The truth is most of us (except possibly Stallman himself;p) have the same story as you. The acceptance of Free Software is a long process.
When I first started programming, I wanted to get rich just like Bill Gates. I even had ideas I thought I would patent. I came in contact with early GNU/Linux versions about 13 years ago (I was 12 years old). I tried them for fun, then used Red Hat as a programming environment, but I would always switch back to Windows for all other activities (GNU/Linux was not really user friendly at the time). I was on dual-boot all the time since then, but used Windows most of the time.
Then came a time when I first encountered a GPL'ed library I wanted to use for a program I was coding. I had heard a bit of this Free Software non-sense previously but didn't care at all. Now it was attacking me! I mean, this library I didn't write wanted me to adhere forcefully to its philosophy! Not using it was out of question -- I still had the mind of the Windows script kiddie who downloaded cracks of Astalavista, stuck in the concept that software is proprietary. I wanted to make money with software, but would crack any proprietary software I would download.
Years later, I started looking into the Free Software philosophy more seriously. I realized that (I hope American readers don't jump off their seats) it was capitalism, the doctrine of property itself, that we were programmed to believe as the superior doctrine since our childhood through education and advertisement of the perfect life (ie, the American Dream) made it extremely difficult to apprehend the benefits and the logics of Free Software at first. Later, when I converted friends to Free Software, exposing its merits, I could see the same process going on for them over months. At first, they were reluctant, still imprisoned in the proprietary philosophy, but steps by steps most came to be Free Software enthusiasts. Now there is a fundamental difference between real world objects and virtual objects like source code (proprietary license), music (DRMs) or ideas (patents), it is the cost of copy.
If we could simply copy food like with Star Trek's replicator, then capitalism wouldn't mean much when it comes to food. Yet, some agriculture companies (Monsanto, anyone?) and consortium would try to make you pay the tax for the original copy. They would try to patent the DNA of the food you eat and get royalties. They would try to forbid, through lobbying groups pushing for new laws, people to copy the food themselves. They would offer "cheaper" prices to famine plagued countries to show a good image. They would give money to charity to justify their otherwise reprehensible acts. The problem with zero copying costs is that it's the fittest economically, in a free market it's bound to win: it is as much capitalist than Marxist and that is why a lot of people who were raised with the red scare built-in can't accept it.
It is exactly what is happening with Software (since the early 80s). While software is nowhere near vital as food, it is more important than most people want to acknowledge. "Give a man a fish, and you've given him a meal. Teach him to fish, and he'll have food for a lifetime.". Free Software is all about giving the end-user the ability to learn -- not everyone might do it, but out of the hundreds who could get Free Software in the third world, there ought to be a kid or two who understand it, enjoy it and improve it.
I have come a long way since I first encountered Free Software. The process of accepting Free Software takes time and it requires one to open his mind to concepts extremely foreign to what most Occidentals are raised to believe. This is why Free Software is so controversial, has so much haters and lovers. Stallman may be blunt (I would be if I was repeating the same thing over and over for 20 years) but the truth is, 99.999% of currently Free Software enthusiasts were once proprietary guys. Whereas, 99.9999% of proprietary guys never opened themselves to Free Software. That's a key difference.
Ethics and Morals are relative. You call the GPL free. I call the BSD license freer.
Let's not argue about morals and ethics, two words which mean whatever you can want them to mean.
Stallman is defending the BSD as well, he is defending Free Software. The fact that he prefers the GPL and GNU-based systems doesn't change this.
You place yourself already in a "connoisseur" context. Random Joe doesn't know the difference between GPL and BSD licences, and what matters to him is the freedom the program grants to its user (or more like, the freedom it doesn't remove). In this case being "Free Software" is more than enough. I know a lot of BSD people (especially the OpenBSD ones) hate Stallman for diverse reasons (but stupid ones imho).
As for the "freer" one debate (which is old), I'll just say, those licenses are two sides of the same coin. Either you give the ability to lose freedom as a freedom, or you put the constraint of keeping freedom as a freedom. You can't have both, the "freer" discussion is just a matter of perspective and a stupid nitpickers and time wasting debate. I think both are just as free, that is they are both Free Software and that's enough for me. I don't know who started this quarrel, but I know who keep it alive and it's definitely the BSD guys.
There is more to Stallman's work than programmer conflicts on petty license details. Stallman fights against software patents and DRMs as well. Now everyone has a right to his own opinion, but really you can't be a free software advocate and support software patents. For DRMs, the matter is trickier, because they are just a technical mechanism, but here obviously referring to DRMs on customer or public services (music, TV,...) and conventional wisdom and experience tell us they won't be used for legitimate reasons.
