The problem is, I think, that what we affectionately refer to as "the slashdot effect" can actually be interpreted as a denial of service attack by those who aren't prepared for it.
I wholly agree that threats and intentional damage/attacks are absolutely out of bounds, and I think that the vast majority of slashdotters out there also agree. We, as a community, whether we like it or not, are coming under much closer scrutiny than ever before. The more exposure Linux and the OSS/FSF movement get in the media, the more people are going to be wandering in trying to find out what's going on.
What's going on is us. This whole thing that has been created isn't just about software. The Free/Open Source software movement isn't just about technology and innovation: this is a social movement that encompasses the realms of philosophy, politics, society, technology, the 'new media', and economics.
"Outsiders" are slowly (so slowly) starting to get over their terror of "those darned hackers" and the techonologies we know and love. They are beginning (much more quickly) to be exposed to the whacky wonderful unexpected strangeness that is the OSS/FSF movement.
(I do have a point...gimme a sec)
My point is this: the more popular Linux becomes, the more accomodating we're going to have to be to outsiders. The poor guys at the other end of this slashdot effect probably have no clue that the sudden spikes in traffic weren't based in the malicious intent of a bunch of "hackers" (incorrect usage of the word here, of course).
What we see as a sort of funny tendency for slashdot traffic to overload and crash servers, others are going to see as a malicious computer attack by an uncountable number of crackers.
I don't know what we can do about this. Probably nothing. People will continue to have their sites linked to from slashdot, and people will continue to experience the sudden and disconcerting results of the slashdot effect.
But...to offset these effects, maybe we should start trying to be a little less confrontational in other ways. Now, I'm not saying that we should ease up on our critiques of various Large Corporations, but if it's just a little guy who doesn't really know any better...maybe we should cut him/her a bit of slack to start.
The OSS movement isn't the small little grassroots movement it was a couple of years ago. It has become rather a tidal wave, really...a tidal wave of people with a stunning amount of enthusiasm and passion. We're not the littlest of the little guys anymore, and as a community we should start to think quite seriously about the overall impact that this community has "out there". Not just in the "we're finally starting to win" sense, but also in the "are we doing harm to others?" sense and whether that harm is acceptable, be it intentional or not.
Erm...or mebbe I'm just full of hot air:) It's late, it's Friday, and I've had way too much caffeine.
Does anyone know what's going on "behind the scenes" in regard to this whole controversy? Is Eric Raymond still working with Apple to modify the controversial aspects of the license? Is Apple even considering modifying the controversial aspects of the license? Has anyone been listening to Richard Stallman in regards to this? His accusation that the APSL is "incompatible with the GNU GPL" is pretty damning. What's the OSI doing in regards to this? The SPI?
Doesn't the whole "Open Source" trademark dispute throw rather a pall on this whole thing? According to what I've read (if I understand it correctly) no one at the OSI has the right to officially declare anything Open Source because the SPI continues to be in control of the trademark in spite of the fact that the OSI claims, on the front page of their web site, that they control it.
I'm new to the whole open source/free software movement, what having set up my linux box only 5 or 6 weeks ago. I have, however, been doing my best to try to understand the philosophies, ideologies, politics, and history of the movement. I really do want to understand, but this APSL fiasco ("fiasco" might be too strong a word) has really got me confused.
If anyone cares to explain (Bruce? Eric?), I'm more than happy to listen, and it would be very much appreciated.
Okay guys, next time -you- have a Linux tech support question, call Microsoft. Apparently they'll help you.
(From the second article:)
"So I telephoned the Microsoft Helpdesk. Even though Linux is supposed to demolish Microsoft, the Microsoft Helpdesk, which provides computer assistance to its employees, was surprisingly helpful."
These articles (I read both) are biased in lots of unsubtle ways. They are thinly veiled FUD, nothing more. I am impressed that the Slate editor mentioned on the intro page that Slate is owned and run by Microsoft and that the articles should (essentially) be taken with a grain of salt.
