The so-called Linux Rift 121
David DeGeorge writes "From the San Francisco Examiner;
Rebecca Eisenberg
describing the controversy over playing with the
Big Boys. Most correct newspaper
article I have read about Open Source. She didn't even call Stallman a
genius when mentioning the MacArthur award. "
Commercialism not needed for success (Score:1)
1) Some of us need it to be able to convince bosses we should use freed software instead of NT et al.
2) While need is too strong a term, free software could be helped by corporate types who work to improve free software for their own needs. This gets us what we want faster.
Re: Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
Generally, I find your articles to be well written, intelligent and thought provoking. But you have to admit that your not exactly the most technical person, and in the world of journalism too many articles are written by quasi-technical journalists that miss the point.
Its good to see that you're hip enough to read Slashdot (not that association equals rightness)... now if you could just do something about the flim-flam that you believe in...
Read a book on Physics sometime - astrology is bunk! Ugh... why do otherwise intelligent people believe such demonstrably wrong things?
--
Python
Wicca and astrology (Score:1)
believes that *only* the rational is valid, one's
outlook is very limited, indeed. Quantum mechanics, for one, is
certainly far from rational in a traditional sense, as i see it, but it is consistent and valid. Don't be in a hurry to put down that which you dislike or distrust. Be open-minded.
See also ESR's writings about theophany if you want something to think about! Imho, he has it better than 99% of the clerics, who lost it, many generations back, in general.
There are important matters in life that are beyond the ordinary rational.
How soon we forget... (Score:1)
Fuck you. Fuck you and all the other whining newbie Linux lamers. You think you can do better? Go draft your own license and we'll see how many people adopt it.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Re: Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
Personal beliefs are exactly that, and while may embarrass or bother you, it's not exactly as if she or anyone else is forcing it upon you. Myself I don't really know the precepts of Wica, except one of my friends dabbles/is interested in it, but that doesn't detract any more than another of my friends being Christian or Buddhist, or preferring Red Hat to Debian to SuSE, or liking pork over chicken over tofu.
Astrology is only as bunk as believing in a hellfire and brimstone God, Hell, and Heavan, or in little tiny partially charged wave-particles interacting via strange carriers to produce forces of interactions, repulsion, attraction, and other things. I myself don't believe in astrology, but I also don't believe in Hell, eternal damnation, or eternal paradise. I believe in an afterlife and a soul, and other things, but there is no proof to them.
A person is a bundle of contradictions, paradoxes, and misleading beliefs-but don't hold it agains her or anyone else, since everyone is like that, even you...
AS
AS
Re: Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
Probably you should talk to John Katz. Or at least read some of his editorials on Slashdot. According to him, those flamers are just a little minority, but a very noisy one. (Just count the flames, then think about the ratio: about 10000 readers that don't flame, but don't anwer either!)
I, for myself, quite liked your article.
It is ironic and hypocritical, if not pathetic as well, that people who accuse me of not doing my homework about Linux feel free to offer their opinions about me without doing their homework about my work.
Just flaming is sooo much easier! ;-)
Geek femmes (Score:1)
I think it's sad that you should choose to reveal so much about yourself that seems to be hateful and disrespectful, and probably misogynistic.
Do we call this an ad feminem attack?
I welcome more women in technical fields; I have enough self-confidence to do so. Perhaps those who don't welcome women lack self-confidence.
I do hope Rebecca isn't put off by such ill manners. I value civilization; I'm not sure everybody does.
Free Software Communism (Score:1)
Linux anyday.
Re: Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
I didn't say it was. All of those are belief system based on mythological stories and faith. None of which provides one shread of proof for any of the subnatural things they claim. In short, they are all equally silly. Believe what you, but we should only care about what you can *prove*. I find it highly ironic that Rebecca rails against "orgainzed religion" when, apparently, she practices one of the older organized religions - Wica. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Personal beliefs are exactly that, and while may embarrass or bother you, it's not exactly as if she or anyone else is forcing it upon you.
I didn't say she was. I mearly called her rationality and ability to be skeptical and logical into question. Her beliefs neither bother me nor embarrass me. Its just disappointing to see such an intelligent person believing in things that are nothing but whimsical fancy. Care to challenge that? Great, prove some of these magical things to be real. Publish the results in a peer reviewed and serious scientific journal.
