Well, by its very nature, "open source" is a kind of marketing buzzword. It was designed to be that way, because the term "free software" was considered too "threatening" to big business. Certain elements of the free software community, including RMS, weren't particularly concerned with this, IIRC. After all, the objective was to create and promote free software, not to court proprietary software.
Besides, as I pointed out in an earlier conversation, companies had already started producing distributions of GNU/Linux some time before "open source" was coined, and because of the Internet and the Web, we don't need "big business" to help us out with distribution. Anyone who wants, can get. Back in the day it wasn't so simple. You had to have some corporate backing so that they would produce your product en masse for anyone who wanted it to have access to it.
Since those rules have changed, part of ESR foundation for his efforts, that he doesn't want to see another hacker project "fail" even though it is technically superior, is highly unfounded. The corporate machine is not needed to drive accesibility and/or popularity in this case. That must be hard to see for some, but it seems painfully obvious..
That said, hey, AJS, while I will begin by saying I do indeed have the deepest respect for you, I might inquire what you meant by "Several years ago, we all wanted to see how far all this could go."? What I mean is this: Did you mean the free software community in general, hackers in general, etc.? Neither of the above would make sense with such a blanket statement because not everyone shares the same outlook. Far from it, of course.;)
..can you even set up filters in PINE? PINE and PICO are nice and all, but they're also pretty vanilla (anyone who is wondering why I included a text editor in this statement apparently doesn't know where either are developed). Good for the newbies (or uncaring), but not very flexible. Especially not for the serious text editor or email fanatic.;)
No, this is not intended as a flame, I'm geniunely curious.
Just goes to show that some moderators will abuse their priviledges just because they are a) jealous of people with high Karma b) have a personal distaste of the person they are moderating down for no reason and/or c) have some other idiotic reason which has absolutely nothing to do with an objective, unbiased evaluation of the comment itself. Honestly, I'm not very concerned, but thanks for pointing out that I was indeed very much on topic.
Note to gimp moderators: I do make a lot of inflammatory and other negative comments. Why don't you mark me down for something that I deserve rather than just seeing the big old bad score of 2 that appears next to my name by default and going, "Oh, I'm going to get this bastard good!" It's pretty sad.:)
The entire analogy is stupid. Software has absolutely nothing to do with people settling land. Same thing with hardware, like game consoles. First there was Nintendo and Sega. Then Sega came out with the Genesis. They had the lead. Then the Super Nintendo came out and threw down the gauntlet. They won the market. Later, the PlayStation came out, and wiped the floor with everyone. After that, several other high-end game systems came out, like Nintendo64. Guess who's still cleaning up? Yup, the PSX. So how come PSX doesn't have a lot of pointy arrows in its ass? Isn't the N64 a better technology anyway? Isn't the PSX only 32 bit? Yeah, sure, great analogy.
Similarly, GNU was started a long time before NetBSD ever came out. And then NetBSD did come out, and it didn't really have a lot of competition from any other free OSes (they had a nice legal suit to deal with, but that was cleared up fairly easily). At around the same time Linux first began development. Then Linux became fused with GNU to form GNU/Linux. By this time, NetBSD was already a stable, functional technology (and had been since its inception, at which point GNU was still vaporware), having descended directly from the original Unix. GNU/Linux, however, was just born from scratch (more or less) and was still in its infancy. I'd imagine GNU/Linux attained a large driving force behind it because of two things: 1) the licensing and 2) the development model. So, who's the pioneer? Who's the settler? Why can't something be, well, both?
The problem with analogies is that they are usually short-sighted and narrow, and likely to make one look rather stupid unless chosen carefully. I sort of doubt *BSD is suddenly going to dethrone GNU/Linux. While I'm all for the various BSD teams marking their mark upon the world, I tend to look down on hubris such as McKusick's. Licensing issues are a key reason why J. Random Hacker will or will not work on a given project. While many hackers disagree with RMS, not nearly as many disagree with his preference of licensing. If that was not the case, well, then *BSD would be where GNU/Linux is right now, don't you think..?
In short, McKusick can have whatever pipe dream he wants, but I, for one, thinks he makes some pretty damn odd extrapolations.
I swear, I'm sick of hearing "It's the [insert vacuous shot in the dark reason for long-winded explanation of whoever's narrow (or even broad) opinions here], stupid". Anyone else get tired of reading articles that say, "Hey, stupid, let me clue you in!" I'd have more to say, but I'm having trouble getting past that part (it's the second article in a row that had that stupid paraphrase.. "It's all in the originality, you damned idiot!" =P).
I got to read the 1st page of three, then when I tried to make it to the next page, I got the same error. Damn early morning Slashdotters. =P At any rate..
Either way, based on the summary, the media just doesn't get geekdom as a whole.
I've never read nor been inclined to even look at OSO before, but from the blurbs I saw during my brief stay it looks like all of their stories or articles or whatever you want to call them are submitted by readers/users/lusers/whatever.. As such, I wouldn't exactly refer to it as your traditional media (unless I misread or misinterpreted what I saw.. it is early, after all).
J. Random Idiot will never understand computers, the software industry, or what makes things like the Internet and the Web "go". They'll certainly never understand GNU/Linux, much less hackers. I don't really get bothered by them trying to make a buck of capitalize on the whole "geek" thing, because, well, being a geek, I don't spend a lot of time "out in the world", so to speak.. so the only time I realize how clueless these people are are through my random encounters with reality and the news. All in all, I'd say it doesn't affect me very much.
