"In the latter guess, guess what? Quarks exist [...] If God had little angels whipping around arranging the proper collisions, and if those angels are not otherwise detectable and leave no other signature, then there's no distinction -- the quarks do exist, in the only meaningful (scientific) sense."
Quite near the mark, but no bull-eye. From any reasonable point of view, quarks exists no more no less than certain sense of humor of God which consistently makes certain high energy machines offer certain results through their bulbs, valves and speed-o-meters. No one can "see" the quarks as when one see a stone falling from a table. All you can see are bulbs, valves and speed-o-meters doing zwingggg, chrasss, and gurgle-gurgle in quite specific manners. From that, you *infere* a "concept" called "quark"*1, while Blockquoth *inferes* another concept called "God's sense of humor". I already told why I'd choose quarks, but obviously it is not because "Quarks Do Exist And The Experiments Show It". Popper already taught us experiments can only tell us when we are wrong, but not when we are right.
*1 Well, when someone is in those "esotheric" fields, it is usually the other way around: one have nasty mathematical results here and there, grows an hypothesis within his brains and looks for the experiment that will tell if he went nuts or is going to go for the next Nobel
And its operative definition moved from the classical of "self-evident" to the modern "taken for granted".
"so how can you say one theory is better than the other without Occam's Razor?"
You can't. But you needn't either. I'll choose the quantum-based, just because it's cheaper. You will have to manage exactly the same maths than me *and* God; I'm a rabid lazy man. I can perfectly go to bed without knowing if the "right" theory is yours or mine, I don't need it; but for the time being I'll be able to achive the same goals than you with less effort. That you can call it a "method" or pure lazyness, again, not my problem.
Either future experiments will show that your God does make a difference, and then we will be able to discern which theory preserves the experimental results and which can't, or not; in which case you will be an idiot working for nothing for the time being.
Maybe not very scientifical, but quite convinient.
"Empiricism is in itself arbitrary, however. Believing that it works is, strictly speaking, a matter of faith."
Yes: the double asumption that a) There is order in the Universe b) We can understand that order is a 'petitio a principii' that belongs not to physics but to meta-physics.
It's only that you don't need to believe that it works. You just test if it works. This very principle can be applied to the horoscope from the newspaper too. You just can work on the basis it will foretell your future; then you see what happens: while it stands up for your expectations you follow the game; once it fails, you forget about it.
The fact is that empiricism gives you transoceanic airplanes while misticism gives you... suing the NASA and religion wars.
"wouldn't the discovery of a new moon orbiting around a planet in our solar system pretty much invalidate each and every prediction made before that discovery?"
Please, please, PLEASE! Don't give them ideas!
I almost can hear them now: of COURSE astrology works! It's only we didn't know about the influence of recently discovered Planet X; now everything fits; I've redone my calculus and they predicted JFK's death one year, three days and forty minutes before it happened. And I can demonstrate it gets all the lotto numbers from 1970 to-date.
"Hot coffee is hot. If the coffee were hotter than 212 degrees F, I think it would be fair to say that there is a danger beyond normal expectations. However, that is not physically possible, so it's not the case."
You should recheck your "facts". Of course coffe can be well above 1 atm boiling point. it can go as high as 120C (about 250F).
On the other hand, I don't think it were beyond 80C (about 180C), still much higher than "usual", which shouldn't go beyond 70C (about 155F).
"She got burned. What's the surprise here?"
The heaviness of the injuries, of course! You take a table knife, pass softly your finger over the edge and next you see is your finger on the floor: you were cutted. What's the surprise there?
"Well, most economic theories assume that everyone is rational and has perfect information"
Then, most economic theories are wrong. Full stop.
"Back onto the topic of advertising, it's a wasteful endeavour. It generates no net benefit overall"
That's either blatantly false, or if you want to think it is true, just the same can be said about almost every other economic activity, except those on the first sector.
How is it any different a good marketing capaign (defining "good" as the one that makes sells arise) from a well engineered product (understood as the one that better fits buyers desires) or a clever bussinessman that "reads" properly the market situation and so makes his idea a blockbuster?