In my opinion, I think the fight for software freedom is extremely important because it is relatively new and it is a fight that good, common sense may still win. One last island of sanity. Better must pick one fight at a time, and it's definitely Stallman's calling and his place on the chessboard is more important than most people believe.
When RMS dies, I will start being suspicious of the FSF like any other organization. Stallman may be many things, but he is fundamentally honest when it comes to software freedom. There is no afterthought and I can put my software in GPL3 or later without worrying that GPL 3.1 will remove my freedom. When Stallman dies eventually, no one will be able to replace him as St. Ignucius and it will be a sad, sad day for Free Software, and for Open Source too even if those guys don't realize it. Free Software is the moral/ethical side of Open Source, without it Open Source will lose half its weight among many people.
As a software developer or some IT-related guy, you may not care about the freedom aspects that Stallman talks of, and you may not like the character. However common people, the ones who don't know about the details of software, don't care for Open Source, and they will never care for Open Source: how the availability of the code or the development model is any help to them? The only thing that may convince them --and I mean people interested in politics, not mindless drones watching debilitating TV programs all day long (there are still some normal intelligent people around the world you know)-- is the freedom aspect. Richard Stallman is highly regarded for that in the non-IT communities.
For instance, he was three days ago on a national radio here (among other guests) to discuss Free Software -- and while other protagonists always went too deep in the details, Stallman was the only one understandable (while speaking in a foreign language!) by any regular person.
Now I agree he could show better, he has a lot of defects (I know stories from friends who had to "manage" him on his trips), but even as eccentric and probably a tad insane, he is doing an awesome job which is still necessary for the advent of Free Software.
How was he elected? First, the opposition (Ségolène Royal) was unable to talk properly and had a fucking irritating voice and no mind of her own. She was bad, very bad. Sensed people still voted for her at the second turn because we knew who or more appropriately what Sarkozy was and is (you put it right, a "neoconservative dick" but he may be worse than just a dick, he is a very dangerous man). Hands down the worst President France ever had. But, obviously, Ségolène Royal being bad wasn't enough for him to get elected. His campaign was supported by 90% of the French media, he was quoted daily, the main TVs are owned by his friends (he is currently passing a bill to authorize more ads on private TV networks, and the right to nominate himself the president of the public TV networks -- last remnants of an era where France tried to preserve a decent cultural level of his citizens by having publicly funded networks).
Sarkozy's being elected is the direct result of the lack of intelligence of French citizens and we are paying the high price for it. I'm afraid we have no right to criticize George W. Bush, Berlusconi, Uribe or Putin anymore (not that Chirac was good either, but at least he wasn't insane and knew how to show some decency).
Actually in France Apple gives you a refund of OSX if you ask within 7days after having bought the computer. Some people like to waste their money and buy a Mac to run GNU/Linux.
Ha the good ol' times! I was one of those pesky 7X GM (Magery, Resist, Eval int, Tactics, Swordsmanship, Wrestling) NotoPK and I would provoke people, flag me as criminal and kill them when they attacked me! Ha the fun. I'd also fight PKs or with PKs, being Red doesn't make you inhuman! I have so many UO anecdotes, like when I was in Shame and I rush on a red, start the usual Magic Arrow to cancel is Magic Reflection and he says "noo it's me stop". Hehe was a friend then we went on PKilling together...
Or when I was escort for a friend who was GM Blacksmith and Minor, protecting him from PKs... The very fact that my memories are still so vivid ten years later, while I played many MMOs since, show that no other MMO has equalled the UO experience. It was simply awesome.
(I was using UOAssist with UOMap though, later they introduced a more advanced macroing system in the client but without fast equip/unequip it really sucked to PvP).
One day when I'll be rich and have a lot of time to waste, I'll make my own MMO reminiscent of the very best of Ultima Online.
During the earliest span of the age of darkness. Found in only the most aged of manuscripts lived a world born of mystic arts and ancient sorcery: Sosaria. Despite Sosaria's enchanted origin its people shunned magic for its very use corrupted the souls of the unwary. But one man dared to awake the slumbering powers of alchemy. Twisting the awesome powers of the gem of immortality to his will and binding all of Sosaria to his corruption: Mondain the wizard. His power was absolute as the whole of the planet was gripped in his cruel embrace. Only the appearance of a stranger saved Sosaria from impending destruction. From whence he came no one knows, but his strength and courage were without peer. In this stranger lay Sosaria's only hope. Only a traveler from the stars could release this world from Mondain's vile stranglehold. He would prove himself a saviour, shattering the gem of immortality and defeating Mondain. But a deeper and more sinister evil was released with the destruction of the gem, for Sosaria was not free of the stone's power. The planet was still bound to the jewel even as it lay shattered on the floor of Mondain's castle. For within each shattered remnant of the jewel dwelt a perfect likeness of Sosaria. Thus is the world in which you are born, live and die. Britannia that was once Sosaria now exists as a thousand worlds each with its own peoples, history and destiny. This Britannia is but one of many in the multiverse, that is Ultima Online!
