I should know, I offer both mysql and postgresql for all our hosting customers. The only difference is postgresql allows more fine grained permissions and is easier to administer.
Postgresql lets you add users just fine, you don't need to install it for each system user, that's just crazy. You do the same as you do with mysql, add a user (and a database for them is a good idea too).
And the reason to use postgresql isn't because its "heavy", whatever that means. Its because mysql intentionally corrupts data on you. Set a column to not null, then don't insert anything in that column. Instead of getting an error like you should, it will put a 0 or a "" or something similar depending on the column type. Try inserting an int too big to fit in a column, sorry no useful errors from mysql, it will just chop the number down to fit. People who want their database to store the data they put in it, instead of changing it on them should use postgresql. Or anything but mysql more accurately.
Mod this nonsense down, its all wrong.
on
OpenSSH 4.2 released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
1024 bit asymmetric keys for ciphers that rely on the assumed difficulty of factorization are about as difficult to break as 80 bit symmetric keys. And there is no reason to think it will stay that way, people continue to work on finding newer, more effectient methods of factorization.
Everyone knows a better algorithm than brute force: General Number Field Sieve, Number Field Sieve, Quadratic Sieve, and its likely new methods will be found. You don't brute force assymetric keys, brute forcing 1024 bit keys asymmetric keys would take just as long as brute forcing 1024 bit symmetric keys, that is to say it is not possible. Brute force means simply trying every possibility, the algorithm doesn't matter in that case. Trying 2^1024 possibilities is trying 2^1024 possibilities, regardless of how the key was generated or what its used for.
And finally, 1024 bit keys could certainly be broken without all the power of the sun, you are talking out of your ass, plain and simple. In fact, Bruce Schneier always says its likely that a billion dollars would be enough to put together the hardware required to break a 1024 bit key.
Working for an ISP, I had the "pleasure" of dealing with the RCMP (Some sort of CIA/FBI like thing only Canadian) on a few occasions when they wanted websites/emails from customers. One time the guy took all damn day making me explain all the crazy stuff I was doing (tar and scp are very complicated) to get the data for him, and I had to wait around while he verified all the md5 checksums one at a time. He had no clue what unix was, or how to read email that was stored in a maildir on a server. He couldn't even get his USB hard drive adapter to work because he had the hard drive set to slave. The high school kid who mopped the floor and RMA'd hardware and stuff for us knew more than the RCMP's computer expert.
Well, lets pretend you develop apache modules, then your best bet is to go to some conference or something like that where apache devs are, and have them sign your key, this way you are likely to end up with a much shorter path between your key and a key your users already have, and can make things simpler for you.
If you develop all sorts of random stuff, then you just have to try to get your key out there to anyone and everyone you can. In that case I would suggest seeing if there is a local linux or BSD user group (or both even) and seeing if they have ever done a key signing party, or if they are interested in doing one, as that's probably your best bet for finding a group of local people who will have at least heard of PGP.
And of course, the end user getting your key has to decide if they believe you are you or not. Not everyone requires as much proof as a web of trust. People who have written books, who I have seen admit they wrote those books, and who's public keys are in their books, I would personally trust without having to have a web of trust. So if you have some other way to show people you are you and include your key with it, that helps too.
The whole thing would be alot easier if more people used PGP, but unfortunately its too complex for most people to want to deal with.
"No, because the software is available to everyone."
Available to use on its own, but not available to use in other software that isn't GPL compatable. Thus it is not helping everyone, if it were public domain it would be helping everyone.
"Huh? It is free software, it makes another library available to free software developers. I don't see how you can call the GPL a "nasty restriction" since the only restrictions it has on permission which is being granted."
No its not, its restricted software. It makes other software restricted too. That is not free, the very definition of free is the lack of restriction. If I am not allowed to use your code for something, then it is restricted, and thus the opposite of free. If you value forcing others to GPL their software more than you value making your software available to everyone for anything, then that's fine, its your choice. Buts its not free, don't lie and say it is.
"A typical piece of software won't let you redistribute it at all, under any conditions."
I don't know what you consider typical, but if you mean a piece of software with no license, then yes, that's true. But I am not comparing GPL software to unlicensed software, I am comparing it to free software. Software that can be used for any purpose by anyone.
"If you just want your code to be used the most, then yes, that's what those licenses are for. If your object is to increase the amount of free software around, or get your code used as much as possible in free software, then the GPL is better."
That's what I said, only without the incorrect use of the word free, when you should be saying "GPL compatable". So why are you arguing with me?
"Huh? The GPL makes your code give more of an advantage to people who write free software, not only can they use it, but those writing propriety software can't. If it's good enough it may even "convert" them. You seem to be implying you don't think GPL software is free software. Since RMS coined the phrase and started the movement *with* the GPL, it looks like it's you who's trying to redefine the english language to suit your purposes."
Good fucking christ you are out of your mind. The word free was defined long before RMS was born. Saying "free software" is software that is restricted is trying to redefine the word free. You can't say a word has a totally different meaning if you stick "software" after it.
And as I have said repeatedly, the GPL does not just lock out closed source software. Firefox cannot use GPL code in it, are the mozilla people evil proprietary boogeymen we should be keeping our code from? Apache and all its tons of projects cannot use GPL code in them, are they bad too? If you only consider GPL code and GPL users to be worth helping, that's fine, its your choice. But don't lie and pretend that you are helping "everyone" or all free software developers when you are actually only helping people using the GPL and GPL compatable licenses, and leaving people who make actually free software out.
"Then they'll likely get the Big Scary Alert Box when they download Cygwin's setup.exe."
Whatever you say, last time I used windows it didn't give any alert boxes when you download setup.exe. Either way, I don't care, I don't write cygwin so its not my place to sign it. And as I said, my software is for unix, windows does not matter to me. I wouldn't trust any Microsoft signing system anyways, they have demonstrated over and over again that they do not understand security, and do not want to learn.
And as for your other statements, you don't seem to understand what signing is for. You as the end user downloading the software have to choose to verify that the software is really from me. I simply provide you the means to do this.
You only download a public key once, so if you have already downloaded any other software from me, including previous versions of the software in question, then you just download the file and the signature, and it will fail to verify and you will email me and say "your website was hacked and trojaned files uploaded". This also lets me fix it before too many of the lazy or careless people who don't verify what they download get owned.
