I couldn't agree more. Some of the people voicing rather strong opinions against public debate of personal differences are beginning to sound a little too much like budding "Big Brother" types for my tastes. We're all part of a community, and not errant little children for other members of the community to "parent". Each of us voices our opinion if we feel the need to do so./. being one of the mediums in which we can all make ourselves heard. Personally, I'd rather continue to voice my opinions, and have others voice theirs (whether I agree with them or not), than be led by the nose by anyone or anything. Argh.;)
As things stand, one of the big misconceptions about open source/linux is that it's run by anarchist geeks with long hair who can't be trusted.
That's probably because they don't see many pictures. Most of the more renowned free software hackers have relatively short hair. I do myself, actually (which is not to say that I'm renowned.. farthest from.. but I'm willing to bet that a grand majority of us do not have exceptionally long hair.. if for no other reason than it would take too long to brush and would cut into time that could be spent coding;) Besides.. we are an anarchic community.. and always have been.. and always will be. If business is threatened by that, or the media wants to point it out, who cares? As far as not being able to trust us.. Do you really have to trust us on a personal level? If the software works, use it. We're not peddling used cars or prime beach-side real estate in Arizona here.
Sometimes ESR's comments also get a little high on vanity and boastfulness, and frankly, all it does is make everyone look immature. Similarly, when linux advocates bitterly bite and scratch, and then carry out an extended argument as to who started the fight, who has apologized how many times, etc. etc. it begins to enter the grey area between amusement and shooting-oneself-in-the-foot-with-remarkable-accur acy.
Honestly.. The FSM has caught on fire too well. It's not going to die out. We don't need to court big business and kiss their ass or even make the public like it in order to make it big. Quality software is produced. People like quality software. People like to know that if there is a bug, it will get fixed, and that the fix will not cost them an arm and a leg.
There are so many things that suggest that the FSM holds the upper hand. The commercial sector of the software community has to submit to our way of thinking (or at least try to peacefully coexist) or else they're going to get nailed. Microsoft is just the company with the biggest bullseye on it.
I find the idea of "moderating ourselves" in the manner that you suggest to be rather insulting. If you want to flame someone, burn straight ahead full tilt. Something may just result out of it. Good or bad, your opinion is felt. If we can't express our opinions, what good are we as individuals? And believe me, we're individuals, not a corporate machine with an image to maintain. Stop trying to think that way. Because the same rules simply do not apply.
No, I don't usually partake of this kind of behavior, which is why I warn beforehand.. Flame.. on..!;)
DanaL writes:"No one, that I see, ever claims that Linux is innovative and bleeding edge. [...] If there is innovation, it is in the software development model.
People claim that by implication all the time here, by criticizing Microsoft when it comes to innovation. Hell, the Microsoft logo is the freakin' Bill Gates Borg thing. As for your second assertion, the Unix community had been doing this long before Linux came along. Later in your article you show the exact hypocrisy that I'm talking about: "Microsoft steals ideas and claims them as it's own. Linux cheerfully borrows good ideas!
Are you a tool, or what? She clearly meant that Microsoft incorporates the ideas of others and gives them no due credit, in fact claiming they are some great innovator (i.e., claim that the idea belonged to Microsoft to begin with), whereas with ideas incorporated into GNU/Linux (or software, whatever), there is no claim that, "Hey, we thought of this first!" That statement wasn't meant to make Linux seem more innovative.. she clearly said that she was making no such assertion. All she meant is that the FSM isn't a bunch of dirty lying bastards like Microsoft. Does this not make sense to you?
zantispam writes: "I defy you to prove [that there hasn't been any innovation in the history of Linux]. Yours is the burden of evidence."
No, it's not my burden of evidence, because there is no evidence that there's ever been innovation there. How could I go about proving that something doesn't exist? You could easily refute me, however, if you were to give a few (Hell, even one would be nice) examples of Linux innovation.
Actually, yes it is, troll boy. Why? Because you made an assertion. Therefore, it is up to you to back it up.. Otherwise.. guess what? You sound like a total fscking idiot. Imagine that. We'll get to why this is really funny later, though..
Kitsune Sushi writes: "GNU was meant to be a Unix clone. Therefore, a lot of software had to be rewritten from scratch, so that it would be free. If you think that points to a lack of innovation, I'd like to see you make an OS from scratch without copying anyone else's ideas for any reason. [...] You think Berlin isn't innovative?"
LOL. This is just too rich. So even though Linux has been around for 8 years now, the only innovative thing you can come up with when pressed is a project just celebrating its 0.1.0 release? Kitsune, could you please find something that's at least at 1.0. (Naturally, no offense intended to the Berlin team.)
Ok, before I respond to this..
...because GNU predated Linux for quite a while.
Are you sure you even know what the difference between GNU and Linux are? I mean, are you talking about the fscking kernel, the GNU system (with the Linux kernel), or um, the FSM in general? You're apparently rather.. clueless.
Now, back to my response to your response to my response..;) First off, I'm not "pressed". I'm not going to sit here and yawn while you dissect whether or not any given project is "innovative" or not. Then again, I just gave you "(Hell, even one would be nice) [example] of Linux innovation.". So until you can back yourself up and stop with all the double-talk, shut the fsck up, especially since you never specified whether or not the "innovation" in question should be finished or not. Not only that, but no project is ever truly finished.
What do you consider to be innovative, anyway? Pretty much any kind of application imaginable has been done long before.. well, just about anything you use today, thank you ever so much. Nowadays you can only make more powerful, more feature rich, more whatever versions. Care to name a few editors more robust than Emacs? If you say vi I'll seriously have to smack you. The GPL isn't innovative? I'll be damned if it's not. Why don't you make a more clear point of what's so unoriginal about all of this? And if Unix is so badass and we had all of this stuff before, tell me again why we aren't all using Unix on our desktops? Tell me why most people are using Windows (I dare you to find innovation there, and not with regards to marketing), and how come GNU/Linux is more popular than *BSD, even though *BSD has been functional for far longer?
As for your first point: No, it's not innovation. Innovation is coming up with new ideas, not a bunch of codemonkeys getting together and banging away until they finally get a functional copy of a previously existing app.
Oh.. wait.. really? Then, what in the bloody fucking hell are you talking about!? Why should it matter, then, whether or not Berlin is finished? It's an interesting "idea", is it not? There's your one example. Shut your noise hole until you can make some sense, damnit.;)
The raison d'etre for my original post wasn't to slam Linux itself, not at all, just to point out a flaw in the thinking of a large number of its users.