Warning.. I'm about to go on a tanget..;)
I also don't think it's important whether or not GNU/Linux makes it big in the commercial world. ESR seems to disagree, but since when did I ever care about his thoughts? Sure, I don't entirely agree with RMS, either, but surprisingly enough, his views seem much less fanatical and hypocritical to me. With the advent of the Web, it's simply not necessary to be big in the commercial world to make decent software available to those who want it, so all of ESR's bitching about not wanting another hacker project to fail even though its technically superior are a decade or two too late. The network is now large enough that such software can be distributed to everyone without having to bother with commercial vendors.
On top of which is the fact that distributions of the OS were begun by commercial vendors and other groups some time before the term "open source" was coined. But, I've talked enough. I say fuck it, let the public and ESR think and do whatever they want. It doesn't really matter in the long run, because I don't care if Joe Public wants to use Linux or not, or if companies want to market it. If so, fine. Who cares? Let's all get back to doing something more important.
..a fundamental drive amongst scientists everywhere: the urgent need to accomplish something because we can (specifically, to prove this notion), not necessarily because we should (or can even find a useful application of the discovery that would validate the time and effort expended).
Whether or not the mammoth would be "tortured" is not an argument I care to play into (especially since arguments on such topics seem to be especially shallow), but I might point out that the more animals we are able to clone, the closer we get to cloning an actual human, which is something that certainly sparks a lot of interest among scientists and the world at large.
..that nothing innovative comes out of the free software community? At least I've never heard of anything quite like this before..
However..
Really crowded systems would regulate their own load because monsters occasionally kill each other. Once the population in a room goes down, the monsters will stop attacking each other.
I'm not sure I exactly like the idea of my processes beating each other up. I already had the problem of processes dying for no apparent reason under Windows. Why would I want to relive one of its worst "features"?
I wasn't talking down to you before. But you know what? Now I am. Before I was just going on a random tangent. Why is that? Because of your imprecise use of the English language, which left some ambiguity as to what the last section of your original sentence was in reference to (of course, having said that, I'm now inviting all sorts of bizarre scrutiny concerning my usage of the English language, but you know what? I'm all for it). I took it to mean that you were saying the PC was responsible for the Web (not that odd of an assumption given the post you were referring to and the fact that if that wasn't what it meant, your post would seem just a little bit clueless, and pretty much offtopic [at least as IIRC, because Slashdot is having serious server problems right now]).
By the way, you fool (your deragotory comments made in light of my rather polite response only serve to make you look like a total asshole, not to mention completely ignorant for thinking I wasn't making a polite suggestion), the origins of HTML and the Web have a fuck of a lot to do with one another. Based on your offhand remark, however, I realize that you had absolutely no fucking idea of that. Which means you're a) barking up a tree you shouldn't even be near, much less pissing on b) you're trying to troll or c) you're really stupid (the ever-popular d) would assert any/all of the previously proposed options).
Now that I have, for the first time ever, talked down to you, you may now become "enraged" and act like a little troll baby. If you choose not to, I'll go back to being polite. Otherwise, expect to be ignored or flamed, depending upon how bored I am.
(by the way, PCs would be the primary cause for anything becoming popular with most of humanity with regards to computing.. why is that, you might ask? because most people own PCs, not workstations, servers, or mainframes.. pretty fucking weird, huh? so.. any more completely redundant points you'd like to offer? like that Windows became popular because of the PC? that breathing became popular because of air? that art became popular because of eyeballs? hmm?)
He really didn't say anything useful except that "MTV is bullshit" in more ways than I can count. I guess the critical issue is this: he never really gave me a clear indication of what he thinks a hacker is. Maybe there's something I'm just not drawing a conclusion from based on the fact that I didn't watch the MTV thing and don't really consider HNN to be a hacker resource by any means (mainly because aside from looking at cracked pages and trivial things like this link, there's nothing tangile I ever see on there that I don't see on Slashdot first.. and how is cracking a hacker thing? maybe I just haven't stared at HNN long enough to get it.. but then, my time is already monopolized by "other" things). I think he'd get more credibility points if a) he defined what he thinks a hacker is and b) he spelled better/used proper English (sorry, low blow I know, but hey..).
The Web was invented for very much the exact same reasons that Signal 11 cited for the Internet. Perhaps you should do a little more research into the origins of HTML and how Tim Berners-Lee first kicked off this whole fiasco.. If anything made anything else popular, the Web made the Internet popular. And yes, you're right, the media doesn't have a clue what the difference is.
You'll notice that HTML is meant to "mark up" text, not define appearance. It wasn't originally intended for the masses. The original form, which was just about perfect for its original users, might have astounded you with its lack of utility with regards to modern "designers". And believe me, these guys weren't using Windows, either. Once again I defer to Signal 11's remarks on the subject..
..why software is not like a skyscraper (sorry for the cheap shot, Signal 11.. I'm sort of bored today;).
10) Bill Gates doesn't have a monopoly on skyscrapers (..yet).
9) GNU doesn't produce any tools with which to build a skyscraper (..yet).
8) You can't "compile" the blueprints to create a fully constructed building.
7) When the building "core dumps", the garbage is much harder to run through a "debugger".
