology, physics and more. While I agree with you here, make sure you don't get too dogmatic about scientific theory, or you are in as bad shape as the Creationists are.
There's a great deal of evidence that the Christian god is fabricated out of whole cloth. I would be very curious to be shown such evidence. And I mean observational evidence, not historical anecdotes. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence that there is or is not a god, Christian or otherwise. Religious belief must (and should) be based upon faith, not evidence. They shouldn't tell scientists what science is, scientists shouldn't tell them what god is or isn't. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
Good scientific practice is to look at and consider all alternatives.
No, that's good philosophy, has nothing at all to do with science. Good science is to follow the scientific method. That is: * look at and consider all appropriate observational evidence, * formulate a hypothesis based on the evidence, * and attempt to disprove the hypothesis by applying more observational evidence to it. If you fail to disprove it, you show it to your peers, if they fail to disprove it, you can call it a theory. After it's been around a while, you get to teach the theory in science classes.
Creationism, while an important belief for many, just isn't science. It isn't a hypothesis based on observational evidence, it is based on religious faith. There has been no attempt by it's supporters to disprove it scientifically, and when scientists do so, they are ignored or even insulted. It isn't science, it has no place in science class. It is religion, it has no place in an organization (such as a public school) covered by the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights.
Grudgingly, since you don't seem to have the energy to follow the convenient link to the license, I will quote the relevant text:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:... Redistributions in binary form must reproduce...this list of conditions.
Essentially, you must keep the license. Unlike the GPL, you can add restrictions to the license, which many companies have done (eg. BSDI, Sun, Microsoft). Unlike the older BSD license, it appears (but I am not a lawyer) to not have any restrictions incompatible with the GPL license, so I think you can add the GPL to the new BSD license. It is cumulative licensing, not relicensing.
I am not a lawyer, does anyone with real legal credentials (and more ambition to read and think than the AC I'm replying to here) want to take a stab at this?
Public domain you lose all copyrights to it. Someone can do anything to it. The new BSD license requires that it * Retain the copyright and the copyright notice * Retain the BSD license * Binary distributions must include the copyright notice It also points out that the organization is not giving rights to use their name in product endorcements without separate permissions.
Since the GPL allows for the copyright notice restriction, this looks like it makes BSD completely GPL compatible, YAY!
Software decoders are problematic. There is prohibitive patenting on a couple of elements of DVD decoding, so you can't have a Free decoder. The people writing non-Free decoders aren't even considering writing for Linux.
If the desktop Video4Linux-compatible hardware decoder sells well, I'm sure a PCMCIA version will follow soon. It costs much more to develop a PCMCIA card, though, so it's kinda understandible that they limited the risk by doing a desktop version first.
BSDI does not "own the BSD code". BSDI distributes modified BSD code, under the BSD license (since you cannot remove a license from code without the approval of the copyright holder). In order to "protect their investment" they have added their own licensing restrictions on top of the BSD license, which prevents free redistribution, and distribution of modifications. Therefore BSDI is BSD-licensed, but not even close to Free (or Open Source, or even Sun's favorite "Community Licensed"). BSDI's BSD code is proprietary.
I have read some, but not all of the works of Marx. I know full well the Cold War propaganda has nothing to do with communism. I also know that at least 90% of the people who use the "GNU/FSF/RMS is communist" line are trying to slander the target by associating them with the propaganda.
Here are some of the key points of theoretical, Marxist communism, and how they fit or don't fit with the GNU Philosophy (note, some are quotes of a translation of the Communist Manifesto, others are paraphrases of concepts):
the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles The GNU Philosophy does not divide things along class lines. With GNU, the starving shareware author is as much in the wrong as the Microsoft Millionare, and the rich hardware manufacturer with Free specifications and driver source code is as much in the right as the poor amateur Free Software developer. The people too poor to be able to access computers are not even addressed in the GNU Philosophy. This is not an oversight on GNU's part, it's just Communism is a Social, Economic and Political system, GNU is a information and development system.
The bourgeoisie have developed substantial means of production, economic exchange and wealth, dependant on the proletariat. The proletariat, once it has gotten strong enough, will use its power over these tools to overthrow the bourguoisie. The proprietary programmers wealth is dependant on rampant consumption, it's not dependant on the GNU developers. The tools the GNU developers are using to overthrow the proprietary system are not the proprietary programmers works, but works made by GNU for GNU, or by non-GNU Free software developers.
The proletariat are being oppressed and kept propertyless by the bourguoise. The proletariat will fight back. The GNU developers are claiming the proprietary vendors are oppressing the consumers, not GNU. GNU is offering a way out, not a conflict.