I mean, I try to remain objective about Microsoft. I try to just ignore them, repeating to myself that "Loving Linux does not necessarily mean hating Windows", over and over and over again. I keep trying to rationalize that Bill Gates is "just another businessman", and that Microsoft is "just another company". I really really do try.
But when I read things like these articles and like the Halloween documents and Gates' blitherings both during his DOJ trial deposition and during his recent book tour, I just get so F*&KING angry. It's not enough that they control the -majority- of the computing world, they have to control the whole goddamned thing.
Argh. It makes me so angry (said in my best Marvin Martian voice).
There is proof that bad writing is encouraged in academia. All you have to do is go read about the Social Text Affair.
People can write post-modern-sounding gibberish and it will get published, quite possibly in a rigorously reviewed and respected academic journal.
Good writing is clear, concise, and to the point. I agree with you on that. The problem is that our institutions of higher education don't teach people this.
I have a Bachelor of Arts degree, double major in sociology and English. This sort of writing is prevalent and encouraged in the hallowed halls of Higher Education. When I first started my current job (tech writing, immediately after graduation) my manager had to reprogram me so I would stop writing like ThiemeWorks does.
Academic writing styles do not (at all) translate well into the real world. After being immersed in academia for 5 years, however, it took me a long while to unlearn what I had learned.
Ah...an analogy: academic writing is like deliberately obfuscated code. It does what it's supposed to do, but very few are going to read it, and even fewer are going to learn from it.
I'm out of practice when it comes to reading academic writing: this article actually hurt my head. I would recommend (highly) that Thieme work on loosening up his style and vocabulary if he wants slashdotters to read/understand his articles.
note: I am not saying that slashdotters are dumb (as I said, this thing hurt my head, too). It's just that you have to have a lot of practice in order to successfully wade through and understand highly academic writing like this. It also takes way too much concentration, which I, for one, am not willing to devote to a linux-related news site.
- deb
good ol' Jon and the departmental curmudgeon
on
Assorted Katz Hype
·
· Score: 3
I don't like all of Jon Katz' articles, but I don't like all of any particular writer's writing (except for the shining exception of Hunter S Thompson).
In a lot of ways I agree with Wood's extensive critique of Jon's articles (in spite of the fact that it does take a couple of pot shots). It does seem like Jon is possibly taking advantage of this forum to market his own stuff.
Is there really a lot of harm in that? VA Research systems uses slashdot to market their own stuff: they (presumably) give Rob money and machines and in exchange they get ad space (and lots of it). That's fair: they give, they get, and vice versa for Rob M.
Jon Katz also gives something to the site, and he's getting something in return. He provides content and he gets increased exposure. Give some, get some, 'round and 'round it goes.
What I find impressive is the fact that Jon continues to stick around in spite of his many many detractors. Yeah, he can be a puffy ol' windbag at times, but his stuff usually contains enough of interest to make it worth reading (imho). If you disagree with me on this (and I know that oh-so-many of you do) the magical filtering features allow you to shut him out. Or, if you have a modicum of self-control and free will, you can choose to leave him unfiltered and simply Not Click Through to read his articles.
Is slashdot "selling out". No. Rob & Co. is (from what I can tell) continually working their bums off to increase the quality and usability of this site. Allowing Jon Katz to write and post articles here is part of that. Recruiting more writers will further improve this site. Original content, whether you like it or hate it is a good thing.
Maybe Jon could tone down the self-promotion a shade. Maybe Rob could refine his editorial judgement a shade. If not: so what. You've got the filtering technology, so use it.
I'm glad that Rob added the link to Wood's news posting. It's a sure sign of increasing editorial maturity when an editor is willing to publish articles that criticise the publication and it's editorial policies.
First off: I mean no offense to Richard Stallman in this...I think that he is a giant upon who's shoulders we all stand.
Stallman's insistence that people call Linux "GNU/Linux" is, in lots and lots of ways, completely understandable. As many others have said, in the hacker community "recognition" is pretty much the name of the game. Recognition is our currency.