6) When software "core dumps", it is much less likely to cause the death of several hundred people (unless it has to do with an air control tower..).
5) When Y2K hits the building won't suddenly "crash".
4) You can't make a major structural change to the blueprints and simply "recompile" a completed building.
3) The media doesn't tend to refer to "architects" as "demolitionists".
2) You can't ftp a skyscraper onto your pr0n/warez server.
1) Hax0rs can't crack open a skyscraper from the comfort of their bedroom after just getting home from school, filled with angst over being rejected by the ugliest girl in school.
While I respect the right of people to release their software under restrictive licensing, I'm not going to support that choice.
So basically you're negating your original post? The GPL is pretty restrictive. One of the least restrictive licenses I can think of is the BSD license (which is completely worthless AFAIC.. and no, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have the choice to use it so lay off everyone). I think you're searching for some other wording. I think you mean to say "proprietary licenses" or "non-free licenses". The GPL is restrictive, but it is also the epitome of "free software" licensing. You should know better than to fall into that semantic trap.;)
But on the other I keep hearing echos of the gpl in my ear telling me that it's a moral imperative to not support proprietary software.. and a waste of one's effort to do so anyway.
While I'm not precisely a big fan of proprietary software (about the only non-GPL stuff I ever bother to use are PICO and PINE.. which I see no real benefit to GPLing in the first place =P), I've never been all that concerned about non-free game software. Most of the software that I prefer be free are general purpose or otherwise a means to an end (and most especially device drivers). I don't really care about the newest Quake being free software the moment it comes out any more than I am drooling all over myself to see the PlayStation 2 get "open sourced" (as someone complained that it wasn't.. the argument against closed consoles was quickly follow by retorts of "is something worthless because you can't program it? just because your toaster isn't open source you're not going to use it?" or something like that..).
I guess my unanswered question is - should you have fun even if the people you associate with would disapprove of it? For me, the answer would normally be yes. But the moral dilemma found with the free software / open source philosophies leave me with a bad taste in my mouth.
When it's just a game (especially since most games have a short life expectancy), I really don't see a problem with it. I don't really think generating proprietary software in general is "evil" per se, but I certainly wouldn't waste much time on such things (aside from games..;). While it might be nice to see id release the code for their games a while after they come out, I don't see it as any sort of pressing issue that they be free software to begin with, or at all. Stuff you sort of have to rely on, like your operating system or other damn useful tools, I see a problem with helping along proprietary systems that simply don't work like they should (and yet get marketed as the best thing to happen to the world since.. um.. sex..?..certain religious orders apt to disagree..;).
Ok, now that I've beaten my point to death and just about bored myself senseless.. Loki really isn't that bad of a company (haven't they been releasing libraries and other tools they used to create games as free software?), and since games are only for play, it's not quite the same as pushing along "the corporate machine". Now, if a bunch of hackers were invited to Redmond to get all the wrinkles out of Windows 2000 and were offered a neat new computer to the one who did the best work (and lots of notable individuals actually accepted!) then you'd have much more cause for that bad taste in your mouth.
..have too much faith in humanity (with regards to both compassion and intelligence). Don't get so worked up about it. Not quite worth it. Most sane people likely won't give a damn about such emotionless whelps, anyway..
..especially since subtlety rarely even registers as a blip on my mental radar unless I'm talking to someone in person (or even on the phone), since I usually rely on my empathic nature to communicate with others effectively.;)
..you should read up just a little on the topics at hand before you shoot your mouth off like that? I believe you should bother yourself to check out this page which defines what "free software" is and what freedoms it is meant to bestow upon you (as there is definitely more than one kind of "freedom" in the world), and that page which goes out of its way to explain the difference between "open source" and "free software". It's almost like getting hit by a clue-by-four, one might say..
If you're still not clue-aware after that, you can go ahead and read this post. If your attention span is too short for that, I'll sum it up with this basic question: who precisely forces you to license your software under the GPL, use GPL'ed software, or modify GPL'ed software? That said, why must you release your source because RMS "said so"? You can certainly use another license or piece of software, don't you think?
Disclaimer: My views, as usual, are strong. I'm very much in the "free software" camp. Enjoy this post at your own leisure if you really care to hear what I have to say..;) (I'm also not quite awake.. not enough caffeine..)
The difference between Free Software and Open Source advocates is that they use the same means for different ends.
Precisely.. wrong. As explained by Stallman himself:
Radical groups are known for factionalism: organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and then hate each other. They agree on the basic principles, and disagree only on practical recommendations; but they consider each other enemies, and fight each other tooth and nail.
For the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement, it is just the opposite on every point. We disagree on the basic principles, but agree on most practical recommendations. We work together on many specific projects.
Now, on to the bulk of this post..
Let me tell you about freedom.
Perhaps I should begin by saying that there are several kinds of "freedom". For absolute fanatics (like the one you are arguing with, apparently, as they remind me of some BSD elitists I had the misfortune of speaking with.. note the difference between BSD user/proponent/advocate and elitist.. this is not a bland generalization on my part, as I am not including all those who like BSD), there is this cute little page which explains what "freedoms" the GPL is intended to impart. No one on the GPL side of the fence kids themselves: this is a restrictive license. However, the astute will notice that even a democracy such as the U.S. is not truly "free" in the strictest of terms. Pure anarchy would be much closer to being "free" in the way certain fanatics would scream out against the GPL. For those of you who think like that: get a life.
