>I thought USB was a flop, and basically worthless
Technically, USB works quite well for input devices. It's been adopted slowly in large part because it wasn't possible to upgrade Windows 95 to support it, and really only Windows 98 supports it well. And NT hasn't really supported it at all. PC Magazine found USB to work quite well under 98, with easy connection of multiple devices and all those devices working together. I have a USB scanner and I'm quite happy with it, no hassling with serial ports, etc. Except for Linux not having the support, I'd love to have all my devices USB and connected to a USB hub in my monitor. (But again, the cost of upgrading all those components is sufficient to keep me from doing it anway.)
I think USB support for Linux would be very helpful for several reasons: 1) the possibility of fewer configuration hassles for people who are switching from Windows to Linux; 2) it's needed for all the new Macs, especially the iMac; 3) lots of the new game controllers are going the USB route; and 4) otherwise people can slam Linux for not having USB support.
>As of today, 27 March 1999, Linux is not easy enough to install on a home PC for a non-technical person without assistance.
One thing I've thought about -- but don't have the time to do -- is to redistribute eMachine PCs, replacing Windows with Linux (or possibly setting up dual-boot). Set up easy switching between several window managers, include Wine, etc. Also set up scripts for setting up internet connections to as many ISPs as possible. Unfortunately you have to dump the WinModem, but otherwise it seems like it would be a competent Linux box.
These folks are trying to encourage people to work on Harmony. This other fellow is suggesting that other projects are more important. Each side is just trying to use the power of persuasion.
>My question is, if you take down the music industry, what do you replace it with?
I think you may go to more of an honor system. Give away one MP3, sell others. Some people will pirate, but many of those people wouldn't buy anyway. If the cost of an album is (say) $2 instead of $15, you should end up selling more, and if most of the profit goes to the artist, the artist earns a similar amount to now. If the cost is lower, places can have a wider selection due to cheaper inventory costs, so it'll still be decent business.
Unfortunately I'd have to agree with you. This wasn't an interview, where one can make mistakes in an instant, this is a written work where one should look back and think about the implications of such things. I must admit to being quite disappointed.
>I disagree though about radio stations having to fear MP3's.
I think radio stations may change significantly as a result of the digital era -- in fact, the changes have started already. Pure digital music can lower their costs; no big library of music to store (even at higher data rates than most MP3s), no huge transmitter required. You may start seeing very small stations as a result, with fewer listeners per station.
>And what was he supposed to write gcc on? His own unix?
Why not? I worked with a group that basically wrote our own (rather limited) OS for our graphics supercomputer. We did buy a compiler, but then we weren't on a moral crusade. And the consequence for RMS of his shortcutting was that the open-source that followed got named after some other, more pragmatic, individual, much to RMS's annoyance.
Ignore the moral issue for a moment. You have to admit it's possible that IP laws result in some better IP (do you think Star Wars would ever have been made without them?). If so, if the net result of eliminating IP might mean we have to wait longer for a cure for cancer, or Alzheimer's, or paralysis. Are you willing to tell someone who ends up dying from one of those ailments that it was moral to delay the generation of the cure? Good things can come from pragmatism.
Now, if you believe that open source will eventually produce all the software we need anyway, then you don't need the moral argument.
>Could someone in charge post a list of criteria the moderators use for censoring posts if there is any criteria?
Note that just because there is a document explaining the criteria, it doesn't mean Rob has any power to enforce it, save one: taking away moderator privileges from those who abuse it. It's possible this may already have happened, and thus the problem may be going away already.
"However, is this wrong? When looking at it rationally, is Intellectual Property a logical, natural concept, on par with physical property rights?"
Physical property claims, or at the very least real estate, all derive originally from one person or group taking it by force from another, or, more rarely, from "finders keepers." In contrast, intellectual property is creation from nothing. Is "don't copy" really more objectionable than "no trespassing"?
>However, I think we're coming to a point very soon where IP law is no longer relevant for software.
True for software geeks enjoy working on, less so for things they don't, or don't have the skills for; I don't see an open source game with the polish of Age of Empires or Starcraft appearing soon. And as for media, do you see an open source "Schindler's List" appearing any time soon?
>I think the point is that people like Richard Stallman will use `free' (i.e. GPL'd) software, even if it is inferior to `non-free' software.
What did Stallman write the original gcc on? There was no Linux back in '83.
The hypocrisy in Stallman's position is that he chose to use closed source OSes to achieve his goal -- publicizing his idea of Free Software by making tools people would want to use; now he thinks it's immoral for the rest of us to work with closed source stuff to achieve our own goals.