On the other hand, Stallman's insistence that people call Linux "GNU/Linux" bears a striking similarity (well...in abstract ways quite possibly limited to my own mind) to the reaction of the Music Industry to the MP3 phenomenon.
The Music Industry (MI) is trying to deal with MP3 technology in a violent and purely reactionary capacity: MP3s are currently threatening their mainline profits. Rather than innovate and try to build a new economic model or cope with the new technology in a constructive and positive manner, the MI is going ape-dung over the whole thing, flinging about lawsuits, cracking down on distributors, banning even their own artists (Tom Petty) from taking advantage of the new technology as a form of marketing/distribution.
Pure violent reaction. MP3s are BAD, therefore they must be STOPPED.
What they don't seem to be willing to admit is the fact that you can't reverse the flows of time, technology, and innovation. No matter what they do, MP3s are here to stay.
Here's my theory about Richard Stallman (I am so hip-deep in pure conjecture here...Mr. Stallman...if you care to correct me, I would appreciate it):
Richard Stallman is threatened by the idea that he and the FSF will not get the recognition that is so obviously earned and deserved. His response to this threat, like that of the MI to MP3s, is purely and violently reactionary. Rather than trying to change his approach to getting the GNU applications and projects properly accredited within the movement, he simply begins insisting (vehemently) that it should be called "GNU/Linux" and more or less crapping on people who don't call it "GNU/Linux" etc.
The problem is that the name "Linux" (like MP3s) is here to stay. I have never heard anyone call it "GNU/Linux" in common conversation. The majority of people in the majority of media just call it "Linux". You cannot reverse the flows of time and innovation. It's a simple fact that people, both inside and outside the community, are going to call it Linux. That's something that the FSF is just going to have to accept.
Instead of standing in the corner and screeching at everyone about calling it "GNU/Linux", Stallman should perhaps begin to think of new and different ways of ensuring that the open source community understands and recognizes the importance of the FSF and the GNU projects. In doing this he will ensure that the FSF and GNU projects (and he himself) get the recongition and credit that is so obviously due.
Innovate. I, personally, have no idea how this could be done. I do know, however, that sweeping and reactionary tactics in attempt to force people into some sort of open-source-political-correctness is just not the way to go about it. Not only do people not change their behaviour, you also manage to annoy them (or downright p*ss them off) while you're at it.
I support Richard Stallman in his drive to ensure that the FSF and GNU projects get the credit and recognition they deserve. I suggest, however, that a different strategy be devised, because vicious and reactionary actions rarely make anyone any friends.
Politics is as much about personality as it is about philosophy.
I'm not a moderator, but I'm going to respond anyways.
I, personally, really really really like the new moderation system. Why? Because it seems to me that people are actually beginning to put some thought into their posts. Maybe this is to avoid the dreaded "-1" rating, maybe this is so people can increase their overall average "score". Whatever. I don't really care why it's working, only that it's working.
As for the accusations of "censorship", you're completely off base in my opinion. If people want to bother reading every single comment in every discussion, they can set their threshhold to a lower number. If they don't want to read the AC comments or stuff that none of the moderaters think is really "important", they set their threshholds higher. Is this censorship? No...it's for convenience. I regularly set my threshhold to 2. This lets me get a pretty good overview of what's being said and saves me from having to load a rediculously large page that consists mainly of single one-off posts that have no replies. If I'm bored (like I am now) I'll lower the threshhold to 0 just to see what sort of other stuff people have to say.
It's not censorship, it's selective reading. I don't have *time* to read all the comments, and from what I've seen so far, I trust the moderators' judgement about what post are worth taking a look at and which should just be skipped over for the sake of brevity.
If it were real censorship, your posts would be removed in their entirety, not just downgraded a point or two.
I was going to email Rob about how much I like the new moderation (and threshhold) systems, but I've said it all here now.
The moderation system is making it worth my time to look at the comments where before I would just skim them or scan the titles if I bothered looking at them at all.
There is a lot of talk happening (usually voiced by critics of the whole free/open source thing) about the forking of code and how the various versions of Linux (etc) are a bad thing that will lead to a fracturing of the movement. I, personally, don't know if this is true, but it is something to keep our collective eye on.