And you're not a prime example of flawed thinking? From your first response to DanaL, you haven't been able to track the conversation effectively, nor make any strong points.. about anything. I defy you to actually make sense.
First off, excuse my brief escapes into the humorous (though, by past examples, I'd say your average./ moderator doesn't think I'm funny in the least =P), but they're "kind of" the point.. Second off, this could make a little less sense than it could thanks to Slashdot being "uncooperative" with allowing me to connect throughout the preview process.. I think I lost some of my little essay here along the way.;)
Ok, to begin with, the free software movement is completely anarchic. Despite popular belief, there are no "leaders". All of us have wildly different opinions. For instance, my political stance resides somewhere between Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds. There are, however, a great number of highly respected individuals who have made great contributions. However, they are all part of the community. Some people command more respect and recognition from others, but there are no true "leaders".
Secondly, since everyone has so many wildly different opinions, various debates spark up all the time, and despite Tom's assertion that the heat diminishes the light (quite contrary, it makes it shine so much brighter.. makes it sooo much easier to see that which makes sense and separate it from so much drivel..) - of course, I think Tom is a tool (sorry Tom, love your work =P) - all of this debate, eloquent and persuasive, or vitrolic and flaming with anger, is all quite necessary.
Whenever, for instance, I myself say something that clashes with someone else's opinions too harshly (or is a blatant factual error), I expect a retort. Maybe it will be gentle, maybe not. However, if you can't handle the criticism, constructive or not, quit stirring up the flame and just shut up. If you don't want to get burned, don't play with fire. Get it?
That said, none of us can keep our opinions out of what we say. Some of us are better than others, however.. Allow me to illuminate this particular example, a response from ESR about the lack of a free software entry in the Jargon File..
I don't think you want me to write it, though. I would find it hard to avoid using phrases like "rhetorical millstone around our necks" and "held us back for fifteen years". Care to submit one yourself?
Hardly what I'd call "constructive criticism", Eric. And this is public. And I take that personally. And I do regard it as vicious, not to mention quite unfounded. But so what? We're all entitled to our opinions. So long as we don't represent our opinions as the view of the community at large, we're in good shape.
At any rate, where would we be without the term free software and the man who coined it? We certainly wouldn't have the term "open source" right now if not for that history being there, paving the way for all sorts of opinions and methods for achieving like-minded goals..
In short, whether or not it causes a low signal to noise ratio, it is imperative that public discussion continue regarding those issues which could potentially affect us as a community or us as individuals. Everyone's opinions should be heard, though not everyone's opinions will be widely accepted. However, isn't that how one arrives at a concensus anyhow? Our fate shouldn't be decided by a few select people, but rather the combined whole. Therefore, it is natural for anyone and everyone's motives, philosophies, or whatever to come into constant question, especially if they are higher up on the recognition scale. We're all here to represent our own interests, not blindly follow the interests of others.
As an aside, it might be a wise decision to put your personal feelings aside, so as to not get them bruised. Sure, it's hard not to take things personally, especially if they are personal, but it is worthwhile to look into what someone is saying, whether they're eloquent or not.. decide for yourself if there is any truth to it, even if it's a flame.. It's always important to consider the opinions and thoughts of others, because no one is right all the time. Or even most of the time, usually. People get flamed all the time. I have experienced the joy many times. Sometimes it's because I screwed up and deserved, and I accept this, and sometimes it was uncalled for and I either opt to ignore them or debunk what they said, piece by piece. Never do I outright refuse to listen, however.
At any rate, whether I'm making sense or not (considering how brokenly I put this together and my refusal to fix it.. I may not be, but I have places to be..), perhaps it might be worthwhile to ponder these things. Perhaps not. As with all things, the choice is ultimately up to you, the individual. Which is what this is all about..
Supposing I use some GPL code in a program, and then sell the binaries only. I'm breaking the GPL, right?
You're breaking the GPL if a) the entire program in which you incorporated GPL'ed code into isn't subsequently GPL'ed and/or b) you do not include the source code with the binaries should you choose to charge money for the distribution of said binaries.
Now supposing I use some LGPL or BSDish code in a program, and then sell the binaries. I'm fine... or am I?
BSD and LGPL.. not exactly the same thing. With the BSD license you can turn all of the code strictly proprietary, and subsequently do whatever you want with it, because now it's yours. With the LGPL, the LGPL'ed program is still free (speech), and basically follows all of the tenets of the GPL (source code, free, can't change it's license.. except that I believe it can be transformed into GPL'ed software), except that you can include it in a proprietary package. However, unlike the GPL, the LGPL stuff wouldn't be quite so "viral".. only in regards to code added to the program proper (the LGPL'ed program, naturally).
Is this where the friction happens? It seems to me that some folks would like the, er, "option" of making a profit from software they create with the help of Open Source libs or something, without redistributing their code.
More or less. The BSD fanatics aren't pissed because they want the option of making a buck, necessarily, it's because they regard the talk of "freedom" in the GPL as double-speak. They believe that "freedom" means that they can do whatever the hell they want with the code. Contribute to society, make a buck, neglect to include source code with distribution.. whatever. The spirit of the license is to keep it free, but it allows you to do practically whatever. The GPL, on the other hand, is a big mean GNU with a baseball bat ready to club anyone who doesn't follow its standards of "freedom".. Which basically means, "This software is free. It wants to stay that way. If you try to take its freedom away, I'm going to have to hurt you." The BSD license basically says, "Please keep me free, but if you want to make me your bitch, I won't say no, because I believe too strongly in the good of humanity or whatever." Or something like that..;)
No, that dramatization wasn't meant as a disclaimer, though as a disclaimer, I've had some unfortunate run-ins with incredibly biggoted BSD advocates. Point is, the BSD license advocates (at the least the extreme ones I've been talking about thus far) believe the GPL is "too restrictive". I think they're nuts. Thus, friction. I figure if you want to slap a BSD style license on something, you might as well just make it public domain.. =P
Philosophical clashes (and other like-minded disagreements on key issues) has been rather common for some time now. There are various factions with different philosophical bents. The easiest division is between those who prefer the term free software, and the ones who prefer the term open source. However, our community has not fallen apart. Nor will it. It is certainly not doomed. Personally, I could care less if it was "business worthy", as by virtue of using something like the GPL, you never intended to make money in the first place.