How I loved UO before they removed precasting and introduced that Trammel bullshit:(.
I logged in a few years ago using the "Return to Britannia" free ticket and it has become so flashy, lame and carebear oriented I was almost crying:(.
HermMunster's reply is very accurate imho, I'll just add one thing. Before the OSI made up the "Open Source" term, we would simply call the fact that the source of a program is available (whatever the license) "available source code" and not "Open Source" (especially not with capitals). The proper headline would be "Microsoft Singularity code now available for download". Regardless of anyone's views on F/OSS, the fact is that Open Source now mostly (99%) refers to the Open Source Definition by the OSI.
Now, I have myself always been in the Free Software side of the Force (considering the Open Source term only for business related matters) and I agree with Richard Stallman that having the emphasis on the openness rather than the freedom of the code could only lead to the current misunderstanding. Since the Open Source term was coined to avoid the free (as in beer)/Free (as in freedom) ambiguity I find it rather ironic that the Open Source term now suffers from it too -- but let's just keep in mind that it is so only because closed source companies either want to surf on the Open Source wave or spread FUD.
Then again, there is no solution because we can't trademark everyday words unless we're extra rich (then, we can trademark words such as windows or apple! but well) so whatever the term chosen to define the underlying concept behind any new idea that makes rich conservative people afraid, they will try to discredit it by calling their own, non-compliant products, the same way. We still have people, whom after having been explained the concept 20 times, will say "Who are you redefine the meaning of 'free', I have the right to call my 'freeware' 'free software' if I want to". According to my dictionary, these people are typically what we call "morons";). Words and expressions are meant to carry concepts, and Free Software (with capitals) as well as Open Source (with capitals) carry two (slightly different) concepts; those expressions were not used anywhere as much and with capitals before their respective inventors (RMS & the FSF, & the OSI) introduced them. So really, your argument is moot and imho such way of thinking (shown in other comments too) only slows down the debate and general awareness.
A note about the article submitter being a Microsoft proponent: my point is that I think (or hope) he knows fairly well what Open Source means since he is the main kernel hacker on React OS (the project to code a Win32 F/OSS clone). Yet I have always been dubious about the project and why would someone who knows about what Open Source is present such a license as if it were?
Grandparent didn't mean anything. Grandparent is the kind of poster who does not know what he is talking about. Maybe he is a politician IRL. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of Slashdotters are in politics or would be great at it, considering how they talk non-sense with the utmost ease.
Fuck off.
I'm really tired of you OSS fascists. You don't have a clue, you can't actually comment on the news because Singularity is so over your head, yet you're the loudest idiots on slashdot.
OMG OPENSORS FTW!!!
Idiots.
Actually working in CS research in a related field, I do have a pretty good idea of what Singularity is, how it works and how nice it is. It doesn't make it Free/Open Source by any mean and so the headline is misleading.
I know very well that Microsoft Research and Microsoft are very loosely-coupled, however the article was submitted by a Microsoft proponent (judging by his account history) which "has signed an NDA with Microsoft" and one can very well see how this benefits to Microsoft (they're working hard to make everyone think they do "Open Source" too with their SharedSource initiatives and such -- btw they do have a few projects under true F/OSS licenses afaik).
Microsoft (as well as other proprietary software companies) is (and has been) very interested in spreading FUD regarding Open Source (such as "if the source is available then it must be Open Source", obviously using a flaw opened by the Open Source Initiative which put the emphasis on the openness of the code rather than on its freedom from the start), and with such an headline on a site such as Slashdot (ie, where a lot people go but don't browse further than the main page) I'm sure to take a coffee next week with someone who will tell me about Singularity now being Open Source... Is that your definition of "news"?
Singularity is a great research project but it's not Free/Open Source by any means. So grand-parent is right (as are others), and you are just as much as a fascist than the F/OSS zealots you criticize since your critics are based on them being OSS fascist and not on the facts being right or wrong. Let's call a cat a cat. Open Source is a well-defined term (just like "Windows-compatible" and nobody would like to see the Wine project tout itself of that feat unless it's 100% true), so let's respect it.
It never gets old.
Signed: a Cheese-eating Baguette-eating Beret-wearing Marxo-Socialist Hairy Dirty Hot-Women-Fucking Surrendering *RUDE* *JEWISH and MUSLIM* Anti-Iraq-War Anti-American Anti-* Renault-driving (haha the joke) Monkey with a 19th-century-mindset!
(* oh shit, that could be American).