>The power just shifts--once again you will have a company that will do anything to hold its monopoly.
Red Hat doesn't a Linux monopoly. Hell, they don't even have a monopoly on selling Red Hat -- head to cheapbytes or linuxmall and you can buy a copy for $2, none of which goes to Red Hat. They are trying, primarily, to be a service and support vendor, not to dominate the industry.
RMs often tells how the inability to fix a printer driver started him on his free software crusade. The APSL license would allow him to do that (at least if Apple provides the driver), and thus should be considered a good thing.
What, like gIDE? Version 0.1.0 just doesn't cut it.
I've developed with both command line and IDE systems. While I'll grant you the open source system has the best potential for being a great system, particularly with respect to customization -- one of these days I'll add matching parentheses syntax highlighting to gIDE -- in their current state I'll take the commercial IDEs.
Stallman used proprietary software to jumpstart GNU (no HURD back then); I see no reason the rest of us shouldn't use it if it's the best way to achieve our goals.
Look, almost no one who uses Linux now would use it. We've chosen Linux for its power, reliability, etc. -- not for a Windows interface. Current users aren't going to switch.
Developers aren't going to be too keen to rewrite their apps to be locked in to a Windows solution. Right now, we develop for Windows because that's where the users are. I don't see 250 million people switching over en masse, do you?
So we're left with current Windows users, who are offered a switch that gains them a more stable kernel, but not much else. And they presumably have to shell out for all-new applications, deal with the fact that no one will bother writing drivers for older peripherals, and deal with what will be a buggy interface for quite a while. Microsoft is having trouble extending their own stuff -- yet you expect them to rewrite Visual for Linux and rewrite their GUI to work on Linux? I don't think so...
>Indeed, under the NCL, why would anyone want to contribute any code to software written by someone else? The other person would end up making the profit for work that you did.
Someone please explain to me why someone making a profit over software enhanced by work you did is so much more terrible than a web company making big bucks using GPLed software you enhanced, or a manufacturer making big bucks using GPL CAD software, etc.
Licensing issues are civil matters. To bring suit, you would need to show harm. You would also need to have acted consistently with the license. Any judge with half a brain would say, "You worked on this project in full knowledge of how it would be used and distributed, and yet you still claim damages when it is used in that fashion? Get out of my courtroom."
Now, if you submitted code to a different project which was then pulled into KDE, then you have a case. But if this doesn't describe you, STFU!
While there are the standard irate messages on Slashdot, in general the tone seems pretty calm to me. Bruce has asked for relatively minor changes and clarifications, and has in no way impugned Apple. From Bruce's page, it looks like Apple is willing to work with the license to bring it to everyone's satisfaction. Bruce and Eric could perhaps have been marginally more polite to each other, but I think they'd both admit they're not diplomats.
I think this move by Apple is big. There's a real possibility of a lot of sharing between LinuxPPC and OS X, such as drivers. Apple will be selling basically their GUI and their high-quality machines.
I stopped reading when...
on
GNOME-steaders
·
· Score: 1
>I stopped reading when he said "Granted, Torvalds hasn't shown any signs of handing over his red hat..."
Note that this is a reference to Papa Smurf's red hat (the other smurfs have mostly white ones), not Red Hat the company. I did a double-take when I saw that too...
I've downloaded a bunch of stuff recently via the RPM database link they have on the front page. Unlike using the mirrors, it has a handy front end with alphabetic sort, etc.
Of course, now that'll be slashdotted and I'll never be able to download from Red Hat again...
"Big Gates, you may remember, hasn't had a good year."
Hmm, looking at Microsoft's stock price, he's probably increased his net worth since January by more than the combined lifetime earnings of everyone who has read this article. I wish I could have that sort of bad year...
>Nobody complains when Caldera, Redhat, Slackware, Debian, Suse, or any of the other dists put their name or spin on linux. "Open linux", "Turbo linux", "Debian Linux" '
Those names clarify a variant, they don't (intend to) claim credit for the whole thing.
>If people want to call it GNU/Linux then let them.
That is not the issue. It's people getting on my case if *I* don't.