If you do not already have my public key because this is the first time you are downloading any software from me, then this is that one time that you have to actually be careful. Check the google cache of my mailing list archives for the release announcement, is it from bob_dole? If its from bobdole and the website says bob_dole, you need to find out which one is right. Google for the listed email address and see if it has been used to send mail to lots of mailing lists, archived on lots of different servers, over several months or years. See if the public key has been signed by someone you already have a public key for, or is otherwise in your web of trust. This is one of the most important parts of PGP, I know Joe is Joe, and he knows Bob is Bob, so Joe can sign Bob's key, and now I know Bob is Bob too.
I have no idea about windows code authentication stuff, I only write unix software. Any windows users of my stuff would have to be running cygwin, in which case they have gpg.
And for hacking a bunch of keyservers, there are no certificates involved. Its just your public key. Someone could upload a public key of "bobdol@mydomain.com" instead of "bobdole@mydomain.com" and hope people make the typo when they search for the key, and then don't notice when they download and install it, but that's pretty unlikely.
To really have much chance at trojaning my software, you'd need to hack my webserver to upload your bad tarball, and a PGP signature for it. Then somehow hack a bunch of keyservers to put your public key in under my name. And even then, people who had already downloaded my public key to verify a previous release would not bother downloading it again, so they would notice the signature was wrong, and hopefully contact me.
Luckily for the evil badguys, most people don't verify signatures, so they can just upload a bad tarball and still ownz a bunch of people who don't check the signature, until someone who does check tells me my webserver got hacked.
That's the official video from the people who make the system. I just found a link to it.
It shouldn't matter if your website is comprimised
on
Do You Code Sign?
·
· Score: 1
Offering a PGP signature for your code already solves the comprimised website problem. Your public key should not be on your website, it should be in several publicly available keyservers, so an attacker would have to hack a bunch of keyservers, plus your website to be able to do anything. And even then, people who had already downloaded your public key in the past are still safe.
Are you and/or Bruce talking about code signing as in microsoft pretending that signed activex controls are magically safe? If so, then Bruce is right, it does nothing and is a total waste of time. Signing is just so you know that the code was written by who you think, you still have to decide for yourself wether you trust that person to write good code.
If we're talking about people like me, who offer pgp signatures of the software they wrote along with the tarballs, then its worth doing. Based on how many people download the tar.gz vs how many people download the.asc, very few people actually verify their downloads. But a tiny fraction do, and its worth the 2 seconds signing takes to help those people know that they downloaded what they thought they downloaded.
Where they do everything they possibly can to prevent you from actually being able to view the video unless you have a browser with and plugin they like.
The part where tons of evidence that supports evolution has been found. When there's tons of evidence to support a theory, then it becomes accepted. Once something has been accepted, the burden of proof is now on you to show its not correct, or that some other theory better explains what we can observe. Saying everyone is wrong doesn't do anything besides make you look dumb. If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to say why you think its wrong (which you now did I guess).
As to your "evidence", I can't say I am suprised that few people are convinced by it. First of all, its not evidence, its simply complaining that you think there isn't enough evidence for evolution. I didn't say there was enough evidence to prove evolution, just that of all the theories available right now, it has the most proof and best explains what is observed around us. In fact, there is no other theory with any proof at all that I am aware of. Saying there's not enough proof to satisfy your requirements is not proof of anything, except that you are a hypocrite.
Second, you are only talking about macroevolution, does this mean you accept that microevolution has been proven? Its certainly observed all around us all the time. If so, you might want to be more specific that you only don't believe in macroevolution in the future, since not believing in things that are observed constantly all around us can make people ignore and/or dismiss you as a nutjob.
Third, you are ignoring the fact that there are two macroevolutionary theories, which are not mutually exlusive. Macroevolution has not been observed naturally in the very recent past when we would have record of it, but it has been observed through macromutation in labs simply from radiation mutations. And fossil records show it happening in the past, possibly without any radical mutation, but simply as an accelerated or more focused microevolutionary process. Its not like we've been studying evolution for thousands of years to get a good chance to observe it occuring naturally.
Your second point is just you misunderstanding the theory. You do not need two instances of an identical macromutation to occur simultaniosly. You only need one to occur that can still breed with the species it mutated from. So it is technically still the same species, but mutated. Some of its offspring will be mutated as well obviously. If this mutation allows them to survive and/or reproduce better, then their population will grow. Microevolution takes over and gradually these mutants become less and less similar to their original species, eventually being unable to reproduce with them, making them their own distinct species.
And finally, there doesn't need to be billions of fossils, since as I mentioned it doesn't need to happen nearly as often as you think. In order to get two identical mutations at the same time then sure, we'd need to be seeing such mutations constantly, but we don't need two identical mutations, and thus shouldn't expect to observe it constantly occuring. Keep in mind also, fossilization is an incredibly rare event, that only happens in particular circumstances. Not everything that dies becomes a fossil, we don't have billions of fossils of anything, much less of rare mutations. What are the odds of a rare mutation happening, then the rare event of it being fossilized, then the rare event of people finding it, all happening? Pretty damn slim.
There is lots of verifiable evidence to support the theory of evolution. Its not proven, but there is evidence that supports it. If you want to say its wrong, and claim that there's lots of evidence proving its wrong, then yes, you really do have to step up and show this evidence. People aren't telling you that you have to accept or believe evolution, just that if you are going to claim its wrong, you put your money where you mouth is and show us your proof.
People who aren't blindly following an irrational belief tend to step up and show some evidence, and point out the flaws in a theory they don't believe. Then we develop and test new theories. This has been a huge factor in furthering human knowledge and understanding. Please be constructive and participate in this process instead of saying everything that isn't 100% provable (which is everything, period) is wrong.
What software is this? They could have just stopped using readline and used libedit instead, and kept their software closed source. Since they didn't, it would seem that maybe they would have open sourced their code anyways if someone just asked. Hard to say since you didn't mention who it was or what the software was.
And consider the counter to your claim that forcing a particular piece of software to be GPLd makes the world better for everyone. It doesn't, it actually only makes the world better for everyone who uses GPL compatable licenses. If you only care about other GNU/communists that's fine, your choice. But don't lie and pretend that its helping "everyone". It does nothing to help people who write free software for instance, code without nasty restrictions.
