It's easy to shut off an alarm and then get back to sleep. The reason for this is that people put their alarm clocks beside their bed. Don't do that! Put it somewhere where you have to get up in order to shut it off. Once you're out of bed, your mind will probably be clear enough not to get back in and sleep.
Being a programmer, I have to compile quite often. I do this from within EMACS. There's a command which you can start with "M-x compile", which runs make. However, it's more efficient for me to bind this command to a short key sequence, since I use it a lot. People writing their email won't need that, but in fact may want to bind other commands, which are handy for editing human-readable text, to hotkeys.
Another key-binding which often comes in handy is binding "goto-line" to "M-g".
The thing is that EMACS comes with so many features and commands that it's impossible to bind them all to efficient key sequences, but there will always be somebody who will find any one of them very helpful. That's why it's good to be able to customize keymaps, for example.
Other, more far-reaching customizations, which do in fact change the way the application works, are integrated source browsers, like JDE, oo-browser, or information management software like hyperbole. Is EMACS a lesser editor because it allows such customizations?
It may be true that customization is not needed - and is indeed detrimental - for applications with very simple and specific uses. I'd be very surprised, for example, if you found a user interface for Minesweeper which is significantly more efficient than the standard one.
But here's the catch: people use the same applications for very diverse sets of tasks. You cannot expect a user interface designer to come up with a UI which is optimal for all foreseeable uses of the application. That's why powerful applications have to be customizable.
A very specific example: EMACS is a text editor. It can be used for writing mails, diaries, articles, web pages, computer programs and so on. It so happens that computer languages like C allow the programmer to layout her code the way she sees most fit. By coincidence, EMACS has a feature which automates this layout process to some degree. But since programmers use different coding styles, it's possible to customize the way EMACS does the layout, in order to fit the preferences of the programmer.
But EMACS goes far beyond that: imagine someone comes up with a new programming language. Do we have to wait for the FSF to make a new version of EMACS which has editing features for this new language? No, we can customize EMACS ourselves to support that new language.
That's why EMACS is an excellent editor for pretty much any editing task and why notepad.exe barely suffices for writing an email.
The MIPS is certainly a very clean instruction set, but the Alpha is nicer, still.
For one, the Alpha architecture was 64 bits to begin with, so the instruction set is a bit cleaner (for example, the shift word right arithmetic instruction on the MIPS is simply not necessary, because both 64 bit and 32 bit shifts can be handled with shift doubleword right arithmetic (Which has two variants, due to the 32-bit roots of the MIPS. The problem is that the shift amount field in the instruction encoding is only 5 bits wide, so it isn't possible to specify an amount greater than 31 bits. The solution is to have a variant which shifts the amount plus 32.)).
The other main differences are that Alpha doesn't have HI/LO registers (i.e. no special registers at all) and doesn't have branch delay slots.
Most of the "anomalies" you cite for command-line interfaces just aren't that. I will go through them one by one:
* constant relearning of old habits: Just as command-line languages can differ from one another, so can GUIs. Granted, the differences cannot be as dramatic as with languages (the reason probably being that languages are far more expressive), but they are there.
* the need for memorization: Again, this is not a question of quality, but of quantity. Granted, languages require much more learning effort than GUIs, but then again they are more expressive.
* the ease of making errors: This is not a shortcoming of command-lines per se. A command-line can easily be configured to alert the user of any unpleasant side-effects a command to be executed might have. The fact that it usually isn't is quite probably due to its user feeling comfortable and secure enough.
* the computer being in control of the human: What is that supposed to mean? I use several command-line languages every day and I do not feel myself being controlled by the computer. On the contrary: being fairly competent in using those languages I can command the computer to do things automatically which a GUI user would have to do by hand repeatedly.
All this "command-line is a thing of the past - the future belongs to GUIs" is nonsense. Command lines give you a language which is usually Turing-complete, meaning you can express the automation of arbitrary tasks. This is something a GUI just cannot do. GUIs provide ways for performing an array of functions, but only very limited means, if at all, of tying these functions together and doing something automatically. And the automation of tasks is what a computer is ultimately for, is it not?
In the article "Freedom, Power, or Confusion" Eric S. Raymond argues
that the term "freedom", which recently Bradley Kuhn with Richard
Stallman and Tim O'Reilly argued about, is confusing and should not be
used with regards to software. Since the term is not concisely
defined, the FSF and O'Reilly can have different concepts in mind when
they use the word.
To solve this problem and to show that the FSF is proposing
unreasonable restrictions, Raymond introduces and defines the invented
word "flerbage". His definition is:
I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence
that nobody will take my life, my physical property, or my time
without my consent.
He then argues along the following lines:
(1) Suppose someone releases an operating system under a proprietary
license. Raymond's flerbage is not changed because he does not
have to use that piece of software, since he can use the Open
Source alternative "Nulix". (If he did use it and did not pay for
it, he might be imprisoned, taking his time away from him, thereby
taking away his flerbage).
(2) One way of taking away his flerbage would be for the proprietary
software company to have a law passed that makes issuing Open
Source software illegal, since then he could not use his "Nulix"
and would either be forced to use the proprietary operating system
and pay for it (taking away his money, hence his flerbage) or to
go to prison (losing flerbage).