Furthermore, another reason why this development model succeeds is because it is/not/ a business. There is practically nothing and no one worth buying out, putting pressure on, etc. It just doesn't work. It's easy to apply pressure to a smaller business, it's impossible to crush an idea. This movement is not going to end just because a few of us can't keep our cool. Or if we disagree. I find it personally distasteful that many slam RMS. Without him, where would we be, hmm? Regardless, those who like him and those who don't work together, as ESR pointed out (though not in those words.. he meant it more generally.. as do I, really).
Debate and the occasional (..?) grating of different opinions are good. It shows we still have individual perspectives. That the best ideas will probably shine through. That every idea and thought or whatever that is contributed will be scrutinized and tested, to make sure it is a worthy addition. Public debate is something we can not afford to be without, no matter what the cost.
In short, I'm not entirely sure how this can be interpreted as a Bad Thing. I'm certainly as opionated as any, and I see no reason why those who are the most respected in our community be any different. Because we all still individuals. That's a Good Thing. Let's keep it that way.
don't see a chasm there, Tom. After all, we're all still writing and exchanging code. We're all using basically the same set of licenses. I don't think there are properly two different movements at all, outside the imaginations of a few rather fanatical partisans on both sides.
Sounds perfectly reasonable, right? Well, how about.. this.. in regards to not having an entry in the Jargon File for free software..
I don't think you want me to write it, though. I would find it hard to avoid using phrases like "rhetorical millstone around our necks" and "held us back for fifteen years". Care to submit one yourself?
Yeah. I much prefer the term "open source", which has allowed businesses all over the world to corrupt the term into a ludicrious piece of.. urgh.. Besides which, I believe this is an excellent example of the idea that ESR is one of those fanatics.. Just look at, say, the Linux entry in the Jargon File for an "objective" opinion (I just love those parathesized sections..)
Personally, I find it very hard to even bother listening to someone who can't seem to take criticism from someone like, say, Bruce Perens (not that I always agree with Bruce either;). Point is, ESR has always shoved his opinions down into everything he's done, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm wrong. I find it rather unappealing, however. I'm just as opionated, but at least I can be objective when it counts.
I'm going to assume that you mean GNU/Linux and the entire free software movement rather than just the Linux kernel, or else you're making even less sense. Yes, the first paragraph of mine is dripping with acidic sarcasm.
There's nothing wrong with slurping up ideas. Ideas aren't even protected by copyright law. The free software movement is cool because we try to make software better. We let other people contribute. We don't try to screw people other with software that has significant lossage just to make a buck. Microsoft is just out to market their junkware, crush all innovative competition (it could be a threat), and bleed the consumer dry.
If you can't see the difference, you're the one who needs a dose of the truth. Speaking of which, I don't think you'll be marked down for "preaching it how it is brother", but rather because you seem to be trolling. GNU was meant to be a Unix clone. Therefore, a lot of software had to be rewritten from scratch, so that it would be free. If you think that points to a lack of innovation, I'd like to see you make an OS from scratch without copying anyone else's ideas for any reason. Sounds stupid, right? That's because it is.
Now that we have all the basic stuff, this is where the strong innovation hits. You think Berlin isn't innovative? Come ooonn.. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one, pal.
If big business wants to play, it's on our terms. Not theirs. I steadfastly refuse to accept any new license. Why? Because it could only do what the GPL does, only worse. Wow. Pardon if I don't get all excited about that..
Big business will be forced to play along whether they like it or not. They can adapt.. or die.. While I don't usually agree with ESR, I do in the following case:
Do you see our designs, or our licenses, or our coding practices being changed in any significant way by corporate participation? Again, I think the answer is pretty clear.
The truth is, they're not transforming us. We're transforming them.
Damn right. As it should be. Anyone who disagrees.. Obviously isn't very into free software..
Besides, software companies will produce products for Linux simply because of its growing popularity. Otherwise they miss out on a new market oppurtunity. And the vendors who put together distributions of Linux don't need any "coaxing". They see a chance to make a buck, and take it, and don't try to introduce some new screwy license. Point is, we don't have to pretend to be their "bitch" in order to get companies on the ball. If you think so, there's no point in using the GPL, or inventing a new license. Just use BSD- or X-style licensing. Real simple.
As I said, it was meant in good jest. I wasn't trying to be cold.:)
Most people are stronger in certain areas. This does not mean that you are not "smart". WomEn are stronger, smarter, and more beautiful than they have ever been. It is a shame that most women, when viewed not in person, are commonly mistaken for a man.
Too true.. just about everyone excels in a few particular areas above all the others. Frighteningly enough, for me that is writing, creative thought, debate, and other such endeavors that require a strong grasp of the English language, an imagination, and some smarts.;) I wonder how many other people dislike advanced math (aside from myself?) and still enjoy (and are adept at) coding?
I couldn't really agree with whether or not women are "..." than "..." ever.. Mainly because, well, I'd have had to have been around for quite a bit longer to do a comprehensive case study. Hee hee..
Unlike many (too many, one might say..), I actually like intelligent, confident, self-reliant women (my choice of romantic interest illustrates this perfectly).. Not only that, most of my friends are female (I find most people of the same gender as I to be.. somewhat less than agreeable company most of the time.. I'm not sure why, many women I know are just as immature as many men.. perhaps it's just because they are such in a different way.. or because I only spend time with/intelligent/ women..;).
Anyway, on the Internet, I don't usually assume gender either way (well, unless your screen name kind of points it out.. and only then because I don't really feel like second-guessing that kind of thing.. =P).
Hmm.. Be gentle.. or not.. I'm delirious today..;)
This has led to the euphemization of free as "open source", and a plethora of so-called open source software licenses, that are almost, but not quite, as free as the GPL. With business being what it is, this should come as no surprise.
At this point I'd like to extend a big thank you to ESR and OSI.. real swift going, guys.
The trouble with many of these open source licenses is that they tend to be received with less than abundant enthusiasm by hackers -- the very people that business is counting on to debug, extend, and support, some latest software venture, all for free, while someone else makes a profit.
Hackers.. not as stupid as the suits seem to think. I swear each new "open source" license feels like a direct insult. Makes me want to strangle the legal team who wrote it up and the people who set them loose on such an unholy task.