Myself I don't really know the precepts of Wica, except one of my friends dabbles/is interested in it, but that doesn't detract any more than another of my friends being Christian or Buddhist, or preferring Red Hat to Debian to SuSE, or liking pork over chicken over tofu.
Indeed. But if I said I believed the tooth fairy was real, wouldn't you think twice about other things I profess to be true? Then why is it that when people believe in other silly things, like invisible gods that pat you on the head and make the faces of their sons appear in a Tortilla, or the SeCkRiT OT Powers of a Scientologist, or the professed ability of some "psychic" to see the future we consider that to not be grounds for questioning this persons grip on reality? I have no beef with any particular belief system. I just think they are no way to figure things out, and should certainly not be the basis for understanding the word. Intelligent people along time ago agreed to the following two rules.
1) the burden of proof rests with the affirmative.
2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
So I wonder about the rationality of someone that believes such wierd and silly things. I understand why people believe these things, but it doesnt mean that I should consider those people the best judges of the validty of other, possibly more important things. Its all the more ironic that someone which professes to be so learned, would believe in things that most of the rest of us recognize as the bunk that it is.
Astrology is only as bunk as believing in a hellfire and brimstone God, Hell, and Heavan
Couldn't agree with you more. They all sound pretty bunk to me. Wheres the proof?
or in little tiny partially charged wave-particles interacting via strange carriers to produce forces of interactions, repulsion, attraction, and other things.
Considering the large body of evidence and reproducible experiments that validate these theories, I would certainly not put this in the same category as Astrology. I suggest you read up a little on the current state of physics.
I myself don't believe in astrology, but I also don't believe in Hell, eternal damnation, or eternal paradise. I believe in an afterlife and a soul, and other things, but there is no proof to them.
So thats what you believe and not what you can prove. So why should we consider your beliefs to be anything by whimsical fancy? Why do you not require proof before you believe those things, and you would (I hope) require proof that a car you are buying really does have X miles on it, before you believe that it really is worth Y? Perhaps you're not as rational as you might believe. Its nice to think that something happens to us after we die, other than just decaying, but its no more valid that any other belief, like the tooth fairy, without proof.
A person is a bundle of contradictions, paradoxes, and misleading beliefs-but don't hold it agains her or anyone else, since everyone is like that, even you...
Everyone holds beliefs that are not true. Thats because we're irrational, illogical, emmotional and thick headed creatures. But thats no excuse for embracing silly ideas, poor reasoning or making exceptions for weak and impoverished ideas deduced from any number of fallacious arguments - just because we it might challenge our cherished belief system to do otherwise. The truth is HARD to find and requires one to set aside ones *beliefs*, think rationally, logically and work within the scientific method - and even then to look harder. The worlds problems are the products of poor and short-term thinking. We could do well to challenge ourselves to think rationally and be a little bit more skeptical about things we believe to be true.
--
Python
Astrology = Different (Score:1)
It may sound odd, but it's really true. A scientist(maybe not all, but the ones I work with at Caltech), have an intuitive or idealized model that has no proof, no understanding, or logic, except it seems right, or it would simplify a whole lot of things if the universe really did work like this, so they set up all these experiments and tests to show that the universe does work like this... If they can't show it, then they throw it away, of course, but the underlying process is to have a preconcieved belief beforehand! Scientists are no more trained to think logically than anyone else-we are just able to change our minds more easily, if given enough proof, and sometimes not even that.
I can't and won't argue with your analysis or opinion over her personality and abilities, since they are exactly opinions, but I strongly disagree with your comments about her beliefs, opinions, and mindset; to each their own, and if it works for her, there really is no reason for you to comment or criticize her for them.
AS
AS
No Subject Given (Score:1)
she's missing the point. stallman and fsf don't care about market acceptance or widespread use of their software, so they're not sabotaging anything with their idealism. while i am not opposed to commercial proprietary software on pronciple asstallman is, i do think that open source is a joke. it's free or it's not, we don't need a whole bunch of pseudo-free commercial products muddying the water. i for one think that keeping linux free is more important than achieving any sort of merket domination.
Erratum: (Score:1)
be spelled discernible.
However, I did not get paid to write my response.
I am assuming that Eisenberg was paid for
writing that column, which is also my point;
these people, journalists, men and women both,
get paid to write, yet they cannot write, it seems,
above the level of a high school freshman.