You can't have it both sides. Either you forget about "perceptions" and then you almost directly end up on a controlled economy (after all, why having half a dozen competing cars in a segment, when a Lada takes you from here to there as well as anyone else? It is tremendously wasteful), or you understand freemarket is all about perceptions and then you should equally accept every part that helps to make those perceptions.
Please note I understand what do you mean, but a "meaning" doesn't make your reasons more "truish". If it where about "meanings" anarchism or marxism would be much better economic systems than free market by far.
"Surely you're not suggesting that people who go out and buy products based on which has the better advertisements are responsible, are you?"
It is not me the one who has to judge it.
On the other hand free market (which you seem to be very fond of) is free market: consumers choose based on, well, whatever they feel; producers compete to offer the best to answer to that feeling. Producers sometimes go even further than that: in their race for being the best and first answering to those consumer's feelings, they try to induce those very feelings; that way they insure being the first over there themselves.
In its very roots capitalism (well, free market) is about perceptions: I give you an apple for two coins because I *percive* I'm better with those two coins than with the apple; you get the apple because you *percieve* you are better with the apple than with the two coins. Everything else is just a bit of sophystication over this very basic principle. But perceptions are... perceptions. Who are you (or me) to say what is the "proper" basis for these perceptions to take place? One's perception might be based on front price, while other would think in terms of TCO, or ROI, or how cool it looks like, or how macho it feels when being the owner of one of "These". If as it seems in the USA, free market is good if only because it is free, who can tell this perception is good and this is bad? And even if you could arrive with a profound study which makes choosing the right product an exact science, how would you induce other people to go your way? Maybe people who buy based on advertisments are not "responsible", but you for sure won't say those who make the advertisements are idiots: they put the girl or the SuperStar over there because, whatever the reason, it sells and that's all about it.
"But if the company that is making the cheaper product goes out of business as a result of you confusing valuing the product with valuing the producer then we're all fucked"
Yes.
And that's why there is no company in the whole world and never will be that bases its marketing campaigns on projecting an apropriate corporate image onto the prospective client, so he buys a brand instead of a product.
Hey, now that I think about it! How is it that there are marketing campaings at all? People just need to go to the shelves and see what's the cheapest product, that's all, no need for that pretty almost nude girl doing something not even remotely related with the product, nor no need to pay really big bucks so Real Famous Someone appears on TV saying how good my Whatever Product is and (in a subconstient level) implying You Little Nobody can be someone like him by consuming that same Wonderful Whatever!
"Seems like NASA has missed the chance to answer this profound question raised by Sci-Fi enthusiast by not putting a microphone onboard the flyby probe."
Errr... no. For this to be properly answered, you not only needed a microphone onboard the probe, you would need not to look at it when crashing too.
Everybody knows that a tree falling amid the forest does sound if there's someone over there. The real question being if it sounds when nodoby is looking around.
"Most real world environments upgrade kernels and other packages, such as glibc, at different times."
No, they don't.
"With BSD, you could make such a change across releases"
Correct.
"but with something like Debian, you would need to make such a transition smooth."
No. You "could make such a change across releases". There's no change Theo can't overtake from, say OpenBSD 3.7 to 3.8, Debian can't take from 3.0 to 3.1. I miss to see how changes from Woody to Sarge are any different from those between two OpenBSD releases.
It *useful* transitions between Woody and Sarge are smooth, because no Debian user wants to reinstall just to grab the lastest Stable, as well as it is usefull transitions between OpenBSD versions being smooth, since I can't imagine OpenBSD users really like reinstalling their boxes from time to time just for them to "act the same".
"You would abandon any users who had vanilla kernels, since it would require a special patch, something most users aren't willing to do."
What do you mean? OpenBSD users can use vanilla Linux kernels? OpenBSD can use OpenBSD kernels. Debian users can use Debian kernels AND Linus' vanilla kernels. Even if Debian users could use Linus' vanilla kernels nomore they wouldn't be any worse than any OpenBSD user, since they already can't use anything but the OpenBSD kernel.
"It's unlikely to even happen in the first place, since, at least in my experience, most packagers don't have developer-level knowledge of the package."
That again depend greatly from distribution to distribution. Are OpenBSD packagers reknowed developers per chance?
"Such an API change is possible, yes, in theory but hopelessly limited in practice."