Freedom is not being forced to do anything other than what is required to allow others them same freedoms. Not allowing modifications to software is stripping away freedoms that people should have.
Before I begin, I think I should note that my political stance is between that of Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, leaning toward the former. I believe free software is better than proprietary software, and dislike using stuff that isn't under the GPL (except for simple things like PINE or PICO, which really don't need me to tinker with them, anyway). However, I understand the need for choice. BSD elitists will complain about the GPL. GPL elitists will complain about the BSD license. However, neither are as restrictive as most proprietary licenses. I must stress that he/she who produces the software is free to use any license they want. You don't like it? Who gives a fuck? No one forces you to use their license. No one forces you to use their software. It's your decision. If you don't like something, don't subject yourself to it. Complaining about it isn't going to make it go away. Elitists on either side of the fence on this issue usually are making arguements which, if they could make them a reality, would take away freedom from the other group. Freedom is about choice. Exercise that freedom, and let others get on with their lives. Otherwise you might as well be Joe Public complaining about how horrible television is and yet you continue to sit on your fat ass and watch it all day. Real productive.
It is like saying you can't fix a chair if it is broken.
Sort of, but not quite. Source code is what is used to create a given piece of software. If you take this arguement to its logical extreme, you're really complaining that when someone sells you a chair, they should also give you the tools necessary to build it (which would probably be what, an entire factory? heh). Also, you're missing the point that you can't really change a chair. A chair is a chair is a chair. It will always be a chair (or else a pile of useless wood if you get really angry.. or some other material if it's not wooden). Software, however, can evolve. And while some may think its a neat idea to put a third arm on a chair, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Not allowing you to redristibute doesn't have much of a metaphor to real objects other than sharing. But if replicators are ever made, freedom might be an issue that we would all expect.
Most uses of the term "freedom" are highly generalized. I would like to once again assert that there are several different kinds of freedoms, and obviously if you had some Star Trek-esque replicator people are going to have a hard time keeping you from replicating your chair and giving it to a neighbor. However, by the time our technology is that advanced, there won't be much of a market (or need for) chair makers, as we will by then have a strong market for companies who produce gadgets that fuck with molecular structures and what have you.
As for not giving out source code. You can give source if you want. Just don't give me the binaries then either. I want source with my software because that is my right!
Well, that's your right if the software in question is covered under the GPL or a similar licensing scheme. Contrary to popular belief (sort of), people can do with their code whatever they damn well please.
Isn't there already an oppurtunity for Java to fork due to clean-room implementations of the JVM like Japhar and Kaffe (under LGPL and GPL, respectively)? It's a notion that popped into my head a while back, never gave it too much thought, though.. I haven't looked at Java 2.0 (or even that Java compiler I think Cygnus came out with.. as you can tell I don't exactly stay "on top" of the Java scene;), but I hear it was mostly bloat. A fork in Java might not be all that bad (slap a new name on it, of course), as avoiding bloat is good.;)
...the type of ground-breaking innovation he came up...
Well, somehow I feel as though benefitting from, buying, and/or stealing the work of others and passing it off as your own (specifically, an idea, product, service that you originally came up with) is hardly all that innovative, even if the medium was relatively new at the time. I'm sure that has gone on for quite some time, even before well-documented history first began.
The point being made wasn't that these things didn't revolutionize the industry. The point being made was that nothing Bill Gates did was particularly innovative, unless, of course, you think being an asshole is a "brave, new concept".
I agree with Carmack, RMS's arguments naturally extend themselves to all other media. One can easily imagine RMS having gotten bent over not being allowed to record and distribute his own cover version of some song, instead of a printer driver.
I really sort of doubt that.. I've never noted RMS going on about much of anything other than software needing to be free. For example, he doesn't think you should "open source" books. Documentation for free software, yes, because documentation needs to evolve along with the software, but books in general and other stuff that "just is" (like most digital media), no.. I believe RMS is enough of an extremist without you people taking his views and extending them to an even more extreme end..
I already fall a little short of his political views just on software, and while I don't feel like wandering GNU or Google to post a link to a page where RMS has said precisely what I've already stated in the first paragraph, I believe I can safely say that RMS bashing in general is pretty much worthless (find something else to do with your time), but you could at least bash him for something he has done or said, rather than something you have theorized.
Labeling what you do as "trolling" would denote some intelligence on your part. You're obviously a clueless idiot. Anyone who manages to get posts moderated down to 0 on a regular basis are unlikely to be anything else. Take me, for example.. at one point I was posting an average of 50 comments every 2 fucking days.. If general concensus agreed with your views, I'd be moderated down like all hell. I think I've gotten a total of maybe 1 or 2 (if any) posts down to a score of 0. I guess not everything I say is pointless garbage?
You also fail to notice something else: I'm rather thick-skinned, and I have a lot of time on my hands. Your feeble attempts to "hurt my feelings" are laughable at best, and only serve to prove with damning certainty your lack of intelligence. If I bore you so much, ignore me you fool. Don't post replies to my comments. Don't read my comments. My name is clearly pasted right along the top of everything I write. You rarely, if ever, have anything of interest whatsoever to add to the conversation, and even more rarely have any grasp on the topics at hand. You do, however, seem to enjoy little "feel-good" sessions whenever someone attacks my comments. Too bad most such attacks are completely unfounded (much like your own.. and if you mean "join everyone else" as in "sink down to the intelligence level of mochaone".. I'd prefer not to get a lobotomy, thanks, and fewer people on Slashdot are as stupid as you (seem to think)). Why don't you grow up?