I am as equally harsh about Katz's pieces, that
is, when I feel like trudging through them.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
I agree... RMS is a whiner (Score:1)
Yeah, right on brother! And fuck the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, too. Everyone claims that slavery takes away freedom, but if you take that away you remove my FREEDOM to trade slaves... and you also remove my FREEDOM to sell myself into slavery. If a person wants to sell themself into slavery by all means they should...I wish those abolitionists would quit their whinning [sic]...
(And before everyone gets in a tizzy, I'm not equating proprietary software with slave trade. I'm only trying to make a point.)
Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
At any rate, I appreciate the helpful comments and constructive criticism from those who gave them.
is gnu, is good, coming - age of consumers (Score:1)
without fsf and gnu, the growth of linux and even the internet would have been slower (and at least less colourful). but times are changing. the most single important thing gnu has given us is free development environment and tools. this has given developers the ability to create the cool apps out there.
but times are changing. let's face it the majority (!average slashdot usr) does't like (or know) how to use the command prompt. They have been bought up in the 'point&click' generation. these are the people who will now start using gnu based app's, OS's et.,el. (assuming it passes the mum test) . they not concerned with copyleft and simply want the power, ease of use of windows.
we owe the a lot to the gnu movement and I for one question paying a lot for buggy commercial - ware but do the consuming hoards?
I also happen to agree with her! (Score:1)
Have either Oracle or IBM announced that they will be making source to their database software freely available? (That is not implied by the existence of a Linux port.)
Sexist not only reason (Score:1)
;-) (Score:1)
If I were in her position and someone challenged me like that, I would believe it was a sexist comment or statement; and it was fully in her right to be upset. While I don't myself believe she was in the right to start calling names herself, it can be excused for being upset. Perhaps it was unintentional or a coincidence that the original poster decried 2 female journalists, Judith Lewis and now Rebeca Eisenberg, but it sure sounded sexist because of that.
What reason/excuse/rationalization do you have for name calling unless it's to continue the life of this thread by calling people out to respond? It's bad enough that there is such a low female:male ratio in the techno-geek circles without us making it worse by insulting, demeaning, or assaulting those who do frequent our circles. I'm not talking special treatment, but about courtesy and respect, difficult things to conjure in anonymous cyber-realities, but still worthwhile and noble things.
As well, you're probably a lost cause...
AS
AS
Geek femmes (Score:1)
People, men and women, respond according to the body language and signal you send off, and by this insulting piece, if you are anything at all like this tactless, rude, and discourteous post, I wouldn't be surprised if women tended to act as you've described.
Heck, if you were like this around me I would be pissed and edgy too, and I'm not bisexual, overweight, nihlistic, or arrogant. I just don't like people who seem to be like you...
AS
AS
rationality and faith (Score:1)
Perhaps y'all need a refresher course in IRONY.
Most of all, what does my IRONY-laden Web page have to do with my column?
RMS (Score:1)
The commercial push of Linux is very strongly scented of a Darwinistic evolutionary competative situation in which the best implementations, the best service, and the most marketing will probabaly prevail, and that is all well and Good. But RMS complains that the intellectual/spiritual side of the equation is being ignored by those who have supplanted the movement with the Open Source initiative; he wants attention not only for his own ego, as he admits, but so he can use the attention to focus on the values and strengths of Free Source; not Costless Software, but that information and exchange of ideas is good and vital.
It has nothing to do with how the real world operates; RMS sees an ideal, wants the ideal, and is working for it, even if it is unrealistic or unattainable. The Open Source model's engineering benefits are immense, what with massive parallization and debugging, fast turnaround, distributed responsibility and costs, and self improvement, but RMS is pushing something else just as good/noble/beneficial, but for different reasons and effects.
AS
AS
Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
"Off the record," said Sokolsky, "Microsoft sent a shill to our press conference."
Apparently Ms. Eisenberg chose not only to ignore the spokeswoman's request for non-publication, but to advertise it.
A rambling, incoherent piece of trash. (Score:1)
her near total ignorance of the topics upon which
she writing?
If so, the column was a remarkable success.
You were able to graduate from Harvard LawSchool crafting sentences like that one?!!!
Ohhhh...right...Affirmative Action; forgot
about that...nevermind!
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Re: Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
Believe what you, but we should only care about what you can *prove*.