It is not "hopelessly limited"; it is limited because it pays great dividends. Having something mostly compatible with that of your neighbour makes easier to share the development load. It is not that Debian, to stay with the example, can't "break laces" with any other Linux distribution in the world, it really can, it is only it doesn't really make sense. If it would do, it would be as hopelessly isolated from the vibrating Linux community no less (but no more, either) than the different *BSD communities are currently isolated among each other, and thus its ability to affront future would be greatly dimished.
And then, you can't compare Internet with TV. Internet is active (this very post shows that) while TV is passive; you can't interact with it (that's what makes it so good for manipulation: whatever is said on TV can't be negated by knowlingly users).
"What about senior citizens on a limited budget, with limited mobility?"
What about them?
If somebody is able to live without TV, these are those "senior citizens on a limited budget". It migth be a shock for you, but they DID ALREADY LIVE on a world without TV; they can for sure do it again.
"The fact that people can screw themselves up by being irresponsible with their freedoms [...] doesn't justify taking away those choices."
The fact is that owning a functional TV set grants no more real freedom than owning a 30 yards yatch or a 100.000US$ sports car.
Good to own? Hell, yes. Either a human right or a liberty enhancer? Quite not.
A very short percentage or people doesn't own a TV set now, but I'd bet those are more among university chairmen than among "white trash". I'd say there's some food for mind on this.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be too worried about that "white trash" loosing access to TV, since TV, for quite too many years is not about what they want to see but about what "we" want them to fill their minds with, so I'm sure "we" will find the way to "enlighten" their minds the way we want to again.
"Right, only rich people should be able to watch TV. Those poor people need to get off their butts and breathe some fresh air, maybe get a better job."
OK, I'll take your sarcasm:
Of course poors NEED a very new TV set. Once analog goes dark we will need some other way to put into their heads our single-vision God save USA, Saddam we will make you pay for 11S, our need for consumism through advertisements...
Maybe it is time for the republican and democrat party along with Coca-Cola and Nike to buy a new TV set for all those poor people who really deserve TV access too.
"I agree however, that educational institutions have some very BIG characters..."
It is not only big characters. You told "it is not their computer" but what about when it is "their" computer? If they bougth it from an research project of them, and they are paying conectivity from their research projects and they are the "starlets" you loose all the authority to tell them "this can't be done", even if it is so they can make better use of those tools. I've just seen it too many times.
"I think you've both missed the boat on this one. Development of a Linux kernel vs. the BSD system is different"
No, I bet *you* missed my boat. I was not talking about Linux kernel but about *Linux systems*.
"Theo et. al. have complete control of the kernel all the way down to the user-land"
Yes, they have.
"In Linux, however, userland tools are GNU"
No, they aren't. Not to the point of interest here. They are open source released under the GPL, hence Debian people (to name one *Linux system*) have exactly the same control level about their code than Theo et al. about theirs. No more, no less.
"The effect is that it is more likely you will see a shipped distro with broken tools due to the constant changes"
That strongly depends on the distribution itself. Linux distributions are free to put together a half-assed bunch of packages from different sources OR follow whatever process to insure the quality of their "official" releases, including extensive modifications from the "upstream" codebase exactly the same *BSDs are.
"making it very difficult to maintain a system with both kernels."
Thus, some decided to support both of them and others only one branch.
"Theo [...] describes refactoring as doable "when necessary [...] The Linux quote, OTOH, describes constant refactoring as a nuisance and a hindrance to Linux stability."
So? Theo refactors when he feels it is needed. Any given distribution refactors when feels it is needed.
Still I can't manage to see any *real* difference (yes I know what BSD folks *feel* to be the diference, cathedral vs bazaar, and all that stuff, but still, except from the preference for BSD-like licenses vs GPL ones, I can't see any procedural difference between any given BSD project and any given Linux one: in both cases we are talking about open source and in both cases the teams involved are in absolute control about what does go in their "official" codebase and what doesn't).
"When we find that a change must be made to the system (security or otherwise) we can therefore force such a change into the system by changing it all the way from userland through the libraries down to the kernel."
The thing being this is untrue or not relevant (regarding its Linux counterparts).
Any given Linux distribution can do that on whatever codebase they regard as "official", from the kernel up to the highest userlevel app just in the same as any *BSD can.