(3) His flerbage as a software developer consists in being able to
offer people his software on the conditions that they pay him
money and don't give away copies (and not being killed, fined or
imprisoned for offering the software).
(4) Someone releases an Open Source product which is superior to his
proprietary product. The trade-able value of his proprietary
product might have decreased, but his flerbage is not affected
because he has lost neither life, time, nor physical property.
(5) Suppose a law has been passed that makes proprietary licenses
illegal.
(5a) As a user it does not change his flerbage.
(5b) As a developer his flerbage has decreased because he is no longer
able to offer people software under the same license he has been
before the law was passed.
Let us first examine (1) and (2). In (1) Raymond's flerbage is not
decreased by a proprietary license because he has a free alternative
to the proprietary operating system. In (2) his flerbage is decreased
because by taking away Open Source software this alternative is no
longer available. But has he not still the alternative of not using a
computer at all, thereby not having to pay for the software? One
could argue that he has not because he needs to use a computer for his
job, for instance. This argument is flawed (he still has the
alternative of quitting his job), but assume it is not. We can turn
this argument against him if we ask: what if he needs a special
feature which is only implemented in the proprietary software? With
no Open Source alternative, he has to pay (or go to jail). Again, one
could argue that if proprietary licenses were forbidden, the
proprietary software would not even be available. That might be, but
it might as well be that an Open Source implementation of that feature
would emerge, necessity supposedly being the mother of invention. But
let us take this argument even further: If there were no
implementation of that feature at all, how could his boss force him to
use a software package with that feature (imagine yourself in the year
1901; who at that time HAD to use an operating system?). Maybe it is
not his boss forcing him to use that feature. Instead assume the
software in question is a life support system to be employed in the
intensive care unit in which he is currently fighting for his life.
If there were only a proprietary implementation, he could either pay
for it or die, both ways decreasing his flerbage (the latter more, the
former less). Let us just hope that the software is inexpensive
enough for him to be able to afford it.
But the real core of the matter is contained in (3) and (5b).
Raymond's actual wording of (3) is
Now let's suppose I'm a software developer. I write open-source
software to have fun and make money. I write proprietary software
to have fun and make money. Part of my flerbage is that I can offer
people a license that says "I trade you my software on the condition
that you (a) pay me some money, and (b) don't give a copy to anyone
else." If they accept, fine. If they don't, also fine; I wander
off to find another customer, and they wander off to find another
developer.
First of all, let us note that copyright does not work that way. The
condition "don't give a copy to anyone else" does not just apply to
the person whom the trade is made with; it applies to every single
person living in a country with restrictive copyright laws
(i.e. pretty much the whole industrialized world). Hence if I
download a copy of some proprietary piece of software on the Internet,
I am acting illegally, even though I have never made a trade with the
author of that software and have surely not agreed to any conditions
regarding said software.
In (5b) we see that flerbage of a developer is harmed if he is not
allowed to issue his software under a proprietary license. But why is
a user's flerbage not impaired if he is not allowed to download any
software he wishes from the Internet (or copy it from a friend)?
Obviously there must be some higher principle saying that imposing an
arbitrary license should not be illegal but copying software without
the author's consent should be.
Where does this come from? Perhaps it is because an author's flerbage
is decreased if someone makes a copy without his consent. If I make a
copy of a proprietary software package and give it to a friend, the
author surely does not lose his life. Does he lose any of his time?
Let us assume that one copy makes him lose one minute of his time. A
quick calculation suffices to show that slightly over 50 million
copies would be enough to make the author lose 100 years of his time.
This is obviously laughable. Is it physical property he loses? Let
us assume that money is in fact physical property and the author has
stacked all his money in cash in his bedroom. Does some of this money
disappear if I make a copy and give it to a friend? That's at best
highly unlikely. No, obviously it is the market value of his software
that decreases. However, in (4) Raymond argues that the trade-able
value of an author's software has nothing to do with flerbage at all.
Maybe he is wrong. Could it be that decreasing the trade-able value
of someone's software should in fact be illegal? It might be, but in
that case the release of Open Source software must be illegal too,
since an Open Source alternative of a proprietary software package
surely does decrease that package's trade-able value. What's more,
even the release of a proprietary alternative to a proprietary package
must be illegal, at least if it's cheaper and/or better and/or better
marketed. Hence that assumption leads us to the abolishment of free
competition.
Having shown that the "righteousness" of imposing arbitrary licenses
and the "unrighteousness" of copying software without the author's
consent cannot originate in flerbage, we ask ourselves again where it
might come from. Obviously the FSF does not share this view of
"righteousness" with Raymond and O'Reilly. This implicit higher
principle is really nothing else than what Raymond wanted to do away
with: Freedom. Raymond regards the freedom of an author to impose a
license on anybody as more important than the freedom of a user to do
with a piece of software whatever he pleased. The FSF takes the
opposite stance. Raymond has invented a new term and with its help
tried to show that his priorities regarding freedom are the "right"
ones. However, he could do so only by implicitly assuming that his
priorities are the "right" ones to begin with. In other words, he
managed to state a special case of the tautology "A implies A" in a
rather awkward manner.