Making your code GPL because you are a GNU cult member and want everything to be GPL is fine, but that's not the group of people I was talking about. I was talking about normal developers who simply want to let other people use their code. These people would be better served using an MIT or ISC license, or if they want to make sure anyone who changes and distributes their code releases their changes, then the LGPL would be more appropriate. The GPL makes your code useless to people who write free software too, not just closed source software.
Ok, you don't need the extension, it just makes it so you can see the hidden settings, fair enough. Simple things like this should be available in the options though, kinda like opera.
With opera, when I click a link that is set to open in a new window, it opens in a tab. In firefox, it opens in a window, even though I told it I want tabs, not windows. As far as I know, you have to use an extension to get firefox to behave right.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
None of that is evidence though. You are saying "I believe one particular interpretation of the bible and choose to dismiss and ignore all evidence that suggests it may be incorrect". If that's what you want to do, that's fine, but that's not what I was expecting. Based on the way you compared yourself to Jonathan, I assumed that like him, you were inventing bogus "evidence" to support your belief.
Lacking any evidence, all I can refute is the obvious flaws in what you are blindly choosing to believe for no apparent reason. Lets start with the obvious, why do you make the odd assumption that Adam was created when the earth was 6 days old? How long was a day exactly before the sun was created? Oh right, days didn't exist, so that would be a pretty bad assumption to make. The bible does not give any reliable indication of how long creation took in human terms.
Then of course there is the fact that you think the bible is the word of god. But its not. Its the words of men. Even if you believe that God spoke to these people (as I assume you do), the fact remains they wrote it down, and they were human. Humans do not relate tales precisely, they relate their interpretation of what they heard. This is very obviously demonstrated by the numerous contradictions in the bible stories related by different people, and in the way things are described in the terms and understanding of ancient peoples, including things we now know to be simply wrong.
Don't forget that after the authors interpreted God's message and related it, its been re-interpreted and translated several times over by even more humans, imparting even more unintentional alterations (and in some cases intentional alterations).
When did God ever say that the bible was a factual, literal history of everything? Its a collection of stories. Some stories are certainly based on real history, but they are related by people, often from other written or even orally related accounts. I'm willing to accept that the other stories which aren't from human recorded history are from people who god spoke to. But how well would these people (who lack alot of information we have now) be able to understand what god is saying? They can only relate the tale as they understood it, which may not actually be as god said it. I am of course assuming that you believe god is smarter and more knowledgable than people.
Out of curiousity, do you believe the world is spherical, or a flat disc, or something else?
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
I haven't done anything to respond to what points? As I said, you haven't made any points, valid or otherwise. You claimed I am dismissing all your evidence, but you have not provided any.
And I already made it clear that the bible does not list a history of every person and their ages, and thus cannot possibly provide an age for the earth. If you think this is incorrect, then please feel free to tell me precisely where this magical list is, because its not in any bible I've ever seen. The lists you refer to in Matthew and Luke do not provide the details required to construct a timeline of the history of the earth. They are also contain contradictions.
Like I said, if you want to discuss this, start providing evidence. Convince me that there is scientific proof that the world is that young. I cannot discuss your belief in the age of the earth if you aren't willing to provide this apparently top secret evidence. And if you aren't going to discuss this, then quit wasting my time with empty replies.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
"What strawmen am I "constantly throwing around"?"
Try reading my posts, then your replies to them. If its not obvious then it I don't believe it can be explained to you. Everything you've said has been in response to things that I haven't said, but you wish I had said because you can argue it better.
Things like how I called him stupid, how I am hostile to him, and how I dismissed christianity are all strawmen. I didn't say any of those things, and you chose to refute those ideas instead of what I actually said.
As for wether or not you are logical and rational, as I said, I don't know. I am entirely willing to believe that you are, but at the same time it would make me believe that you are crazy. Its also irrelivant, I don't care if you are logical or not, or if you are crazy or not. I have no interest in you, or a conversation about you.
You claim you want to discuss the age of the earth, and yet you have done nothing but try to direct the conversation away from that. You haven't provided any of this supposed evidence to support your belief, and you have failed to provide any evidence of it being in any way part of your religion. Just because the person who invented this theory did it by basing his theory on the bible doesn't mean that the bible says this. My english teacher had a theory that the wind in the willows was a sexist story that degrades women. Her theory was based on what she observed in the book, but that doesn't mean that's actually what the book says, its just someone's theory, based on how they interpret what was actually written.
The bible does not list every person ever born, when they were born, and how long they lived, so you cannot calculate the age of the earth from the bible. Therefore the bible does not say anything about the age of the earth, and its not part of any religion I am aware of. I don't recall anyone mentioning anything about how old you think the earth is being in the heaven entrace exam. I was told it was all about accepting jesus as your saviour.
Stallman left MIT and started the GNU project in 1984. The guys at Berkeley were already at 4.2BSD by then, so he certainly does not predate anybody else at all, nevermind by a wide margin. And there were plenty of other people creating and distributing open source code in the early 80s that didn't happen to make a foundation, or a big popularly re-used license or anything else to become "famous".
Also, the first version of the GPL and the first official version of the BSD license both came out in 1989, so there's no predating others in the licensing department either. Of course, an open source license is just a statement that you giving away your exclusive rights if people agree to your terms. Those were definately around long before 1989, its just that people wrote their own couple line statement instead of paying a lawyer to write several pages of legalese and naming the license and trying to get other people to use the license for their software.
"If these pieces of software have no value, and no one wants to put them under proprietary licenses anyway, how does GPL'ing them decrease their usefulness ?"
Because people using open source licenses that are not GPL compatable cannot use it. Again you are ignoring the fact that the GPL doesn't just lock out closed source users, but open source ones too. Lots of developers who GPL their code don't realize this, and certainly some of them don't like this, and would choose a different license if they knew about this issue.
"Again you state that these bits of code have no value."
If you would read what I wrote instead of just blindly repeating the same tired rhetoric, you would see I said "monetary value". That means worth money. If a developer wrote a piece of code for their own needs, and decided to open source it so other people could benefit, but nobody would ever pay for this software anyways, then the GPL isn't needed to protect it from the closed source boogeymen. If you still want to use the GPL because you are part of the GNU cult that's fine, but as I said, not many people are. Lots of developers choose the GPL even though they disagree with RMS. If your goal is just to help other open source developers, then other licenses will fit your requirements better than the GPL, by helping more open source developers.
"Really ? How ? Surely you aren't saying that the existance of these bits of code makes the pike teams efforts harder ? Or are you implying that not helping pike team is equal to harming them ?"