Its usually very much the case that, at least scientifically, you prove what you believe... First comes understanding, then belief, then scientific proof, and then because it can be proven, it can be shared, spread, and explained. I myself don't believe in higher dimensions and super strings and such, but I acknowledge that the assumed symmetry of such structures can explain away alot, even if they are complex and highly artificial.
I find it highly ironic that Rebecca rails against"orgainzed religion" when, apparently, she practices one of the older organized religions - Wica. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
From my own understandings of Wica, the point is that there is no pressure to be homogenous; railing against organized religion is not complaining about religion, but complaining about the organization. So while she may be hypocritical and all that, it really isn't so strange or hypocritical to complain about organized religion while believing in Wica. Complaining about religious beliefs and being Wica is being hypocritical...
Intelligent people along time ago agreed to the following two rules.
1) the burden of proof rests with the affirmative.
2) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
You would be surprised at the mysticism rampant here at Caltech, esp with regards to religious beliefs. A counter to those two rules may be...
1)Extraordinary results require extraordinary beliefs.
2)Some things cannot be understood.
The more a scientist looks at and examines the universe and existence, the more wondrous, awe inspiring, and grandeous it is, it it becomes more and more apparent how perfect everything is, how extraordinary that anything like this universe even exists. When we start approaching axiomatic fundamentals that cannot be proven, but must be assumed in order to explain higher levels of science, then we start to hit the wall, and that only some religions even attempt to tackle. They are bunk to you, and they will stay that way until a scientist somewhere finds some connection, some proof; however, the point is that even without the proof, the religion is just as correct, just as truthful, just as useful, until that proof is found. The hard question of course is which religion, which belief, which set of systems to put your faith and belief into?
Likewise in science, past the quantum level we start running into unification and symmetry problems. Do we subscribe to superstrings and vibrational modes? Or multi-dimensional forces whose interactions describe our more common and mundane existence? Or is it some quantum foam/bubbles whose structure, birth, and decay describe the transience and the future of our existence?
Until we can find out which religion, belief system, or rules is correct, it should be held that all of them are correct; or more correctly, all of them have an equal chance of being correct, or some mix of them. Schrodinger and the uncertainty principle and all that, if you subscribe to scientific belief so much. Perhaps we will understand subquantum reality, but scientists today are betting we won't get much farther than an abstract symbology and model that can explain the universal forces and interactions. Maybe it will take millions of years to prove that there is a God, just as it would take millions of years to prove in the superstring theory, but you can't discount either as a working model if it is useful to explain phenomena or results.
God satisfies one criteria; his existence explains how and why everything exists and works. So far science can't.
So thats what you believe and not what you can prove. So why should we consider your beliefs to be anything by whimsical fancy?
All beliefs are whimsical fancy. It makes them no less powerful or useful to explain to children why teeth must fall out, or why pain and suffering exists, or why sometimes you just can't succeed. Find a scientific explanation for pain, suffering, futility, and despair before you tell me you believe that they exist...
Why do you not require proof before you believe those things, and you would (I hope) require proof that a car you are buying really does have X miles on it, before you believe that it really is worth Y?
Faith must exist. I won't go crashing my car to prove that it suceeds in a n-mph crash safety test. I won't hit into a tree to believe my airbag works and is safe. I won't drive down to Visa headquarters to prove that they aren't misusing my credit history to do things. I question, and I examine, but some things, some times, have to be taken on trust. Certainly not everything, and not anything, but how do you prove that a waiter didn't copy your credit card, or mischarged you? How do you know/prove that God doesn't exist, when the proof cited is all of existence?
Perhaps you're not as rational as you might believe. Its nice to think that something happens to us after we die, other than just decaying, but its no more valid that any other belief, like the tooth fairy, without proof.
I'm very proud to know I am not at all rational. I believe no person is rational-that we are reasonable, that we are intelligent, but rational I do not believe. I firmly believe that everything you explain as rational, I explain as hindsight. You only believe in quantum or electromagnitism because it's already been proven. If you were born 100 years ago, you would not believe that the speed of light was 2,987,000 meters per second; except people who did believe it was a constant value did the work to prove it was so, while people who did not believe it did not work to disprove/prove it. You frown upon God as bunk-but what happens if 2 years from now a researcher discovers proof? Rationally, of course you'll change your mind, because there is proof. But the scientist is the one who believes, trusts, has faith that there is a good, and works to show so despite the taunts and the comments against him. Just because you change your mind with proof doesn't make you any less wrong; and the person who believed without proof just didn't think in the right way or asked the right questions. However, they would still be right.
