Jane and Joe mightn't care, but that doesn't mean it's not important. It also doesn't mean that noone cares.
Sue Secretary certainly cares when Word and Windows continually makes her day a misery. How she wished that she could get her boss to hire a freelance programmer to fix the bugs that _really_ irritate her! Unfortunately, her boss would love to spend a bit of money to allow her to be more productive, but it's just plain impossible to fix bugs in Word or Windows. Worst of all, Microsoft aren't supporting these versions anymore, and so won't fix the bugs. Sue's boss would much rather give money to a programmer who can fix their problems than to the company who has abandoned them, but he has no choice.
Don't be a dick. These things really do make a difference to normal, everyday people in normal, everyday ways. Not caring about them is like not caring about what kind of insurance you have on your house/car/whatever.
I'm getting sick of the "what about your car's code?" question. Realise that free software is designed for general purpose computers, like PCs, as opposed to embedded, special purpose stuff. It may also apply to these things, but I dunno, I haven't thought about it enough yet.
On first glance, there does appear to be some merit for it, at least once a model of car has been discontinued. If you drive an older car, one before all this computerized gadgetry became embedded in them, then it's relatively easy for you to fix your car when it breaks. You can go to any spare parts place and get what you need, and failing that you can probably fashion it yourself out of sheet metal or a similar model or something.
But if it's the embedded computer which needs fixing, and the car company has told you that they don't support your car anymore (and so won't sell you spare parts), you're substantially more fucked. In fact, you're basically stuck with the proverbial car-with-hood-welded-shut. It's the computer, not the hood, that's welded shut, but the effect is the same. If the car company had decided to release the source and specs to your car as free software, then you and other owners of your car, perhaps with similar problems, could fix it. Hell, you could even make it better, fix any bugs or tweak things to be exactly how you like them! The patches and tools could be available on the Internet. If you can't do it, then you could hire someone to do it for you - techies could make a living doing this kind of thing on weekends. It's really the same as Sue Secretary's case.
Here's a prediction for you. In a few years time, when Linux and other Free OSes have a very substantial market share, every company and their dog will be barking to port their stuff to these platforms. Presently, these companies doesn't need Linux, but I think there'll come a time when they do. When that time comes, they'll have no choice but to submit and make their stuff Free, because they will want to get their stuff on Linux but will cop "hostility" if it's not Free.
And rightly so. If they want to get onto this bandwagon and reap the rewards, then they need to be prepared to play by our rules or else be shoved off. They would fight if we tried to enter their proprietary software arena and not play by the rules, after all. They shouldn't be surprised that people using Free OSes want Free software to play movie files.
Apple (and others like them) shouldn't be surprised if their current attitude puts them in a worse situation in the future.
Less infighting. GNOME/KDE. Sun/HelixCode/Java. ESR/RMS. How much code has this produced?
Less reinvention of the wheel on political or personal grounds. See above.
HAhahaha!!! You've obviously forgotten the fact that the GNU system exists PRECISELY because RMS decided to 'reinvent the wheel' on personal (and social) grounds. Oops, so much for that argument.
"Infighting", duplication of effort, reinventing the wheel, etc are all a myth in the free software movement. As has been pointed out in another reply to this message, these things are only issues to slashdot whingers, who are actually creating the issue. The coders don't worry about it, and just keep coding. Perhaps you should do the same. (And before you get smart, yes, so should I.)
The fact is that competition should never have priority over unity.
That is such a Microsoft comment.
The GNOME developers should not be expected (nor should they have been) to put "unity" with the KDE group above competition. In fact, it's utterly ridiculous to suggest it. The two groups have differing views on both technical and philosophical matters. This is precisely why GNOME was created, and a lot of code has been written as a result. In case you haven't been paying attention, forking, competition and the sharing of code make the free software world go 'round.
Perhaps next you'll be suggesting that since KDE and GNOME are just competing with MS and duplicating MS's efforts, they should just "unite" with MS.
I think what he was trying to say is that it'd be easier to find the path than to find a direct polynomial time algorithm. Particularly when it is common to reduce 3SAT (or Vertex Cover, etc) to the problem you're proving NP-Complete. Then you could use the Cook-Levin theorem to get to any problem you choose. Of course, we all know how efficient an implemention of the Cook-Levin construction would be, don't we?:)
Proving that a solution exists is important. It means that you're not wasting your time looking for it. With hard problems like NP ones, proving the existence of what you're looking for is a good idea.
