Topic: More open source rhetoric from the EU

[Bonk]

Proprietary software cannot be validated, and is therefore of limited value.

Schrödinger's cat

Right, but I can write a program that will function as desired today, as determined by direct observation, but will fail tomorrow, therefore requiring continual validation, which is of course impractical. I need the source code to validate an application. (the failure of application code can just as easily be unintentional... Y2K  , easter egg spillovers...)

A side note: Bonk, man you rock! In all the debates I've participated in about software validation and open source you are the first who understood exactly what I menat by those two words. Kudos to you!

Thanks Toasty0. Hey, I did pass Quantum Chemistry (barely...) damn differential equations...<grumble> I mean aren't they the reason we invented computers in the first place? Damn sadistic professors... <grumble, grumble...> 

Similarly, I think you're the first propietary software proponent that actually understood what I am saying! The arguement I present above is my main problem with proprietary software, I maintain it just cannot be validated without the source code... hmmm, that does not necessarily mean it has to be open source to be validated, there could be a trusted and certified body to validate proprietary software without the release of the source code... Hmmm, I might just have come uo with a good business idea for me...

[prometheus]

I'd be inclined to let him be fanatical...  The newer ports of Linux and GNU are just fantastic, and the only reason they are not on all of my PC's is that I need some running Windows to use my legacy hardware...

As far as I know he has never worked on the Linux kernel though I suspect most of the GNU tools have a basis in his work.  Emacs and GCC definitely.  So long as his fanaticism does not cause problems he is welcome to it.  However he is in a position to screww up the GPL v3.0 and I hope his fanaticism is held in check for that.  He did a rather brilliant job on versions 1 and 2.

On the other hand, I decided to shell out for a copy of XP in the intrests of being honest, build 2600, and was informed after a couple of formats that I was no longer allowed to activate it.  I now have to use a hacked version of the OS, but feel that since I have a genuine copy of it, I am doing nothing wrong...  Microsoft are an appalling company...

That deactivation of legitimate copies is one of the reasons I refuse to buy XP or later until they take it off.

On the legal and free software thread at the top of this forum I listed several LiveCD distributions of Linux.  They boot and run off the CD so you can use Linux and leave your windows machine undisturbed.  An innovation Microsoft has not yet copied but should.  Being able to create a bootable Windows CD with all your anti virus and anti spyware tools along with any recovery tools you have would be a great Windows improvement.

Link to a google search on using the Knoppix Live CD for Windows repair.

There are also Live DVD versions as well.

Thanks for the info on Linux LiveCD, I already have a distribution of SUSE on one of my systems, and I'm 100% happy with it...  The reason why I have to keep a couple of machines running windows is more to do with legacy hardware which is hard to find drivers for...  My web camera, one of my scanners, and several of my printers were difficult to trace a driver for under linux, and my other computer with windows is used for multitrack recording, causing the same problem, trying to connect A to D and back converters to it is a pain in the ass at the best of times, and also I have never found a sequencer and editor for Linux that matches up to Cubase and CoolEditPro... 

I don't doubt that the deactivation issue in windows XP can be gotten round with a little research, and I did see a number of online hacks to circumvent it, but as a matter of principle, I don't see why anyone should have to put up with this kind of nonsense from Microshaft...  I use a hacked copy of the same build to reinstall...  I don't see how that can be illegal, since I have a licesnse to use that build, and I am not the one who altered it...

incidentally, Richard Stallman is one of my personal heroes...  there's a photo of him on my wall behind  me...  I'm curious to know why you think he's a fanatic...

[toasty0]

Proprietary software cannot be validated, and is therefore of limited value.

Schrödinger's cat

Right, but I can write a program that will function as desired today, as determined by direct observation, but will fail tomorrow, therefore requiring continual validation, which is of course impractical. I need the source code to validate an application. (the failure of application code can just as easily be unintentional... Y2K  , easter egg spillovers...)

A side note: Bonk, man you rock! In all the debates I've participated in about software validation and open source you are the first who understood exactly what I menat by those two words. Kudos to you!

Thanks Toasty0. Hey, I did pass Quantum Chemistry (barely...) damn differential equations...<grumble> I mean aren't they the reason we invented computers in the first place? Damn sadistic professors... <grumble, grumble...> 

Similarly, I think you're the first propietary software proponent that actually understood what I am saying! The arguement I present above is my main problem with proprietary software, I maintain it just cannot be validated without the source code... hmmm, that does not necessarily mean it has to be open source to be validated, there could be a trusted and certified body to validate proprietary software without the release of the source code... Hmmm, I might just have come uo with a good business idea for me...

The topics of these two classes include dot product, cross product, equations of lines and planes, functions of 2 or 3 variables, partial derivatives, Lagrange multipliers, double integrals, triple integrals, change of variables in multiple integrals, line integrals, Green's theorem, Stoke's theorem, Divergence theorem, topics in second-order differential equations.


*a major head pounding headache begins to form behind Toasty's eyes*

[E_Look]

Bonk!  I"m disillusioned!!

I would have thought you'd've eaten that stuff up!

Toasty- if you've just had a smattering of calculus, and all of the normal high school math, quantum mechanics will only be a bit tough, not superimpossiexpialidocious.  Really, elbow grease and nights up late help... unless one is a total schmendrick when it comes to math.