Ok, I'm sick of looking for quotes, so the rest of this is going to be off the top of my head (be afraid.. I just woke up..).. Do we really want to make "big business" all warm and fuzzy? It seems to me that if they want to survive in our little part of the software community, they need to find a way to do it themselves, without trying to compromise our integrity (screw us over with stupid licensing) or insult our intelligence (think we'll get a nice warm and fuzzy feeling because they used the words "open source").
Coining the term "open source" was entirely so it would not be threatening to businesses. Look where that "intelligent" decision got us.. I'm not so sure why everyone thinks we need to bend over backwards to get commercial support. We certainly don't need a whole lot of help producing quality products (a lot of GPL'ed alternatives blow the traditional software out of the water), nor do we need to do much of anything to have commercial support (I don't think we had to hold Red Hat by the hand to get them to participate.. do you?). The question being, I suppose.. what the hell do these companies who are scared to death of the GPL really have to offer us? And why are we trying to seduce them? Why does that even make sense to anyone? Someone care to explain this to me..?
Look, if you want to "play nice" with business, use a BSD- or X-style license (give up hard work to be popular if someone wants your work), or the LGPL (keep hard work free (speech) and still let it play with the "slaves"). Otherwise, why not stick to the GPL? I see no need to reinvent the wheel. If businesses want to make an "open" license that allows them to bundle stuff back into a proprietary ball, screw them. I've got better things to do than help someone make a buck without making some money myself. If they want to make it convertible to the GPL, guess what? I'm going to do so and they can just about kiss my ass.
Why are we constantly reinventing the wheel just to screw ourselves? Using the term "open source" instead of "free (speech)"? Trying to think of idiotic licenses that don't serve to fill any real niche in the world? Argh.. Brain.. hurts..
You're never gonna believe it: a chip that will emulate the x86.
Dear god (bet you'd never hear an atheist say that, eh? =P), I really hope that Rob was being sarcastic when he said that..
From AJ:
This confirms what we were able to decypher from the patent document.
Yeah, we were all speculating on this for quite some time now.. (indeed, it was speculated that the Transmeta processor would eventually emulate all the major architectures..) Which just goes to show that Rob and co. really don't read our posts.. Ever. It was only one of the most talked about topics in recent weeks..;) We're never going to believe it, indeed.. Too damn slow CNet! =P
Ahem... I know it is being a little nit-picky, but isn't the formal definition of public domain significantly different from the GNU GPL? It would seem as if the people marketing this need a little course in Linux 101.
But of course. Public domain means "without copyright". The GPL is clearly a copyright license (though we like to call it copyleft, for obvious reasons;). Public domain is about as useful to me as BSD- or X-style licensing (more or less).
And who ever said marketing people were clued in? Have you seen the commercials on TV lately? In simpler times, such things were meant as vehicles to sell products. Nowadays.. I don't know.. I just don't know.. =P
She has a command of the English language more or less comparable to mine (that is, neither of us have to "dumb down" our conversation for the other.. though we once in a while stray into vocabulary the other hasn't been exposed to before), she also (like me, but unlike the rest of the Internet) can't stand people who abbreviate words and use alternate spellings like a warez d00d (I won't bore you with examples =), and has actually expressed an interesting in learning about programming. (I can not even/begin/ to express how unnaturally hard it is to find someone who is extremely creative, interesting, fun, intelligent, etc.)
Of course, I want to learn more about different/human/ languages, and she's fluent in a few. So it works out nicely. Hee hee..
Anyway, I don't know about any other hackers, but I personally don't drool around and lust after women (not to say I don't like women;).. But then again, I suppose I'm a little more eloquent (and otherwise sensible..?) than many people I know. Which is to say, most males/and/ females I know really have no business looking for a date until they finally figure out how to treat a romantic interest (or a person in general.. is it just me or do people seem exceptionally selfish and self-centered, uncaring, etc. these days?). And trust me, I've heard females say things just as "sexist" or whatever term you care to use as any male. It's a human being issue, not a male (geek or not) thing.;)
Just be careful which circles you swim in when you say things like that. I'm sure a lot of zealots would refer to such a thing as blasphemy. Personally, I don't care, but I would rather it remained named Perl (and I'm sure it will, unless someone assassinates Larry;). Hee hee..
A direct reference to the statement that Topaz is a better name for Perl than Perl, nothing to do with what Perl stands for, for those geniuses out there who can't track a thread intelligently.
Honestly, that was funny? I guess some moderator has never read the Camel Book before (or else has a real twisted perception of reality). Yes, I'm patiently awaiting being moderated down. I don't care. That was stupid.;)
I don't think they're looking at putting Linux on desktops at the moment (like Dell seems to be).
Dell isn't "looking" to put Linux on desktops.. They already have. Unfortunately, due to their "Winmodem" policy, you can't get a desktop with a modem (if you prefer Ethernet, you likely don't care, especially if you live in a dorm). A quick skim through their site should back that up. (I'd post a direct link, but their site loads too slowly for my tastes)
Of course, I still think it's funny that they appear to offer Logitech mice, but in the custom config page for their Linux systems, you aren't given a choice. It's MS IntelliMouse or.. well.. MS IntelliMouse. Yay!
A number of C compilers still don't conform to ANSI. I've noted that they aren't in very widespread use. Personally, while I'm in love with the idea of Perl being rewritten in C++, I'd rather it was fully ANSI/ISO compliant. I could just about smack Chip across the face for even thinking thoughts about Visual C++. (am I the only person who thinks MS Visual anything is simply a Bad Idea?)
A number of C compilers still don't conform to ANSI. I've noted that they aren't in very widespread use. Personally, while I'm in love with the idea of Perl being rewritten in C++, I'd rather it was fully ANSI/ISO compliant. I could just about smack Chip across the face for even thinking thoughts about Visual C++. (am I the only person who thinks MS Visual anything is simply a Bad Idea?)
Just be careful which circles you swim in when you say things like that. I'm sure a lot of zealots would refer to such a thing as blasphemy. Personally, I don't care, but I would rather it remained named Perl (and I'm sure it will, unless someone assassinates Larry;). Hee hee..
I believe difficulty in code maintenance with languages such as C was one of the primary reasons for the spawning of object oriented programming languages (complex and sometimes unwieldly though they may be to many), such as C++.