Unless, of course, one doesn't mind wasting hundreds on stupid KVM devices just to do some work on more than one machine at a time.
Which are additionally useless and stupid when you're halfway around the world, and seperated from your machine by several thousand kilometres.
Just like *nix in general, most of the people who attack X don't understand it. Don't worry about them, just let them live their sad unproductive lives and continue going about your productive one. Simply saying "X is rubbish" with no arguments just illustrates that the person who posted it is an idiot, along with the dolt who modded it up.
Then this is where we disagree. I don't think it's necessarily that bad, particularly if you have similar beliefs to the evangelical, arrogant person. I try as much as possible to listen to the message and not the medium or the manner. (thanks Chomsky!)
Come on now... Jorrit states in his frist e-mail that Crystal Space is licensed under the LGPL, this alone makes it fall into the category of "Free Software"
Yes, but the LGPL and GPL are also valid Open Source licenses. Thus, RMS was concerned that even though the LGPL was being used, and thus the software was Free, that his words would be seen as coming from the Open Source movement.
This is why RMS refused to answer until the terminology was on his level, not because of some dastardly plot to drag out the conversation. I agree, yes, he probably did have at least an inkling of what Jorrit was asking, and quite possibly chose to not answer it until the terminology was sorted out. I have already outlined his most probable reasons for such actions.
It's this very attitude that makes RMS a bad advocate for the FSF since it's this attitude that turns people away.
What attitude? As far as I can tell, this "attitude", in this case, comes from his deciding to not answer Jorrit's question until the terminology was cleared upfront. I've already stated several times why I think this is a reasonable choice. But at all times, RMS was gentlemanlike, polite, explained himself well and eloquently, and brought out what he thought to be the pivotal issues and explained why he thought they were so. Where he didn't know about things, he said so and asked for explanations. He was terse and brief, but these are understood to be conveniences in electronic correspondances. He had a cold steel-like precision, but this aided the conversation by ensuring as little ambiguity, misinterpretation and misunderstandings as possible. It's not like he flamed Jorrit for calling his precious LGPL a dastardly "Open Source" license, is it?
RMS can be gruff at times, but so what? He never insults anyone personally. While he attacks things he always explains well his reasons for doing so, and will almost always do so at a technical, moral, or social level, rather than an emotional one.
Frankly, I have very little respect for people who carry on about how rude RMS is, without considering what he's actually saying. Next time, try listening to what RMS has to say, not how he says it.
RMS should stick with programming and let others do the advocacy.
Not forgetting, of course, that his programming and advocacy are essentially the reason that systems such as GNU, Linux, Apache, Samba, etc, etc exist today in the form they do. Don't bother trying to argue that the programming alone did this, the programming got him so far, but it was only through the advocacy that he was able to get support to continue these things, and for others to create new ones.
RMS is a fine advocate. He won't ever sell-out, he will always challenge people to think morally and to do what is just and right by their fellow man. He would never sugar-coat or soften his stance in order to suck up to the type of poeple who need that kind of crap in order to accept a message.
I was a bit sloppy in my terminology. Why couldn't he just accept this?
Two reasons:
1) RMS is a public figure, he needs to be careful about what he says, lest he be misquoted or say something wrong and have it come back to haunt him. He doesn't want to see the next slashdot headline be "RMS a hypocrite, supports Open Source". This _includes_ him talking about Free Software to people who think "Free Software == Open Source", because they may then go and misconstrue his words. That's why he wanted to get the distinction clear first.
2) Personal reasons. As he's said, he doesn't support or like the Open Source movement, and so he doesn't want to have anything to do with them. This is the guy who nitpicks over "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux", remember, so it's not surprising that he should want to talk about Free Software and not Open Source software. To you, the terms may be synonymous, but to him they are almost worlds apart. Hopefully this is clear now.
Since you were asking him for his advice, why couldn't you bend a little and be more precise in your terminology?
The definition of Open Source is quite clear, and anyone who thinks it permits bans on redistributing derived works is just wrong.
Yes, I alluded to this in my post. The problem is that English is a bitch; both Free Software and Open Source have their misleading and ambiguous connotations, despite having essentially identical definitions and modus operandi.
The problem (as I see it, of course) is that you get PHBs wanting in on this new fangled Open Source, and they think that they can do it by just allowing people to look at the source, while not allowing them to play with it or freely distribute it. On the other hand, when you use the term Free Software, you scare the PHBs away, and then you don't even get to look at the source. I see no substantial difference between these situations in terms of their "badness".