Lately I have been playing a free (as in beer, optional "premium" content model) MMORPG which has a native client for GNU/Linux too (no client for Mac though). It's Realm versus Realm only, so it's extremely basic for the rest (no crafting, no non-combat skills, etc) but it's very good at what it is: a glorified chess-board for 50vs50 battles (there are three realms, a bit like DaoC). It's an indy Argentinian game developed by 7-8 crazies but it's getting better everyday. They don't advertise it too much because, even if it's officially out of beta, it still feels like it. They want the first impression to be better to hook the most;).
The funny thing with an indy game (few players) with a GNU/Linux client is that half the English-speaking players (the rest being Argentinian/Spanish-speaking) are Linux users/admins or IT people. If anyone wants to try it out, find it through Google (Regnum Online) and Ignis is the way to go;).
Definitely shuts the "harder to code for OpenGL/Linux" FUD, as the engine is perfectly portable over Windows/D3D & Linux/OGL and they announced they would make a Mac version if they have a Mac. This is a homebrew engine and game designed and programmed by 7 people... and game companies can't do it? Right..
FFVI is my favorite "scripted" game along with Chrono Trigger, and I can tell you that FFXII really sucks. Lame (and very short) plot, elevator music. The game system is great but you have to spend hours leveling and half the game is about killing über-monsters you don't care about.
Thanks, that's the first time I read an anti-GPLv3 comment on Slashdot with a good point and a clue:).
Would I prefer TiVo to run closed software ? Yeah, definitely. Or BSD code (still Free). The thing is, different developers have different objectives when they release their code under a F/OSS license. My own goals are that I want the code to remain Free (GPLv2 does that very well), that it won't get encumbered with software patents from a 3rd party developer (GPLv3 does this), and that you can actually *use* the freedoms granted once you get the software. You can't use those freedoms with TiVo, so you're suggesting someone (ie a company) will clone a TiVo without the TCPM chip, and use the code TiVo contributed to.
Except that TiVo's changes to GPL software are virtually nothing. They don't need to release their user-space applications as Free Software (and fortunately they don't, everyone is free to choose a license to his interests/liking), so the few changes (on GNU/Linux itself) should be hardware dependent: ie the ONLY changes TiVo clones won't need (as they should have their own hardware).
My point here being: with low level/infrastructure software such as GNU and Linux, I don't care for contributions from TiVo. They use GNU/Linux precisely for two reasons: it's free as in beer, and they don't have much to contribute back. And I can't even hack the hardware (whatever the reasons are)? So yeah, in this case, I prefer they run closed-source software or a system under a non-copyleft license (most likely BSD).
What if the GPLv2 code TiVo used was a F/OSS presentation suite that they'd heavily contributed to (now I don't believe they would do so but let's imagine anyway). TiVo-clones would have something useful from TiVo, but you still couldn't change anything to the application on your own TiVo. With GPLv3, if TiVo chooses to use this code, they can't do that, so they may not use it from the start and go with something else or a solution from scratch ; here we lose if we consider that we give more value to contributions, software advancement and "market share" than to the freedom itself to be able to modify the software on your OWN product. Here we are on the good old rms problem "I want to hack drivers for my printer". Precisely the reason why Free Software was defined. So, yeah, I think it's a Good Thing(tm) from a "freedom" point of view.
Now, as gp already told, there will be tons of TiVo-like appliances (from MP3 players to iPhone clones, tablets, GPS sytems, watches!,...); actually I think most of the appliances are going to be signed. With GPLv3, developers say "use my code as long as you allow unsigned-code to run with the same privileges". This is gonna be needed to avoid a world where all devices ask for signed code: using GNU/Linux cuts down development cost for many devices (no need to code much of low-level code, no need to get a license from MS,...) and it will remain advantageous for many small companies trying to get into the market, and these won't be the one who won't force digitally signed code. I feel we're securing a bit of freedom for the future.
That's the way it has always been in France if you wanted French citizenship. What Sarkozy wants is no immigration except when it suits him (the so-called brain drain, as if anyone would come live in France now that he's "President", and cheap labor).
I had the same idea too, great to see someone thinking alike, and well made;). The sentence "His name is XXXX" always reminds me of Fight Club anyway:P.
I call BS - I spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to update the version of Firefox on the Ubuntu browser appliance I installed recently. Where is this magic button you speak of and why the fuck can't Linux just emulate the way we have all been doing shit on windows for years? (if there is a reason, it better be damn good)
Because the way Windows does this is WRONG. Why should I ask Mozilla for updates directly in the application (meaning: you have to know how EACH application gets updated) when I can get the system to do it for me (and all applications, no need to remember how to update a given application). You are rooted in a deprecated paradigm. You were raised in evil Proprietary software practices so you can't see the Light. If Ubuntu doesn't tell you that Firefox needs/has an update, it doesn't need one. It won't propose you the LATEST version, but the versions which WORKS and is SUPPORTED. You can't update to a beta/non-supported version of IE7 using Windows Update, can you? The same goes with all software in GNU/Linux distributions with a decent package management system. If you want unsupported software, you have to get it by yourself. Oh, but weren't you so close-minded you would have found out that people BACKPORT packages for almost every package format and getting the deb package for the latest Firefox beta is no big deal -- of course if you give up on using GNU/Linux without trying to understand the paradigm, you won't learn about that.