The truth is HARD to find and requires one to set aside ones *beliefs*, think rationally, logically and work within the scientific method - and even then to look harder
Would it surprise you if I told you I don't think there is a universal truth, or even much of a local truth? Knowing relativity makes one understand everything is always tainted by interpretation and context, and that the only real constant absolute may just be the speed of light... and even that is being questioned right now. If one did not have beliefs and preconceptions before using the scientific method, there would be nothing to prove or disprove. You must believe in something, whether you believe it right or wrong, befure you can show it to be right or wrong. Milliken, if you know him, showed that the electric charge was quantized; but he only showed it as such because he believed very firmly that it was so, months, years, before it could be shown. The key to the scientific method is to be willing to give up your faith and belief if you are shown to be wrong.
I do agree that we have a problem with poor thinking and short-term thinking, but the solutions have little to do with rationality and proof; science works wonderfully with faith and belief, with reasonability and generality and beauty being the much more important forces than anything else.
AS
AS
how could microsoft 'steal' gpled programs (Score:1)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
overestimated problem (Score:1)
the free software / open source people have worked together quite well. at least their combined efforts led to an os that doesnt suck (some companies that shall remain nameless will probably never manage to do this). and dont forget x: its roots are in commercial unix.
obviously, the success of linux wouldnt have been possible without gnu. on the other hand, the fsf profits a lot by linux: fewer people knew the gpl philosophy if linux wouldnt exist, even if its mostly not called gnu/linux.
Worth reading (Score:1)
Astrology ?= miguided & arrogant! (Score:1)
How is the belief that stars can affect us be any more or less arrogant that there exists a supreme creator that sits and watches over all of us like a parental figure, throwing at us tragedy and misery, joy, bliss, and heartache? Or the belief that the entire universe and all of existence can be analyzed, dissected, understood, and predicted? That seems awfully misguided and arrogant, and is the norm for many scientists, whom the original poster was praising.
How can you say that stars and such don't affect our personal relationships? How can you show there isn't a God laughing at our foolishness, or crying at our stupidity, or smiling at our uniqueness? How can you prove that fate or destiny doesn't exist?
AS
AS
You are not a Linux person (Score:1)
Ha, you are showing your true face...companies are the main force pushing Linux forward?
You are not a Linux person.Coverage of this Linux rift is GOOD (Score:1)
well stated, how else would I get a freeware compiler (gcc), an editor (emacs) without paying for it. dont see may other free tools avaialable from commercial companies
but you took the bait (Score:1)
1) As a whole, the people who use and/or develop free software are often interested in both the freedom angle and the business angle. Just because the active posters on Slashdot tend to lean towards the political side of things, I wouldn't assume their counterparts in the real world feel the same way. A lot of open source development is funded or carried out by corporations.
2) The last thing the Linux community needs is more fanatics. Extremists like RMS are necessary to sow the seeds of change, but by their very extremism they're not well-equipped to actually lead the change. The ideals of the FSF have inspired a host of more moderate leaders (including Linus) who have what it takes to bring free software to the masses. You seem to equate fanaticism with intellectual ability, which is completely unrelated.
how could microsoft 'steal' gpled programs (Score:1)
Thank you =) (Score:1)
But you are right that her sentence was essentially wordy, verbose, and could have been more concisely state as such
Open Source stresses productivity, useability, and efficient use of resources and manpower whereas Free Software argues for the unconditional freedom of use, dissemination, and spread of source, ideas, and information
How do you get the tab feature? Non-blanking whitespace?
Of course, the above assumes my interpretation of her statement is correct, but as all things, to each their own.
On the other hand I do feel as if your last statement about affirmative action uncalled for. Highlighting her fault as a function of her gender isn't appropriate when it is something any person can do, especially if it has no relation to gender. Being pompous, verbose, silly, or wordy are faults that do not limit themselves to women.