IMHO the connotation of Free Software is that the speaker believes proprietary licensing is morally wrong
And what conclusion(s) do you draw about a person who believes that proprietary licensing is morally wrong? Why is proprietary licensing not morally wrong? Do you have any justification? (PS. I'm not goading you or being sarcastic, I actually genuinely want to hear what you have to say.)
The first sentence of Mail 2, RMS's first reply, reads "I don't support the Open Source Movement, so I can't have a discussion with you in the name of open source.". Then the first sentence of Mail 4, RMS's second reply, reads "I will be glad to give you the Free Software Movement's advice about this issue, once I see that you understand that *we are not talking about open source*.". I think that's pretty clear. Please don't drag this down into semantics about "... exactly, except for..."
The problem in this whole conversation is Jorrit's failure to comprehend the difference between Open Source and Free software. He quite clearly indicates throughout the conversation that he perceives the terms to be virtually interchangable, or at least considers the difference unimportant. I suspect that RMS could see this, and hence didn't want to say "The Free software stance is...", because he didn't want Jorrit to read it as "The Open Source stance is...". I think that is why RMS refused to talk about the Free software stance until the distinction between Free software and Open Source had been properly made and acknowledged.
I'm not blaming Jorrit, I'm just saying that RMS hasn't done anything wrong, and the length of the conversation really isn't his fault.
As for Open Source being weaker or not, well, yes, that depends on your definition of good. However, based on my understanding of it, and the material in the emails, Open Source is like Free software, but without freedom 3. If goodness is defined in terms of level of freedom, then Open Source's lack of freedom 3 would make it weaker.
Yes, I am aware that technically Open Source is essentially identical to Free Software. However, the _term_ Open Source has the connotation of Free Software, but without freedom 3, that is, you can look at the source, but forget about redistributing your modified version. Given this definition, the one often being bandied around by big businesses looking to cash in on the phenomenon, Open Source is definately weaker than Free Software in terms of the freedoms it offers. The irony here is that the term Open Source was coined because they didn't like the term Free Software (since they thought it connotated gratis, rather than freedom). Sadly, the term Open Source is just as confusing and ambigious as Free Software.
Did you even bother to read the emails? This is EXACTLY what RMS did!
The exception, though, was that he didn't give the Free Software point of view immediately, rather, he asked the guy if he wanted it. Presumably this is because he doesn't want to waste his time describing the Free Software stance to people who are only interested in the weaker Open Source stance.
Does your precious constitution allow you to modify and redistribute your favourite software? No? Oh then it seems your constitution doesn't make you as free as you might like to be.
Honestly, I fail to see what the constitution has to do with anything in this matter. You're changing your definition of 'free' mid-stream. At one point you use the term to talk about your personal freedoms, next you use it to talk about the freeness of your software.
The matter is simple. While software you use is non-free, you also are non-free. This is because you are denied the freedoms RMS advocates, most notably, the freedom to modify and redistribute. It is clear that if you had these freedoms you would be "more free" than if you didn't have them (as is the case when you use non-free software).
Further, what is dictatorial about what he's saying? He's not saying you MUST choose free software, he's simply advocating it. He acknowledges your freedom to choose or not choose free software, and so he tries to convince you of why you should choose free software. I simply can't fathom why you people seem to read it as an ultimatum. He just wants you to consider the morals, and to do what is morally and socially right. He argues that denying your friends and colleagues the 4 freedoms described is not morally right, and so you should choose courses of action which do not deny these freedoms.
But he can't stop you from choosing to do whatever you like, or advocating whatever you like. After all, that's all he's ever done. He's chosen to not ever use or write non-free software, and he's chosen to try and spread his message.
If you were asking for his advice, it's the least you could do. It's not hard to read about it on the GNU website and do a little background before emailing him.
If someone came up to you and was asking you advice, about a topic you're knowledgable on, but they're using terms you don't use, would you answer their questions? Or would you get clarification first? Should RMS talk about the Open Source Movement as though he represents it?
If RMS didn't get clarification on the terms, the next story on/. would be about how RMS is butchering his own terminology! He doesn't speak for open source software, and so refused to. It's as simple as that. Jorrit didn't understand that, just like RMS didn't understand 'game consoles'.
The article says that they want to archive some analog stuff with frequencies "well above" 50kHz. That humans can't hear these frequencies is of diminishing concern when you're archiving, since you just want the best quality analog to digital transition.
I'm not sure how this justifies a 2.82MHz sampling rate, but it does justify sampling rates above 44.1kHz and even 100kHz.