Kill paranthesized section and subsequent comma, and you get a little closer to my point. I wasn't attempting to take a historical look at OOP in general, just it's recent widespread popularity (with regards to C++ vs. C).
C++ isn't a pure OO language; it's a procedural/OO hybrid language due to being based on C. It's unwieldyness isn't explained by this. Other OO and OO/hybrid languages (say Objective C which was a stronger influence on Java's OO nature than C++) are a lot less unwieldy.
One might even say less useful. Java hurts my mind, yet C++ doesn't, so the term "unwieldly" is merely an opinion (well, it could be considered a documented fact in the case of certain languages.. but certainly not among the languages of choice), which is why I said "some" people might find it to be so.
Besides, C++ isn't so much a procedural/OOP hybrid as that it allows you to use C within C++ (though if you do, you are clearly missing the point of using C++ in the first place.. unless you have a real good reason for doing such a thing). Yes, Java lets you "play it safe" (and I won't even go into Objectionable C), but it sacrifices a bit of power and versatility. I'll take the power and versatility, thanks.
Nowadays, Object Orientation and OO programming are popular because they allow for a more natural modelling of problem domains and implementations of solutions than the procedural approach which makes it possible to deal with larger problem sizes.
An excellent point, though I don't see how this debunks the notion that encapsulation, and subsequent ease of code maintenance, is not a primary factor is the widespread acceptance of OOP and/or C++.
I just find it amusing that I had to email SPARC International in order to obtain that piece of information. Nowhere on Sun's nor SPARC's site have I seen any mention as to what that acronym stood for. Most sites make those kinds of things rather clear. Otherwise, there would be little point to having an acronym if no one knew what it meant, eh?
As a personal amusement, you may want to look up "SPARC" on Google. SPARC International aren't the only ones who use that acronym.. the other ones are kind of funny..;)
..and no this isn't intended as a flame (I'm sure it will be interpreted as one by many anyway, but whatever..;).. if this comes from someone who thinks that Perl stands for Practical Extraction and Report Language..
The usual complaint I hear is that C is slower than Perl in many situations (despite Perl being written in C). I believe the reasons for many of these complaints about poor performance may be the result of subtle trolling (subtle..?). I think it's rather amusing that a comment was made about Perl becoming slower than Java because of this (especially since C/C++ is generally preferred because of their speed and widespread application, while Java has been long degraded due to a distinct lack of punch with regards to performance).
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't agree more. Some of the people voicing rather strong opinions against public debate of personal differences are beginning to sound a little too much like budding "Big Brother" types for my tastes. We're all part of a community, and not errant little children for other members of the community to "parent". Each of us voices our opinion if we feel the need to do so. /. being one of the mediums in which we can all make ourselves heard. Personally, I'd rather continue to voice my opinions, and have others voice theirs (whether I agree with them or not), than be led by the nose by anyone or anything. Argh. ;)
That's probably because they don't see many pictures. Most of the more renowned free software hackers have relatively short hair. I do myself, actually (which is not to say that I'm renowned.. farthest from.. but I'm willing to bet that a grand majority of us do not have exceptionally long hair.. if for no other reason than it would take too long to brush and would cut into time that could be spent coding ;) Besides.. we are an anarchic community.. and always have been.. and always will be. If business is threatened by that, or the media wants to point it out, who cares? As far as not being able to trust us.. Do you really have to trust us on a personal level? If the software works, use it. We're not peddling used cars or prime beach-side real estate in Arizona here.
Honestly.. The FSM has caught on fire too well. It's not going to die out. We don't need to court big business and kiss their ass or even make the public like it in order to make it big. Quality software is produced. People like quality software. People like to know that if there is a bug, it will get fixed, and that the fix will not cost them an arm and a leg.
There are so many things that suggest that the FSM holds the upper hand. The commercial sector of the software community has to submit to our way of thinking (or at least try to peacefully coexist) or else they're going to get nailed. Microsoft is just the company with the biggest bullseye on it.
I find the idea of "moderating ourselves" in the manner that you suggest to be rather insulting. If you want to flame someone, burn straight ahead full tilt. Something may just result out of it. Good or bad, your opinion is felt. If we can't express our opinions, what good are we as individuals? And believe me, we're individuals, not a corporate machine with an image to maintain. Stop trying to think that way. Because the same rules simply do not apply.
That's Kitsune- san !! I'm not a girl. Hee hee.. ;)
I like that though. A more concise telling. I'm rather.. verbose.. myself. :)
No, I don't usually partake of this kind of behavior, which is why I warn beforehand.. Flame.. on..! ;)
Are you a tool, or what? She clearly meant that Microsoft incorporates the ideas of others and gives them no due credit, in fact claiming they are some great innovator (i.e., claim that the idea belonged to Microsoft to begin with), whereas with ideas incorporated into GNU/Linux (or software, whatever), there is no claim that, "Hey, we thought of this first!" That statement wasn't meant to make Linux seem more innovative.. she clearly said that she was making no such assertion. All she meant is that the FSM isn't a bunch of dirty lying bastards like Microsoft. Does this not make sense to you?
Actually, yes it is, troll boy. Why? Because you made an assertion. Therefore, it is up to you to back it up .. Otherwise.. guess what? You sound like a total fscking idiot. Imagine that. We'll get to why this is really funny later, though..
Ok, before I respond to this..
Are you sure you even know what the difference between GNU and Linux are? I mean, are you talking about the fscking kernel, the GNU system (with the Linux kernel), or um, the FSM in general? You're apparently rather.. clueless.
Now, back to my response to your response to my response.. ;) First off, I'm not "pressed". I'm not going to sit here and yawn while you dissect whether or not any given project is "innovative" or not. Then again, I just gave you "(Hell, even one would be nice) [example] of Linux innovation.". So until you can back yourself up and stop with all the double-talk, shut the fsck up, especially since you never specified whether or not the "innovation" in question should be finished or not. Not only that, but no project is ever truly finished.
What do you consider to be innovative, anyway? Pretty much any kind of application imaginable has been done long before.. well, just about anything you use today, thank you ever so much. Nowadays you can only make more powerful, more feature rich, more whatever versions. Care to name a few editors more robust than Emacs? If you say vi I'll seriously have to smack you. The GPL isn't innovative? I'll be damned if it's not. Why don't you make a more clear point of what's so unoriginal about all of this? And if Unix is so badass and we had all of this stuff before, tell me again why we aren't all using Unix on our desktops? Tell me why most people are using Windows (I dare you to find innovation there, and not with regards to marketing), and how come GNU/Linux is more popular than *BSD, even though *BSD has been functional for far longer?
