Linux 0.1 wouldn't even compile. Linux wasn't even stable in many other versions. Hundreds of thousands of people were using Linux before the magic 1.0 release. Hundreds of thousands of people had their systems crash on them. Hundreds of thousands of people understood that they were damned lucky to have something else to fight with other than Windows 3.0 running on top of MS-DOG v. 5.0.
For pete's sake, my first Linux system was built and maintained by hand, all by my lonesome. If I needed software, I had to find the source somewhere and compile it myself. AND I also had to port it from SunOS, or HPUX, or ATT&T UNIX, or wherever I found the code.
The situation is the same. This is not commercial software here, and that's the point of the article. Just as Linux wasn't for regular users when it was at 0.99.12, ABIWord isn't for users at version 0.9.6.
ABIWord is not even at version 1.0! A user who is pissed because they can't get a nicely packaged thing they can drop into their system should either look for another solution or learn how to deal with a tarball.
I run a Debian Potato system, and when I tried the *.deb package there were a bunch of errors. No problem, I'll get the source and compile it. There were a bunch of missing liraries, and I had to fix those. Finally, it was compiled. It core dumped. I figured out that it had to do with the fonts not being handled properly on my X server. Did I complain? Hell no! I used CVS to get the latest development release and tried that. It worked. The fonts are screwed up, but am I upset? No, I'm very happy. I have a word processor that is already excellent, and it's getting better every day. When Woody stabilizes, then I'll upgrade. That will give me the right Xserver to allow ABIWord to display and print nice fonts. I can live without them for now.
The lesson here is that if you are dealing with software that isn't even at version 1.0, then you'd better be prepared to go to the lengths I went to. That's not harsh, that's not mean, that's a fact of life. Versions 1.0 of anything cannot be expected to do anything more than dump core. Less experienced people should see this as an *opportunity* to learn how to get around problems on their box.
I'm a Debian user, and I think that you're generalizing way too much. People love Debian because it's the best at the things that they care about, and they have the capability to contribute to it.
As a Red Hat user, you don't get to contribute unless you work for Red Hat. Since you got flamed hard on the Debian list, you must have posted there. If you posted there, then you must have wanted to contribute.
Now, is using Red Hat scratching that particular itch? No? Then why haven't you started your own distribution to scratch that itch?
On the other hand, perhaps you don't want to contribute to a distribution. Why then in that case would you care about the Debian list? I use Debian and don't post to the list because I'm not a Debian developer.
To sum things up bluntly: don't cut yourself off from a distribution that is top notch just because you think that the developers (many of whom are not the same people who treated you badly) are jerks. You can use the distribution without ever talking to them.
Doc's from Austin? I live in Austin, but have never been to the meetings. Anyway, thanks for the info. I like what he writes, but everytime I read a column I was always wondering what he did besides write columns.
I know this is offtopic, but does anybody know about the background of Doc Searls? What code has he written? What documents has he forged? What projects has he led? What battles has he fought? Has he been with Linux from the beginning? How did he get involved with the magazine? Is his heart truly Klingon?
Your comments reflect a common sentiment, but it's not logical to take that position. Here's why:
1) First statement (yours) summed up neatly: why play for charity A when charity B appears to address a more pressing need. That is where you stopped thinking about it and reached a conclusion.
2) The conclusion was premature: one can go further - why play for charity B when charity C is addressing an even more pressing need. But that's not the end of it either.
3) The set of all charities is finite, meaning that if you continually favor the charity that address the more important need, then eventually you will find THE charity that addresses the MOST important need. That is where you stop. Give them your money.
4) Unfortunately, that situation leads to starvation. If you accept the first idea as true, (the one that you offered) then only one charity can logically be funded. Obviously, this is a far worse situation than we intended,
5) Therefore, we must reject the original premise as leading to an undesirable outcome, and therefore flawed for purposes of efficiently distributing money to charity.
The insult "get a life" is similarly flawed. At the end of the chain of thinking, one must live as the finest human being ever, and to be any lesser earns the "get a life" smackdown. One could offer my argument that I gave above as a logical retort. Or, one could simply offer a middle finger and a "hearty colloquialism".
Yes, it's true, Al Queda runs Microsoft software. In fact, the justice department is going to use that as a backup prosecution. If the terrorism charges are dropped, it is hoped that the terrorists will get life in prison for software piracy. Hey! They got Al Capone on income tax evasion, didn't they?
Osama has already been found guilty for other terrorist attacks, so that's the basis under which we can pursue him. He WILL pay the price for what he has done.
You forget that Osama has been already found guilty of other terrorist acts, specifically the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa.
So, we don't need the smoking gun for Sept. 11th. He's already known to be guilty of other terrorist attacks, and he will serve his sentence, one way or another.
You won't find disagreement here that Popper needs to have serious coverage. That should form the basis of a course, DEFINITELY included into the teaching of evolution and biology in high school.