People shouldn't hold to old habits when they're wrong. Hallowed are the GNU hackers.
Slashdot Mirror
The truth is most of us (except possibly Stallman himself ;p) have the same story as you. The acceptance of Free Software is a long process.
When I first started programming, I wanted to get rich just like Bill Gates. I even had ideas I thought I would patent. I came in contact with early GNU/Linux versions about 13 years ago (I was 12 years old). I tried them for fun, then used Red Hat as a programming environment, but I would always switch back to Windows for all other activities (GNU/Linux was not really user friendly at the time). I was on dual-boot all the time since then, but used Windows most of the time.
Then came a time when I first encountered a GPL'ed library I wanted to use for a program I was coding. I had heard a bit of this Free Software non-sense previously but didn't care at all. Now it was attacking me! I mean, this library I didn't write wanted me to adhere forcefully to its philosophy! Not using it was out of question -- I still had the mind of the Windows script kiddie who downloaded cracks of Astalavista, stuck in the concept that software is proprietary. I wanted to make money with software, but would crack any proprietary software I would download.
Years later, I started looking into the Free Software philosophy more seriously. I realized that (I hope American readers don't jump off their seats) it was capitalism, the doctrine of property itself, that we were programmed to believe as the superior doctrine since our childhood through education and advertisement of the perfect life (ie, the American Dream) made it extremely difficult to apprehend the benefits and the logics of Free Software at first. Later, when I converted friends to Free Software, exposing its merits, I could see the same process going on for them over months. At first, they were reluctant, still imprisoned in the proprietary philosophy, but steps by steps most came to be Free Software enthusiasts. Now there is a fundamental difference between real world objects and virtual objects like source code (proprietary license), music (DRMs) or ideas (patents), it is the cost of copy.
If we could simply copy food like with Star Trek's replicator, then capitalism wouldn't mean much when it comes to food. Yet, some agriculture companies (Monsanto, anyone?) and consortium would try to make you pay the tax for the original copy. They would try to patent the DNA of the food you eat and get royalties. They would try to forbid, through lobbying groups pushing for new laws, people to copy the food themselves. They would offer "cheaper" prices to famine plagued countries to show a good image. They would give money to charity to justify their otherwise reprehensible acts. The problem with zero copying costs is that it's the fittest economically, in a free market it's bound to win: it is as much capitalist than Marxist and that is why a lot of people who were raised with the red scare built-in can't accept it.
It is exactly what is happening with Software (since the early 80s). While software is nowhere near vital as food, it is more important than most people want to acknowledge. "Give a man a fish, and you've given him a meal. Teach him to fish, and he'll have food for a lifetime.". Free Software is all about giving the end-user the ability to learn -- not everyone might do it, but out of the hundreds who could get Free Software in the third world, there ought to be a kid or two who understand it, enjoy it and improve it.
I have come a long way since I first encountered Free Software. The process of accepting Free Software takes time and it requires one to open his mind to concepts extremely foreign to what most Occidentals are raised to believe. This is why Free Software is so controversial, has so much haters and lovers. Stallman may be blunt (I would be if I was repeating the same thing over and over for 20 years) but the truth is, 99.999% of currently Free Software enthusiasts were once proprietary guys. Whereas, 99.9999% of proprietary guys never opened themselves to Free Software. That's a key difference.
Stallman is defending the BSD as well, he is defending Free Software. The fact that he prefers the GPL and GNU-based systems doesn't change this.
...) and conventional wisdom and experience tell us they won't be used for legitimate reasons.
You place yourself already in a "connoisseur" context. Random Joe doesn't know the difference between GPL and BSD licences, and what matters to him is the freedom the program grants to its user (or more like, the freedom it doesn't remove). In this case being "Free Software" is more than enough. I know a lot of BSD people (especially the OpenBSD ones) hate Stallman for diverse reasons (but stupid ones imho).
As for the "freer" one debate (which is old), I'll just say, those licenses are two sides of the same coin. Either you give the ability to lose freedom as a freedom, or you put the constraint of keeping freedom as a freedom. You can't have both, the "freer" discussion is just a matter of perspective and a stupid nitpickers and time wasting debate. I think both are just as free, that is they are both Free Software and that's enough for me. I don't know who started this quarrel, but I know who keep it alive and it's definitely the BSD guys.