Oh.. wait.. really? Then, what in the bloody fucking hell are you talking about!? Why should it matter, then, whether or not Berlin is finished? It's an interesting "idea", is it not? There's your one example. Shut your noise hole until you can make some sense, damnit. ;)
And you're not a prime example of flawed thinking? From your first response to DanaL, you haven't been able to track the conversation effectively, nor make any strong points.. about anything. I defy you to actually make sense.
First off, excuse my brief escapes into the humorous (though, by past examples, I'd say your average ./ moderator doesn't think I'm funny in the least =P), but they're "kind of" the point.. Second off, this could make a little less sense than it could thanks to Slashdot being "uncooperative" with allowing me to connect throughout the preview process.. I think I lost some of my little essay here along the way. ;)
Ok, to begin with, the free software movement is completely anarchic. Despite popular belief, there are no "leaders". All of us have wildly different opinions. For instance, my political stance resides somewhere between Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds. There are, however, a great number of highly respected individuals who have made great contributions. However, they are all part of the community. Some people command more respect and recognition from others, but there are no true "leaders".
Secondly, since everyone has so many wildly different opinions, various debates spark up all the time, and despite Tom's assertion that the heat diminishes the light (quite contrary, it makes it shine so much brighter.. makes it sooo much easier to see that which makes sense and separate it from so much drivel..) - of course, I think Tom is a tool (sorry Tom, love your work =P) - all of this debate, eloquent and persuasive, or vitrolic and flaming with anger, is all quite necessary.
Whenever, for instance, I myself say something that clashes with someone else's opinions too harshly (or is a blatant factual error), I expect a retort. Maybe it will be gentle, maybe not. However, if you can't handle the criticism, constructive or not, quit stirring up the flame and just shut up. If you don't want to get burned, don't play with fire. Get it?
That said, none of us can keep our opinions out of what we say. Some of us are better than others, however.. Allow me to illuminate this particular example, a response from ESR about the lack of a free software entry in the Jargon File..
Hardly what I'd call "constructive criticism", Eric. And this is public. And I take that personally. And I do regard it as vicious, not to mention quite unfounded. But so what? We're all entitled to our opinions. So long as we don't represent our opinions as the view of the community at large, we're in good shape.
At any rate, where would we be without the term free software and the man who coined it? We certainly wouldn't have the term "open source" right now if not for that history being there, paving the way for all sorts of opinions and methods for achieving like-minded goals..
In short, whether or not it causes a low signal to noise ratio, it is imperative that public discussion continue regarding those issues which could potentially affect us as a community or us as individuals. Everyone's opinions should be heard, though not everyone's opinions will be widely accepted. However, isn't that how one arrives at a concensus anyhow? Our fate shouldn't be decided by a few select people, but rather the combined whole. Therefore, it is natural for anyone and everyone's motives, philosophies, or whatever to come into constant question, especially if they are higher up on the recognition scale. We're all here to represent our own interests, not blindly follow the interests of others.
As an aside, it might be a wise decision to put your personal feelings aside, so as to not get them bruised. Sure, it's hard not to take things personally, especially if they are personal, but it is worthwhile to look into what someone is saying, whether they're eloquent or not.. decide for yourself if there is any truth to it, even if it's a flame.. It's always important to consider the opinions and thoughts of others, because no one is right all the time. Or even most of the time, usually. People get flamed all the time. I have experienced the joy many times. Sometimes it's because I screwed up and deserved, and I accept this, and sometimes it was uncalled for and I either opt to ignore them or debunk what they said, piece by piece. Never do I outright refuse to listen, however.
At any rate, whether I'm making sense or not (considering how brokenly I put this together and my refusal to fix it.. I may not be, but I have places to be..), perhaps it might be worthwhile to ponder these things. Perhaps not. As with all things, the choice is ultimately up to you, the individual. Which is what this is all about..
You're breaking the GPL if a) the entire program in which you incorporated GPL'ed code into isn't subsequently GPL'ed and/or b) you do not include the source code with the binaries should you choose to charge money for the distribution of said binaries.
BSD and LGPL.. not exactly the same thing. With the BSD license you can turn all of the code strictly proprietary, and subsequently do whatever you want with it, because now it's yours. With the LGPL, the LGPL'ed program is still free (speech), and basically follows all of the tenets of the GPL (source code, free, can't change it's license.. except that I believe it can be transformed into GPL'ed software), except that you can include it in a proprietary package. However, unlike the GPL, the LGPL stuff wouldn't be quite so "viral".. only in regards to code added to the program proper (the LGPL'ed program, naturally).
More or less. The BSD fanatics aren't pissed because they want the option of making a buck, necessarily, it's because they regard the talk of "freedom" in the GPL as double-speak. They believe that "freedom" means that they can do whatever the hell they want with the code. Contribute to society, make a buck, neglect to include source code with distribution.. whatever. The spirit of the license is to keep it free, but it allows you to do practically whatever. The GPL, on the other hand, is a big mean GNU with a baseball bat ready to club anyone who doesn't follow its standards of "freedom".. Which basically means, "This software is free. It wants to stay that way. If you try to take its freedom away, I'm going to have to hurt you." The BSD license basically says, "Please keep me free, but if you want to make me your bitch, I won't say no, because I believe too strongly in the good of humanity or whatever." Or something like that.. ;)
No, that dramatization wasn't meant as a disclaimer, though as a disclaimer, I've had some unfortunate run-ins with incredibly biggoted BSD advocates. Point is, the BSD license advocates (at the least the extreme ones I've been talking about thus far) believe the GPL is "too restrictive". I think they're nuts. Thus, friction. I figure if you want to slap a BSD style license on something, you might as well just make it public domain.. =P
Philosophical clashes (and other like-minded disagreements on key issues) has been rather common for some time now. There are various factions with different philosophical bents. The easiest division is between those who prefer the term free software, and the ones who prefer the term open source. However, our community has not fallen apart. Nor will it. It is certainly not doomed. Personally, I could care less if it was "business worthy", as by virtue of using something like the GPL, you never intended to make money in the first place.