However, we can improve upon him, without resorting to an implied
definition of freedom. We investigate the effects of abolishing
copyright on Raymond's flerbage as a user and as a developer. As a
user, his flerbage increases dramatically, because he is now legally
able to use any software he wants without restrictions and without
having to pay anybody. As a developer, his flerbage does not change.
He is still able to offer people his software if they pay him money
and sign a contract saying that they will not give it away. What he
would not be able to do is to force this restriction onto more than
half of the earth's population. That does not mean that his flerbage
is decreased, however. It's not as if anybody would put him in jail
if he did that. It's just that, due to lack of a copyright law, doing
such a thing would be impossible, just as it is impossible for him to
fly to Alpha Centauri (and we haven't heard him complaining about that
yet).
You are correct, the GPL has the wrong view about freedom. Freedom is about choice and anything that restricts choice restricts freedom.
By that token a law that forbids people to kidnap other people is restricting freedom? I see where you are going...
bye
schani
Re:What are the ethical implications here?
on
BoyCott Advance
·
· Score: 1
Physical goods cannot be duplicated easily, while data can, without any quality loss. Let's say I kinda like playing one Playstation game now and then but would never buy a console plus the game just for that. Who loses anything if I play the game in an emulator? How can it be unethical to do something which cannot harm anyone in any way?
How come you think you are giving back to the community? What are you giving back to the community?
You're looking for two programmers and figure that you want to give Free Software developers a chance. Would you normally not hire free software developers?
I'd say that if programming jobs were really hard to find you'd be doing the community a service by preferring Free Software developers, but currently any competent programmer can get a decent job any time, at least where I come from. And you surely would not hire incompetent programmers?
I believe it does, in that the car and vegetable shops are likely using closed source software. By logical extrapolation, if closed source is unethical, then those who endorse enethical behaviour are in turn unethical.
What the FSF views as unethical is the denial of certain freedoms to software users, more specifically the rights to copy and modify that software. Since car and vegetable shops do not provide software, the question of whether or not they deny someone those rights does not even arise.
Your argument is along the lines of: Since it's unethical to hit someone with a baseball bat, it must be unethical to get hit by a baseball bat.
yes, buts its done for `ethical' reasons. Most businesses don't share or care bour the FSF ethics. Open Source promotes Open Source because, on an engineeering levels, it is often *better*. Quality matters. Ethics don't.
For some people software quality matters more than than having the freedom to modify and copy that software. For some other people, it doesn't. It seems you belong to the former, while I belong to the latter sort of people. That does not mean that I'm anti-business (I am not). It just means that I am against proprietary software. It does follow, though, that I am against proprietary software business.
Most businesses, however, do not sell software licences. Some sell support, others hardware, some businesses even sell things like cars or vegetables. I do not believe that the FSF has any problems with those.
The FSF dissapproving of closed an Open source software interoperting sucks and is not realistic. Most businesses will continue to use what's best, whether that be Apache or MS Word, because it (in their minds) is the bets for the job they are doing. Open Source interoperating with closed is an important part of this. Haven't you ever used Samba?
Since I do not use Windows, I have little need for Samba, but that is beside the point. You may be surprised, however, that Samba is explictly listed in the GNU free software directory. If you still want to argue that the FSF is against Free/Non-Free software interoperability, please come up with evidence (i.e. a link to an FSF page stating just that).
If this is sad, then refute me. You haven't yet.
Actually, I believe the burden of proof is on you. You keep stating that the FSF's position is this or that. Where do you get that from? Can you provide us with some links to official FSF pages that support your claims?
Nevertheless, I will provide you with another link to an FSF page, namely on the subject of selling Free Software. The FSF actually encourages selling Free Software. How anti-business is that?
PS: I am fully aware that this is a troll. Nevertheless, if I can get just one person (by which I do not mean the original poster, of course) to actually read up on what the FSF stands for before believing some groundless claims, these postings will have done their deed.
* In the sense of the FSF dissapproving of closed source software...
Of course the FSF disapproves of what you call closed source software. After all, 'FSF' stands for 'Free Software Foundation' and not for 'Free and Non-Free Software Foundation'.
* In the sense of the FSF dissapproving of Open Source interoperating with closed source...
Does it? I believe the FSF has always promoted open standards. Or did you ever read about the FSF disapproving of TCP/IP?
* In the sense of many of its followers who generally misuse the term `commercial' to mean non free / Open Source (hah!)...
Commercial does not mean non-Free. RedHat is a commercial software company, but it produces and sells Free Software. The word 'proprietary' means non-Free. Note that software can even be proprietary and not-commercial, like binary-only freeware.
And what exactly has FSF's followers shortcomings to do with the official position of the FSF?
* In the sense of many FSF supporters and members constantly insistenting that `corporate interests (ie, business in general) and Open Soruce are mutually exclusive...
I am pretty sure that the FSF itself does not insist on that. Actually, you might be surprised to hear that the FSF seldomly mentions Open Source at all (other than to state that it does not support the Open Source but the Free Software movement).
It is always interesting (and sad) that people make claims about the FSF (or RMS) without ever caring to inform themselves about what the FSF really stands for.