There is more to Stallman's work than programmer conflicts on petty license details. Stallman fights against software patents and DRMs as well. Now everyone has a right to his own opinion, but really you can't be a free software advocate and support software patents. For DRMs, the matter is trickier, because they are just a technical mechanism, but here obviously referring to DRMs on customer or public services (music, TV,
In my opinion, I think the fight for software freedom is extremely important because it is relatively new and it is a fight that good, common sense may still win. One last island of sanity. Better must pick one fight at a time, and it's definitely Stallman's calling and his place on the chessboard is more important than most people believe.
Your mind is not screwed, you might just be an XKCD reader ;).
When RMS dies, I will start being suspicious of the FSF like any other organization. Stallman may be many things, but he is fundamentally honest when it comes to software freedom. There is no afterthought and I can put my software in GPL3 or later without worrying that GPL 3.1 will remove my freedom. When Stallman dies eventually, no one will be able to replace him as St. Ignucius and it will be a sad, sad day for Free Software, and for Open Source too even if those guys don't realize it. Free Software is the moral/ethical side of Open Source, without it Open Source will lose half its weight among many people.
As a software developer or some IT-related guy, you may not care about the freedom aspects that Stallman talks of, and you may not like the character. However common people, the ones who don't know about the details of software, don't care for Open Source, and they will never care for Open Source: how the availability of the code or the development model is any help to them? The only thing that may convince them --and I mean people interested in politics, not mindless drones watching debilitating TV programs all day long (there are still some normal intelligent people around the world you know)-- is the freedom aspect. Richard Stallman is highly regarded for that in the non-IT communities.
For instance, he was three days ago on a national radio here (among other guests) to discuss Free Software -- and while other protagonists always went too deep in the details, Stallman was the only one understandable (while speaking in a foreign language!) by any regular person.
Now I agree he could show better, he has a lot of defects (I know stories from friends who had to "manage" him on his trips), but even as eccentric and probably a tad insane, he is doing an awesome job which is still necessary for the advent of Free Software.
For the record, most people think P != NP.
Yes, this is sad.
How was he elected? First, the opposition (Ségolène Royal) was unable to talk properly and had a fucking irritating voice and no mind of her own. She was bad, very bad. Sensed people still voted for her at the second turn because we knew who or more appropriately what Sarkozy was and is (you put it right, a "neoconservative dick" but he may be worse than just a dick, he is a very dangerous man). Hands down the worst President France ever had. But, obviously, Ségolène Royal being bad wasn't enough for him to get elected. His campaign was supported by 90% of the French media, he was quoted daily, the main TVs are owned by his friends (he is currently passing a bill to authorize more ads on private TV networks, and the right to nominate himself the president of the public TV networks -- last remnants of an era where France tried to preserve a decent cultural level of his citizens by having publicly funded networks). Sarkozy's being elected is the direct result of the lack of intelligence of French citizens and we are paying the high price for it. I'm afraid we have no right to criticize George W. Bush, Berlusconi, Uribe or Putin anymore (not that Chirac was good either, but at least he wasn't insane and knew how to show some decency).
No, that would be a Mebidollar (I assume you were meaning $2^20, since $2^10 would be a Kibidollar). ;)
Actually in France Apple gives you a refund of OSX if you ask within 7days after having bought the computer. Some people like to waste their money and buy a Mac to run GNU/Linux.
Ha the good ol' times! I was one of those pesky 7X GM (Magery, Resist, Eval int, Tactics, Swordsmanship, Wrestling) NotoPK and I would provoke people, flag me as criminal and kill them when they attacked me! Ha the fun. I'd also fight PKs or with PKs, being Red doesn't make you inhuman! I have so many UO anecdotes, like when I was in Shame and I rush on a red, start the usual Magic Arrow to cancel is Magic Reflection and he says "noo it's me stop". Hehe was a friend then we went on PKilling together...
Or when I was escort for a friend who was GM Blacksmith and Minor, protecting him from PKs... The very fact that my memories are still so vivid ten years later, while I played many MMOs since, show that no other MMO has equalled the UO experience. It was simply awesome.
(I was using UOAssist with UOMap though, later they introduced a more advanced macroing system in the client but without fast equip/unequip it really sucked to PvP).
One day when I'll be rich and have a lot of time to waste, I'll make my own MMO reminiscent of the very best of Ultima Online.