Furthermore, another reason why this development model succeeds is because it is /not/ a business. There is practically nothing and no one worth buying out, putting pressure on, etc. It just doesn't work. It's easy to apply pressure to a smaller business, it's impossible to crush an idea. This movement is not going to end just because a few of us can't keep our cool. Or if we disagree. I find it personally distasteful that many slam RMS. Without him, where would we be, hmm? Regardless, those who like him and those who don't work together, as ESR pointed out (though not in those words.. he meant it more generally.. as do I, really).
Debate and the occasional (..?) grating of different opinions are good. It shows we still have individual perspectives. That the best ideas will probably shine through. That every idea and thought or whatever that is contributed will be scrutinized and tested, to make sure it is a worthy addition. Public debate is something we can not afford to be without, no matter what the cost.
In short, I'm not entirely sure how this can be interpreted as a Bad Thing. I'm certainly as opionated as any, and I see no reason why those who are the most respected in our community be any different. Because we all still individuals. That's a Good Thing. Let's keep it that way.
Sounds perfectly reasonable, right? Well, how about.. this.. in regards to not having an entry in the Jargon File for free software..
Yeah. I much prefer the term "open source", which has allowed businesses all over the world to corrupt the term into a ludicrious piece of.. urgh.. Besides which, I believe this is an excellent example of the idea that ESR is one of those fanatics .. Just look at, say, the Linux entry in the Jargon File for an "objective" opinion (I just love those parathesized sections..)
Personally, I find it very hard to even bother listening to someone who can't seem to take criticism from someone like, say, Bruce Perens (not that I always agree with Bruce either ;). Point is, ESR has always shoved his opinions down into everything he's done, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm wrong. I find it rather unappealing, however. I'm just as opionated, but at least I can be objective when it counts.
Berlin sucks. Let's stick to X.
I'm going to assume that you mean GNU/Linux and the entire free software movement rather than just the Linux kernel, or else you're making even less sense. Yes, the first paragraph of mine is dripping with acidic sarcasm.
There's nothing wrong with slurping up ideas. Ideas aren't even protected by copyright law. The free software movement is cool because we try to make software better. We let other people contribute. We don't try to screw people other with software that has significant lossage just to make a buck. Microsoft is just out to market their junkware, crush all innovative competition (it could be a threat), and bleed the consumer dry.
If you can't see the difference, you're the one who needs a dose of the truth. Speaking of which, I don't think you'll be marked down for "preaching it how it is brother", but rather because you seem to be trolling. GNU was meant to be a Unix clone. Therefore, a lot of software had to be rewritten from scratch, so that it would be free. If you think that points to a lack of innovation, I'd like to see you make an OS from scratch without copying anyone else's ideas for any reason. Sounds stupid, right? That's because it is.
Now that we have all the basic stuff, this is where the strong innovation hits. You think Berlin isn't innovative? Come ooonn.. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one, pal.
If big business wants to play, it's on our terms. Not theirs. I steadfastly refuse to accept any new license. Why? Because it could only do what the GPL does, only worse. Wow. Pardon if I don't get all excited about that ..
Big business will be forced to play along whether they like it or not. They can adapt.. or die.. While I don't usually agree with ESR, I do in the following case:
Damn right. As it should be. Anyone who disagrees.. Obviously isn't very into free software..
Besides, software companies will produce products for Linux simply because of its growing popularity. Otherwise they miss out on a new market oppurtunity. And the vendors who put together distributions of Linux don't need any "coaxing". They see a chance to make a buck, and take it, and don't try to introduce some new screwy license. Point is, we don't have to pretend to be their "bitch" in order to get companies on the ball. If you think so, there's no point in using the GPL, or inventing a new license. Just use BSD- or X-style licensing. Real simple.
As I said, it was meant in good jest. I wasn't trying to be cold. :)
Too true.. just about everyone excels in a few particular areas above all the others. Frighteningly enough, for me that is writing, creative thought, debate, and other such endeavors that require a strong grasp of the English language, an imagination, and some smarts. ;) I wonder how many other people dislike advanced math (aside from myself?) and still enjoy (and are adept at) coding?
I couldn't really agree with whether or not women are "..." than "..." ever.. Mainly because, well, I'd have had to have been around for quite a bit longer to do a comprehensive case study. Hee hee..
Unlike many (too many, one might say..), I actually like intelligent, confident, self-reliant women (my choice of romantic interest illustrates this perfectly).. Not only that, most of my friends are female (I find most people of the same gender as I to be.. somewhat less than agreeable company most of the time.. I'm not sure why, many women I know are just as immature as many men.. perhaps it's just because they are such in a different way.. or because I only spend time with /intelligent/ women.. ;).
Anyway, on the Internet, I don't usually assume gender either way (well, unless your screen name kind of points it out.. and only then because I don't really feel like second-guessing that kind of thing.. =P).
Hmm.. Be gentle.. or not.. I'm delirious today.. ;)
At this point I'd like to extend a big thank you to ESR and OSI.. real swift going, guys.
Hackers.. not as stupid as the suits seem to think. I swear each new "open source" license feels like a direct insult. Makes me want to strangle the legal team who wrote it up and the people who set them loose on such an unholy task.
Ok, I'm sick of looking for quotes, so the rest of this is going to be off the top of my head (be afraid.. I just woke up..).. Do we really want to make "big business" all warm and fuzzy? It seems to me that if they want to survive in our little part of the software community, they need to find a way to do it themselves, without trying to compromise our integrity (screw us over with stupid licensing) or insult our intelligence (think we'll get a nice warm and fuzzy feeling because they used the words "open source").
Coining the term "open source" was entirely so it would not be threatening to businesses. Look where that "intelligent" decision got us.. I'm not so sure why everyone thinks we need to bend over backwards to get commercial support. We certainly don't need a whole lot of help producing quality products (a lot of GPL'ed alternatives blow the traditional software out of the water), nor do we need to do much of anything to have commercial support (I don't think we had to hold Red Hat by the hand to get them to participate.. do you?). The question being, I suppose.. what the hell do these companies who are scared to death of the GPL really have to offer us? And why are we trying to seduce them? Why does that even make sense to anyone? Someone care to explain this to me..?
Look, if you want to "play nice" with business, use a BSD- or X-style license (give up hard work to be popular if someone wants your work), or the LGPL (keep hard work free (speech) and still let it play with the "slaves"). Otherwise, why not stick to the GPL? I see no need to reinvent the wheel. If businesses want to make an "open" license that allows them to bundle stuff back into a proprietary ball, screw them. I've got better things to do than help someone make a buck without making some money myself. If they want to make it convertible to the GPL, guess what? I'm going to do so and they can just about kiss my ass.