Stallman has written that he doesn't think programmers should be paid salaries. He's written that he finds it disgusting that people would even suggest working for money.
Could you please tell us where EXACTLY he wrote that? I happen to have read a lot of his writings but such claims I have never come across.
The implications in articles like this is that cloning will happen on the large scale in the future. I want to argue that this is likely not to happen.
What would be the reasons to clone people? The following are arguments I have heard from people taking a similar position as the author of the article:
* To build an army of super-humans. This sounds reasonable. Imagine if Hitler had access to cloning technology! Well, do imagine it. First, cloning is not really cheap, so it'd cost him a lot of money. Second, clones to not grow up any faster than old-fashioned human beings, so he'd have to wait at least 16 years until he could use his first clones. Third, these clones must be brought up somehow, which again costs a lot of money. Fourth, by cloning a small population (the most war-suited people), he is building a large army with a very small gene-pool, which makes it very susceptible to diseases and biological weapons. Fifth, why not let a few good men make a few hundred thousand women pregnant in the old-fashioned way?
* Rich people could clone themselves so that they have a reservoir of organs for transplantation. I guess this would be illegal, just like using one's own child's organs, would it not? Apart from that, why not genetically engineer the brain away? I can hardly see anything wrong with that.
* People would clone themselves instead of making children the natural way. First, is it really realistic that a lot of people would want to do that? Second, cloning is expensive, remember? It would be much easier for a woman to go to a sperm bank and probably easier for a man to find a woman to carry his child. Third, such a thing could be outlawed on the same grounds as incest, namely that it decimates the gene pool.
I'd be happy to hear about other uses for human clones.
Darwin is NOT Open Source, neither is it Free Software. The APSL has a termination clause which makes it possible for them to revoke your rights to distribute the software whenever someone claims that they are infringing on a copyright or a patent. So basically, if they want to stop you from using Darwin under their licence, they just have to find someone willing to sue them.
I do hope that features like object-orientation and looping constructs are just features of the assembler, not of the VM itself.
People write software in higher-level languages, the lowest of them being C, which still provides more abstractions than the VP ASM. These languages are compiled and for the compiler it is usually not a benefit having an assembler that provides eg looping constructs. Unlimited registers are a different story. They are a good idea, since they let the native code generator do the register allocation (this is why I don't like GNU Lightning, for example).
Another drawback of being high-level is that you may lose the ability to do things that would be possible on a lower level. Example: In the JVM it is impossible to do a tailcall, hence languages like Scheme cannot be compiled to JVM code (at least not without jumping through lots of hoops and thereby losing a lot of performance, like in Kawa). I suspect the Amiga VM has the same problem.
A built-in object model seems to be a good idea for a VM, but only as long as you are using the VM with languages that fit this object model. If you want to use multi-methods (like in Common Lisp) on the JVM, for example, you're stuck.
bye
schani
This is not going to work
on
3Dwm Updates
·
· Score: 1
There are two fundamental problems with three-dimensional user interfaces:
1. We cannot see three-dimensionally. We see only a two-dimensional projection of the three dimensional world plus a little depth information. If you close one eye, you lose even that.
2. A monitor is two-dimensional. You can emulate the third dimension, but it really isn't there. Thus, on a monitor you don't have depth information either.
A three-dimensional interface might be worthwhile if we had big holographic displays in which we could enter and interact with, similar to a "holo-deck". But until we have that kind of technology, I believe 3D user interfaces are not going to make significant inroads, especially not if they take the approach of 3dwm, namely moving 2D windows around in a 3D world. 2D window managers let one manage windows quite efficiently today. There is not much to gain on that front.
bye
schani
Lem described virtual reality in 1964
on
Solaris
·
· Score: 1
Lem described the concept and possible problems of virtual reality as early as 1964, in his book 'Summa technologiae'. He also devised means of how to find out whether have been trapped in a virtual reality (better, in a reality more virtual than the one you usually live in, since that might be virtual, too): Say that you have hidden something somewhere. Go and see if it's still there. It's unlikely the builders of your virtual reality would know about it. Of course, the virtual reality (the computer behind it) could make up an excuse for the thing not being there. He concludes that in the end, there will be virtual realities smart enough to fool pretty much anybody. Of course he didn't call it virtual reality. He used the invented term 'phantomatics'.
Does Lisp have referential transparency? Yes, of course, if you abstain from using side effects.
Does Lisp allow side effects and sequenced statements? Yes, of course, if you are willing to give up referential transparency.
Does Lisp have strict typing? No, it doesn't. On the other hand, Haskell does not have dynamic typing or does it?
Does it have universal lazy evaluation? No, of course not. If you need lazy evaluation, you can use it. If you don't, don't.
Does it automatically curry functions? No, it doesn't. If you need it, do it yourself. Currying is also not easy when you have advanced lambda list features like keyword and optional arguments.
Plus, Lisp has a feature I haven't seen in any other language: The defmacro facility. It practically allows one to invent a new language for the problem at hand. This is something that no Lisp-bashers seem to even acknowledge. I wonder why...
Lisp is not a language that forces you to do something in one an only one way. If you want to program imperatively, do it. If you want functional programming, you can do that also. Use lazy evaluation if you need it, not because you have to.