On your last statement about stealing free software, yes, it can be done. Using Open Source software assumes that modified code is returned back to the fold. If M$ takes the Linux kernal as their own for Win2010, modifies it for specific functionality and adds DVD, 3d acceleration, and USB, and doesn't give back to the Open Source movement, they have essentially abused the concept of Open Source, without any recompense for the effort others have put into it. If I took the source, added USB somehow somewhere, the value added is recompense to all the others that worked on it before I, and the work others have done are the recompense for me adding USB, for without a workable OS I would have no need for USB either.
If you're using the Free Software definition, then by making the previously open software proprietary, M$ has violated and abused the Free Software movement, and the same arguments as above hold.
It's assuming that people's time and energy are equivalent to value and monetary worth, and by taking without giving anything back, you are stealing.
AS
AS
Commerical vs. Proprietary (Score:1)
I agree... RMS is a whiner (Score:1)
No, I cannot; which is precisely the point. (Score:1)
has no discernable meaning, even read in context
of the whole column.
It is the type of phrase one might find in a high
school student essay, which, if the teacher who
received it had any sense, would be immediately
returned with a request for clarification.
There is no mistake, per se, in the sentence,
other than that of the nonexistent word
"value-laden". No harm in making up words, if they
serve to add to the reader's enjoyment, or no word
that already exists serves the writer's purpose.
What is a writer's purpose, if not to communicate
an idea to the reader? NO idea has been
communicated here; only so much padding of a
hopelessly weak structure.
As far as factual errors go, her attempt at a
conclusion to the column is only the most
glaring:
One cannot steal free software!
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
Worth Reading (Score:1)
I liked the article, if a bit short. Some more in depth anaylsis into the issues, even if biased, incorrect, and silly, gives us at least the mindset of those that are ignorant... However, I didn't think she was any of those.
AS
AS
Commercialism not needed for success (Score:1)
I would argue that it doesn't need any at all, because even without such support it will bloom into all the software niches and be completely unstoppable. There is no other way for it to go but up, because once software is freed it is always free and available, whereas commercial products die as soon as their developers and marketing staff lose interest. You just can't stop the body of free software growing by accretion, whatever you do.
No, it's not free software that needs the support of commerce, but merely the people of the free software community who like to see their camp being given a vote of confidence by well-respected corporates. Yes, that is nice to see, but it's not *needed*. GNU, BSD and Linux were heading into the stratosphere long before the Netscapes and Oracles of this world decided that free software was a good thing.
The big names did not make Linux good by signing up to it; Linux already was excellent, as were countless other products of the community. At best it has accelerated the already very rapid takeup, but it's far from being fundamental in any way. The credit has to go to the community of free software developers and users. Corporates are merely sensible enough to recognize a pearl beyond price when they seen one, and to understand that there is little point in arguing with a tidal wave.
Astrology = Dumb (Score:1)
Rebecca likes to think of herself as a knowledgable, well read and intelligent person, and in some areas there is little reason to doubt it. But shes handicapped by an arrogance that causes her to internalize beliefs that agree with the ones she already holds, and to generally dismiss things which disagree with here beliefs. In short, as smart as she is, her method for arriving at conclusions is seriously flawed (shes a lawyer afterall not a scientist or someone trained to think logically).
Rebecca has a tendency to spout out off at the mouth (on TV!) about things she barely understands (like her tirades about Java, when she knows almost nothing about Java - or Operating Systems she doesn't run - like Linux, or Solaris or even Windows for example.) Its really a quirk that she is considered a "Technology Consultant" when she has barely any skills or qualifications to justify such a position. Becky is a well read Lawyer with a real gift for gab, but a technologist she is not.
Rebecca is a cool chick IMHO, but shes not as smart as she pretends to be. (Read about how she got mugged - what the hell was she thinking? She was careless, and was lucky that something worse didnt happen, like rape or death perhaps.) I think all that Ivy league education went to her head and now she thinks she can think no wrong. Catch her on Silicon Spin (on ZDTV... I know... ZD=clueless, but sometimes you have to watch the clueless and correct them to make sure they dont hurt themselves.) She has some interesting comments, but they come largely from seondary sources - and not conclusions she herself has arrived at. In short, nice to look at, but nothing substantive to say on technology issues.
A cool chick, no doubt, but astrology? Come on Rebecca!
--
Python
Not exactly a dumb chick (Score:1)
while ms eisenburg may appear techno-savvy, when it comes to lawyers & IT - 'high maintenance users" with attitude is about all I observe.