I am saying that for a developer who just wanted to help other open source developers, they are harming themselves. By GPLing their code, they have failed to do what they intended, namely letting other open source developers use their code. Stop pretending that everyone who uses the GPL does so because they think just like RMS. There are developers who honestly just want to make their code available to others, but chose the GPL not realizing the consequences. If you don't believe these people exist, then just say so. But quit trying to argue against a position I didn't take just for the sake of trying to defend the GPL against some percieved attack.
"It could simply be that they want to make their code available to other people, and be able to get back whatever nice additions/bugfixes those others might come up with. GPL accomplishes this nicely."
If you could try leaving out the constant logical fallacies it would be nice. I didn't say every developer who picked the GPL, I said some. I simply pointed out the fact that some people (a minority no doubt) have chosen the GPL out of ignorance, and that this is one reason that some people whine about the GPL. I like how me stating a simple fact leads you to believe that I am attacking the GPL and you need to spew nonsense rhetoric and start throwing strawmen at me. You can accomplish the goals you mentioned above without using the GPL, and thus help more people, without comprimising your needs.
"You keep on painting a picture of authors of GPL'd software as poor victims of some sinister cult, who got in not knowing what they were doing. As this is clearly a nonsensical picture, I must wonder if you have an agenda to push ?"
See above, I have no agenda, I simply answered the original question about why people complain about the GPL by providing one reason. I am not painting any pictures, I am stating the simple fact that some developers choose the GPL out of ignorance, and didn't actually want to push the GNU agenda. If you manage to track down these developers, they often re-license their code if they are the only author, since they didn't realize the GPL prevented open source developers from using their code too.
"Strange. GNU, Stallman's pet project, lists 28 licenses as "GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses" and 35 licenses as "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses" in their web page. Stallman calling 63 other licenses "free" doesn't seem compatible with your claim that he's t
"Do you have some proof of this, or are you just making up facts ?"
What kind of proof do you want? Go talk to some developers of minor and/or irrelivant GPL software sometime. I forked a GPL program written by such a person a little while ago actually.
"Hmm. Picking GPL lets people redistribute and modify my software, but keeps them from preventing me from merging those changes back to the my version and keeps various companies from ripping off my work. It has also been used by lots of people for a long time, and was written by an actual lawyer who actually knows what the law says, so it is unlikely to have nasty surprises hidden in it. Yep, sounds good to me."
You completely missed the point. How many pieces of software out there have been GPL'd despite the fact that they have no value, and nobody would ever make a proprietary fork of it? How can a company "rip you off" when your software isn't worth anything to begin with? I didn't say the GPL wasn't good, or that it shouldn't be used. I simply said its main feature doesn't matter for lots of software, and people use it anyways, making their software less useful. Sometimes people actually just want to let other people use their software, but pick the GPL not knowing about less restrictive licenses. Scary, evil, proprietary software boogeymen aren't always relevant. If you think your software is worth money, and want to protect against having companies make money off of it, or if you are part of the GNU cult, then maybe the GPL is right for your project. But that doesn't mean its a good license for everything, and that everyone should just blindly GPL all their code.
And as I briefly mentioned in my original post, thinking that the GPL only screws closed source users of your software is ignorant. Take for instance pike, a programming language released under the GPL, LGPL and MPL. Random bits of code that have no monetary value, but are licensed under the GPL cannot be used in pike, and the developers have to waste time writing replacements, or trying to track down the authors of the long since abandoned code to ask for a different license. The people writing these random GPL things are hurting open source developers. If their goal was to try to make everything in the world GPL like RMS, then that's fine, its exactly what the author wanted. But in lots of cases the developer simply wanted to make their code available to other people, and in that case their needs would probably have been better served by a different license.
"Why should Stallman care about how usefull some library is to people who license their programs under non-GPL-compatible licenses ? They are his competitors - one might even say enemies, considering his stated worldview. Why should he want to make it easier for his enemies to fight against him ?"
That's my point. The whole reason readline is GPLd is not to be provide free software to people, but to push his agenda. That's fine, its his choice. But developers who don't share his views and only want to provide free software end up pushing his agenda too, accidently, simply by GPLing their various and sundry minor code bits. And notice, all that GPLing readline has done is made it so people wrote a free replacement.
"Really ? What words has he redefined, exactly speaking ? What were their old and what are their new meanings ?"
He is still trying to redefine free. In english it has two meanings, without cost which isn't relevant here. And the second meaning is the state of being free as in freedom. He has chosen to try to make free mean "having my particular restrictive license". Obviously freedom is the lack of restrictions, so the GPL does not provide freedom.
"People usually argue against opinions and worldviews that conflict with theirs, especially if they are actively trying to promote theirs. One might even say that it is impossible to promote one worldview without arguing against those it conflicts with."
You don't have to be an ass and trash everything e
Learn to read, or don't bother replying. I didn't trash other people's choices, I simply pointed out the fact that alot of devs choose the GPL out of ignorance. I didn't say they were wrong to do it, or that they were bad, or that it was a majority of developers, so quit bitching.
And my anecdotal evidence comes from actual devs. I have spoken to people who GPL'd their software for this very reason, so yes I do know. Your random insults are a very compelling counter-point though, they almost manage to distract from the fact that you have nothing to say.
Lots of people who develop software don't know much of anything about copyright or licencing issues. Plenty of them pick GPL because they have the impression that open souce means GPL. Everyone else uses it, it must be good, right? Rarely do developers really stop and consider what a license does for their software, and what the best license would be. Certainly this is due in part to RMS constantly pushing GNU everything at people.
The problem some people have with the GPL is that lots of things that really don't need to be GPL'd are, and are less useful as a result. For example, why is readline GPL? This means people making software with GPL incompatable licenses (even if they are open source) cannot use it. Is it really a justifiable concern that someone might use readline to make a commercial, non-free version of readline? There's no incentive to do that, and even if someone did, the open source version would still be there and just as good. So if readline were licensed under a more free license like a BSD or MIT or ISC license, or even the LGPL it would be a more useful piece of software for more people.
However, that isn't often why people complain about RMS. RMS is an obnoxious, loud-mouthed jerk, who thinks he can re-define the english language to suit his agenda, and is constantly trashing other people's efforts just because they don't share his particular views. This is why so many people dislike RMS.