And people wonder why others think kill files on Slashdot would be a good idea..;)
Well, I am anyways. In the dank recesses of the X11.org headquarters, I have been trapped, and working on a new site for all you little X-heads out there. Ok, so I've really been playing EverQuest, but the dungeon thing is a lot more dramatic.
Ramble, ramble, ramble...
Anyway, yes, the site is still being worked on. No, I don't know when it'll be done. I wish I could tell you, but all I can say now is "SOON". And I mean it this time. Really.
Of course, that was a month ago. And two months before that they had a similar blurb. I'd give them another month before another such blurb arises.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, by its very nature, "open source" is a kind of marketing buzzword. It was designed to be that way, because the term "free software" was considered too "threatening" to big business. Certain elements of the free software community, including RMS, weren't particularly concerned with this, IIRC. After all, the objective was to create and promote free software, not to court proprietary software.
Besides, as I pointed out in an earlier conversation, companies had already started producing distributions of GNU/Linux some time before "open source" was coined, and because of the Internet and the Web, we don't need "big business" to help us out with distribution. Anyone who wants, can get. Back in the day it wasn't so simple. You had to have some corporate backing so that they would produce your product en masse for anyone who wanted it to have access to it.
Since those rules have changed, part of ESR foundation for his efforts, that he doesn't want to see another hacker project "fail" even though it is technically superior, is highly unfounded. The corporate machine is not needed to drive accesibility and/or popularity in this case. That must be hard to see for some, but it seems painfully obvious..
That said, hey, AJS, while I will begin by saying I do indeed have the deepest respect for you, I might inquire what you meant by "Several years ago, we all wanted to see how far all this could go."? What I mean is this: Did you mean the free software community in general, hackers in general, etc.? Neither of the above would make sense with such a blanket statement because not everyone shares the same outlook. Far from it, of course. ;)
I'd rather have my editor do nifty stuff than have my email client select my editor. ;)
..can you even set up filters in PINE? PINE and PICO are nice and all, but they're also pretty vanilla (anyone who is wondering why I included a text editor in this statement apparently doesn't know where either are developed). Good for the newbies (or uncaring), but not very flexible. Especially not for the serious text editor or email fanatic. ;)
No, this is not intended as a flame, I'm geniunely curious.
Just goes to show that some moderators will abuse their priviledges just because they are a) jealous of people with high Karma b) have a personal distaste of the person they are moderating down for no reason and/or c) have some other idiotic reason which has absolutely nothing to do with an objective, unbiased evaluation of the comment itself. Honestly, I'm not very concerned, but thanks for pointing out that I was indeed very much on topic.
Note to gimp moderators: I do make a lot of inflammatory and other negative comments. Why don't you mark me down for something that I deserve rather than just seeing the big old bad score of 2 that appears next to my name by default and going, "Oh, I'm going to get this bastard good!" It's pretty sad. :)
The entire analogy is stupid. Software has absolutely nothing to do with people settling land. Same thing with hardware, like game consoles. First there was Nintendo and Sega. Then Sega came out with the Genesis. They had the lead. Then the Super Nintendo came out and threw down the gauntlet. They won the market. Later, the PlayStation came out, and wiped the floor with everyone. After that, several other high-end game systems came out, like Nintendo64. Guess who's still cleaning up? Yup, the PSX. So how come PSX doesn't have a lot of pointy arrows in its ass? Isn't the N64 a better technology anyway? Isn't the PSX only 32 bit? Yeah, sure, great analogy.
Similarly, GNU was started a long time before NetBSD ever came out. And then NetBSD did come out, and it didn't really have a lot of competition from any other free OSes (they had a nice legal suit to deal with, but that was cleared up fairly easily). At around the same time Linux first began development. Then Linux became fused with GNU to form GNU/Linux. By this time, NetBSD was already a stable, functional technology (and had been since its inception, at which point GNU was still vaporware), having descended directly from the original Unix. GNU/Linux, however, was just born from scratch (more or less) and was still in its infancy. I'd imagine GNU/Linux attained a large driving force behind it because of two things: 1) the licensing and 2) the development model. So, who's the pioneer? Who's the settler? Why can't something be, well, both?
The problem with analogies is that they are usually short-sighted and narrow, and likely to make one look rather stupid unless chosen carefully. I sort of doubt *BSD is suddenly going to dethrone GNU/Linux. While I'm all for the various BSD teams marking their mark upon the world, I tend to look down on hubris such as McKusick's. Licensing issues are a key reason why J. Random Hacker will or will not work on a given project. While many hackers disagree with RMS, not nearly as many disagree with his preference of licensing. If that was not the case, well, then *BSD would be where GNU/Linux is right now, don't you think..?
In short, McKusick can have whatever pipe dream he wants, but I, for one, thinks he makes some pretty damn odd extrapolations.