During the earliest span of the age of darkness. Found in only the most aged of manuscripts lived a world born of mystic arts and ancient sorcery: Sosaria. Despite Sosaria's enchanted origin its people shunned magic for its very use corrupted the souls of the unwary. But one man dared to awake the slumbering powers of alchemy. Twisting the awesome powers of the gem of immortality to his will and binding all of Sosaria to his corruption: Mondain the wizard. His power was absolute as the whole of the planet was gripped in his cruel embrace. Only the appearance of a stranger saved Sosaria from impending destruction. From whence he came no one knows, but his strength and courage were without peer. In this stranger lay Sosaria's only hope. Only a traveler from the stars could release this world from Mondain's vile stranglehold. He would prove himself a saviour, shattering the gem of immortality and defeating Mondain. But a deeper and more sinister evil was released with the destruction of the gem, for Sosaria was not free of the stone's power. The planet was still bound to the jewel even as it lay shattered on the floor of Mondain's castle. For within each shattered remnant of the jewel dwelt a perfect likeness of Sosaria. Thus is the world in which you are born, live and die. Britannia that was once Sosaria now exists as a thousand worlds each with its own peoples, history and destiny. This Britannia is but one of many in the multiverse, that is Ultima Online!
*Shivers...*
How I loved UO before they removed precasting and introduced that Trammel bullshit :(.
I logged in a few years ago using the "Return to Britannia" free ticket and it has become so flashy, lame and carebear oriented I was almost crying :(.
HermMunster's reply is very accurate imho, I'll just add one thing. Before the OSI made up the "Open Source" term, we would simply call the fact that the source of a program is available (whatever the license) "available source code" and not "Open Source" (especially not with capitals). The proper headline would be "Microsoft Singularity code now available for download". Regardless of anyone's views on F/OSS, the fact is that Open Source now mostly (99%) refers to the Open Source Definition by the OSI.
;). Words and expressions are meant to carry concepts, and Free Software (with capitals) as well as Open Source (with capitals) carry two (slightly different) concepts; those expressions were not used anywhere as much and with capitals before their respective inventors (RMS & the FSF, & the OSI) introduced them. So really, your argument is moot and imho such way of thinking (shown in other comments too) only slows down the debate and general awareness.
Now, I have myself always been in the Free Software side of the Force (considering the Open Source term only for business related matters) and I agree with Richard Stallman that having the emphasis on the openness rather than the freedom of the code could only lead to the current misunderstanding. Since the Open Source term was coined to avoid the free (as in beer)/Free (as in freedom) ambiguity I find it rather ironic that the Open Source term now suffers from it too -- but let's just keep in mind that it is so only because closed source companies either want to surf on the Open Source wave or spread FUD.
Then again, there is no solution because we can't trademark everyday words unless we're extra rich (then, we can trademark words such as windows or apple! but well) so whatever the term chosen to define the underlying concept behind any new idea that makes rich conservative people afraid, they will try to discredit it by calling their own, non-compliant products, the same way. We still have people, whom after having been explained the concept 20 times, will say "Who are you redefine the meaning of 'free', I have the right to call my 'freeware' 'free software' if I want to". According to my dictionary, these people are typically what we call "morons"
Shamelessly replying to myself.
A note about the article submitter being a Microsoft proponent: my point is that I think (or hope) he knows fairly well what Open Source means since he is the main kernel hacker on React OS (the project to code a Win32 F/OSS clone). Yet I have always been dubious about the project and why would someone who knows about what Open Source is present such a license as if it were?
Grandparent didn't mean anything. Grandparent is the kind of poster who does not know what he is talking about. Maybe he is a politician IRL. As a matter of fact, I think a lot of Slashdotters are in politics or would be great at it, considering how they talk non-sense with the utmost ease.
I know very well that Microsoft Research and Microsoft are very loosely-coupled, however the article was submitted by a Microsoft proponent (judging by his account history) which "has signed an NDA with Microsoft" and one can very well see how this benefits to Microsoft (they're working hard to make everyone think they do "Open Source" too with their SharedSource initiatives and such -- btw they do have a few projects under true F/OSS licenses afaik).
Microsoft (as well as other proprietary software companies) is (and has been) very interested in spreading FUD regarding Open Source (such as "if the source is available then it must be Open Source", obviously using a flaw opened by the Open Source Initiative which put the emphasis on the openness of the code rather than on its freedom from the start), and with such an headline on a site such as Slashdot (ie, where a lot people go but don't browse further than the main page) I'm sure to take a coffee next week with someone who will tell me about Singularity now being Open Source... Is that your definition of "news"?
Singularity is a great research project but it's not Free/Open Source by any means. So grand-parent is right (as are others), and you are just as much as a fascist than the F/OSS zealots you criticize since your critics are based on them being OSS fascist and not on the facts being right or wrong. Let's call a cat a cat. Open Source is a well-defined term (just like "Windows-compatible" and nobody would like to see the Wine project tout itself of that feat unless it's 100% true), so let's respect it.
Nevermind looks like the summary is wrong, surprisingly.