"Linux's code is much newer and it keeps constantly being re-factored [...] but stability is suffering"
vs
"we can therefore force such a change into the system by changing it all the way from userland through the libraries down to the kernel. We can change interfaces as we want to. We can move quickly. Sometimes changes are even made which break previous executables"
"I think elitists of all flavors deserve to be ignored and marginalized"
Well, I'd say that's reciprocity since they for sure will think the very same about you!
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 1
First, I have to say I have no idea if yT has legal access to BeOS code or not, and I'll speak upon the suposition that it hasn't.
"Being based in Germany and knowing that Palm Inc. really has no interest in persuing them appears to be the only thing keeping them going"
Why would want Palm to go after them NOW?
They would only get a lot of expenses, bad press and nothing more.
Now, IF yT successes and makes big money, THEN will be the time for recollection.
Re:Do they or do they not have the source legally?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 1
"Because as we all know, anyone who releases closed source software is intending to take away any and all rights you have to your system, and not just possibly build a business around a product they maintain."
Because that one tries to build a bussiness around a product that he maintains BY taking you away any and all rights you have to your system.
Now, freedom means that IF you clearly know about this being the case, and IF you know about the alternatives, and IF you are free to choose those alternatives, THEN AND ONLY THEN you gladly can choose to go for the privative solution.
What annoyes me is why so many clever people decide to choose what for them is so obviously the worse alternative... or it would annoy me if all marking and money from some companies weren't used in order to make sure those previous IFs don't come true.
Slashdot Mirror
"In the latter guess, guess what? Quarks exist [...] If God had little angels whipping around arranging the proper collisions, and if those angels are not otherwise detectable and leave no other signature, then there's no distinction -- the quarks do exist, in the only meaningful (scientific) sense."
Quite near the mark, but no bull-eye. From any reasonable point of view, quarks exists no more no less than certain sense of humor of God which consistently makes certain high energy machines offer certain results through their bulbs, valves and speed-o-meters. No one can "see" the quarks as when one see a stone falling from a table. All you can see are bulbs, valves and speed-o-meters doing zwingggg, chrasss, and gurgle-gurgle in quite specific manners. From that, you *infere* a "concept" called "quark"*1, while Blockquoth *inferes* another concept called "God's sense of humor". I already told why I'd choose quarks, but obviously it is not because "Quarks Do Exist And The Experiments Show It". Popper already taught us experiments can only tell us when we are wrong, but not when we are right.
*1 Well, when someone is in those "esotheric" fields, it is usually the other way around: one have nasty mathematical results here and there, grows an hypothesis within his brains and looks for the experiment that will tell if he went nuts or is going to go for the next Nobel
"Can you say "axiom"?"
Science doesn't have axioms. Maths do.
And its operative definition moved from the classical of "self-evident" to the modern "taken for granted".
"so how can you say one theory is better than the other without Occam's Razor?"
You can't. But you needn't either. I'll choose the quantum-based, just because it's cheaper. You will have to manage exactly the same maths than me *and* God; I'm a rabid lazy man. I can perfectly go to bed without knowing if the "right" theory is yours or mine, I don't need it; but for the time being I'll be able to achive the same goals than you with less effort. That you can call it a "method" or pure lazyness, again, not my problem.
Either future experiments will show that your God does make a difference, and then we will be able to discern which theory preserves the experimental results and which can't, or not; in which case you will be an idiot working for nothing for the time being.
Maybe not very scientifical, but quite convinient.
"Empiricism is in itself arbitrary, however. Believing that it works is, strictly speaking, a matter of faith."
Yes: the double asumption that
a) There is order in the Universe
b) We can understand that order
is a 'petitio a principii' that belongs not to physics but to meta-physics.
It's only that you don't need to believe that it works. You just test if it works. This very principle can be applied to the horoscope from the newspaper too. You just can work on the basis it will foretell your future; then you see what happens: while it stands up for your expectations you follow the game; once it fails, you forget about it.
The fact is that empiricism gives you transoceanic airplanes while misticism gives you... suing the NASA and religion wars.
"wouldn't the discovery of a new moon orbiting around a planet in our solar system pretty much invalidate each and every prediction made before that discovery?"