The communists want to put total political power in the hands of the proletariat The GNU philosophy wants enough political power to reform IP law. More might be desired by some individuals, but it is completely outside the scope of the project or the philosophy.
Private property, and its corrolary, personal wealth are oppressive evils and should be abolished. The GNU project considers intellectual property to be a flawed concept, but physical property is perfectly valid. As for personal wealth, the GNU project encourages developers to charge as much for their services as they can get away with. It creates a system where people can focus on paying for tangible services rendered, rather than intangible IP licenses.
In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor [and therefore create capital]. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer. So people working creates Capital (or code in the case of the GNU project). The bad society keeps the capital for the people at the top, the good society uses it to enrich the people making it. I'd say that's a match.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations. I'd say that's a match there.
To create the communist state, you have to tranform the capitalist state. Among the many changes suggested to get the ball rolling are state centralized communications and trade The GNU project stresses dispersed, decentralized communications and "trade".
Equal obligation of all to work. The GNU project does not obligate anyone to help it. People do so because they want to, not because they have to obligation.
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities. The GNU project pays no attention to your needs (avoiding the "Tyranny of Need" as Ayn Rand puts it) you use what you want to use. It's software, there's always more. You put in what you want to put in. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying "contribute more, we know you can". Thus the GNU project might go slower sometimes, and faster others, but it always continues, because someone always wants to contribute something.
Basically, it's a very incomplete match. I'd say that the GNU Philosophy shares a few scattered ideals with the Communist Movement, disagrees on others (irreconcilably so when it comes to work and property), and shares none of its ideas on how to acheive the ideal society. The GNU Philosophy is no more Communist than the Libertarian movement is. They are all idealistic philosophies, that doesn't make them the same.
The latest skinny is the same as the old skinny. The X Window System, and applications that use it, assume that a rendered font will be in monochrome (one bit per pixel). Anti-aliasing requires multiple bits per pixel. Implementing anti-aliased fonts at the X Windows level is unmanagably difficult.
There are widget libraries that do their own text rendering with anti-aliasing, and Berlin does anti-aliasing for fonts. I don't see X11 ever supporting it directly.
BSD: Redistributions... must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
You are not allowed to change the license.
No, that means that any new license must also include those restrictions. People change BSD licenses all the time. Sun's done it, BSDI's done it, even Microsoft has done it for some of the NT TCP/IP Networking tools if I recall.
GPL: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
You are not allowed to use GPL'd code with other licenses.
No, that is saying the GPL'ed code must be distributed under the GPL. If a license is trivial enough (or GPLey enough) that it's terms do not add or remove from the terms of the GPL, the code can have that license too.
If I remember correctly, the XConsortium license is sufficiently trivial, and Jordy makes a good argument that BSD might be too. I suspect there might be a flaw in his argument, but I can't see it. He should run it by the FSF, just in case.
[in theory BSD license gives users more permissions than the GNU license] Ain't no theory. It's real fact. BSD code can be freely reused even if you don't buy into the GNU communist utopia. GPV-licensed code can't.
Um, wrong. Here where I work we have a BSDI server, it comes with source code for a BSD kernel. The source code is covered under a BSD license. It is not freely redistributable, and cannot be freely reused. The BSD license does not prevent BSDI from adding restrictions to the license for their distribution, making it completely non-Free.
Also, watch with the flamebait there, GNU has nothing to do with communism.
Yes, but how well can the PCG systems do at movie speeds: on the fly rendering at 24 frames/second? nVidia is saying (and it remains to be seen how accurate their marketting info is) that this is the image quality quality that can move, not just a pretty static image.
This translator comes close. If you run "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" through the Spanish version, you come up with "The alcohol is fixed but the meat is weak". Just in case you wanted your liquor to breed.
Slashdot Mirror
Smut halls don't show NC-17 movies either. They're generally too artsy, and not hardcore enough.
----
YYDDMM format is not a good format for computing. Generally, regardless of cultural format (I'm in the US, we use the completely scatterbrained Month/Day/Year format) stored format should be some variation on YYMMDD or YYYYMMDD. That way you can do comparisons and sorts on the dates, and have them come out right.
----
The Ancient Greeks (pagan) were also heavily into numerology, Pythagoras and his followers in particular. Many neopagan religions are based at least in part on the Greeks.
From what I understand, the Mayans were also very big on numerology.
----
Some poorly written programms used 9/9/99 as an indicator that there was no date. Of course, they'd have unpredictable problems today.
Some old systems used the text string "9999" as an end of file marker, and if a program on such a system was written badly enough to not zero pad the day and month, the date would be read as end of file. Any sane programmer would store today at least as "990909", the ANSI recommendation for date storage has for many years been "1999.09.09".