What worries me is that the Free Software and Open Source movements are going to be more damaged by license forking. The GPL made this whole thing possible. Will the introduction of all these new licenses (NPL, MPL, QPL, APSL, NCL, etc.) end up muddying the waters and diluting the power and meaning of the movement? If every corporation who jumps into the frey is allowed to introduce their own customized version of an "open source" license, will the One True License (GPL) get lost in the background while various factions bicker about the validity of each new corporate open source license to be issued?
Obviously it's a major victory that corporations are beginning to embrace the idea of open source. But what happens when they begin to "embrace and extend" (see Halloween Docs I & II)? The APSL scares me a little because (if I understand it correctly), Apple has built into the APSL the provision that they can revoke anyone's license at any time. This feels like an "extension" to me.
If Apple can build this into their "open source" license, chances are the next corporation will do the same, and so on and so forth.
Now, granted, if programmers don't like the terms of the license, they don't have to work on the code. The community is going to "vote with their feet", as it were, on each license that comes out.
But will dubbing each of these licenses "open source" not possibly dilute the meaning of the term?
If the trademark is in dispute (between the OSI and the SPI and, possibly, the Open Source Solutions people) and if it's possible that the meaning of the term is going to be diluted...well...
Maybe we need a different term that -isn't- being disputed, and maybe we need to formulate an extremely rigorous set of conditions under which that term can be used. When someone wants refer to a license using the term, it has to be discussed not only amongst the higher ups of a single organization, but discussed and debated and argued in an open forum by the members of this community.
Or something.
I'm just concerned that:
a) the term "open source" ends up becoming nothing but another bit of marketing-speak b) the term "open source" ends up being a commonly used term over which the community has no control (in terms of the ownership disputes) c) newcomers and the press get confused about what the free software/open source movement is really all about.
SPI still owns the Open Source trademark. Ask the USPTO.
(I'm assuming that you're referring to the United States Patent and Trademark Office?...I've never actually heard of such a place (what being Canadian), but it's the only expansion that made sense in this context:)
I was under the impression that you (Bruce) had handed over ownership of the trademark to Eric. On the front page of the opensource.org website, there's the following paragraph:
--- The phrase `open source' has been registered as a certification mark. You can examine the Open Source Definition that sets the conditions for use of this mark. You can read about software that qualifies and our branding program. ---
Yet on this page of the SPI website, it appears that the trademark ownership is still in dispute.
Should the resolution of this dispute be of fairly high priority? I mean, yeah, the APSL is being disputed, but if it -weren't- being disputed, would Eric be able to officially dub it "open source" if the OSI doesn't own/control the trademark?
Why hasn't this been resolved? The SPI page is dated Nov 24 1998. What's the current status of the dispute? Who is actually officially and legally in control of the mark?
- deb
I thought the OSI validated it as Open Source
on
Response to the APSL
·
· Score: 1
As far as I'm concerned, if the OSI says it's Open Source (TM), then it's Open Source (TM)!!!!
Personally, I'm much more comfortable knowing that there are people out there who don't take anyone's word as straight gospel about this stuff. The Open Source movement is way too important to screw up. I'd rather have a couple of watchdogs keeping an eye on what's going on than have a bunch of "if He says it then it is Right" vacant-eyed marshmallows humming along to the Wizard of Oz tune and ignoring that man behind the curtain.
Er. Awright...the analogy got a little extended, but you get my point:)
Question Everything. Trust No One. Geez...don't you kids learn -anything- from TeeVee these days?
I'd like to see a/. poll on this one. How many people support RMS's insistence that it be called "GNU/Linux", and how many people think that "Linux" is the proper name?
Six months ago this place was alive and growing... THE place to be. Now it festering with kiddies who, though they benefit from their use of Slashdot, contribute in a way that is less valueable to other members.
Ah...elitism is always so refreshing. Are you trying to say that Slashdot has become a victim of it's own success?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, I think, that what we affectionately refer to as "the slashdot effect" can actually be interpreted as a denial of service attack by those who aren't prepared for it.