Slashdot Mirror
bye
Mark
It's easy to shut off an alarm and then get back to sleep. The reason for this is that people put their alarm clocks beside their bed. Don't do that! Put it somewhere where you have to get up in order to shut it off. Once you're out of bed, your mind will probably be clear enough not to get back in and sleep.
bye
schani
Being a programmer, I have to compile quite often. I do this from within EMACS. There's a command which you can start with "M-x compile", which runs make. However, it's more efficient for me to bind this command to a short key sequence, since I use it a lot. People writing their email won't need that, but in fact may want to bind other commands, which are handy for editing human-readable text, to hotkeys.
Another key-binding which often comes in handy is binding "goto-line" to "M-g".
The thing is that EMACS comes with so many features and commands that it's impossible to bind them all to efficient key sequences, but there will always be somebody who will find any one of them very helpful. That's why it's good to be able to customize keymaps, for example.
Other, more far-reaching customizations, which do in fact change the way the application works, are integrated source browsers, like JDE, oo-browser, or information management software like hyperbole. Is EMACS a lesser editor because it allows such customizations?
bye
schani
It may be true that customization is not needed - and is indeed detrimental - for applications with very simple and specific uses. I'd be very surprised, for example, if you found a user interface for Minesweeper which is significantly more efficient than the standard one.
But here's the catch: people use the same applications for very diverse sets of tasks. You cannot expect a user interface designer to come up with a UI which is optimal for all foreseeable uses of the application. That's why powerful applications have to be customizable.
A very specific example: EMACS is a text editor. It can be used for writing mails, diaries, articles, web pages, computer programs and so on. It so happens that computer languages like C allow the programmer to layout her code the way she sees most fit. By coincidence, EMACS has a feature which automates this layout process to some degree. But since programmers use different coding styles, it's possible to customize the way EMACS does the layout, in order to fit the preferences of the programmer.
But EMACS goes far beyond that: imagine someone comes up with a new programming language. Do we have to wait for the FSF to make a new version of EMACS which has editing features for this new language? No, we can customize EMACS ourselves to support that new language.
That's why EMACS is an excellent editor for pretty much any editing task and why notepad.exe barely suffices for writing an email.
bye
schani
The MIPS is certainly a very clean instruction set, but the Alpha is nicer, still.
For one, the Alpha architecture was 64 bits to begin with, so the instruction set is a bit cleaner (for example, the shift word right arithmetic instruction on the MIPS is simply not necessary, because both 64 bit and 32 bit shifts can be handled with shift doubleword right arithmetic (Which has two variants, due to the 32-bit roots of the MIPS. The problem is that the shift amount field in the instruction encoding is only 5 bits wide, so it isn't possible to specify an amount greater than 31 bits. The solution is to have a variant which shifts the amount plus 32.)).
The other main differences are that Alpha doesn't have HI/LO registers (i.e. no special registers at all) and doesn't have branch delay slots.
Other than that, they're very similar.
bye
schani
Most of the "anomalies" you cite for command-line interfaces just aren't that. I will go through them one by one:
* constant relearning of old habits: Just as command-line languages can differ from one another, so can GUIs. Granted, the differences cannot be as dramatic as with languages (the reason probably being that languages are far more expressive), but they are there.
* the need for memorization: Again, this is not a question of quality, but of quantity. Granted, languages require much more learning effort than GUIs, but then again they are more expressive.
* the ease of making errors: This is not a shortcoming of command-lines per se. A command-line can easily be configured to alert the user of any unpleasant side-effects a command to be executed might have. The fact that it usually isn't is quite probably due to its user feeling comfortable and secure enough.
* the computer being in control of the human: What is that supposed to mean? I use several command-line languages every day and I do not feel myself being controlled by the computer. On the contrary: being fairly competent in using those languages I can command the computer to do things automatically which a GUI user would have to do by hand repeatedly.
All this "command-line is a thing of the past - the future belongs to GUIs" is nonsense. Command lines give you a language which is usually Turing-complete, meaning you can express the automation of arbitrary tasks. This is something a GUI just cannot do. GUIs provide ways for performing an array of functions, but only very limited means, if at all, of tying these functions together and doing something automatically. And the automation of tasks is what a computer is ultimately for, is it not?
bye
schani
In the article "Freedom, Power, or Confusion" Eric S. Raymond argues
that the term "freedom", which recently Bradley Kuhn with Richard
Stallman and Tim O'Reilly argued about, is confusing and should not be
used with regards to software. Since the term is not concisely
defined, the FSF and O'Reilly can have different concepts in mind when
they use the word.
To solve this problem and to show that the FSF is proposing
unreasonable restrictions, Raymond introduces and defines the invented
word "flerbage". His definition is:
I have the condition of flerbage when I can behave in the confidence
that nobody will take my life, my physical property, or my time
without my consent.
He then argues along the following lines:
(1) Suppose someone releases an operating system under a proprietary
license. Raymond's flerbage is not changed because he does not
have to use that piece of software, since he can use the Open
Source alternative "Nulix". (If he did use it and did not pay for
it, he might be imprisoned, taking his time away from him, thereby
taking away his flerbage).