----
That's not inside information, it's history of the mainstream computing industry. Saying that the G4 is the second age of Apple computing is almost as bad as saying the Netfinity is the second age of IBM computing. Talking about "Second Ages" is talking about how something fits in with history, and saying a company as old and changed as Apple is only just starting its second age is absurd.
Apple getting rid of Amelio wasn't the "end of the first age", Amelio wasn't even in Apple until 1996, when the company was already almost 20 years old and already through with several major tranformations, both in product lines and in management. How was the loss of Amelio any more the end of an age than the loss of Scully, or Jobs? Regardless of how you feel about those people, they were far more significant to the company.
For a decent overview of the history of Apple, check out http://www.apple-history.com/history.html
----
Debian has distributed ISO images for as long as I can remember. Get more info at http://cdimage.debian.org. Usually, you have to get it from one of the mirrors listed there, but lots of mirrors are down right now, so you can get it directly.
Red Hat doesn't distribute ISO images directly to the public, but I was able to find a few sites with them with just a few clicks on a search engine. Also, the directories on RedHat's FTP site precisely match the directories on the CD. I've burned bootable RedHat CD's, just by mirroring the directory from the server, and using the right switches in mkisofs.
----
How do you get that. The first age of Apple is clearly the Apple ][ Era. They were at the forefront of the new, blossoming, personal computer market, before IBM and its clones hit the market like a ton of bricks. I'd say the second age was the Macintosh age, with their Anti-Orwellian, personal empowerment bent. Their third age kinda started in two steps, first with the Macintosh II, then with the G3, as they moved from a completely closed, monolithic design to a more open (compared to the early Macs), expandible, modern design, their ads started to focus more on the professional designer, rather than the rebel artist that was the early Mac target. The G4 system, far from revolutionary, looks like it's a power and performance boost for their third age systems, but nothing as earth shattering as the beginning of a new era.
If there is a new era forming at Apple, it's the iMacs and it's relatives that are making it. It's a return to the completely closed, unexpandable, monolithic design, but with a more network-centric approach than before. I'd still be reluctant to call that a new age either.
However you count it, you can't say that Apple is just starting their Second Age now, that is very short sighted.
----
I noticed they've stopped advertising NDS support. Have they given up? What was the point of their cross-licensing agreement then? Can't someone come up with a decent NDS client for Linux? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would gladly pay money for it.
----
You may be right about your momentum point, I certainly have no references which I can confirm either presentation of his second law, only that most schools teach the law as f=ma, not f=mv'+vm'.
However, there are other points where Newton's laws produce incorrect results. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation does not produce correct results if the objects are moving toward or away from each other rapidly. It assumes the change in relative location would have an instant effect on the change in force, yet this is not the case. Also, while Newton's laws do explain most features of orbits, they don't predict effects such as the precession of orbits like Mercury's.
The bottom line is, some of Newton's laws of Mechanics have been shown to be not strictly accurate. However, for most conventional applications, they are certainly accurate within the precision required, and are quite useful.
----
Yes, that is a plausible compromise between the Bible's decription of creation, and the theories of evolution. Many people I know subscribe to such ideas. The people who are calling themselves "Creationists", and are trying to get Creationism taught in schools along with or instead of Evolution Theory, are saying something completely different. To summarize, from The Creation Research Society (one of the big organizations pushing for creationism education), Creationism consists of the following principles:
* The Bible is the written Word of God. Genesis is simple historical truth, and should be taken literally;
* All basic types of creatures, including man, are direct creations of God. Minor changes within those types might have occured since then;
* Noah's flood was a historic, worldwide event;
* Christ is the savior.
As you can see, this agenda is pretty hard to swallow for anyone non-christian. It is also solidly outside the realm of science, and should not be taught as such, particularly not in the public schools, which are forbidden to endorse one religion over others.
In addition, Creationists generally either assign a specific age to the earth of something between five and six thousand years old, or at least say it's no more than ten thousand years old. This flies in the face of hard observational evidence and theories of not just evolution, but physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology.
----
Some quick points.
There is no way that Newton's theory will ever be falsified. Not even Einstein's theory did that!
According to Newton's theories (he did have more than one theory, you know), as long as you apply a constant force to an object, its velocity will increase according to the simple equation F=ma, indefinately. Einstein's theories show that to be patently false. Newton's theories of mechanics are known to be incorrect, but are still taught because they are an excellent approximation of what will happen during most student's experiences, they are easier to calculate, and they are easier to comprehend. A good science teacher will make sure students know that they are just approximations.