Please, please, PLEASE! Don't give them ideas!
I almost can hear them now: of COURSE astrology works! It's only we didn't know about the influence of recently discovered Planet X; now everything fits; I've redone my calculus and they predicted JFK's death one year, three days and forty minutes before it happened. And I can demonstrate it gets all the lotto numbers from 1970 to-date.
"Hot coffee is hot. If the coffee were hotter than 212 degrees F, I think it would be fair to say that there is a danger beyond normal expectations. However, that is not physically possible, so it's not the case."
You should recheck your "facts". Of course coffe can be well above 1 atm boiling point. it can go as high as 120C (about 250F).
On the other hand, I don't think it were beyond 80C (about 180C), still much higher than "usual", which shouldn't go beyond 70C (about 155F).
"She got burned. What's the surprise here?"
The heaviness of the injuries, of course! You take a table knife, pass softly your finger over the edge and next you see is your finger on the floor: you were cutted. What's the surprise there?
"Well, most economic theories assume that everyone is rational and has perfect information"
Then, most economic theories are wrong. Full stop.
"Back onto the topic of advertising, it's a wasteful endeavour. It generates no net benefit overall"
That's either blatantly false, or if you want to think it is true, just the same can be said about almost every other economic activity, except those on the first sector.
How is it any different a good marketing capaign (defining "good" as the one that makes sells arise) from a well engineered product (understood as the one that better fits buyers desires) or a clever bussinessman that "reads" properly the market situation and so makes his idea a blockbuster?
You can't have it both sides. Either you forget about "perceptions" and then you almost directly end up on a controlled economy (after all, why having half a dozen competing cars in a segment, when a Lada takes you from here to there as well as anyone else? It is tremendously wasteful), or you understand freemarket is all about perceptions and then you should equally accept every part that helps to make those perceptions.
Please note I understand what do you mean, but a "meaning" doesn't make your reasons more "truish". If it where about "meanings" anarchism or marxism would be much better economic systems than free market by far.
"Surely you're not suggesting that people who go out and buy products based on which has the better advertisements are responsible, are you?"
It is not me the one who has to judge it.
On the other hand free market (which you seem to be very fond of) is free market: consumers choose based on, well, whatever they feel; producers compete to offer the best to answer to that feeling. Producers sometimes go even further than that: in their race for being the best and first answering to those consumer's feelings, they try to induce those very feelings; that way they insure being the first over there themselves.
In its very roots capitalism (well, free market) is about perceptions: I give you an apple for two coins because I *percive* I'm better with those two coins than with the apple; you get the apple because you *percieve* you are better with the apple than with the two coins. Everything else is just a bit of sophystication over this very basic principle. But perceptions are... perceptions. Who are you (or me) to say what is the "proper" basis for these perceptions to take place? One's perception might be based on front price, while other would think in terms of TCO, or ROI, or how cool it looks like, or how macho it feels when being the owner of one of "These". If as it seems in the USA, free market is good if only because it is free, who can tell this perception is good and this is bad? And even if you could arrive with a profound study which makes choosing the right product an exact science, how would you induce other people to go your way? Maybe people who buy based on advertisments are not "responsible", but you for sure won't say those who make the advertisements are idiots: they put the girl or the SuperStar over there because, whatever the reason, it sells and that's all about it.
"But if the company that is making the cheaper product goes out of business as a result of you confusing valuing the product with valuing the producer then we're all fucked"
Yes.
And that's why there is no company in the whole world and never will be that bases its marketing campaigns on projecting an apropriate corporate image onto the prospective client, so he buys a brand instead of a product.
Hey, now that I think about it! How is it that there are marketing campaings at all? People just need to go to the shelves and see what's the cheapest product, that's all, no need for that pretty almost nude girl doing something not even remotely related with the product, nor no need to pay really big bucks so Real Famous Someone appears on TV saying how good my Whatever Product is and (in a subconstient level) implying You Little Nobody can be someone like him by consuming that same Wonderful Whatever!
"But it's not in the business of computers or software, so Microsoft can't do anything."
I must suppouse then, that this guy is in the market of long range bombers, since it took it up against Northrop, musn't I?
"Seems like NASA has missed the chance to answer this profound question raised by Sci-Fi enthusiast by not putting a microphone onboard the flyby probe."