It never gets old. Signed: a Cheese-eating Baguette-eating Beret-wearing Marxo-Socialist Hairy Dirty Hot-Women-Fucking Surrendering *RUDE* *JEWISH and MUSLIM* Anti-Iraq-War Anti-American Anti-* Renault-driving (haha the joke) Monkey with a 19th-century-mindset! (* oh shit, that could be American).
Lately I have been playing a free (as in beer, optional "premium" content model) MMORPG which has a native client for GNU/Linux too (no client for Mac though). It's Realm versus Realm only, so it's extremely basic for the rest (no crafting, no non-combat skills, etc) but it's very good at what it is: a glorified chess-board for 50vs50 battles (there are three realms, a bit like DaoC). It's an indy Argentinian game developed by 7-8 crazies but it's getting better everyday. They don't advertise it too much because, even if it's officially out of beta, it still feels like it. They want the first impression to be better to hook the most ;).
;).
The funny thing with an indy game (few players) with a GNU/Linux client is that half the English-speaking players (the rest being Argentinian/Spanish-speaking) are Linux users/admins or IT people. If anyone wants to try it out, find it through Google (Regnum Online) and Ignis is the way to go
Definitely shuts the "harder to code for OpenGL/Linux" FUD, as the engine is perfectly portable over Windows/D3D & Linux/OGL and they announced they would make a Mac version if they have a Mac. This is a homebrew engine and game designed and programmed by 7 people... and game companies can't do it? Right..
FFVI is my favorite "scripted" game along with Chrono Trigger, and I can tell you that FFXII really sucks. Lame (and very short) plot, elevator music. The game system is great but you have to spend hours leveling and half the game is about killing über-monsters you don't care about.
Thanks, that's the first time I read an anti-GPLv3 comment on Slashdot with a good point and a clue :).
...); actually I think most of the appliances are going to be signed. With GPLv3, developers say "use my code as long as you allow unsigned-code to run with the same privileges". This is gonna be needed to avoid a world where all devices ask for signed code: using GNU/Linux cuts down development cost for many devices (no need to code much of low-level code, no need to get a license from MS, ...) and it will remain advantageous for many small companies trying to get into the market, and these won't be the one who won't force digitally signed code. I feel we're securing a bit of freedom for the future.
Would I prefer TiVo to run closed software ? Yeah, definitely. Or BSD code (still Free). The thing is, different developers have different objectives when they release their code under a F/OSS license. My own goals are that I want the code to remain Free (GPLv2 does that very well), that it won't get encumbered with software patents from a 3rd party developer (GPLv3 does this), and that you can actually *use* the freedoms granted once you get the software. You can't use those freedoms with TiVo, so you're suggesting someone (ie a company) will clone a TiVo without the TCPM chip, and use the code TiVo contributed to.
Except that TiVo's changes to GPL software are virtually nothing. They don't need to release their user-space applications as Free Software (and fortunately they don't, everyone is free to choose a license to his interests/liking), so the few changes (on GNU/Linux itself) should be hardware dependent: ie the ONLY changes TiVo clones won't need (as they should have their own hardware).
My point here being: with low level/infrastructure software such as GNU and Linux, I don't care for contributions from TiVo. They use GNU/Linux precisely for two reasons: it's free as in beer, and they don't have much to contribute back. And I can't even hack the hardware (whatever the reasons are)? So yeah, in this case, I prefer they run closed-source software or a system under a non-copyleft license (most likely BSD).
What if the GPLv2 code TiVo used was a F/OSS presentation suite that they'd heavily contributed to (now I don't believe they would do so but let's imagine anyway). TiVo-clones would have something useful from TiVo, but you still couldn't change anything to the application on your own TiVo. With GPLv3, if TiVo chooses to use this code, they can't do that, so they may not use it from the start and go with something else or a solution from scratch ; here we lose if we consider that we give more value to contributions, software advancement and "market share" than to the freedom itself to be able to modify the software on your OWN product. Here we are on the good old rms problem "I want to hack drivers for my printer". Precisely the reason why Free Software was defined. So, yeah, I think it's a Good Thing(tm) from a "freedom" point of view.
Now, as gp already told, there will be tons of TiVo-like appliances (from MP3 players to iPhone clones, tablets, GPS sytems, watches!,
That's the way it has always been in France if you wanted French citizenship. What Sarkozy wants is no immigration except when it suits him (the so-called brain drain, as if anyone would come live in France now that he's "President", and cheap labor).
I had the same idea too, great to see someone thinking alike, and well made ;). The sentence "His name is XXXX" always reminds me of Fight Club anyway :P.
People shouldn't hold to old habits when they're wrong. Hallowed are the GNU hackers.
Fortunately for me he stopped reading /. ;)
Thanks for the links.