Slashdot Mirror
I should know, I offer both mysql and postgresql for all our hosting customers. The only difference is postgresql allows more fine grained permissions and is easier to administer.
Postgresql lets you add users just fine, you don't need to install it for each system user, that's just crazy. You do the same as you do with mysql, add a user (and a database for them is a good idea too).
And the reason to use postgresql isn't because its "heavy", whatever that means. Its because mysql intentionally corrupts data on you. Set a column to not null, then don't insert anything in that column. Instead of getting an error like you should, it will put a 0 or a "" or something similar depending on the column type. Try inserting an int too big to fit in a column, sorry no useful errors from mysql, it will just chop the number down to fit. People who want their database to store the data they put in it, instead of changing it on them should use postgresql. Or anything but mysql more accurately.
1024 bit asymmetric keys for ciphers that rely on the assumed difficulty of factorization are about as difficult to break as 80 bit symmetric keys. And there is no reason to think it will stay that way, people continue to work on finding newer, more effectient methods of factorization.
Everyone knows a better algorithm than brute force: General Number Field Sieve, Number Field Sieve, Quadratic Sieve, and its likely new methods will be found. You don't brute force assymetric keys, brute forcing 1024 bit keys asymmetric keys would take just as long as brute forcing 1024 bit symmetric keys, that is to say it is not possible. Brute force means simply trying every possibility, the algorithm doesn't matter in that case. Trying 2^1024 possibilities is trying 2^1024 possibilities, regardless of how the key was generated or what its used for.
And finally, 1024 bit keys could certainly be broken without all the power of the sun, you are talking out of your ass, plain and simple. In fact, Bruce Schneier always says its likely that a billion dollars would be enough to put together the hardware required to break a 1024 bit key.
Working for an ISP, I had the "pleasure" of dealing with the RCMP (Some sort of CIA/FBI like thing only Canadian) on a few occasions when they wanted websites/emails from customers. One time the guy took all damn day making me explain all the crazy stuff I was doing (tar and scp are very complicated) to get the data for him, and I had to wait around while he verified all the md5 checksums one at a time. He had no clue what unix was, or how to read email that was stored in a maildir on a server. He couldn't even get his USB hard drive adapter to work because he had the hard drive set to slave. The high school kid who mopped the floor and RMA'd hardware and stuff for us knew more than the RCMP's computer expert.
Well, lets pretend you develop apache modules, then your best bet is to go to some conference or something like that where apache devs are, and have them sign your key, this way you are likely to end up with a much shorter path between your key and a key your users already have, and can make things simpler for you.
If you develop all sorts of random stuff, then you just have to try to get your key out there to anyone and everyone you can. In that case I would suggest seeing if there is a local linux or BSD user group (or both even) and seeing if they have ever done a key signing party, or if they are interested in doing one, as that's probably your best bet for finding a group of local people who will have at least heard of PGP.
And of course, the end user getting your key has to decide if they believe you are you or not. Not everyone requires as much proof as a web of trust. People who have written books, who I have seen admit they wrote those books, and who's public keys are in their books, I would personally trust without having to have a web of trust. So if you have some other way to show people you are you and include your key with it, that helps too.
The whole thing would be alot easier if more people used PGP, but unfortunately its too complex for most people to want to deal with.
"No, because the software is available to everyone."
Available to use on its own, but not available to use in other software that isn't GPL compatable. Thus it is not helping everyone, if it were public domain it would be helping everyone.
"Huh? It is free software, it makes another library available to free software developers. I don't see how you can call the GPL a "nasty restriction" since the only restrictions it has on permission which is being granted."
No its not, its restricted software. It makes other software restricted too. That is not free, the very definition of free is the lack of restriction. If I am not allowed to use your code for something, then it is restricted, and thus the opposite of free. If you value forcing others to GPL their software more than you value making your software available to everyone for anything, then that's fine, its your choice. Buts its not free, don't lie and say it is.
"A typical piece of software won't let you redistribute it at all, under any conditions."
I don't know what you consider typical, but if you mean a piece of software with no license, then yes, that's true. But I am not comparing GPL software to unlicensed software, I am comparing it to free software. Software that can be used for any purpose by anyone.
"If you just want your code to be used the most, then yes, that's what those licenses are for. If your object is to increase the amount of free software around, or get your code used as much as possible in free software, then the GPL is better."
That's what I said, only without the incorrect use of the word free, when you should be saying "GPL compatable". So why are you arguing with me?
"Huh? The GPL makes your code give more of an advantage to people who write free software, not only can they use it, but those writing propriety software can't. If it's good enough it may even "convert" them. You seem to be implying you don't think GPL software is free software. Since RMS coined the phrase and started the movement *with* the GPL, it looks like it's you who's trying to redefine the english language to suit your purposes."
Good fucking christ you are out of your mind. The word free was defined long before RMS was born. Saying "free software" is software that is restricted is trying to redefine the word free. You can't say a word has a totally different meaning if you stick "software" after it.
And as I have said repeatedly, the GPL does not just lock out closed source software. Firefox cannot use GPL code in it, are the mozilla people evil proprietary boogeymen we should be keeping our code from? Apache and all its tons of projects cannot use GPL code in them, are they bad too? If you only consider GPL code and GPL users to be worth helping, that's fine, its your choice. But don't lie and pretend that you are helping "everyone" or all free software developers when you are actually only helping people using the GPL and GPL compatable licenses, and leaving people who make actually free software out.
"Then they'll likely get the Big Scary Alert Box when they download Cygwin's setup.exe."
Whatever you say, last time I used windows it didn't give any alert boxes when you download setup.exe. Either way, I don't care, I don't write cygwin so its not my place to sign it. And as I said, my software is for unix, windows does not matter to me. I wouldn't trust any Microsoft signing system anyways, they have demonstrated over and over again that they do not understand security, and do not want to learn.
And as for your other statements, you don't seem to understand what signing is for. You as the end user downloading the software have to choose to verify that the software is really from me. I simply provide you the means to do this.
You only download a public key once, so if you have already downloaded any other software from me, including previous versions of the software in question, then you just download the file and the signature, and it will fail to verify and you will email me and say "your website was hacked and trojaned files uploaded". This also lets me fix it before too many of the lazy or careless people who don't verify what they download get owned.