I swear, I'm sick of hearing "It's the [insert vacuous shot in the dark reason for long-winded explanation of whoever's narrow (or even broad) opinions here], stupid". Anyone else get tired of reading articles that say, "Hey, stupid, let me clue you in!" I'd have more to say, but I'm having trouble getting past that part (it's the second article in a row that had that stupid paraphrase.. "It's all in the originality, you damned idiot!" =P).
I got to read the 1st page of three, then when I tried to make it to the next page, I got the same error. Damn early morning Slashdotters. =P At any rate..
I've never read nor been inclined to even look at OSO before, but from the blurbs I saw during my brief stay it looks like all of their stories or articles or whatever you want to call them are submitted by readers/users/lusers/whatever.. As such, I wouldn't exactly refer to it as your traditional media (unless I misread or misinterpreted what I saw.. it is early, after all).
J. Random Idiot will never understand computers, the software industry, or what makes things like the Internet and the Web "go". They'll certainly never understand GNU/Linux, much less hackers. I don't really get bothered by them trying to make a buck of capitalize on the whole "geek" thing, because, well, being a geek, I don't spend a lot of time "out in the world", so to speak.. so the only time I realize how clueless these people are are through my random encounters with reality and the news. All in all, I'd say it doesn't affect me very much.
Warning.. I'm about to go on a tanget.. ;)
I also don't think it's important whether or not GNU/Linux makes it big in the commercial world. ESR seems to disagree, but since when did I ever care about his thoughts? Sure, I don't entirely agree with RMS, either, but surprisingly enough, his views seem much less fanatical and hypocritical to me. With the advent of the Web, it's simply not necessary to be big in the commercial world to make decent software available to those who want it, so all of ESR's bitching about not wanting another hacker project to fail even though its technically superior are a decade or two too late. The network is now large enough that such software can be distributed to everyone without having to bother with commercial vendors.
On top of which is the fact that distributions of the OS were begun by commercial vendors and other groups some time before the term "open source" was coined. But, I've talked enough. I say fuck it, let the public and ESR think and do whatever they want. It doesn't really matter in the long run, because I don't care if Joe Public wants to use Linux or not, or if companies want to market it. If so, fine. Who cares? Let's all get back to doing something more important.
..a fundamental drive amongst scientists everywhere: the urgent need to accomplish something because we can (specifically, to prove this notion), not necessarily because we should (or can even find a useful application of the discovery that would validate the time and effort expended).
Whether or not the mammoth would be "tortured" is not an argument I care to play into (especially since arguments on such topics seem to be especially shallow), but I might point out that the more animals we are able to clone, the closer we get to cloning an actual human, which is something that certainly sparks a lot of interest among scientists and the world at large.
..that nothing innovative comes out of the free software community? At least I've never heard of anything quite like this before..
However..
I'm not sure I exactly like the idea of my processes beating each other up. I already had the problem of processes dying for no apparent reason under Windows. Why would I want to relive one of its worst "features"?
..you'd avoid the word "spelt" at all costs. Now I have a bad taste in my mouth.. Ugh..
I wasn't talking down to you before. But you know what? Now I am. Before I was just going on a random tangent. Why is that? Because of your imprecise use of the English language, which left some ambiguity as to what the last section of your original sentence was in reference to (of course, having said that, I'm now inviting all sorts of bizarre scrutiny concerning my usage of the English language, but you know what? I'm all for it). I took it to mean that you were saying the PC was responsible for the Web (not that odd of an assumption given the post you were referring to and the fact that if that wasn't what it meant, your post would seem just a little bit clueless, and pretty much offtopic [at least as IIRC, because Slashdot is having serious server problems right now]).
By the way, you fool (your deragotory comments made in light of my rather polite response only serve to make you look like a total asshole, not to mention completely ignorant for thinking I wasn't making a polite suggestion), the origins of HTML and the Web have a fuck of a lot to do with one another. Based on your offhand remark, however, I realize that you had absolutely no fucking idea of that. Which means you're a) barking up a tree you shouldn't even be near, much less pissing on b) you're trying to troll or c) you're really stupid (the ever-popular d) would assert any/all of the previously proposed options).
Now that I have, for the first time ever, talked down to you, you may now become "enraged" and act like a little troll baby. If you choose not to, I'll go back to being polite. Otherwise, expect to be ignored or flamed, depending upon how bored I am.
(by the way, PCs would be the primary cause for anything becoming popular with most of humanity with regards to computing.. why is that, you might ask? because most people own PCs, not workstations, servers, or mainframes.. pretty fucking weird, huh? so.. any more completely redundant points you'd like to offer? like that Windows became popular because of the PC? that breathing became popular because of air? that art became popular because of eyeballs? hmm?)
He really didn't say anything useful except that "MTV is bullshit" in more ways than I can count. I guess the critical issue is this: he never really gave me a clear indication of what he thinks a hacker is. Maybe there's something I'm just not drawing a conclusion from based on the fact that I didn't watch the MTV thing and don't really consider HNN to be a hacker resource by any means (mainly because aside from looking at cracked pages and trivial things like this link, there's nothing tangile I ever see on there that I don't see on Slashdot first.. and how is cracking a hacker thing? maybe I just haven't stared at HNN long enough to get it.. but then, my time is already monopolized by "other" things). I think he'd get more credibility points if a) he defined what he thinks a hacker is and b) he spelled better/used proper English (sorry, low blow I know, but hey..).