(2) One way of taking away his flerbage would be for the proprietary
software company to have a law passed that makes issuing Open
Source software illegal, since then he could not use his "Nulix"
and would either be forced to use the proprietary operating system
and pay for it (taking away his money, hence his flerbage) or to
go to prison (losing flerbage).
(3) His flerbage as a software developer consists in being able to
offer people his software on the conditions that they pay him
money and don't give away copies (and not being killed, fined or
imprisoned for offering the software).
(4) Someone releases an Open Source product which is superior to his
proprietary product. The trade-able value of his proprietary
product might have decreased, but his flerbage is not affected
because he has lost neither life, time, nor physical property.
(5) Suppose a law has been passed that makes proprietary licenses
illegal.
(5a) As a user it does not change his flerbage.
(5b) As a developer his flerbage has decreased because he is no longer
able to offer people software under the same license he has been
before the law was passed.
Let us first examine (1) and (2). In (1) Raymond's flerbage is not
decreased by a proprietary license because he has a free alternative
to the proprietary operating system. In (2) his flerbage is decreased
because by taking away Open Source software this alternative is no
longer available. But has he not still the alternative of not using a
computer at all, thereby not having to pay for the software? One
could argue that he has not because he needs to use a computer for his
job, for instance. This argument is flawed (he still has the
alternative of quitting his job), but assume it is not. We can turn
this argument against him if we ask: what if he needs a special
feature which is only implemented in the proprietary software? With
no Open Source alternative, he has to pay (or go to jail). Again, one
could argue that if proprietary licenses were forbidden, the
proprietary software would not even be available. That might be, but
it might as well be that an Open Source implementation of that feature
would emerge, necessity supposedly being the mother of invention. But
let us take this argument even further: If there were no
implementation of that feature at all, how could his boss force him to
use a software package with that feature (imagine yourself in the year
1901; who at that time HAD to use an operating system?). Maybe it is
not his boss forcing him to use that feature. Instead assume the
software in question is a life support system to be employed in the
intensive care unit in which he is currently fighting for his life.
If there were only a proprietary implementation, he could either pay
for it or die, both ways decreasing his flerbage (the latter more, the
former less). Let us just hope that the software is inexpensive
enough for him to be able to afford it.
But the real core of the matter is contained in (3) and (5b).
Raymond's actual wording of (3) is
Now let's suppose I'm a software developer. I write open-source
software to have fun and make money. I write proprietary software
to have fun and make money. Part of my flerbage is that I can offer
people a license that says "I trade you my software on the condition
that you (a) pay me some money, and (b) don't give a copy to anyone
else." If they accept, fine. If they don't, also fine; I wander
off to find another customer, and they wander off to find another
developer.
First of all, let us note that copyright does not work that way. The
condition "don't give a copy to anyone else" does not just apply to
the person whom the trade is made with; it applies to every single
person living in a country with restrictive copyright laws
(i.e. pretty much the whole industrialized world). Hence if I
download a copy of some proprietary piece of software on the Internet,
I am acting illegally, even though I have never made a trade with the
author of that software and have surely not agreed to any conditions
regarding said software.
In (5b) we see that flerbage of a developer is harmed if he is not
allowed to issue his software under a proprietary license. But why is
a user's flerbage not impaired if he is not allowed to download any
software he wishes from the Internet (or copy it from a friend)?
Obviously there must be some higher principle saying that imposing an
arbitrary license should not be illegal but copying software without
the author's consent should be.
Where does this come from? Perhaps it is because an author's flerbage
is decreased if someone makes a copy without his consent. If I make a
copy of a proprietary software package and give it to a friend, the
author surely does not lose his life. Does he lose any of his time?
Let us assume that one copy makes him lose one minute of his time. A
quick calculation suffices to show that slightly over 50 million
copies would be enough to make the author lose 100 years of his time.
This is obviously laughable. Is it physical property he loses? Let
us assume that money is in fact physical property and the author has
stacked all his money in cash in his bedroom. Does some of this money
disappear if I make a copy and give it to a friend? That's at best
highly unlikely. No, obviously it is the market value of his software
that decreases. However, in (4) Raymond argues that the trade-able
value of an author's software has nothing to do with flerbage at all.
Maybe he is wrong. Could it be that decreasing the trade-able value
of someone's software should in fact be illegal? It might be, but in
that case the release of Open Source software must be illegal too,
since an Open Source alternative of a proprietary software package
surely does decrease that package's trade-able value. What's more,
even the release of a proprietary alternative to a proprietary package
must be illegal, at least if it's cheaper and/or better and/or better
marketed. Hence that assumption leads us to the abolishment of free
competition.
Having shown that the "righteousness" of imposing arbitrary licenses
and the "unrighteousness" of copying software without the author's
consent cannot originate in flerbage, we ask ourselves again where it
might come from. Obviously the FSF does not share this view of
"righteousness" with Raymond and O'Reilly. This implicit higher
principle is really nothing else than what Raymond wanted to do away
with: Freedom. Raymond regards the freedom of an author to impose a
license on anybody as more important than the freedom of a user to do
with a piece of software whatever he pleased. The FSF takes the
opposite stance. Raymond has invented a new term and with its help
tried to show that his priorities regarding freedom are the "right"
ones. However, he could do so only by implicitly assuming that his
priorities are the "right" ones to begin with. In other words, he
managed to state a special case of the tautology "A implies A" in a
rather awkward manner.