IMHO, the "/. herdthink" is an urban myth. The vast majority of posts I see are either (roughly) "Copyright is fine, paying for that stuff is fine, but don't mess with my current rights (eg. fair use)." or "Everyone at/. thinks that they should be able to get music and stuff for free. Wake up and realise that you have to pay for stuff.". But the actual posts saying "I want free music and warez, how dare the feds make that harder!" I can't seems to find.
You can't read all the/. comments, particularly with threshold < 2 and threaded or flat mode, and expect to get the overall view. You've got to filter out most of the shit, and the best way to do that is with a threshold >= 3 and nested mode. Oh, and don't forget to actually use your brain to identify any trolls or twits that are left.
As for digital assets, well, the corporate world needs to become aquainted wth the fact that it is extremely easy to duplicate digital information without any loss in quality. Whether or not it's ethical to duplicate a given piece of data doesn't change the fact that it's stunningly easy to actually do it. If they want to get into the digital world, they need to figure out how to deal with this. At the moment, they're not dealing with it, they're trying to make it go away. It won't go away, and that's why they'll continue to be screwed by it, and attempt to screw us in the process.
The corporate world is having a tough time because they're not willing to accept change, particularly when it comes to changing their current comfortable lifestyle. Of course they'll be allowed to make money, they just have to figure out how to do it WITHOUT FUCKING US OVER. Is it so unreasonable to demand that they not dimish our existing rights in their mad scramble to profit from the digital age?
Apple have an exclusive license from Sorenson to use the codec. This means that when you ask Sorenson about it, they say "Sorry, we'd love to sell (not give) you a license, but our hands are tied - Apple have an exclusive license. Go bug them about it."
While I don't know the exact details of the license, I'm pretty sure it prevents Apple from releasing any source. Even if it doesn't prevent them, Apple have made it quite clear that they have no intentions of ever releasing the source. The license almost certainly forbids Apple from relicensing the technology, so it's unlikely they could allow any third-party (such as the Xanim author) to develop an implementation of the codec.
Hell, they're not even interested in a totally non-free binary-only port. There's definately nothing (legally) stopping them from doing this, it'd just be another platform which QT5 supports in addition to the usual suspects. It'd make good business sense, too, since Apple are (essentially) fighting a codec war with MPEG4 and RealVideo, and having the free software movement on their side would help them immeasurably. Instead, people using free software platforms can't even view Sorenson encoded stuff, which means they'll just pass it over as an option.
Re:Einstein and the Nobel prize
on
Nobel Prizes
·
· Score: 3
Huh? Einstein did the photoelectric effect stuff at the same time as (special) relativity (and Brownian motion), 1905. He got the prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect because it was damn good work, and had been vindicated as such, not because they were looking for an excuse to give the prize to him.
Remember that his explanation of the photoelectric effect required particle-like photons of light, which at the time were considered silly in the face of all the evidence that light was a wave. His explanation of the photoelectric effect was very important indeed, and can rival relativity as his most important work (though not his most well-known).
Are those figures for standard 5mm LED, or similar? If so, then that's a pretty damn big screen, 5.12m x 3.84m, and at 5mm dot-pitch, too.
Down the bottom of the article it mentions that Kodak's LEDs are eight hundreths of an inch thick. And now think about the resolution they're trying to get, in the size they're trying to get. I think it's pretty clear that these LEDs are _tiny_.
It's 50/50. I know it was the guy who wrote the submission who suggested Linux, but sometimes it just feels like you have to mention Linux to get a story accepted these days. Would this story have been posted if it didn't have the Linux bit? Ordinarily, I'd say of course, but the way/. has been going lately, I'm not so sure.
I have a 4.77MHz Z80A Osborne 1... I thought the original Z80 would also do 4.77MHz, but I'm not sure. Aha, a quick websearch has proven me wrong - the Z80 was about half the speed, "2.5MHz".
The 8086 was 4.77MHz, but was 16 bit so also in a different league.
Well, it displays 2000 characters, but the video memory required for that is actually 4000 bytes. Each character displayed needs a byte for the character to display, and a byte for the attributes (that is, color) with which it's displayed.
Ugh, must EVERY story mention Linux? I mean, I know we like Linux and everything, but mentioning putting it on a 4.77MHz Z80 just makes me feel sick.
What would be an otherwise excellent nerdy retrocomputing story is tarnished by the ObLinux mention. Can't people just appreciate this stuff for what it is?