The Web was invented for very much the exact same reasons that Signal 11 cited for the Internet. Perhaps you should do a little more research into the origins of HTML and how Tim Berners-Lee first kicked off this whole fiasco.. If anything made anything else popular, the Web made the Internet popular. And yes, you're right, the media doesn't have a clue what the difference is.
You'll notice that HTML is meant to "mark up" text, not define appearance. It wasn't originally intended for the masses. The original form, which was just about perfect for its original users, might have astounded you with its lack of utility with regards to modern "designers". And believe me, these guys weren't using Windows, either. Once again I defer to Signal 11's remarks on the subject..
..why software is not like a skyscraper (sorry for the cheap shot, Signal 11.. I'm sort of bored today ;).
10) Bill Gates doesn't have a monopoly on skyscrapers (..yet).
9) GNU doesn't produce any tools with which to build a skyscraper (..yet).
8) You can't "compile" the blueprints to create a fully constructed building.
7) When the building "core dumps", the garbage is much harder to run through a "debugger".
6) When software "core dumps", it is much less likely to cause the death of several hundred people (unless it has to do with an air control tower..).
5) When Y2K hits the building won't suddenly "crash".
4) You can't make a major structural change to the blueprints and simply "recompile" a completed building.
3) The media doesn't tend to refer to "architects" as "demolitionists".
2) You can't ftp a skyscraper onto your pr0n/warez server.
1) Hax0rs can't crack open a skyscraper from the comfort of their bedroom after just getting home from school, filled with angst over being rejected by the ugliest girl in school.
So basically you're negating your original post? The GPL is pretty restrictive. One of the least restrictive licenses I can think of is the BSD license (which is completely worthless AFAIC.. and no, I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have the choice to use it so lay off everyone). I think you're searching for some other wording. I think you mean to say "proprietary licenses" or "non-free licenses". The GPL is restrictive, but it is also the epitome of "free software" licensing. You should know better than to fall into that semantic trap. ;)
While I'm not precisely a big fan of proprietary software (about the only non-GPL stuff I ever bother to use are PICO and PINE.. which I see no real benefit to GPLing in the first place =P), I've never been all that concerned about non-free game software. Most of the software that I prefer be free are general purpose or otherwise a means to an end (and most especially device drivers ). I don't really care about the newest Quake being free software the moment it comes out any more than I am drooling all over myself to see the PlayStation 2 get "open sourced" (as someone complained that it wasn't.. the argument against closed consoles was quickly follow by retorts of "is something worthless because you can't program it? just because your toaster isn't open source you're not going to use it?" or something like that..).
When it's just a game (especially since most games have a short life expectancy), I really don't see a problem with it. I don't really think generating proprietary software in general is "evil" per se, but I certainly wouldn't waste much time on such things (aside from games.. ;). While it might be nice to see id release the code for their games a while after they come out, I don't see it as any sort of pressing issue that they be free software to begin with, or at all. Stuff you sort of have to rely on, like your operating system or other damn useful tools, I see a problem with helping along proprietary systems that simply don't work like they should (and yet get marketed as the best thing to happen to the world since.. um.. sex..? ..certain religious orders apt to disagree.. ;).
Ok, now that I've beaten my point to death and just about bored myself senseless.. Loki really isn't that bad of a company (haven't they been releasing libraries and other tools they used to create games as free software?), and since games are only for play, it's not quite the same as pushing along "the corporate machine". Now, if a bunch of hackers were invited to Redmond to get all the wrinkles out of Windows 2000 and were offered a neat new computer to the one who did the best work (and lots of notable individuals actually accepted!) then you'd have much more cause for that bad taste in your mouth.
Until then, focus on what's more important. ;)
..have too much faith in humanity (with regards to both compassion and intelligence). Don't get so worked up about it. Not quite worth it. Most sane people likely won't give a damn about such emotionless whelps, anyway..
..especially since subtlety rarely even registers as a blip on my mental radar unless I'm talking to someone in person (or even on the phone), since I usually rely on my empathic nature to communicate with others effectively. ;)
..you should read up just a little on the topics at hand before you shoot your mouth off like that? I believe you should bother yourself to check out this page which defines what "free software" is and what freedoms it is meant to bestow upon you (as there is definitely more than one kind of "freedom" in the world), and that page which goes out of its way to explain the difference between "open source" and "free software". It's almost like getting hit by a clue-by-four, one might say..
If you're still not clue-aware after that, you can go ahead and read this post. If your attention span is too short for that, I'll sum it up with this basic question: who precisely forces you to license your software under the GPL, use GPL'ed software, or modify GPL'ed software? That said, why must you release your source because RMS "said so"? You can certainly use another license or piece of software, don't you think?
Disclaimer: My views, as usual, are strong. I'm very much in the "free software" camp. Enjoy this post at your own leisure if you really care to hear what I have to say.. ;) (I'm also not quite awake.. not enough caffeine..)
Precisely.. wrong. As explained by Stallman himself:
Now, on to the bulk of this post..
Perhaps I should begin by saying that there are several kinds of "freedom". For absolute fanatics (like the one you are arguing with, apparently, as they remind me of some BSD elitists I had the misfortune of speaking with.. note the difference between BSD user/proponent/advocate and elitist .. this is not a bland generalization on my part, as I am not including all those who like BSD), there is this cute little page which explains what "freedoms" the GPL is intended to impart. No one on the GPL side of the fence kids themselves: this is a restrictive license. However, the astute will notice that even a democracy such as the U.S. is not truly "free" in the strictest of terms. Pure anarchy would be much closer to being "free" in the way certain fanatics would scream out against the GPL. For those of you who think like that: get a life.