Slashdot Mirror
>I thought USB was a flop, and basically worthless
Technically, USB works quite well for input devices. It's been adopted slowly in large part because it wasn't possible to upgrade Windows 95 to support it, and really only Windows 98 supports it well. And NT hasn't really supported it at all. PC Magazine found USB to work quite well under 98, with easy connection of multiple devices and all those devices working together. I have a USB scanner and I'm quite happy with it, no hassling with serial ports, etc. Except for Linux not having the support, I'd love to have all my devices USB and connected to a USB hub in my monitor. (But again, the cost of upgrading all those components is sufficient to keep me from doing it anway.)
I think USB support for Linux would be very helpful for several reasons: 1) the possibility of fewer configuration hassles for people who are switching from Windows to Linux; 2) it's needed for all the new Macs, especially the iMac; 3) lots of the new game controllers are going the USB route; and 4) otherwise people can slam Linux for not having USB support.
>As of today, 27 March 1999, Linux is not easy enough to install on a home PC for a non-technical person without assistance.
One thing I've thought about -- but don't have the time to do -- is to redistribute eMachine PCs, replacing Windows with Linux (or possibly setting up dual-boot). Set up easy switching between several window managers, include Wine, etc. Also set up scripts for setting up internet connections to as many ISPs as possible. Unfortunately you have to dump the WinModem, but otherwise it seems like it would be a competent Linux box.
>people are doing?
These folks are trying to encourage people to work on Harmony. This other fellow is suggesting that other projects are more important. Each side is just trying to use the power of persuasion.
>Harmony (once finished) would also end the GNOME/KDE war for good... or would it? :)
Of course not, there's still the inane C vs. C++ issue to argue about...
>My question is, if you take down the music industry, what do you replace it with?
I think you may go to more of an honor system. Give away one MP3, sell others. Some people will pirate, but many of those people wouldn't buy anyway. If the cost of an album is (say) $2 instead of $15, you should end up selling more, and if most of the profit goes to the artist, the artist earns a similar amount to now. If the cost is lower, places can have a wider selection due to cheaper inventory costs, so it'll still be decent business.
Unfortunately I'd have to agree with you. This wasn't an interview, where one can make mistakes in an instant, this is a written work where one should look back and think about the implications of such things. I must admit to being quite disappointed.
>I disagree though about radio stations having to fear MP3's.
I think radio stations may change significantly as a result of the digital era -- in fact, the changes have started already. Pure digital music can lower their costs; no big library of music to store (even at higher data rates than most MP3s), no huge transmitter required. You may start seeing very small stations as a result, with fewer listeners per station.
Headmounted mice have been tried, but it's not that accurate. What you really want, though, is eye-tracking.
>And what was he supposed to write gcc on? His own unix?
Why not? I worked with a group that basically wrote our own (rather limited) OS for our graphics supercomputer. We did buy a compiler, but then we weren't on a moral crusade. And the consequence for RMS of his shortcutting was that the open-source that followed got named after some other, more pragmatic, individual, much to RMS's annoyance.
Ignore the moral issue for a moment. You have to admit it's possible that IP laws result in some better IP (do you think Star Wars would ever have been made without them?). If so, if the net result of eliminating IP might mean we have to wait longer for a cure for cancer, or Alzheimer's, or paralysis. Are you willing to tell someone who ends up dying from one of those ailments that it was moral to delay the generation of the cure? Good things can come from pragmatism.
Now, if you believe that open source will eventually produce all the software we need anyway, then you don't need the moral argument.
>if people are reading explicit textual content, such as alt.abuse.sexual.recovery or information about STDs, they can just use a small font size.
Not everyone has 20/20 vision...
>Could someone in charge post a list of criteria the moderators use for censoring posts if there is any criteria?
Note that just because there is a document explaining the criteria, it doesn't mean Rob has any power to enforce it, save one: taking away moderator privileges from those who abuse it. It's possible this may already have happened, and thus the problem may be going away already.
"However, is this wrong? When looking at it rationally, is Intellectual Property a logical, natural concept, on par with physical property rights?"
Physical property claims, or at the very least real estate, all derive originally from one person or group taking it by force from another, or, more rarely, from "finders keepers." In contrast, intellectual property is creation from nothing. Is "don't copy" really more objectionable than "no trespassing"?
>However, I think we're coming to a point very soon where IP law is no longer relevant for
software.
True for software geeks enjoy working on, less so for things they don't, or don't have the skills for; I don't see an open source game with the polish of Age of Empires or Starcraft appearing
soon. And as for media, do you see an open source "Schindler's List" appearing any time soon?
>I think the point is that people like Richard Stallman will use `free' (i.e. GPL'd) software, even if it is inferior to `non-free' software.
What did Stallman write the original gcc on? There was no Linux back in '83.