Slashdot Mirror
Jane and Joe mightn't care, but that doesn't mean it's not important. It also doesn't mean that noone cares.
Sue Secretary certainly cares when Word and Windows continually makes her day a misery. How she wished that she could get her boss to hire a freelance programmer to fix the bugs that _really_ irritate her! Unfortunately, her boss would love to spend a bit of money to allow her to be more productive, but it's just plain impossible to fix bugs in Word or Windows. Worst of all, Microsoft aren't supporting these versions anymore, and so won't fix the bugs. Sue's boss would much rather give money to a programmer who can fix their problems than to the company who has abandoned them, but he has no choice.
Don't be a dick. These things really do make a difference to normal, everyday people in normal, everyday ways. Not caring about them is like not caring about what kind of insurance you have on your house/car/whatever.
I'm getting sick of the "what about your car's code?" question. Realise that free software is designed for general purpose computers, like PCs, as opposed to embedded, special purpose stuff. It may also apply to these things, but I dunno, I haven't thought about it enough yet.
On first glance, there does appear to be some merit for it, at least once a model of car has been discontinued. If you drive an older car, one before all this computerized gadgetry became embedded in them, then it's relatively easy for you to fix your car when it breaks. You can go to any spare parts place and get what you need, and failing that you can probably fashion it yourself out of sheet metal or a similar model or something.
But if it's the embedded computer which needs fixing, and the car company has told you that they don't support your car anymore (and so won't sell you spare parts), you're substantially more fucked. In fact, you're basically stuck with the proverbial car-with-hood-welded-shut. It's the computer, not the hood, that's welded shut, but the effect is the same. If the car company had decided to release the source and specs to your car as free software, then you and other owners of your car, perhaps with similar problems, could fix it. Hell, you could even make it better, fix any bugs or tweak things to be exactly how you like them! The patches and tools could be available on the Internet. If you can't do it, then you could hire someone to do it for you - techies could make a living doing this kind of thing on weekends. It's really the same as Sue Secretary's case.
Like I said before, don't be a dick.
Here's a prediction for you. In a few years time, when Linux and other Free OSes have a very substantial market share, every company and their dog will be barking to port their stuff to these platforms. Presently, these companies doesn't need Linux, but I think there'll come a time when they do. When that time comes, they'll have no choice but to submit and make their stuff Free, because they will want to get their stuff on Linux but will cop "hostility" if it's not Free.
And rightly so. If they want to get onto this bandwagon and reap the rewards, then they need to be prepared to play by our rules or else be shoved off. They would fight if we tried to enter their proprietary software arena and not play by the rules, after all. They shouldn't be surprised that people using Free OSes want Free software to play movie files.
Apple (and others like them) shouldn't be surprised if their current attitude puts them in a worse situation in the future.
HAhahaha!!! You've obviously forgotten the fact that the GNU system exists PRECISELY because RMS decided to 'reinvent the wheel' on personal (and social) grounds. Oops, so much for that argument.
"Infighting", duplication of effort, reinventing the wheel, etc are all a myth in the free software movement. As has been pointed out in another reply to this message, these things are only issues to slashdot whingers, who are actually creating the issue. The coders don't worry about it, and just keep coding. Perhaps you should do the same. (And before you get smart, yes, so should I.)
The fact is that competition should never have priority over unity.
That is such a Microsoft comment.
The GNOME developers should not be expected (nor should they have been) to put "unity" with the KDE group above competition. In fact, it's utterly ridiculous to suggest it. The two groups have differing views on both technical and philosophical matters. This is precisely why GNOME was created, and a lot of code has been written as a result. In case you haven't been paying attention, forking, competition and the sharing of code make the free software world go 'round.
Perhaps next you'll be suggesting that since KDE and GNOME are just competing with MS and duplicating MS's efforts, they should just "unite" with MS.
Competition is a good thing. Don't forget that.
I think what he was trying to say is that it'd be easier to find the path than to find a direct polynomial time algorithm. Particularly when it is common to reduce 3SAT (or Vertex Cover, etc) to the problem you're proving NP-Complete. Then you could use the Cook-Levin theorem to get to any problem you choose. Of course, we all know how efficient an implemention of the Cook-Levin construction would be, don't we? :)
Proving that a solution exists is important. It means that you're not wasting your time looking for it. With hard problems like NP ones, proving the existence of what you're looking for is a good idea.
Unless, of course, one doesn't mind wasting hundreds on stupid KVM devices just to do some work on more than one machine at a time.