Errr... no. For this to be properly answered, you not only needed a microphone onboard the probe, you would need not to look at it when crashing too.
Everybody knows that a tree falling amid the forest does sound if there's someone over there. The real question being if it sounds when nodoby is looking around.
"Most real world environments upgrade kernels and other packages, such as glibc, at different times."
No, they don't.
"With BSD, you could make such a change across releases"
Correct.
"but with something like Debian, you would need to make such a transition smooth."
No. You "could make such a change across releases". There's no change Theo can't overtake from, say OpenBSD 3.7 to 3.8, Debian can't take from 3.0 to 3.1. I miss to see how changes from Woody to Sarge are any different from those between two OpenBSD releases.
It *useful* transitions between Woody and Sarge are smooth, because no Debian user wants to reinstall just to grab the lastest Stable, as well as it is usefull transitions between OpenBSD versions being smooth, since I can't imagine OpenBSD users really like reinstalling their boxes from time to time just for them to "act the same".
"You would abandon any users who had vanilla kernels, since it would require a special patch, something most users aren't willing to do."
What do you mean? OpenBSD users can use vanilla Linux kernels? OpenBSD can use OpenBSD kernels. Debian users can use Debian kernels AND Linus' vanilla kernels. Even if Debian users could use Linus' vanilla kernels nomore they wouldn't be any worse than any OpenBSD user, since they already can't use anything but the OpenBSD kernel.
"It's unlikely to even happen in the first place, since, at least in my experience, most packagers don't have developer-level knowledge of the package."
That again depend greatly from distribution to distribution. Are OpenBSD packagers reknowed developers per chance?
"Such an API change is possible, yes, in theory but hopelessly limited in practice."
It is not "hopelessly limited"; it is limited because it pays great dividends. Having something mostly compatible with that of your neighbour makes easier to share the development load. It is not that Debian, to stay with the example, can't "break laces" with any other Linux distribution in the world, it really can, it is only it doesn't really make sense. If it would do, it would be as hopelessly isolated from the vibrating Linux community no less (but no more, either) than the different *BSD communities are currently isolated among each other, and thus its ability to affront future would be greatly dimished.
"I just said it allows developers to store everything in one place. I never said that developers always use it properly. :)"
Then KISS and developers will tend to do the proper thing.
"Yes, 1% - but 1% of what? If you have thousands of machines, it can be quite a saving."
Yeah. You will achieve an amazing saves of about... 1%.
It migth seem an amazing absolute sum to you, but it still will be nothing but a 1% discount on their bill.
You can bet it wouldn't be a tragedy for me.
And then, you can't compare Internet with TV. Internet is active (this very post shows that) while TV is passive; you can't interact with it (that's what makes it so good for manipulation: whatever is said on TV can't be negated by knowlingly users).
"What about senior citizens on a limited budget, with limited mobility?"
What about them?
If somebody is able to live without TV, these are those "senior citizens on a limited budget". It migth be a shock for you, but they DID ALREADY LIVE on a world without TV; they can for sure do it again.
"The fact that people can screw themselves up by being irresponsible with their freedoms [...] doesn't justify taking away those choices."
The fact is that owning a functional TV set grants no more real freedom than owning a 30 yards yatch or a 100.000US$ sports car.
Good to own? Hell, yes. Either a human right or a liberty enhancer? Quite not.
A very short percentage or people doesn't own a TV set now, but I'd bet those are more among university chairmen than among "white trash". I'd say there's some food for mind on this.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be too worried about that "white trash" loosing access to TV, since TV, for quite too many years is not about what they want to see but about what "we" want them to fill their minds with, so I'm sure "we" will find the way to "enlighten" their minds the way we want to again.
"Right, only rich people should be able to watch TV. Those poor people need to get off their butts and breathe some fresh air, maybe get a better job."
OK, I'll take your sarcasm:
Of course poors NEED a very new TV set. Once analog goes dark we will need some other way to put into their heads our single-vision God save USA, Saddam we will make you pay for 11S, our need for consumism through advertisements...
Maybe it is time for the republican and democrat party along with Coca-Cola and Nike to buy a new TV set for all those poor people who really deserve TV access too.