Why are we constantly reinventing the wheel just to screw ourselves? Using the term "open source" instead of "free (speech)"? Trying to think of idiotic licenses that don't serve to fill any real niche in the world? Argh.. Brain.. hurts..
From Rob:
Dear god (bet you'd never hear an atheist say that, eh? =P), I really hope that Rob was being sarcastic when he said that..
From AJ:Yeah, we were all speculating on this for quite some time now.. (indeed, it was speculated that the Transmeta processor would eventually emulate all the major architectures..) Which just goes to show that Rob and co. really don't read our posts.. Ever. It was only one of the most talked about topics in recent weeks.. ;) We're never going to believe it, indeed.. Too damn slow CNet! =P
But of course. Public domain means "without copyright". The GPL is clearly a copyright license (though we like to call it copyleft, for obvious reasons ;). Public domain is about as useful to me as BSD- or X-style licensing (more or less).
And who ever said marketing people were clued in? Have you seen the commercials on TV lately? In simpler times, such things were meant as vehicles to sell products. Nowadays.. I don't know.. I just don't know.. =P
She has a command of the English language more or less comparable to mine (that is, neither of us have to "dumb down" our conversation for the other.. though we once in a while stray into vocabulary the other hasn't been exposed to before), she also (like me, but unlike the rest of the Internet) can't stand people who abbreviate words and use alternate spellings like a warez d00d (I won't bore you with examples =), and has actually expressed an interesting in learning about programming. (I can not even /begin/ to express how unnaturally hard it is to find someone who is extremely creative, interesting, fun, intelligent, etc.)
Of course, I want to learn more about different /human/ languages, and she's fluent in a few. So it works out nicely. Hee hee..
Anyway, I don't know about any other hackers, but I personally don't drool around and lust after women (not to say I don't like women ;).. But then again, I suppose I'm a little more eloquent (and otherwise sensible..?) than many people I know. Which is to say, most males /and/ females I know really have no business looking for a date until they finally figure out how to treat a romantic interest (or a person in general.. is it just me or do people seem exceptionally selfish and self-centered, uncaring, etc. these days?). And trust me, I've heard females say things just as "sexist" or whatever term you care to use as any male. It's a human being issue, not a male (geek or not) thing. ;)
Let's take another look, shall we?
A direct reference to the statement that Topaz is a better name for Perl than Perl, nothing to do with what Perl stands for, for those geniuses out there who can't track a thread intelligently.
Honestly, that was funny? I guess some moderator has never read the Camel Book before (or else has a real twisted perception of reality). Yes, I'm patiently awaiting being moderated down. I don't care. That was stupid. ;)
Yet another obligatory cheap shot, though meant in good humor.. ;)
I can see why someone found this so amusing.. Anyone else see the cute little error in this sentence? Hee hee..
Dell isn't "looking" to put Linux on desktops.. They already have. Unfortunately, due to their "Winmodem" policy, you can't get a desktop with a modem (if you prefer Ethernet, you likely don't care, especially if you live in a dorm). A quick skim through their site should back that up. (I'd post a direct link, but their site loads too slowly for my tastes)
Of course, I still think it's funny that they appear to offer Logitech mice, but in the custom config page for their Linux systems, you aren't given a choice. It's MS IntelliMouse or.. well.. MS IntelliMouse. Yay!
A number of C compilers still don't conform to ANSI. I've noted that they aren't in very widespread use. Personally, while I'm in love with the idea of Perl being rewritten in C++, I'd rather it was fully ANSI/ISO compliant. I could just about smack Chip across the face for even thinking thoughts about Visual C++. (am I the only person who thinks MS Visual anything is simply a Bad Idea?)
A number of C compilers still don't conform to ANSI. I've noted that they aren't in very widespread use. Personally, while I'm in love with the idea of Perl being rewritten in C++, I'd rather it was fully ANSI/ISO compliant. I could just about smack Chip across the face for even thinking thoughts about Visual C++. (am I the only person who thinks MS Visual anything is simply a Bad Idea?)
Just be careful which circles you swim in when you say things like that. I'm sure a lot of zealots would refer to such a thing as blasphemy. Personally, I don't care, but I would rather it remained named Perl (and I'm sure it will, unless someone assassinates Larry ;). Hee hee..
Kill paranthesized section and subsequent comma, and you get a little closer to my point. I wasn't attempting to take a historical look at OOP in general, just it's recent widespread popularity (with regards to C++ vs. C).
One might even say less useful. Java hurts my mind, yet C++ doesn't, so the term "unwieldly" is merely an opinion (well, it could be considered a documented fact in the case of certain languages.. but certainly not among the languages of choice), which is why I said "some" people might find it to be so.
Besides, C++ isn't so much a procedural/OOP hybrid as that it allows you to use C within C++ (though if you do, you are clearly missing the point of using C++ in the first place.. unless you have a real good reason for doing such a thing). Yes, Java lets you "play it safe" (and I won't even go into Objectionable C), but it sacrifices a bit of power and versatility. I'll take the power and versatility, thanks.
An excellent point, though I don't see how this debunks the notion that encapsulation, and subsequent ease of code maintenance, is not a primary factor is the widespread acceptance of OOP and/or C++.
I just find it amusing that I had to email SPARC International in order to obtain that piece of information. Nowhere on Sun's nor SPARC's site have I seen any mention as to what that acronym stood for. Most sites make those kinds of things rather clear. Otherwise, there would be little point to having an acronym if no one knew what it meant, eh?
As a personal amusement, you may want to look up "SPARC" on Google. SPARC International aren't the only ones who use that acronym.. the other ones are kind of funny.. ;)
..and no this isn't intended as a flame (I'm sure it will be interpreted as one by many anyway, but whatever.. ;).. if this comes from someone who thinks that Perl stands for Practical Extraction and Report Language..
The usual complaint I hear is that C is slower than Perl in many situations (despite Perl being written in C). I believe the reasons for many of these complaints about poor performance may be the result of subtle trolling (subtle..?). I think it's rather amusing that a comment was made about Perl becoming slower than Java because of this (especially since C/C++ is generally preferred because of their speed and widespread application, while Java has been long degraded due to a distinct lack of punch with regards to performance).