And I would also add that in college, it should be a requirement that all students take an in-depth course covering scientific philosophy. The deliverable should be more than one term paper examining specific topics in depth, and only essay tests should be allowed. That course should be really hard so that people understand the most important thing about an education - learning to think.
I'm not sure what your point is. You've stated a bunch of facts about the philosophy of science, and failed to related them to the sentence you quoted from my post. I am confused. Are you saying that we should or not teach biology? Are you saying that it will or will not help a student understand what a scientific theory is if we teach the best one we've got?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Don't like the tone of my argument? My complete disrespect for creation science is hardly anything compared to the morally repugnant act of lying to people and twisting facts.
Evolution is a science, that's why it is taught. No other theory of life's origins are accepted by science, not because of political reasons, but because the other theories fall flat on their ass.
Science class is not a place where the lie of creation science should be given an iota of respect. It does not deserve it.
The theory of evolution is critical to the teaching of science, especially biology. Besides being arguably the most amazing scientific theory ever, it forms the backbone of biology. Biology is simply impossible to teach unless it is tightly integrated with evolution.
The religious right has failed at the national political level, but has had great success at the local level. It is CRITICAL that we stop this trend. Their plan to remove evolution from school curriculums, or if that fails, to force the teaching of creation science (which is a ridiculous idea, to say the least) would cause unbelievable harm to science education.
Teaching people to think is the best goal of a basic science education. The theory of evolution is so important to our lives now, and if it is properly taught, biology/evolution can form the nucleus of a healthy skeptical and scientific thinking process.
Thanks for the clarification. I think the readers should understand one thing: these magnets are not for the outside of your refridgerator. They are for the inside of your refridgerator.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux 0.1 wouldn't even compile. Linux wasn't even stable in many other versions. Hundreds of thousands of people were using Linux before the magic 1.0 release. Hundreds of thousands of people had their systems crash on them. Hundreds of thousands of people understood that they were damned lucky to have something else to fight with other than Windows 3.0 running on top of MS-DOG v. 5.0.
For pete's sake, my first Linux system was built and maintained by hand, all by my lonesome. If I needed software, I had to find the source somewhere and compile it myself. AND I also had to port it from SunOS, or HPUX, or ATT&T UNIX, or wherever I found the code.
The situation is the same. This is not commercial software here, and that's the point of the article. Just as Linux wasn't for regular users when it was at 0.99.12, ABIWord isn't for users at version 0.9.6.
You are correct. I wrote that original comment, and I'm aware that the software breakage is expected.
ABIWord is not even at version 1.0! A user who is pissed because they can't get a nicely packaged thing they can drop into their system should either look for another solution or learn how to deal with a tarball.
I run a Debian Potato system, and when I tried the *.deb package there were a bunch of errors. No problem, I'll get the source and compile it. There were a bunch of missing liraries, and I had to fix those. Finally, it was compiled. It core dumped. I figured out that it had to do with the fonts not being handled properly on my X server. Did I complain? Hell no! I used CVS to get the latest development release and tried that. It worked. The fonts are screwed up, but am I upset? No, I'm very happy. I have a word processor that is already excellent, and it's getting better every day. When Woody stabilizes, then I'll upgrade. That will give me the right Xserver to allow ABIWord to display and print nice fonts. I can live without them for now.
The lesson here is that if you are dealing with software that isn't even at version 1.0, then you'd better be prepared to go to the lengths I went to. That's not harsh, that's not mean, that's a fact of life. Versions 1.0 of anything cannot be expected to do anything more than dump core. Less experienced people should see this as an *opportunity* to learn how to get around problems on their box.
OK, I'm declaring myself the official maintainer for all the RPM's that install into /usr/bin in Red Hat's distribution.
Tell everyone over there at Red Hat to expect something from me next week, OK?
Do you see my point?
It's not illegal to run into a crowded theater and yell fire.
I'm a Debian user, and I think that you're generalizing way too much. People love Debian because it's the best at the things that they care about, and they have the capability to contribute to it.
As a Red Hat user, you don't get to contribute unless you work for Red Hat. Since you got flamed hard on the Debian list, you must have posted there. If you posted there, then you must have wanted to contribute.
Now, is using Red Hat scratching that particular itch? No? Then why haven't you started your own distribution to scratch that itch?
On the other hand, perhaps you don't want to contribute to a distribution. Why then in that case would you care about the Debian list? I use Debian and don't post to the list because I'm not a Debian developer.
To sum things up bluntly: don't cut yourself off from a distribution that is top notch just because you think that the developers (many of whom are not the same people who treated you badly) are jerks. You can use the distribution without ever talking to them.
OK, I'm one of those people. I think that an LCD looks different than a monitor, but it's just as good.
/.