Before I begin, I think I should note that my political stance is between that of Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, leaning toward the former. I believe free software is better than proprietary software, and dislike using stuff that isn't under the GPL (except for simple things like PINE or PICO, which really don't need me to tinker with them, anyway). However, I understand the need for choice. BSD elitists will complain about the GPL. GPL elitists will complain about the BSD license. However, neither are as restrictive as most proprietary licenses. I must stress that he/she who produces the software is free to use any license they want. You don't like it? Who gives a fuck? No one forces you to use their license. No one forces you to use their software. It's your decision. If you don't like something, don't subject yourself to it. Complaining about it isn't going to make it go away. Elitists on either side of the fence on this issue usually are making arguements which, if they could make them a reality, would take away freedom from the other group. Freedom is about choice. Exercise that freedom, and let others get on with their lives. Otherwise you might as well be Joe Public complaining about how horrible television is and yet you continue to sit on your fat ass and watch it all day. Real productive.
Sort of, but not quite. Source code is what is used to create a given piece of software. If you take this arguement to its logical extreme, you're really complaining that when someone sells you a chair, they should also give you the tools necessary to build it (which would probably be what, an entire factory? heh). Also, you're missing the point that you can't really change a chair. A chair is a chair is a chair. It will always be a chair (or else a pile of useless wood if you get really angry.. or some other material if it's not wooden). Software, however, can evolve. And while some may think its a neat idea to put a third arm on a chair, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Most uses of the term "freedom" are highly generalized. I would like to once again assert that there are several different kinds of freedoms, and obviously if you had some Star Trek-esque replicator people are going to have a hard time keeping you from replicating your chair and giving it to a neighbor. However, by the time our technology is that advanced, there won't be much of a market (or need for) chair makers, as we will by then have a strong market for companies who produce gadgets that fuck with molecular structures and what have you.
Well, that's your right if the software in question is covered under the GPL or a similar licensing scheme. Contrary to popular belief (sort of), people can do with their code whatever they damn well please.
Isn't there already an oppurtunity for Java to fork due to clean-room implementations of the JVM like Japhar and Kaffe (under LGPL and GPL, respectively)? It's a notion that popped into my head a while back, never gave it too much thought, though.. I haven't looked at Java 2.0 (or even that Java compiler I think Cygnus came out with.. as you can tell I don't exactly stay "on top" of the Java scene ;), but I hear it was mostly bloat. A fork in Java might not be all that bad (slap a new name on it, of course), as avoiding bloat is good. ;)
Well, somehow I feel as though benefitting from, buying, and/or stealing the work of others and passing it off as your own (specifically, an idea, product, service that you originally came up with ) is hardly all that innovative, even if the medium was relatively new at the time. I'm sure that has gone on for quite some time, even before well-documented history first began.
The point being made wasn't that these things didn't revolutionize the industry. The point being made was that nothing Bill Gates did was particularly innovative, unless, of course, you think being an asshole is a "brave, new concept".
I really sort of doubt that.. I've never noted RMS going on about much of anything other than software needing to be free. For example, he doesn't think you should "open source" books. Documentation for free software, yes, because documentation needs to evolve along with the software, but books in general and other stuff that "just is" (like most digital media), no.. I believe RMS is enough of an extremist without you people taking his views and extending them to an even more extreme end..
I already fall a little short of his political views just on software, and while I don't feel like wandering GNU or Google to post a link to a page where RMS has said precisely what I've already stated in the first paragraph, I believe I can safely say that RMS bashing in general is pretty much worthless (find something else to do with your time), but you could at least bash him for something he has done or said, rather than something you have theorized.
Labeling what you do as "trolling" would denote some intelligence on your part. You're obviously a clueless idiot. Anyone who manages to get posts moderated down to 0 on a regular basis are unlikely to be anything else. Take me, for example.. at one point I was posting an average of 50 comments every 2 fucking days .. If general concensus agreed with your views, I'd be moderated down like all hell. I think I've gotten a total of maybe 1 or 2 (if any) posts down to a score of 0. I guess not everything I say is pointless garbage?
You also fail to notice something else: I'm rather thick-skinned, and I have a lot of time on my hands. Your feeble attempts to "hurt my feelings" are laughable at best, and only serve to prove with damning certainty your lack of intelligence. If I bore you so much, ignore me you fool. Don't post replies to my comments. Don't read my comments. My name is clearly pasted right along the top of everything I write. You rarely, if ever, have anything of interest whatsoever to add to the conversation, and even more rarely have any grasp on the topics at hand. You do, however, seem to enjoy little "feel-good" sessions whenever someone attacks my comments. Too bad most such attacks are completely unfounded (much like your own.. and if you mean "join everyone else" as in "sink down to the intelligence level of mochaone".. I'd prefer not to get a lobotomy, thanks, and fewer people on Slashdot are as stupid as you (seem to think)). Why don't you grow up?
And people wonder why others think kill files on Slashdot would be a good idea.. ;)
Of course, that was a month ago. And two months before that they had a similar blurb. I'd give them another month before another such blurb arises. ;)
In short: don't hold your breath.