:) It's late, it's Friday, and I've had way too much caffeine.
I wholly agree that threats and intentional damage/attacks are absolutely out of bounds, and I think that the vast majority of slashdotters out there also agree. We, as a community, whether we like it or not, are coming under much closer scrutiny than ever before. The more exposure Linux and the OSS/FSF movement get in the media, the more people are going to be wandering in trying to find out what's going on.
What's going on is us. This whole thing that has been created isn't just about software. The Free/Open Source software movement isn't just about technology and innovation: this is a social movement that encompasses the realms of philosophy, politics, society, technology, the 'new media', and economics.
"Outsiders" are slowly (so slowly) starting to get over their terror of "those darned hackers" and the techonologies we know and love. They are beginning (much more quickly) to be exposed to the whacky wonderful unexpected strangeness that is the OSS/FSF movement.
(I do have a point...gimme a sec)
My point is this: the more popular Linux becomes, the more accomodating we're going to have to be to outsiders. The poor guys at the other end of this slashdot effect probably have no clue that the sudden spikes in traffic weren't based in the malicious intent of a bunch of "hackers" (incorrect usage of the word here, of course).
What we see as a sort of funny tendency for slashdot traffic to overload and crash servers, others are going to see as a malicious computer attack by an uncountable number of crackers.
I don't know what we can do about this. Probably nothing. People will continue to have their sites linked to from slashdot, and people will continue to experience the sudden and disconcerting results of the slashdot effect.
But...to offset these effects, maybe we should start trying to be a little less confrontational in other ways. Now, I'm not saying that we should ease up on our critiques of various Large Corporations, but if it's just a little guy who doesn't really know any better...maybe we should cut him/her a bit of slack to start.
The OSS movement isn't the small little grassroots movement it was a couple of years ago. It has become rather a tidal wave, really...a tidal wave of people with a stunning amount of enthusiasm and passion. We're not the littlest of the little guys anymore, and as a community we should start to think quite seriously about the overall impact that this community has "out there". Not just in the "we're finally starting to win" sense, but also in the "are we doing harm to others?" sense and whether that harm is acceptable, be it intentional or not.
Erm...or mebbe I'm just full of hot air
- deb
Does anyone know what's going on "behind the scenes" in regard to this whole controversy? Is Eric Raymond still working with Apple to modify the controversial aspects of the license? Is Apple even considering modifying the controversial aspects of the license? Has anyone been listening to Richard Stallman in regards to this? His accusation that the APSL is "incompatible with the GNU GPL" is pretty damning. What's the OSI doing in regards to this? The SPI?
Doesn't the whole "Open Source" trademark dispute throw rather a pall on this whole thing? According to what I've read (if I understand it correctly) no one at the OSI has the right to officially declare anything Open Source because the SPI continues to be in control of the trademark in spite of the fact that the OSI claims, on the front page of their web site, that they control it.
I'm new to the whole open source/free software movement, what having set up my linux box only 5 or 6 weeks ago. I have, however, been doing my best to try to understand the philosophies, ideologies, politics, and history of the movement. I really do want to understand, but this APSL fiasco ("fiasco" might be too strong a word) has really got me confused.
If anyone cares to explain (Bruce? Eric?), I'm more than happy to listen, and it would be very much appreciated.
- deb (off to buy Open Sources now)
Okay...I can agree with that :)
- deb
Er...*zone*...it's Friday. Ignore that bit about the helpdesk.
- deb (*blush*)
Okay guys, next time -you- have a Linux tech support question, call Microsoft. Apparently they'll help you.
(From the second article:)
"So I telephoned the Microsoft Helpdesk. Even though Linux is supposed to demolish Microsoft, the Microsoft Helpdesk, which provides computer assistance to its employees, was surprisingly helpful."
These articles (I read both) are biased in lots of unsubtle ways. They are thinly veiled FUD, nothing more. I am impressed that the Slate editor mentioned on the intro page that Slate is owned and run by Microsoft and that the articles should (essentially) be taken with a grain of salt.