If you are going to argue loudly on behalf of science, make sure you've got your science straight first.
Your speciation example is much better. It shows that the theories of evolution have continued to hold up under new and different observation, confirming the theory.
Note that no reputable scientist would say "This is the one and only truth of the universe". Scientific theory is merely the best ideas we have right now of how the world works. Theories last until a better idea comes along. Scientifically speaking, Creationism is not a better idea than Evolution, it doesn't hold up to vast amounts of observational evidence in biology, geology, physics and more. While I agree with you here, make sure you don't get too dogmatic about scientific theory, or you are in as bad shape as the Creationists are.
There's a great deal of evidence that the Christian god is fabricated out of whole cloth.
I would be very curious to be shown such evidence. And I mean observational evidence, not historical anecdotes. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence that there is or is not a god, Christian or otherwise. Religious belief must (and should) be based upon faith, not evidence. They shouldn't tell scientists what science is, scientists shouldn't tell them what god is or isn't. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
----
odysseus complex wrote:
Good scientific practice is to look at and consider all alternatives.
No, that's good philosophy, has nothing at all to do with science. Good science is to follow the scientific method. That is:
* look at and consider all appropriate observational evidence,
* formulate a hypothesis based on the evidence,
* and attempt to disprove the hypothesis by applying more observational evidence to it.
If you fail to disprove it, you show it to your peers, if they fail to disprove it, you can call it a theory. After it's been around a while, you get to teach the theory in science classes.
Creationism, while an important belief for many, just isn't science. It isn't a hypothesis based on observational evidence, it is based on religious faith. There has been no attempt by it's supporters to disprove it scientifically, and when scientists do so, they are ignored or even insulted. It isn't science, it has no place in science class. It is religion, it has no place in an organization (such as a public school) covered by the Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights.
----
Grudgingly, since you don't seem to have the energy to follow the convenient link to the license, I will quote the relevant text:
... Redistributions in binary form must reproduce...this list of conditions.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Essentially, you must keep the license. Unlike the GPL, you can add restrictions to the license, which many companies have done (eg. BSDI, Sun, Microsoft). Unlike the older BSD license, it appears (but I am not a lawyer) to not have any restrictions incompatible with the GPL license, so I think you can add the GPL to the new BSD license. It is cumulative licensing, not relicensing.
I am not a lawyer, does anyone with real legal credentials (and more ambition to read and think than the AC I'm replying to here) want to take a stab at this?
----
No, RMS is not our god. Linus is our god, haven't you been paying attention! RMS is just Saint Ignucious, who paved the way for our god. :-)
----
Public domain you lose all copyrights to it. Someone can do anything to it. The new BSD license requires that it
* Retain the copyright and the copyright notice
* Retain the BSD license
* Binary distributions must include the copyright notice
It also points out that the organization is not giving rights to use their name in product endorcements without separate permissions.
Since the GPL allows for the copyright notice restriction, this looks like it makes BSD completely GPL compatible, YAY!
----
Software decoders are problematic. There is prohibitive patenting on a couple of elements of DVD decoding, so you can't have a Free decoder. The people writing non-Free decoders aren't even considering writing for Linux.
If the desktop Video4Linux-compatible hardware decoder sells well, I'm sure a PCMCIA version will follow soon. It costs much more to develop a PCMCIA card, though, so it's kinda understandible that they limited the risk by doing a desktop version first.
----
BSDI does not "own the BSD code". BSDI distributes modified BSD code, under the BSD license (since you cannot remove a license from code without the approval of the copyright holder). In order to "protect their investment" they have added their own licensing restrictions on top of the BSD license, which prevents free redistribution, and distribution of modifications. Therefore BSDI is BSD-licensed, but not even close to Free (or Open Source, or even Sun's favorite "Community Licensed"). BSDI's BSD code is proprietary.
----
Does this mean tomorrow we're going to find him working for MSN too?
----
I have read some, but not all of the works of Marx. I know full well the Cold War propaganda has nothing to do with communism. I also know that at least 90% of the people who use the "GNU/FSF/RMS is communist" line are trying to slander the target by associating them with the propaganda.
Here are some of the key points of theoretical, Marxist communism, and how they fit or don't fit with the GNU Philosophy (note, some are quotes of a translation of the Communist Manifesto, others are paraphrases of concepts):
the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles
The GNU Philosophy does not divide things along class lines. With GNU, the starving shareware author is as much in the wrong as the Microsoft Millionare, and the rich hardware manufacturer with Free specifications and driver source code is as much in the right as the poor amateur Free Software developer. The people too poor to be able to access computers are not even addressed in the GNU Philosophy. This is not an oversight on GNU's part, it's just Communism is a Social, Economic and Political system, GNU is a information and development system.