Which are additionally useless and stupid when you're halfway around the world, and seperated from your machine by several thousand kilometres.
Just like *nix in general, most of the people who attack X don't understand it. Don't worry about them, just let them live their sad unproductive lives and continue going about your productive one. Simply saying "X is rubbish" with no arguments just illustrates that the person who posted it is an idiot, along with the dolt who modded it up.
Then this is where we disagree. I don't think it's necessarily that bad, particularly if you have similar beliefs to the evangelical, arrogant person. I try as much as possible to listen to the message and not the medium or the manner. (thanks Chomsky!)
Come on now... Jorrit states in his frist e-mail that Crystal Space is licensed under the LGPL, this alone makes it fall into the category of "Free Software"
Yes, but the LGPL and GPL are also valid Open Source licenses. Thus, RMS was concerned that even though the LGPL was being used, and thus the software was Free, that his words would be seen as coming from the Open Source movement.
This is why RMS refused to answer until the terminology was on his level, not because of some dastardly plot to drag out the conversation. I agree, yes, he probably did have at least an inkling of what Jorrit was asking, and quite possibly chose to not answer it until the terminology was sorted out. I have already outlined his most probable reasons for such actions.
It's this very attitude that makes RMS a bad advocate for the FSF since it's this attitude that turns people away.
What attitude? As far as I can tell, this "attitude", in this case, comes from his deciding to not answer Jorrit's question until the terminology was cleared upfront. I've already stated several times why I think this is a reasonable choice. But at all times, RMS was gentlemanlike, polite, explained himself well and eloquently, and brought out what he thought to be the pivotal issues and explained why he thought they were so. Where he didn't know about things, he said so and asked for explanations. He was terse and brief, but these are understood to be conveniences in electronic correspondances. He had a cold steel-like precision, but this aided the conversation by ensuring as little ambiguity, misinterpretation and misunderstandings as possible. It's not like he flamed Jorrit for calling his precious LGPL a dastardly "Open Source" license, is it?
RMS can be gruff at times, but so what? He never insults anyone personally. While he attacks things he always explains well his reasons for doing so, and will almost always do so at a technical, moral, or social level, rather than an emotional one.
Frankly, I have very little respect for people who carry on about how rude RMS is, without considering what he's actually saying. Next time, try listening to what RMS has to say, not how he says it.
RMS should stick with programming and let others do the advocacy.
Not forgetting, of course, that his programming and advocacy are essentially the reason that systems such as GNU, Linux, Apache, Samba, etc, etc exist today in the form they do. Don't bother trying to argue that the programming alone did this, the programming got him so far, but it was only through the advocacy that he was able to get support to continue these things, and for others to create new ones.
RMS is a fine advocate. He won't ever sell-out, he will always challenge people to think morally and to do what is just and right by their fellow man. He would never sugar-coat or soften his stance in order to suck up to the type of poeple who need that kind of crap in order to accept a message.
I was a bit sloppy in my terminology. Why couldn't he just accept this?
Two reasons:
1) RMS is a public figure, he needs to be careful about what he says, lest he be misquoted or say something wrong and have it come back to haunt him. He doesn't want to see the next slashdot headline be "RMS a hypocrite, supports Open Source". This _includes_ him talking about Free Software to people who think "Free Software == Open Source", because they may then go and misconstrue his words. That's why he wanted to get the distinction clear first.
2) Personal reasons. As he's said, he doesn't support or like the Open Source movement, and so he doesn't want to have anything to do with them. This is the guy who nitpicks over "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux", remember, so it's not surprising that he should want to talk about Free Software and not Open Source software. To you, the terms may be synonymous, but to him they are almost worlds apart. Hopefully this is clear now.
Since you were asking him for his advice, why couldn't you bend a little and be more precise in your terminology?
The definition of Open Source is quite clear, and anyone who thinks it permits bans on redistributing derived works is just wrong.
Yes, I alluded to this in my post. The problem is that English is a bitch; both Free Software and Open Source have their misleading and ambiguous connotations, despite having essentially identical definitions and modus operandi.
The problem (as I see it, of course) is that you get PHBs wanting in on this new fangled Open Source, and they think that they can do it by just allowing people to look at the source, while not allowing them to play with it or freely distribute it. On the other hand, when you use the term Free Software, you scare the PHBs away, and then you don't even get to look at the source. I see no substantial difference between these situations in terms of their "badness".