I mean, I try to remain objective about Microsoft. I try to just ignore them, repeating to myself that "Loving Linux does not necessarily mean hating Windows", over and over and over again. I keep trying to rationalize that Bill Gates is "just another businessman", and that Microsoft is "just another company". I really really do try.
But when I read things like these articles and like the Halloween documents and Gates' blitherings both during his DOJ trial deposition and during his recent book tour, I just get so F*&KING angry. It's not enough that they control the -majority- of the computing world, they have to control the whole goddamned thing.
Argh. It makes me so angry (said in my best Marvin Martian voice).
*grr*
- deb
There is proof that bad writing is encouraged in academia. All you have to do is go read about the Social Text Affair.
People can write post-modern-sounding gibberish and it will get published, quite possibly in a rigorously reviewed and respected academic journal.
Good writing is clear, concise, and to the point. I agree with you on that. The problem is that our institutions of higher education don't teach people this.
- deb
I have a Bachelor of Arts degree, double major in sociology and English. This sort of writing is prevalent and encouraged in the hallowed halls of Higher Education. When I first started my current job (tech writing, immediately after graduation) my manager had to reprogram me so I would stop writing like ThiemeWorks does.
Academic writing styles do not (at all) translate well into the real world. After being immersed in academia for 5 years, however, it took me a long while to unlearn what I had learned.
Ah...an analogy: academic writing is like deliberately obfuscated code. It does what it's supposed to do, but very few are going to read it, and even fewer are going to learn from it.
I'm out of practice when it comes to reading academic writing: this article actually hurt my head. I would recommend (highly) that Thieme work on loosening up his style and vocabulary if he wants slashdotters to read/understand his articles.
note: I am not saying that slashdotters are dumb (as I said, this thing hurt my head, too). It's just that you have to have a lot of practice in order to successfully wade through and understand highly academic writing like this. It also takes way too much concentration, which I, for one, am not willing to devote to a linux-related news site.
- deb
I don't like all of Jon Katz' articles, but I don't like all of any particular writer's writing (except for the shining exception of Hunter S Thompson).
In a lot of ways I agree with Wood's extensive critique of Jon's articles (in spite of the fact that it does take a couple of pot shots). It does seem like Jon is possibly taking advantage of this forum to market his own stuff.
Is there really a lot of harm in that? VA Research systems uses slashdot to market their own stuff: they (presumably) give Rob money and machines and in exchange they get ad space (and lots of it). That's fair: they give, they get, and vice versa for Rob M.
Jon Katz also gives something to the site, and he's getting something in return. He provides content and he gets increased exposure. Give some, get some, 'round and 'round it goes.
What I find impressive is the fact that Jon continues to stick around in spite of his many many detractors. Yeah, he can be a puffy ol' windbag at times, but his stuff usually contains enough of interest to make it worth reading (imho). If you disagree with me on this (and I know that oh-so-many of you do) the magical filtering features allow you to shut him out. Or, if you have a modicum of self-control and free will, you can choose to leave him unfiltered and simply Not Click Through to read his articles.
Is slashdot "selling out". No. Rob & Co. is (from what I can tell) continually working their bums off to increase the quality and usability of this site. Allowing Jon Katz to write and post articles here is part of that. Recruiting more writers will further improve this site. Original content, whether you like it or hate it is a good thing.
Maybe Jon could tone down the self-promotion a shade. Maybe Rob could refine his editorial judgement a shade. If not: so what. You've got the filtering technology, so use it.
I'm glad that Rob added the link to Wood's news posting. It's a sure sign of increasing editorial maturity when an editor is willing to publish articles that criticise the publication and it's editorial policies.
- deb
First off: I mean no offense to Richard Stallman in this...I think that he is a giant upon who's shoulders we all stand.
Stallman's insistence that people call Linux "GNU/Linux" is, in lots and lots of ways, completely understandable. As many others have said, in the hacker community "recognition" is pretty much the name of the game. Recognition is our currency.