The bourgeoisie have developed substantial means of production, economic exchange and wealth, dependant on the proletariat. The proletariat, once it has gotten strong enough, will use its power over these tools to overthrow the bourguoisie.
The proprietary programmers wealth is dependant on rampant consumption, it's not dependant on the GNU developers. The tools the GNU developers are using to overthrow the proprietary system are not the proprietary programmers works, but works made by GNU for GNU, or by non-GNU Free software developers.
The proletariat are being oppressed and kept propertyless by the bourguoise. The proletariat will fight back.
The GNU developers are claiming the proprietary vendors are oppressing the consumers, not GNU. GNU is offering a way out, not a conflict.
The communists want to put total political power in the hands of the proletariat
The GNU philosophy wants enough political power to reform IP law. More might be desired by some individuals, but it is completely outside the scope of the project or the philosophy.
Private property, and its corrolary, personal wealth are oppressive evils and should be abolished.
The GNU project considers intellectual property to be a flawed concept, but physical property is perfectly valid. As for personal wealth, the GNU project encourages developers to charge as much for their services as they can get away with. It creates a system where people can focus on paying for tangible services rendered, rather than intangible IP licenses.
In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor [and therefore create capital]. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.
So people working creates Capital (or code in the case of the GNU project). The bad society keeps the capital for the people at the top, the good society uses it to enrich the people making it. I'd say that's a match.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
I'd say that's a match there.
To create the communist state, you have to tranform the capitalist state. Among the many changes suggested to get the ball rolling are state centralized communications and trade
The GNU project stresses dispersed, decentralized communications and "trade".
Equal obligation of all to work.
The GNU project does not obligate anyone to help it. People do so because they want to, not because they have to obligation.
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.
The GNU project pays no attention to your needs (avoiding the "Tyranny of Need" as Ayn Rand puts it) you use what you want to use. It's software, there's always more. You put in what you want to put in. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying "contribute more, we know you can". Thus the GNU project might go slower sometimes, and faster others, but it always continues, because someone always wants to contribute something.
Basically, it's a very incomplete match. I'd say that the GNU Philosophy shares a few scattered ideals with the Communist Movement, disagrees on others (irreconcilably so when it comes to work and property), and shares none of its ideas on how to acheive the ideal society. The GNU Philosophy is no more Communist than the Libertarian movement is. They are all idealistic philosophies, that doesn't make them the same.
----
Yes it is, and that's in the FAQ:
XFree86 Faq, Q.F12.
----
The latest skinny is the same as the old skinny. The X Window System, and applications that use it, assume that a rendered font will be in monochrome (one bit per pixel). Anti-aliasing requires multiple bits per pixel. Implementing anti-aliased fonts at the X Windows level is unmanagably difficult.
There are widget libraries that do their own text rendering with anti-aliasing, and Berlin does anti-aliasing for fonts. I don't see X11 ever supporting it directly.
----
gas wrote:
... must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
BSD:
Redistributions
You are not allowed to change the license.
No, that means that any new license must also include those restrictions. People change BSD licenses all the time. Sun's done it, BSDI's done it, even Microsoft has done it for some of the NT TCP/IP Networking tools if I recall.
GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
You are not allowed to use GPL'd code with other licenses.
No, that is saying the GPL'ed code must be distributed under the GPL. If a license is trivial enough (or GPLey enough) that it's terms do not add or remove from the terms of the GPL, the code can have that license too.
If I remember correctly, the XConsortium license is sufficiently trivial, and Jordy makes a good argument that BSD might be too. I suspect there might be a flaw in his argument, but I can't see it. He should run it by the FSF, just in case.
----
Jay Maynard wrote:
[in theory BSD license gives users more permissions than the GNU license] Ain't no theory. It's real fact. BSD code can be freely reused even if you don't buy into the GNU communist utopia. GPV-licensed code can't.
Um, wrong. Here where I work we have a BSDI server, it comes with source code for a BSD kernel. The source code is covered under a BSD license. It is not freely redistributable, and cannot be freely reused. The BSD license does not prevent BSDI from adding restrictions to the license for their distribution, making it completely non-Free.
Also, watch with the flamebait there, GNU has nothing to do with communism.
----
Yes, but how well can the PCG systems do at movie speeds: on the fly rendering at 24 frames/second? nVidia is saying (and it remains to be seen how accurate their marketting info is) that this is the image quality quality that can move, not just a pretty static image.
----
This translator comes close. If you run "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" through the Spanish version, you come up with "The alcohol is fixed but the meat is weak". Just in case you wanted your liquor to breed.
----