IMHO the connotation of Free Software is that the speaker believes proprietary licensing is morally wrong
And what conclusion(s) do you draw about a person who believes that proprietary licensing is morally wrong? Why is proprietary licensing not morally wrong? Do you have any justification? (PS. I'm not goading you or being sarcastic, I actually genuinely want to hear what you have to say.)
The first sentence of Mail 2, RMS's first reply, reads "I don't support the Open Source Movement, so I can't have a discussion with you in the name of open source.". Then the first sentence of Mail 4, RMS's second reply, reads "I will be glad to give you the Free Software Movement's advice about this issue, once I see that you understand that *we are not talking about open source*.". I think that's pretty clear. Please don't drag this down into semantics about "... exactly, except for ..."
...", because he didn't want Jorrit to read it as "The Open Source stance is ...". I think that is why RMS refused to talk about the Free software stance until the distinction between Free software and Open Source had been properly made and acknowledged.
The problem in this whole conversation is Jorrit's failure to comprehend the difference between Open Source and Free software. He quite clearly indicates throughout the conversation that he perceives the terms to be virtually interchangable, or at least considers the difference unimportant. I suspect that RMS could see this, and hence didn't want to say "The Free software stance is
I'm not blaming Jorrit, I'm just saying that RMS hasn't done anything wrong, and the length of the conversation really isn't his fault.
As for Open Source being weaker or not, well, yes, that depends on your definition of good. However, based on my understanding of it, and the material in the emails, Open Source is like Free software, but without freedom 3. If goodness is defined in terms of level of freedom, then Open Source's lack of freedom 3 would make it weaker.
Yes, I am aware that technically Open Source is essentially identical to Free Software. However, the _term_ Open Source has the connotation of Free Software, but without freedom 3, that is, you can look at the source, but forget about redistributing your modified version. Given this definition, the one often being bandied around by big businesses looking to cash in on the phenomenon, Open Source is definately weaker than Free Software in terms of the freedoms it offers. The irony here is that the term Open Source was coined because they didn't like the term Free Software (since they thought it connotated gratis, rather than freedom). Sadly, the term Open Source is just as confusing and ambigious as Free Software.
Did you even bother to read the emails? This is EXACTLY what RMS did!
The exception, though, was that he didn't give the Free Software point of view immediately, rather, he asked the guy if he wanted it. Presumably this is because he doesn't want to waste his time describing the Free Software stance to people who are only interested in the weaker Open Source stance.
Does your precious constitution allow you to modify and redistribute your favourite software? No? Oh then it seems your constitution doesn't make you as free as you might like to be.
Honestly, I fail to see what the constitution has to do with anything in this matter. You're changing your definition of 'free' mid-stream. At one point you use the term to talk about your personal freedoms, next you use it to talk about the freeness of your software.
The matter is simple. While software you use is non-free, you also are non-free. This is because you are denied the freedoms RMS advocates, most notably, the freedom to modify and redistribute. It is clear that if you had these freedoms you would be "more free" than if you didn't have them (as is the case when you use non-free software).
Further, what is dictatorial about what he's saying? He's not saying you MUST choose free software, he's simply advocating it. He acknowledges your freedom to choose or not choose free software, and so he tries to convince you of why you should choose free software. I simply can't fathom why you people seem to read it as an ultimatum. He just wants you to consider the morals, and to do what is morally and socially right. He argues that denying your friends and colleagues the 4 freedoms described is not morally right, and so you should choose courses of action which do not deny these freedoms.
But he can't stop you from choosing to do whatever you like, or advocating whatever you like. After all, that's all he's ever done. He's chosen to not ever use or write non-free software, and he's chosen to try and spread his message.
If you were asking for his advice, it's the least you could do. It's not hard to read about it on the GNU website and do a little background before emailing him.
/. would be about how RMS is butchering his own terminology! He doesn't speak for open source software, and so refused to. It's as simple as that. Jorrit didn't understand that, just like RMS didn't understand 'game consoles'.
If someone came up to you and was asking you advice, about a topic you're knowledgable on, but they're using terms you don't use, would you answer their questions? Or would you get clarification first? Should RMS talk about the Open Source Movement as though he represents it?
If RMS didn't get clarification on the terms, the next story on
Just list it on eBay!
The article says that they want to archive some analog stuff with frequencies "well above" 50kHz. That humans can't hear these frequencies is of diminishing concern when you're archiving, since you just want the best quality analog to digital transition.
I'm not sure how this justifies a 2.82MHz sampling rate, but it does justify sampling rates above 44.1kHz and even 100kHz.