On the other hand, Stallman's insistence that people call Linux "GNU/Linux" bears a striking similarity (well...in abstract ways quite possibly limited to my own mind) to the reaction of the Music Industry to the MP3 phenomenon.
The Music Industry (MI) is trying to deal with MP3 technology in a violent and purely reactionary capacity: MP3s are currently threatening their mainline profits. Rather than innovate and try to build a new economic model or cope with the new technology in a constructive and positive manner, the MI is going ape-dung over the whole thing, flinging about lawsuits, cracking down on distributors, banning even their own artists (Tom Petty) from taking advantage of the new technology as a form of marketing/distribution.
Pure violent reaction. MP3s are BAD, therefore they must be STOPPED.
What they don't seem to be willing to admit is the fact that you can't reverse the flows of time, technology, and innovation. No matter what they do, MP3s are here to stay.
Here's my theory about Richard Stallman (I am so hip-deep in pure conjecture here...Mr. Stallman...if you care to correct me, I would appreciate it):
Richard Stallman is threatened by the idea that he and the FSF will not get the recognition that is so obviously earned and deserved. His response to this threat, like that of the MI to MP3s, is purely and violently reactionary. Rather than trying to change his approach to getting the GNU applications and projects properly accredited within the movement, he simply begins insisting (vehemently) that it should be called "GNU/Linux" and more or less crapping on people who don't call it "GNU/Linux" etc.
The problem is that the name "Linux" (like MP3s) is here to stay. I have never heard anyone call it "GNU/Linux" in common conversation. The majority of people in the majority of media just call it "Linux". You cannot reverse the flows of time and innovation. It's a simple fact that people, both inside and outside the community, are going to call it Linux. That's something that the FSF is just going to have to accept.
Instead of standing in the corner and screeching at everyone about calling it "GNU/Linux", Stallman should perhaps begin to think of new and different ways of ensuring that the open source community understands and recognizes the importance of the FSF and the GNU projects. In doing this he will ensure that the FSF and GNU projects (and he himself) get the recongition and credit that is so obviously due.
Innovate. I, personally, have no idea how this could be done. I do know, however, that sweeping and reactionary tactics in attempt to force people into some sort of open-source-political-correctness is just not the way to go about it. Not only do people not change their behaviour, you also manage to annoy them (or downright p*ss them off) while you're at it.
I support Richard Stallman in his drive to ensure that the FSF and GNU projects get the credit and recognition they deserve. I suggest, however, that a different strategy be devised, because vicious and reactionary actions rarely make anyone any friends.
Politics is as much about personality as it is about philosophy.
A rose by any other name...
- deb
I'm not a moderator, but I'm going to respond anyways.
I, personally, really really really like the new moderation system. Why? Because it seems to me that people are actually beginning to put some thought into their posts. Maybe this is to avoid the dreaded "-1" rating, maybe this is so people can increase their overall average "score". Whatever. I don't really care why it's working, only that it's working.
As for the accusations of "censorship", you're completely off base in my opinion. If people want to bother reading every single comment in every discussion, they can set their threshhold to a lower number. If they don't want to read the AC comments or stuff that none of the moderaters think is really "important", they set their threshholds higher. Is this censorship? No...it's for convenience. I regularly set my threshhold to 2. This lets me get a pretty good overview of what's being said and saves me from having to load a rediculously large page that consists mainly of single one-off posts that have no replies. If I'm bored (like I am now) I'll lower the threshhold to 0 just to see what sort of other stuff people have to say.
It's not censorship, it's selective reading. I don't have *time* to read all the comments, and from what I've seen so far, I trust the moderators' judgement about what post are worth taking a look at and which should just be skipped over for the sake of brevity.
If it were real censorship, your posts would be removed in their entirety, not just downgraded a point or two.
I was going to email Rob about how much I like the new moderation (and threshhold) systems, but I've said it all here now.
The moderation system is making it worth my time to look at the comments where before I would just skim them or scan the titles if I bothered looking at them at all.