If you do not already have my public key because this is the first time you are downloading any software from me, then this is that one time that you have to actually be careful. Check the google cache of my mailing list archives for the release announcement, is it from bob_dole? If its from bobdole and the website says bob_dole, you need to find out which one is right. Google for the listed email address and see if it has been used to send mail to lots of mailing lists, archived on lots of different servers, over several months or years. See if the public key has been signed by someone you already have a public key for, or is otherwise in your web of trust. This is one of the most important parts of PGP, I know Joe is Joe, and he knows Bob is Bob, so Joe can sign Bob's key, and now I know Bob is Bob too.
I have no idea about windows code authentication stuff, I only write unix software. Any windows users of my stuff would have to be running cygwin, in which case they have gpg.
And for hacking a bunch of keyservers, there are no certificates involved. Its just your public key. Someone could upload a public key of "bobdol@mydomain.com" instead of "bobdole@mydomain.com" and hope people make the typo when they search for the key, and then don't notice when they download and install it, but that's pretty unlikely.
To really have much chance at trojaning my software, you'd need to hack my webserver to upload your bad tarball, and a PGP signature for it. Then somehow hack a bunch of keyservers to put your public key in under my name. And even then, people who had already downloaded my public key to verify a previous release would not bother downloading it again, so they would notice the signature was wrong, and hopefully contact me.
Luckily for the evil badguys, most people don't verify signatures, so they can just upload a bad tarball and still ownz a bunch of people who don't check the signature, until someone who does check tells me my webserver got hacked.
That's the official video from the people who make the system. I just found a link to it.
Offering a PGP signature for your code already solves the comprimised website problem. Your public key should not be on your website, it should be in several publicly available keyservers, so an attacker would have to hack a bunch of keyservers, plus your website to be able to do anything. And even then, people who had already downloaded your public key in the past are still safe.
http://download.poseidon-tech.com/Bangor/Film/
Username and password are both user1.
Are you and/or Bruce talking about code signing as in microsoft pretending that signed activex controls are magically safe? If so, then Bruce is right, it does nothing and is a total waste of time. Signing is just so you know that the code was written by who you think, you still have to decide for yourself wether you trust that person to write good code.
.asc, very few people actually verify their downloads. But a tiny fraction do, and its worth the 2 seconds signing takes to help those people know that they downloaded what they thought they downloaded.
If we're talking about people like me, who offer pgp signatures of the software they wrote along with the tarballs, then its worth doing. Based on how many people download the tar.gz vs how many people download the
Where they do everything they possibly can to prevent you from actually being able to view the video unless you have a browser with and plugin they like.
Anyone got a link to the actual video itself?
The part where tons of evidence that supports evolution has been found. When there's tons of evidence to support a theory, then it becomes accepted. Once something has been accepted, the burden of proof is now on you to show its not correct, or that some other theory better explains what we can observe. Saying everyone is wrong doesn't do anything besides make you look dumb. If you want to be taken seriously, then you need to say why you think its wrong (which you now did I guess).
As to your "evidence", I can't say I am suprised that few people are convinced by it. First of all, its not evidence, its simply complaining that you think there isn't enough evidence for evolution. I didn't say there was enough evidence to prove evolution, just that of all the theories available right now, it has the most proof and best explains what is observed around us. In fact, there is no other theory with any proof at all that I am aware of. Saying there's not enough proof to satisfy your requirements is not proof of anything, except that you are a hypocrite.
Second, you are only talking about macroevolution, does this mean you accept that microevolution has been proven? Its certainly observed all around us all the time. If so, you might want to be more specific that you only don't believe in macroevolution in the future, since not believing in things that are observed constantly all around us can make people ignore and/or dismiss you as a nutjob.
Third, you are ignoring the fact that there are two macroevolutionary theories, which are not mutually exlusive. Macroevolution has not been observed naturally in the very recent past when we would have record of it, but it has been observed through macromutation in labs simply from radiation mutations. And fossil records show it happening in the past, possibly without any radical mutation, but simply as an accelerated or more focused microevolutionary process. Its not like we've been studying evolution for thousands of years to get a good chance to observe it occuring naturally.
Your second point is just you misunderstanding the theory. You do not need two instances of an identical macromutation to occur simultaniosly. You only need one to occur that can still breed with the species it mutated from. So it is technically still the same species, but mutated. Some of its offspring will be mutated as well obviously. If this mutation allows them to survive and/or reproduce better, then their population will grow. Microevolution takes over and gradually these mutants become less and less similar to their original species, eventually being unable to reproduce with them, making them their own distinct species.
And finally, there doesn't need to be billions of fossils, since as I mentioned it doesn't need to happen nearly as often as you think. In order to get two identical mutations at the same time then sure, we'd need to be seeing such mutations constantly, but we don't need two identical mutations, and thus shouldn't expect to observe it constantly occuring. Keep in mind also, fossilization is an incredibly rare event, that only happens in particular circumstances. Not everything that dies becomes a fossil, we don't have billions of fossils of anything, much less of rare mutations. What are the odds of a rare mutation happening, then the rare event of it being fossilized, then the rare event of people finding it, all happening? Pretty damn slim.
There is lots of verifiable evidence to support the theory of evolution. Its not proven, but there is evidence that supports it. If you want to say its wrong, and claim that there's lots of evidence proving its wrong, then yes, you really do have to step up and show this evidence. People aren't telling you that you have to accept or believe evolution, just that if you are going to claim its wrong, you put your money where you mouth is and show us your proof.
People who aren't blindly following an irrational belief tend to step up and show some evidence, and point out the flaws in a theory they don't believe. Then we develop and test new theories. This has been a huge factor in furthering human knowledge and understanding. Please be constructive and participate in this process instead of saying everything that isn't 100% provable (which is everything, period) is wrong.
What software is this? They could have just stopped using readline and used libedit instead, and kept their software closed source. Since they didn't, it would seem that maybe they would have open sourced their code anyways if someone just asked. Hard to say since you didn't mention who it was or what the software was.
And consider the counter to your claim that forcing a particular piece of software to be GPLd makes the world better for everyone. It doesn't, it actually only makes the world better for everyone who uses GPL compatable licenses. If you only care about other GNU/communists that's fine, your choice. But don't lie and pretend that its helping "everyone". It does nothing to help people who write free software for instance, code without nasty restrictions.