However, we can improve upon him, without resorting to an implied
definition of freedom. We investigate the effects of abolishing
copyright on Raymond's flerbage as a user and as a developer. As a
user, his flerbage increases dramatically, because he is now legally
able to use any software he wants without restrictions and without
having to pay anybody. As a developer, his flerbage does not change.
He is still able to offer people his software if they pay him money
and sign a contract saying that they will not give it away. What he
would not be able to do is to force this restriction onto more than
half of the earth's population. That does not mean that his flerbage
is decreased, however. It's not as if anybody would put him in jail
if he did that. It's just that, due to lack of a copyright law, doing
such a thing would be impossible, just as it is impossible for him to
fly to Alpha Centauri (and we haven't heard him complaining about that
yet).
schani
By that token a law that forbids people to kidnap other people is restricting freedom? I see where you are going...
bye
schani
Physical goods cannot be duplicated easily, while data can, without any quality loss. Let's say I kinda like playing one Playstation game now and then but would never buy a console plus the game just for that. Who loses anything if I play the game in an emulator? How can it be unethical to do something which cannot harm anyone in any way?
bye
schani
How come you think you are giving back to the community? What are you giving back to the community?
You're looking for two programmers and figure that you want to give Free Software developers a chance. Would you normally not hire free software developers?
I'd say that if programming jobs were really hard to find you'd be doing the community a service by preferring Free Software developers, but currently any competent programmer can get a decent job any time, at least where I come from. And you surely would not hire incompetent programmers?
bye
schani
What the FSF views as unethical is the denial of certain freedoms to software users, more specifically the rights to copy and modify that software. Since car and vegetable shops do not provide software, the question of whether or not they deny someone those rights does not even arise.
Your argument is along the lines of: Since it's unethical to hit someone with a baseball bat, it must be unethical to get hit by a baseball bat.
bye
schani
For some people software quality matters more than than having the freedom to modify and copy that software. For some other people, it doesn't. It seems you belong to the former, while I belong to the latter sort of people. That does not mean that I'm anti-business (I am not). It just means that I am against proprietary software. It does follow, though, that I am against proprietary software business.
Most businesses, however, do not sell software licences. Some sell support, others hardware, some businesses even sell things like cars or vegetables. I do not believe that the FSF has any problems with those.
The FSF dissapproving of closed an Open source software interoperting sucks and is not realistic. Most businesses will continue to use what's best, whether that be Apache or MS Word, because it (in their minds) is the bets for the job they are doing. Open Source interoperating with closed is an important part of this. Haven't you ever used Samba?
Since I do not use Windows, I have little need for Samba, but that is beside the point. You may be surprised, however, that Samba is explictly listed in the GNU free software directory. If you still want to argue that the FSF is against Free/Non-Free software interoperability, please come up with evidence (i.e. a link to an FSF page stating just that).
If this is sad, then refute me. You haven't yet.
Actually, I believe the burden of proof is on you. You keep stating that the FSF's position is this or that. Where do you get that from? Can you provide us with some links to official FSF pages that support your claims?
Nevertheless, I will provide you with another link to an FSF page, namely on the subject of selling Free Software. The FSF actually encourages selling Free Software. How anti-business is that?
PS: I am fully aware that this is a troll. Nevertheless, if I can get just one person (by which I do not mean the original poster, of course) to actually read up on what the FSF stands for before believing some groundless claims, these postings will have done their deed.
bye
schani
Of course the FSF disapproves of what you call closed source software. After all, 'FSF' stands for 'Free Software Foundation' and not for 'Free and Non-Free Software Foundation'.
* In the sense of the FSF dissapproving of Open Source interoperating with closed source...
Does it? I believe the FSF has always promoted open standards. Or did you ever read about the FSF disapproving of TCP/IP?
* In the sense of many of its followers who generally misuse the term `commercial' to mean non free / Open Source (hah!)...
Commercial does not mean non-Free. RedHat is a commercial software company, but it produces and sells Free Software. The word 'proprietary' means non-Free. Note that software can even be proprietary and not-commercial, like binary-only freeware.
And what exactly has FSF's followers shortcomings to do with the official position of the FSF?
* In the sense of many FSF supporters and members constantly insistenting that `corporate interests (ie, business in general) and Open Soruce are mutually exclusive...
I am pretty sure that the FSF itself does not insist on that. Actually, you might be surprised to hear that the FSF seldomly mentions Open Source at all (other than to state that it does not support the Open Source but the Free Software movement).
It is always interesting (and sad) that people make claims about the FSF (or RMS) without ever caring to inform themselves about what the FSF really stands for.
bye
schani
Could you please tell us where EXACTLY he wrote that? I happen to have read a lot of his writings but such claims I have never come across.
bye
schani
Would you mind sharing with us the results of the research you undoubtedly did and telling us in which way they contradict his views?
bye
schani
Of course, changing the behaviour, could also just mean switching scrollbars from athena-style to motif-style. Does this deserve a patent???
bye
schani
The implications in articles like this is that cloning will happen on the large scale in the future. I want to argue that this is likely not to happen.