Raymond's Statistics (Score:1)
btw Linus doesn't read slashdot
how could microsoft 'steal' gpled programs (Score:1)
There _have_ been cases in which someone has tried to include GPL'ed code in their closed source software, but a call from the FSF lawyers caused them to rectify the situation (I heard this in one of the panel discussions at LinuxWorld, but I don't remember who said it).
Short-sighted. (Score:1)
Not too worried though. THe GPL is still the same GPL Stallman wrote. No one can sell it out now, not even Linus.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Yet Another Stupid Male Chauvinist (Score:1)
Anyone see the irony of shallow here? I suspect the only thing shallow here is your mind. Would you have believed RMS said it if a guy told you asshole?
Chris Kuhi
RMS (Score:1)
Corporate support will come and go. The only solid thing we can rely on is what we do ourselves. Looking to IBM for salvation is just cargo cultism.
Sure, be friendly to them, court their support, but do not make the mistake of relying on corporations for the future of Linux.
Poeple don't give a shit! The want KDE and Corel! (Score:1)
The author... (Score:1)
RMS (Score:1)
A rambling, incoherent piece of trash. (Score:1)
What is so wrong with the statement:
Open Source requirements are similar to those of
Free Software, but the packaging is different,
lacking any value-laden, ideological generalities.
Maybe I don't know enough grammer(I don't have a law degree from Harvard, am working for a CS/EE at Caltech), or I don't know enough about Open Source vs Free Software. I admit, sometimes I get confused by all the rhetoric and semantics bandied about among the many factions that visit daily
And exactly how does affirmative action make her statement any more or less ignorant than your own? Perhaps it is just I being ignorant, and as soon as someone enlightens me I can join you in your elevated position of worth and value, and laugh at RLE and others who make the same ignorant mistake I must have for not catching whatever you have seen.
Thanks.
AS
AS
Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
I realize that I shouldn't read these threads, but how could I not?
Raymond's Statistics (Score:1)
Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
Why shouldn't you read the threads? It's not like this isn't a public forum, after all. And it's somewhat reassuring to see that at least some of the reporters do read forums like Slashdot and see what the response to their articles is.
This part can't be right (Score:1)
"Unlike a year ago, most people these days have heard of the Linux operating system."
Even if you restrict the definition of "people" to computer users, I don't think that the majority are aware of Linux.
Onus of proof is on you (Score:1)
I don't get pissed off, btw, as long as flames aren't being tossed =).
Your comment confuses me; you mention you cannot disprove Santa or the Tooth Fairy, but you don't believe in their existence.
You also mention things cannot be disproven; that is incorrect. A disproof can be performed by assuming Santa Claus exists, and this existence indicates another truth or value that is obviously false, and thus by assuming he exists, you show that he cannot.
How do you disprove that I am dead? Easy...
Assume that I am dead. If I were dead, I would no longer exist on the same plane of existence as you. If I cannot interact with you, I cannot send you this message. If you see this message, then I have sent it, and I cannot be dead. It doesn't mean I'm not a computer entity, or a virus, or a non-human, it just means, under the definition of dead as non-existence with accordance to this reality, I can't be dead.
The real tricky part is making sure the base assumptions are all correct in the first place. We don't know that the dead can't interact with our existence, just as we don't know that the stars don't interact with our existence. In fact its a given that gravitational forces, neutrinos, gamma rays, alpha particles, and photons from stars to interact very physically with us and our existence. Showing how they do so is tough, but until astrologists can show us that they do, the best we should do is give them their chance to do so. Likewise for those who advocate quantum superstrings or hyperdimensional folds or quantum foam. None of those have any shred of proof, yet people are spending millions/billions of dollars building supercolliders and performing deep space, deep earth, and other experiments to show/disprove those theories.
AS
AS
Katz on TV, live (Score:1)
It's a call-in, fax-in, e-mail in type show but let's support him there and save the flames for here.
Yet Another Stupid Female Journalist. (Score:1)
rle
Not Worth Reading (Score:1)
Nowhere in the article did the author say NT could do any of the things we're talking about. It can't. However, many commercial unices can do it very well.
It was an extremely well written article.
Disrespectful Journalism (Score:1)
It is a bother how rude and disrespectful people can get, but I hope it doesn't stop you from continuing your contributions, esp to
I at least appreciated the article =) Back to bashing trolls and posting comments...
AS
AS