Making your code GPL because you are a GNU cult member and want everything to be GPL is fine, but that's not the group of people I was talking about. I was talking about normal developers who simply want to let other people use their code. These people would be better served using an MIT or ISC license, or if they want to make sure anyone who changes and distributes their code releases their changes, then the LGPL would be more appropriate. The GPL makes your code useless to people who write free software too, not just closed source software.
Ok, you don't need the extension, it just makes it so you can see the hidden settings, fair enough. Simple things like this should be available in the options though, kinda like opera.
With opera, when I click a link that is set to open in a new window, it opens in a tab. In firefox, it opens in a window, even though I told it I want tabs, not windows. As far as I know, you have to use an extension to get firefox to behave right.
None of that is evidence though. You are saying "I believe one particular interpretation of the bible and choose to dismiss and ignore all evidence that suggests it may be incorrect". If that's what you want to do, that's fine, but that's not what I was expecting. Based on the way you compared yourself to Jonathan, I assumed that like him, you were inventing bogus "evidence" to support your belief.
Lacking any evidence, all I can refute is the obvious flaws in what you are blindly choosing to believe for no apparent reason. Lets start with the obvious, why do you make the odd assumption that Adam was created when the earth was 6 days old? How long was a day exactly before the sun was created? Oh right, days didn't exist, so that would be a pretty bad assumption to make. The bible does not give any reliable indication of how long creation took in human terms.
Then of course there is the fact that you think the bible is the word of god. But its not. Its the words of men. Even if you believe that God spoke to these people (as I assume you do), the fact remains they wrote it down, and they were human. Humans do not relate tales precisely, they relate their interpretation of what they heard. This is very obviously demonstrated by the numerous contradictions in the bible stories related by different people, and in the way things are described in the terms and understanding of ancient peoples, including things we now know to be simply wrong.
Don't forget that after the authors interpreted God's message and related it, its been re-interpreted and translated several times over by even more humans, imparting even more unintentional alterations (and in some cases intentional alterations).
When did God ever say that the bible was a factual, literal history of everything? Its a collection of stories. Some stories are certainly based on real history, but they are related by people, often from other written or even orally related accounts. I'm willing to accept that the other stories which aren't from human recorded history are from people who god spoke to. But how well would these people (who lack alot of information we have now) be able to understand what god is saying? They can only relate the tale as they understood it, which may not actually be as god said it. I am of course assuming that you believe god is smarter and more knowledgable than people.
Out of curiousity, do you believe the world is spherical, or a flat disc, or something else?
I haven't done anything to respond to what points? As I said, you haven't made any points, valid or otherwise. You claimed I am dismissing all your evidence, but you have not provided any.
And I already made it clear that the bible does not list a history of every person and their ages, and thus cannot possibly provide an age for the earth. If you think this is incorrect, then please feel free to tell me precisely where this magical list is, because its not in any bible I've ever seen. The lists you refer to in Matthew and Luke do not provide the details required to construct a timeline of the history of the earth. They are also contain contradictions.
Like I said, if you want to discuss this, start providing evidence. Convince me that there is scientific proof that the world is that young. I cannot discuss your belief in the age of the earth if you aren't willing to provide this apparently top secret evidence. And if you aren't going to discuss this, then quit wasting my time with empty replies.
"What strawmen am I "constantly throwing around"?"
Try reading my posts, then your replies to them. If its not obvious then it I don't believe it can be explained to you. Everything you've said has been in response to things that I haven't said, but you wish I had said because you can argue it better.
Things like how I called him stupid, how I am hostile to him, and how I dismissed christianity are all strawmen. I didn't say any of those things, and you chose to refute those ideas instead of what I actually said.
As for wether or not you are logical and rational, as I said, I don't know. I am entirely willing to believe that you are, but at the same time it would make me believe that you are crazy. Its also irrelivant, I don't care if you are logical or not, or if you are crazy or not. I have no interest in you, or a conversation about you.
You claim you want to discuss the age of the earth, and yet you have done nothing but try to direct the conversation away from that. You haven't provided any of this supposed evidence to support your belief, and you have failed to provide any evidence of it being in any way part of your religion. Just because the person who invented this theory did it by basing his theory on the bible doesn't mean that the bible says this. My english teacher had a theory that the wind in the willows was a sexist story that degrades women. Her theory was based on what she observed in the book, but that doesn't mean that's actually what the book says, its just someone's theory, based on how they interpret what was actually written.
The bible does not list every person ever born, when they were born, and how long they lived, so you cannot calculate the age of the earth from the bible. Therefore the bible does not say anything about the age of the earth, and its not part of any religion I am aware of. I don't recall anyone mentioning anything about how old you think the earth is being in the heaven entrace exam. I was told it was all about accepting jesus as your saviour.
Stallman left MIT and started the GNU project in 1984. The guys at Berkeley were already at 4.2BSD by then, so he certainly does not predate anybody else at all, nevermind by a wide margin. And there were plenty of other people creating and distributing open source code in the early 80s that didn't happen to make a foundation, or a big popularly re-used license or anything else to become "famous".
Also, the first version of the GPL and the first official version of the BSD license both came out in 1989, so there's no predating others in the licensing department either. Of course, an open source license is just a statement that you giving away your exclusive rights if people agree to your terms. Those were definately around long before 1989, its just that people wrote their own couple line statement instead of paying a lawyer to write several pages of legalese and naming the license and trying to get other people to use the license for their software.
"If these pieces of software have no value, and no one wants to put them under proprietary licenses anyway, how does GPL'ing them decrease their usefulness ?"
Because people using open source licenses that are not GPL compatable cannot use it. Again you are ignoring the fact that the GPL doesn't just lock out closed source users, but open source ones too. Lots of developers who GPL their code don't realize this, and certainly some of them don't like this, and would choose a different license if they knew about this issue.
"Again you state that these bits of code have no value."
If you would read what I wrote instead of just blindly repeating the same tired rhetoric, you would see I said "monetary value". That means worth money. If a developer wrote a piece of code for their own needs, and decided to open source it so other people could benefit, but nobody would ever pay for this software anyways, then the GPL isn't needed to protect it from the closed source boogeymen. If you still want to use the GPL because you are part of the GNU cult that's fine, but as I said, not many people are. Lots of developers choose the GPL even though they disagree with RMS. If your goal is just to help other open source developers, then other licenses will fit your requirements better than the GPL, by helping more open source developers.
"Really ? How ? Surely you aren't saying that the existance of these bits of code makes the pike teams efforts harder ? Or are you implying that not helping pike team is equal to harming them ?"