- deb
There is a lot of talk happening (usually voiced by critics of the whole free/open source thing) about the forking of code and how the various versions of Linux (etc) are a bad thing that will lead to a fracturing of the movement. I, personally, don't know if this is true, but it is something to keep our collective eye on.
What worries me is that the Free Software and Open Source movements are going to be more damaged by license forking. The GPL made this whole thing possible. Will the introduction of all these new licenses (NPL, MPL, QPL, APSL, NCL, etc.) end up muddying the waters and diluting the power and meaning of the movement? If every corporation who jumps into the frey is allowed to introduce their own customized version of an "open source" license, will the One True License (GPL) get lost in the background while various factions bicker about the validity of each new corporate open source license to be issued?
Obviously it's a major victory that corporations are beginning to embrace the idea of open source. But what happens when they begin to "embrace and extend" (see Halloween Docs I & II)? The APSL scares me a little because (if I understand it correctly), Apple has built into the APSL the provision that they can revoke anyone's license at any time. This feels like an "extension" to me.
If Apple can build this into their "open source" license, chances are the next corporation will do the same, and so on and so forth.
Now, granted, if programmers don't like the terms of the license, they don't have to work on the code. The community is going to "vote with their feet", as it were, on each license that comes out.
But will dubbing each of these licenses "open source" not possibly dilute the meaning of the term?
If the trademark is in dispute (between the OSI and the SPI and, possibly, the Open Source Solutions people) and if it's possible that the meaning of the term is going to be diluted...well...
Maybe we need a different term that -isn't- being disputed, and maybe we need to formulate an extremely rigorous set of conditions under which that term can be used. When someone wants refer to a license using the term, it has to be discussed not only amongst the higher ups of a single organization, but discussed and debated and argued in an open forum by the members of this community.
Or something.
I'm just concerned that:
a) the term "open source" ends up becoming nothing but another bit of marketing-speak
b) the term "open source" ends up being a commonly used term over which the community has no control (in terms of the ownership disputes)
c) newcomers and the press get confused about what the free software/open source movement is really all about.
- deb
I'm a little confused by this:
:)
SPI still owns the Open Source trademark. Ask the USPTO.
(I'm assuming that you're referring to the United States Patent and Trademark Office?...I've never actually heard of such a place (what being Canadian), but it's the only expansion that made sense in this context
I was under the impression that you (Bruce) had handed over ownership of the trademark to Eric. On the front page of the opensource.org website, there's the following paragraph:
---
The phrase `open source' has been registered as a certification mark. You can examine the Open Source Definition that sets the conditions for use of this mark. You can read about software that qualifies and our branding program.
---
Yet on this page of the SPI website, it appears that the trademark ownership is still in dispute.
Should the resolution of this dispute be of fairly high priority? I mean, yeah, the APSL is being disputed, but if it -weren't- being disputed, would Eric be able to officially dub it "open source" if the OSI doesn't own/control the trademark?
Why hasn't this been resolved? The SPI page is dated Nov 24 1998. What's the current status of the dispute? Who is actually officially and legally in control of the mark?
- deb
Personally, I'm much more comfortable knowing that there are people out there who don't take anyone's word as straight gospel about this stuff. The Open Source movement is way too important to screw up. I'd rather have a couple of watchdogs keeping an eye on what's going on than have a bunch of "if He says it then it is Right" vacant-eyed marshmallows humming along to the Wizard of Oz tune and ignoring that man behind the curtain.
Er. Awright...the analogy got a little extended, but you get my point
Question Everything. Trust No One. Geez...don't you kids learn -anything- from TeeVee these days?
- dria
I'd like to see a /. poll on this one. How many people support RMS's insistence that it be called "GNU/Linux", and how many people think that "Linux" is the proper name?
- dria
What some affectionately call the slashdot effect, others call a "denial of service attack". I still can't get through to the new server.
How long do you think it will take sites to pay Rob to -not- link to them?
- d
You can patent a method, not an idea.
- d
Ah...elitism is always so refreshing. Are you trying to say that Slashdot has become a victim of it's own success?
- dria