IMHO, the "/. herdthink" is an urban myth. The vast majority of posts I see are either (roughly) "Copyright is fine, paying for that stuff is fine, but don't mess with my current rights (eg. fair use)." or "Everyone at /. thinks that they should be able to get music and stuff for free. Wake up and realise that you have to pay for stuff.". But the actual posts saying "I want free music and warez, how dare the feds make that harder!" I can't seems to find.
/. comments, particularly with threshold < 2 and threaded or flat mode, and expect to get the overall view. You've got to filter out most of the shit, and the best way to do that is with a threshold >= 3 and nested mode. Oh, and don't forget to actually use your brain to identify any trolls or twits that are left.
You can't read all the
As for digital assets, well, the corporate world needs to become aquainted wth the fact that it is extremely easy to duplicate digital information without any loss in quality. Whether or not it's ethical to duplicate a given piece of data doesn't change the fact that it's stunningly easy to actually do it. If they want to get into the digital world, they need to figure out how to deal with this. At the moment, they're not dealing with it, they're trying to make it go away. It won't go away, and that's why they'll continue to be screwed by it, and attempt to screw us in the process.
The corporate world is having a tough time because they're not willing to accept change, particularly when it comes to changing their current comfortable lifestyle. Of course they'll be allowed to make money, they just have to figure out how to do it WITHOUT FUCKING US OVER. Is it so unreasonable to demand that they not dimish our existing rights in their mad scramble to profit from the digital age?
Apple have an exclusive license from Sorenson to use the codec. This means that when you ask Sorenson about it, they say "Sorry, we'd love to sell (not give) you a license, but our hands are tied - Apple have an exclusive license. Go bug them about it."
While I don't know the exact details of the license, I'm pretty sure it prevents Apple from releasing any source. Even if it doesn't prevent them, Apple have made it quite clear that they have no intentions of ever releasing the source. The license almost certainly forbids Apple from relicensing the technology, so it's unlikely they could allow any third-party (such as the Xanim author) to develop an implementation of the codec.
Hell, they're not even interested in a totally non-free binary-only port. There's definately nothing (legally) stopping them from doing this, it'd just be another platform which QT5 supports in addition to the usual suspects. It'd make good business sense, too, since Apple are (essentially) fighting a codec war with MPEG4 and RealVideo, and having the free software movement on their side would help them immeasurably. Instead, people using free software platforms can't even view Sorenson encoded stuff, which means they'll just pass it over as an option.
Huh? Einstein did the photoelectric effect stuff at the same time as (special) relativity (and Brownian motion), 1905. He got the prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect because it was damn good work, and had been vindicated as such, not because they were looking for an excuse to give the prize to him.
Remember that his explanation of the photoelectric effect required particle-like photons of light, which at the time were considered silly in the face of all the evidence that light was a wave. His explanation of the photoelectric effect was very important indeed, and can rival relativity as his most important work (though not his most well-known).
Are those figures for standard 5mm LED, or similar? If so, then that's a pretty damn big screen, 5.12m x 3.84m, and at 5mm dot-pitch, too.
Down the bottom of the article it mentions that Kodak's LEDs are eight hundreths of an inch thick. And now think about the resolution they're trying to get, in the size they're trying to get. I think it's pretty clear that these LEDs are _tiny_.
It's 50/50. I know it was the guy who wrote the submission who suggested Linux, but sometimes it just feels like you have to mention Linux to get a story accepted these days. Would this story have been posted if it didn't have the Linux bit? Ordinarily, I'd say of course, but the way /. has been going lately, I'm not so sure.
I have a 4.77MHz Z80A Osborne 1... I thought the original Z80 would also do 4.77MHz, but I'm not sure. Aha, a quick websearch has proven me wrong - the Z80 was about half the speed, "2.5MHz".
The 8086 was 4.77MHz, but was 16 bit so also in a different league.
A PC 80x25 character screen is 2000 characters.
Well, it displays 2000 characters, but the video memory required for that is actually 4000 bytes. Each character displayed needs a byte for the character to display, and a byte for the attributes (that is, color) with which it's displayed.
Now let's see if we can load linux on them!
Ugh, must EVERY story mention Linux? I mean, I know we like Linux and everything, but mentioning putting it on a 4.77MHz Z80 just makes me feel sick.
What would be an otherwise excellent nerdy retrocomputing story is tarnished by the ObLinux mention. Can't people just appreciate this stuff for what it is?
I'll say it again, ugh.
Yeah, I think my mistake was being right. Trolls hate that, especially when they've got mod points.