"I agree however, that educational institutions have some very BIG characters..."
It is not only big characters. You told "it is not their computer" but what about when it is "their" computer? If they bougth it from an research project of them, and they are paying conectivity from their research projects and they are the "starlets" you loose all the authority to tell them "this can't be done", even if it is so they can make better use of those tools. I've just seen it too many times.
"For now, the good news is that it is still legal to put together your own home-theater PC"
The bad news are having a legal system that make the above sentence make sense.
"I think you've both missed the boat on this one. Development of a Linux kernel vs. the BSD system is different"
No, I bet *you* missed my boat. I was not talking about Linux kernel but about *Linux systems*.
"Theo et. al. have complete control of the kernel all the way down to the user-land"
Yes, they have.
"In Linux, however, userland tools are GNU"
No, they aren't. Not to the point of interest here. They are open source released under the GPL, hence Debian people (to name one *Linux system*) have exactly the same control level about their code than Theo et al. about theirs. No more, no less.
"The effect is that it is more likely you will see a shipped distro with broken tools due to the constant changes"
That strongly depends on the distribution itself. Linux distributions are free to put together a half-assed bunch of packages from different sources OR follow whatever process to insure the quality of their "official" releases, including extensive modifications from the "upstream" codebase exactly the same *BSDs are.
"making it very difficult to maintain a system with both kernels."
Thus, some decided to support both of them and others only one branch.
"Theo [...] describes refactoring as doable "when necessary [...] The Linux quote, OTOH, describes constant refactoring as a nuisance and a hindrance to Linux stability."
So? Theo refactors when he feels it is needed. Any given distribution refactors when feels it is needed.
Still I can't manage to see any *real* difference (yes I know what BSD folks *feel* to be the diference, cathedral vs bazaar, and all that stuff, but still, except from the preference for BSD-like licenses vs GPL ones, I can't see any procedural difference between any given BSD project and any given Linux one: in both cases we are talking about open source and in both cases the teams involved are in absolute control about what does go in their "official" codebase and what doesn't).
"A Linix based firewall at the edge"
"consider also putting up internal firewalls that firewall each lab and each department from each other"
"I would also have iptables running on each linux server within each lab"
"Put a software firewall like zone alarm on each of the windows machine"
"The next step is to have sensors on each of your firewalled segments that report on bad traffic"
"If all of this seems like a lot of work, it is."
Still, amazingly, you'd manage to do that for under 100US$ as suggested!!!
"When we find that a change must be made to the system (security or otherwise) we can therefore force such a change into the system by changing it all the way from userland through the libraries down to the kernel."
The thing being this is untrue or not relevant (regarding its Linux counterparts).
Any given Linux distribution can do that on whatever codebase they regard as "official", from the kernel up to the highest userlevel app just in the same as any *BSD can.
"Linux's code is much newer and it keeps constantly being re-factored [...] but stability is suffering"
vs
"we can therefore force such a change into the system by changing it all the way from userland through the libraries down to the kernel. We can change interfaces as we want to. We can move quickly. Sometimes changes are even made which break previous executables"
I can't manage to see any difference.
"I think elitists of all flavors deserve to be ignored and marginalized"
Well, I'd say that's reciprocity since they for sure will think the very same about you!
First, I have to say I have no idea if yT has legal access to BeOS code or not, and I'll speak upon the suposition that it hasn't.
"Being based in Germany and knowing that Palm Inc. really has no interest in persuing them appears to be the only thing keeping them going"
Why would want Palm to go after them NOW?
They would only get a lot of expenses, bad press and nothing more.
Now, IF yT successes and makes big money, THEN will be the time for recollection.
"Because as we all know, anyone who releases closed source software is intending to take away any and all rights you have to your system, and not just possibly build a business around a product they maintain."
Because that one tries to build a bussiness around a product that he maintains BY taking you away any and all rights you have to your system.
Now, freedom means that IF you clearly know about this being the case, and IF you know about the alternatives, and IF you are free to choose those alternatives, THEN AND ONLY THEN you gladly can choose to go for the privative solution.
What annoyes me is why so many clever people decide to choose what for them is so obviously the worse alternative... or it would annoy me if all marking and money from some companies weren't used in order to make sure those previous IFs don't come true.