I am saying that for a developer who just wanted to help other open source developers, they are harming themselves. By GPLing their code, they have failed to do what they intended, namely letting other open source developers use their code. Stop pretending that everyone who uses the GPL does so because they think just like RMS. There are developers who honestly just want to make their code available to others, but chose the GPL not realizing the consequences. If you don't believe these people exist, then just say so. But quit trying to argue against a position I didn't take just for the sake of trying to defend the GPL against some percieved attack.
"It could simply be that they want to make their code available to other people, and be able to get back whatever nice additions/bugfixes those others might come up with. GPL accomplishes this nicely."
If you could try leaving out the constant logical fallacies it would be nice. I didn't say every developer who picked the GPL, I said some. I simply pointed out the fact that some people (a minority no doubt) have chosen the GPL out of ignorance, and that this is one reason that some people whine about the GPL. I like how me stating a simple fact leads you to believe that I am attacking the GPL and you need to spew nonsense rhetoric and start throwing strawmen at me. You can accomplish the goals you mentioned above without using the GPL, and thus help more people, without comprimising your needs.
"You keep on painting a picture of authors of GPL'd software as poor victims of some sinister cult, who got in not knowing what they were doing. As this is clearly a nonsensical picture, I must wonder if you have an agenda to push ?"
See above, I have no agenda, I simply answered the original question about why people complain about the GPL by providing one reason. I am not painting any pictures, I am stating the simple fact that some developers choose the GPL out of ignorance, and didn't actually want to push the GNU agenda. If you manage to track down these developers, they often re-license their code if they are the only author, since they didn't realize the GPL prevented open source developers from using their code too.
"Strange. GNU, Stallman's pet project, lists 28 licenses as "GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses" and 35 licenses as "GPL-Incompatible, Free Software Licenses" in their web page. Stallman calling 63 other licenses "free" doesn't seem compatible with your claim that he's t
"Do you have some proof of this, or are you just making up facts ?"
What kind of proof do you want? Go talk to some developers of minor and/or irrelivant GPL software sometime. I forked a GPL program written by such a person a little while ago actually.
"Hmm. Picking GPL lets people redistribute and modify my software, but keeps them from preventing me from merging those changes back to the my version and keeps various companies from ripping off my work. It has also been used by lots of people for a long time, and was written by an actual lawyer who actually knows what the law says, so it is unlikely to have nasty surprises hidden in it. Yep, sounds good to me."
You completely missed the point. How many pieces of software out there have been GPL'd despite the fact that they have no value, and nobody would ever make a proprietary fork of it? How can a company "rip you off" when your software isn't worth anything to begin with? I didn't say the GPL wasn't good, or that it shouldn't be used. I simply said its main feature doesn't matter for lots of software, and people use it anyways, making their software less useful. Sometimes people actually just want to let other people use their software, but pick the GPL not knowing about less restrictive licenses. Scary, evil, proprietary software boogeymen aren't always relevant. If you think your software is worth money, and want to protect against having companies make money off of it, or if you are part of the GNU cult, then maybe the GPL is right for your project. But that doesn't mean its a good license for everything, and that everyone should just blindly GPL all their code.
And as I briefly mentioned in my original post, thinking that the GPL only screws closed source users of your software is ignorant. Take for instance pike, a programming language released under the GPL, LGPL and MPL. Random bits of code that have no monetary value, but are licensed under the GPL cannot be used in pike, and the developers have to waste time writing replacements, or trying to track down the authors of the long since abandoned code to ask for a different license. The people writing these random GPL things are hurting open source developers. If their goal was to try to make everything in the world GPL like RMS, then that's fine, its exactly what the author wanted. But in lots of cases the developer simply wanted to make their code available to other people, and in that case their needs would probably have been better served by a different license.
"Why should Stallman care about how usefull some library is to people who license their programs under non-GPL-compatible licenses ? They are his competitors - one might even say enemies, considering his stated worldview. Why should he want to make it easier for his enemies to fight against him ?"
That's my point. The whole reason readline is GPLd is not to be provide free software to people, but to push his agenda. That's fine, its his choice. But developers who don't share his views and only want to provide free software end up pushing his agenda too, accidently, simply by GPLing their various and sundry minor code bits. And notice, all that GPLing readline has done is made it so people wrote a free replacement.
"Really ? What words has he redefined, exactly speaking ? What were their old and what are their new meanings ?"
He is still trying to redefine free. In english it has two meanings, without cost which isn't relevant here. And the second meaning is the state of being free as in freedom. He has chosen to try to make free mean "having my particular restrictive license". Obviously freedom is the lack of restrictions, so the GPL does not provide freedom.
"People usually argue against opinions and worldviews that conflict with theirs, especially if they are actively trying to promote theirs. One might even say that it is impossible to promote one worldview without arguing against those it conflicts with."
You don't have to be an ass and trash everything e
Learn to read, or don't bother replying. I didn't trash other people's choices, I simply pointed out the fact that alot of devs choose the GPL out of ignorance. I didn't say they were wrong to do it, or that they were bad, or that it was a majority of developers, so quit bitching.
And my anecdotal evidence comes from actual devs. I have spoken to people who GPL'd their software for this very reason, so yes I do know. Your random insults are a very compelling counter-point though, they almost manage to distract from the fact that you have nothing to say.
Lots of people who develop software don't know much of anything about copyright or licencing issues. Plenty of them pick GPL because they have the impression that open souce means GPL. Everyone else uses it, it must be good, right? Rarely do developers really stop and consider what a license does for their software, and what the best license would be. Certainly this is due in part to RMS constantly pushing GNU everything at people.
The problem some people have with the GPL is that lots of things that really don't need to be GPL'd are, and are less useful as a result. For example, why is readline GPL? This means people making software with GPL incompatable licenses (even if they are open source) cannot use it. Is it really a justifiable concern that someone might use readline to make a commercial, non-free version of readline? There's no incentive to do that, and even if someone did, the open source version would still be there and just as good. So if readline were licensed under a more free license like a BSD or MIT or ISC license, or even the LGPL it would be a more useful piece of software for more people.
However, that isn't often why people complain about RMS. RMS is an obnoxious, loud-mouthed jerk, who thinks he can re-define the english language to suit his agenda, and is constantly trashing other people's efforts just because they don't share his particular views. This is why so many people dislike RMS.