What would be the reasons to clone people? The following are arguments I have heard from people taking a similar position as the author of the article:
* To build an army of super-humans. This sounds reasonable. Imagine if Hitler had access to cloning technology! Well, do imagine it. First, cloning is not really cheap, so it'd cost him a lot of money. Second, clones to not grow up any faster than old-fashioned human beings, so he'd have to wait at least 16 years until he could use his first clones. Third, these clones must be brought up somehow, which again costs a lot of money. Fourth, by cloning a small population (the most war-suited people), he is building a large army with a very small gene-pool, which makes it very susceptible to diseases and biological weapons. Fifth, why not let a few good men make a few hundred thousand women pregnant in the old-fashioned way?
* Rich people could clone themselves so that they have a reservoir of organs for transplantation. I guess this would be illegal, just like using one's own child's organs, would it not? Apart from that, why not genetically engineer the brain away? I can hardly see anything wrong with that.
* People would clone themselves instead of making children the natural way. First, is it really realistic that a lot of people would want to do that? Second, cloning is expensive, remember? It would be much easier for a woman to go to a sperm bank and probably easier for a man to find a woman to carry his child. Third, such a thing could be outlawed on the same grounds as incest, namely that it decimates the gene pool.
I'd be happy to hear about other uses for human clones.
bye
schani
The real tiger is never a match for the paper one.
bye
schani
Darwin is NOT Open Source, neither is it Free Software. The APSL has a termination clause which makes it possible for them to revoke your rights to distribute the software whenever someone claims that they are infringing on a copyright or a patent. So basically, if they want to stop you from using Darwin under their licence, they just have to find someone willing to sue them.
bye
schani
...because if it were Apple, we'd be off much worse.
bye
schani
I do hope that features like object-orientation and looping constructs are just features of the assembler, not of the VM itself.
People write software in higher-level languages, the lowest of them being C, which still provides more abstractions than the VP ASM. These languages are compiled and for the compiler it is usually not a benefit having an assembler that provides eg looping constructs. Unlimited registers are a different story. They are a good idea, since they let the native code generator do the register allocation (this is why I don't like GNU Lightning, for example).
Another drawback of being high-level is that you may lose the ability to do things that would be possible on a lower level. Example: In the JVM it is impossible to do a tailcall, hence languages like Scheme cannot be compiled to JVM code (at least not without jumping through lots of hoops and thereby losing a lot of performance, like in Kawa). I suspect the Amiga VM has the same problem.
A built-in object model seems to be a good idea for a VM, but only as long as you are using the VM with languages that fit this object model. If you want to use multi-methods (like in Common Lisp) on the JVM, for example, you're stuck.
bye
schani
There are two fundamental problems with three-dimensional user interfaces:
1. We cannot see three-dimensionally. We see only a two-dimensional projection of the three dimensional world plus a little depth information. If you close one eye, you lose even that.
2. A monitor is two-dimensional. You can emulate the third dimension, but it really isn't there. Thus, on a monitor you don't have depth information either.
A three-dimensional interface might be worthwhile if we had big holographic displays in which we could enter and interact with, similar to a "holo-deck". But until we have that kind of technology, I believe 3D user interfaces are not going to make significant inroads, especially not if they take the approach of 3dwm, namely moving 2D windows around in a 3D world. 2D window managers let one manage windows quite efficiently today. There is not much to gain on that front.
bye
schani
Lem described the concept and possible problems of virtual reality as early as 1964, in his book 'Summa technologiae'. He also devised means of how to find out whether have been trapped in a virtual reality (better, in a reality more virtual than the one you usually live in, since that might be virtual, too): Say that you have hidden something somewhere. Go and see if it's still there. It's unlikely the builders of your virtual reality would know about it. Of course, the virtual reality (the computer behind it) could make up an excuse for the thing not being there. He concludes that in the end, there will be virtual realities smart enough to fool pretty much anybody. Of course he didn't call it virtual reality. He used the invented term 'phantomatics'.
schani
Does Lisp have referential transparency? Yes, of course, if you abstain from using side effects.
Does Lisp allow side effects and sequenced statements? Yes, of course, if you are willing to give up referential transparency.
Does Lisp have strict typing? No, it doesn't. On the other hand, Haskell does not have dynamic typing or does it?
Does it have universal lazy evaluation? No, of course not. If you need lazy evaluation, you can use it. If you don't, don't.
Does it automatically curry functions? No, it doesn't. If you need it, do it yourself. Currying is also not easy when you have advanced lambda list features like keyword and optional arguments.
Plus, Lisp has a feature I haven't seen in any other language: The defmacro facility. It practically allows one to invent a new language for the problem at hand. This is something that no Lisp-bashers seem to even acknowledge. I wonder why...
Lisp is not a language that forces you to do something in one an only one way. If you want to program imperatively, do it. If you want functional programming, you can do that also. Use lazy evaluation if you need it, not because you have to.
bye
schani
PGP cannot provide an example of Open Source not meaning security because PGP IS NOT OPEN SOURCE!!!
bye
schani