Just for the record, I also:
-cannot distinguish cilantro and parsley by sight or smell
-believe that Cmdr. Taco chose a nice color scheme for
-don't see what's all that great about HP calculators
-can't tell the difference between IDE and SCSI
-eat hamburgers with the crown facing the floor and the heel facing the ceiling
-usually like the sequel better than the original
-will listen to a remake of any Elvis Presley song
-always like the movie much better than the book
AND
-think that Miller Beer both tastes great and is less filling
Doc's from Austin? I live in Austin, but have never been to the meetings. Anyway, thanks for the info. I like what he writes, but everytime I read a column I was always wondering what he did besides write columns.
I know this is offtopic, but does anybody know about the background of Doc Searls? What code has he written? What documents has he forged? What projects has he led? What battles has he fought? Has he been with Linux from the beginning? How did he get involved with the magazine? Is his heart truly Klingon?
Your comments reflect a common sentiment, but it's not logical to take that position. Here's why:
1) First statement (yours) summed up neatly: why play for charity A when charity B appears to address a more pressing need. That is where you stopped thinking about it and reached a conclusion.
2) The conclusion was premature: one can go further - why play for charity B when charity C is addressing an even more pressing need. But that's not the end of it either.
3) The set of all charities is finite, meaning that if you continually favor the charity that address the more important need, then eventually you will find THE charity that addresses the MOST important need. That is where you stop. Give them your money.
4) Unfortunately, that situation leads to starvation. If you accept the first idea as true, (the one that you offered) then only one charity can logically be funded. Obviously, this is a far worse situation than we intended,
5) Therefore, we must reject the original premise as leading to an undesirable outcome, and therefore flawed for purposes of efficiently distributing money to charity.
The insult "get a life" is similarly flawed. At the end of the chain of thinking, one must live as the finest human being ever, and to be any lesser earns the "get a life" smackdown. One could offer my argument that I gave above as a logical retort. Or, one could simply offer a middle finger and a "hearty colloquialism".
He's making a list
he's checking it twice!
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice
SATAN CLAUS is coming to town.
Didn't you say that the mail came from the abuse desk? It was not what you were expecting?
Cheerio!
Yes, it's true, Al Queda runs Microsoft software. In fact, the justice department is going to use that as a backup prosecution. If the terrorism charges are dropped, it is hoped that the terrorists will get life in prison for software piracy. Hey! They got Al Capone on income tax evasion, didn't they?
Somebody marked me flamebait? Unbelievable.
I'm going to repeat it:
Osama has already been found guilty for other terrorist attacks, so that's the basis under which we can pursue him. He WILL pay the price for what he has done.
When you start taking your job so seriously that it causes you distress or aggrivation of any kind, repeat the followin phrase until you get it:
... "
"It's just a fuckin' job. It's just a fuckin' job. It's just
You forget that Osama has been already found guilty of other terrorist acts, specifically the attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa.
So, we don't need the smoking gun for Sept. 11th. He's already known to be guilty of other terrorist attacks, and he will serve his sentence, one way or another.
I was the original poster.
You won't find disagreement here that Popper needs to have serious coverage. That should form the basis of a course, DEFINITELY included into the teaching of evolution and biology in high school.
And I would also add that in college, it should be a requirement that all students take an in-depth course covering scientific philosophy. The deliverable should be more than one term paper examining specific topics in depth, and only essay tests should be allowed. That course should be really hard so that people understand the most important thing about an education - learning to think.
I'm not sure what your point is. You've stated a bunch of facts about the philosophy of science, and failed to related them to the sentence you quoted from my post. I am confused. Are you saying that we should or not teach biology? Are you saying that it will or will not help a student understand what a scientific theory is if we teach the best one we've got?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Don't like the tone of my argument? My complete disrespect for creation science is hardly anything compared to the morally repugnant act of lying to people and twisting facts.
Evolution is a science, that's why it is taught. No other theory of life's origins are accepted by science, not because of political reasons, but because the other theories fall flat on their ass.
Science class is not a place where the lie of creation science should be given an iota of respect. It does not deserve it.
The theory of evolution is critical to the teaching of science, especially biology. Besides being arguably the most amazing scientific theory ever, it forms the backbone of biology. Biology is simply impossible to teach unless it is tightly integrated with evolution.
The religious right has failed at the national political level, but has had great success at the local level. It is CRITICAL that we stop this trend. Their plan to remove evolution from school curriculums, or if that fails, to force the teaching of creation science (which is a ridiculous idea, to say the least) would cause unbelievable harm to science education.
Teaching people to think is the best goal of a basic science education. The theory of evolution is so important to our lives now, and if it is properly taught, biology/evolution can form the nucleus of a healthy skeptical and scientific thinking process.
How'd I ever get through algebra let alone calculus?? ;-)
:-)
Probably like I did. Take every class twice.
What are you talking about? Even an oven can freeze to greater than 10K.
Thanks for the clarification. I think the readers should understand one thing: these magnets are not for the outside of your refridgerator. They are for the inside of your refridgerator.
I won't believe in god until I hear from her lawyers.
I'm a liberal. I own no weapons. I oppose evil instead of being evil.