The hypocrisy in Stallman's position is that he chose to use closed source OSes to achieve his goal -- publicizing his idea of Free Software by making tools people would want to use; now he thinks it's immoral for the rest of us to work with closed source stuff to achieve our own goals.
>The power just shifts--once again you will have a company that will do anything to hold its monopoly.
Red Hat doesn't a Linux monopoly. Hell, they don't even have a monopoly on selling Red Hat -- head to cheapbytes or linuxmall and you can buy a copy for $2, none of which goes to Red Hat. They are trying, primarily, to be a service and support vendor, not to dominate the industry.
RMs often tells how the inability to fix a printer driver started him on his free software crusade. The APSL license would allow him to do that (at least if Apple provides the driver), and thus should be considered a good thing.
"a dozen good IDEs"
What, like gIDE? Version 0.1.0 just doesn't cut it.
I've developed with both command line and IDE systems. While I'll grant you the open source system has the best potential for being a great system, particularly with respect to customization -- one of these days I'll add matching parentheses syntax highlighting to gIDE -- in their current state I'll take the commercial IDEs.
Stallman used proprietary software to jumpstart GNU (no HURD back then); I see no reason the rest of us shouldn't use it if it's the best way to achieve our goals.
Ain't gonna happen.
Look, almost no one who uses Linux now would use it. We've chosen Linux for its power, reliability, etc. -- not for a Windows interface. Current users aren't going to switch.
Developers aren't going to be too keen to rewrite their apps to be locked in to a Windows solution. Right now, we develop for Windows because that's where the users are. I don't see 250 million people switching over en masse, do you?
So we're left with current Windows users, who are offered a switch that gains them a more stable kernel, but not much else. And they presumably have to shell out for all-new applications, deal with the fact that no one will bother writing drivers for older peripherals, and deal with what will be a buggy interface for quite a while. Microsoft is having trouble extending their own stuff -- yet you expect them to rewrite Visual for Linux and rewrite their GUI to work on Linux? I don't think so...
Relax, Linux -- pure Linux -- is winning.
>Indeed, under the NCL, why would anyone want to contribute any code to software written by someone else? The other person would end up making the profit for work that you did.
Someone please explain to me why someone making a profit over software enhanced by work you did is so much more terrible than a web company making big bucks using GPLed software you enhanced, or a manufacturer making big bucks using GPL CAD software, etc.
>THIS IS NOT LEGAL.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Licensing issues are civil matters. To bring suit, you would need to show harm. You would also need to have acted consistently with the license. Any judge with half a brain would say, "You worked on this project in full knowledge of how it would be used and distributed, and yet you still claim damages when it is used in that fashion? Get out of my courtroom."
Now, if you submitted code to a different project which was then pulled into KDE, then you have a case. But if this doesn't describe you, STFU!
While there are the standard irate messages on Slashdot, in general the tone seems pretty calm to me. Bruce has asked for relatively minor changes and clarifications, and has in no way impugned Apple. From Bruce's page, it looks like Apple is willing to work with the license to bring it to everyone's satisfaction. Bruce and Eric could perhaps have been marginally more polite to each other, but I think they'd both admit they're not diplomats.
I think this move by Apple is big. There's a real possibility of a lot of sharing between LinuxPPC and OS X, such as drivers. Apple will be selling basically their GUI and their high-quality machines.
>I stopped reading when he said "Granted, Torvalds hasn't shown any signs of handing over his red hat..."
Note that this is a reference to Papa Smurf's red hat (the other smurfs have mostly white ones), not Red Hat the company. I did a double-take when I saw that too...
I've downloaded a bunch of stuff recently via the RPM database link they have on the front page. Unlike using the mirrors, it has a handy front end with alphabetic sort, etc.
Of course, now that'll be slashdotted and I'll never be able to download from Red Hat again...
"Big Gates, you may remember, hasn't had a good year."
Hmm, looking at Microsoft's stock price, he's probably increased his net worth since January by more than the combined lifetime earnings of everyone who has read this article. I wish I could have that sort of bad year...
The front grille of an Edsel rather resembled a toilet seat.
>Nobody complains when Caldera, Redhat, Slackware, Debian, Suse, or any of the other dists put their name or spin on linux. "Open linux", "Turbo linux", "Debian Linux" '
Those names clarify a variant, they don't (intend to) claim credit for the whole thing.
>If people want to call it GNU/Linux then let them.
That is not the issue. It's people getting on my case if *I* don't.