[toasty0]

Bonk!  I"m disillusioned!!

I would have thought you'd've eaten that stuff up!

Toasty- if you've just had a smattering of calculus, and all of the normal high school math, quantum mechanics will only be a bit tough, not superimpossiexpialidocious.  Really, elbow grease and nights up late help... unless one is a total schmendrick when it comes to math.

I know I know. I've always had to work at math, but once it starts to pop I enjoy it. Math is like any other language, once you speak the geek you grok it.

Then again I'm 48...late nights usually mean stomach trouble instead of passion of any kind.

[prometheus]

Bonk!  I"m disillusioned!!

I would have thought you'd've eaten that stuff up!

Toasty- if you've just had a smattering of calculus, and all of the normal high school math, quantum mechanics will only be a bit tough, not superimpossiexpialidocious.  Really, elbow grease and nights up late help... unless one is a total schmendrick when it comes to math.

I know I know. I've always had to work at math, but once it starts to pop I enjoy it. Math is like any other language, once you speak the geek you grok it.

Then again I'm 48...late nights usually mean stomach trouble instead of passion of any kind.

In fairness, the maths to Quantum Mechanics gets more opaque the deeper into it you look...  I wouldn't dream to trying to work my around Yang-Mills Field equations...   I'd be willing to hazard that it would take a clever man years to learn maths at this level...

[Bonk]

...Green's theorem, Stoke's theorem, Divergence theorem, topics in second-order differential equations.

<Bonk runs screaming from thread!>  Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh! 

Bonk! I"m disillusioned!!

I would have thought you'd've eaten that stuff up!

Integral calculus yes, it turns my crank big time, I love the stuff, it is so natural and innate in the human mind and flows beautifully. Differentials however make me want to scream. Literally that is why we invented computers, to solve differential equations, I was highly offended, even horrified, when asked to memorise their underivable solutions.

[Nemesis]

Thanks for the info on Linux LiveCD, I already have a distribution of SUSE on one of my systems, and I'm 100% happy with it... 

SUSE (Novel) also have a LiveDVD  (link to google search)

incidentally, Richard Stallman is one of my personal heroes...  there's a photo of him on my wall behind  me...  I'm curious to know why you think he's a fanatic...

His view that all software must be free rather than just that whose authors want it that way.  Why?  By constantly making that a central theme he drives away many who would otherwise agree with much of what he wants.  He can't just say "let free and proprietary compete without legal blockades and may the better system win" he has to insist that only his ideal should be allowed.   Of course it must be free by his definition of free not that of the author or society.

How long has he been working on GNU/Hurd?  He insists that the Hurd kernel must be a micro kernel because it is technically superiour.  The mere fact that after longer than the Linux Kernel has been around he still doesn't have a Hurd kernel that is production ready.  Meanwhile he criticizes Linus for using the technically inferiour monolithic kernel for Linux.  At least the monolithic kernel WORKS.  The Hurd kernel was begun in 1990 and is still not ready for real world use.  The Linux kernel was begun in 1991 and has been used by internet servers for at least 10 years. 

Consider his insistance on the term GNU/Linux.  If a Linux User Group invites (paid engagement) him to speak and they don't use the GNU/Linux term he refuses unless they change the terminonlogy which usually means changing the groups name.  If he wanted to ensure the GNU name was used in any system that the utilities were used on then he should have put it in his license.   Again this insistance drives away supporters.

He is fanatical in his quest for freedom.  Look at the rift between the proponents of Open Source vs Free Software.  It starts with Stallman.  Consider that his GNU/Linux crusade is against the choice of people to call the OS as a whole Linux.  He wants freedom, however it must be freedom on his terms.   That is the mark of the fanatic.  My way or no way.

I respect his brilliance and idealism but his fanaticism harms his cause and reduces his credibility and harms the whole Open Source/Free Software trend. 

[prometheus]

I might happen to agree with a lot of your crticisms here, but I think the same monomaniacal streak that makes him a fanatic is the trait that makes him a genius...  Remove one and you remove the other...

I don't think that there is anything wrong with him being fanatical about his beliefs, provided he is not contemplating using violence and aggression to make people adhere to them...  On the other hand, you may have noticed that whenever the subject of copyright legislation comes up, I am every bit as fanatical as Stallman, this is because I suffer in terms of finance and in terms of recognition of my work under the current system... 

[Nemesis]

On the other hand, you may have noticed that whenever the subject of copyright legislation comes up, I am every bit as fanatical as Stallman, this is because I suffer in terms of finance and in terms of recognition of my work under the current system... 

I also dislike the current copyright terms.  Too much power for the corporations and too little for the artists/artisans and customers.  I approve of copyright in general but not the current mess.

Consider the movie (and comic book) The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  It could only be done using 19th century characters due to the fact that they are out of copyright.  20th Century characters won't likely be out of copyright while I live unless the laws are changed to a more rational format. 

Much art will be lost as when their copyrights expire there will be no copies left as the media won't last that long.  Other will be lost because even if the media lasts there won't be anything to translate it into newer forms (think DVDs, LPs, VHS etc).  That violates a core purpose of the copyright concept.

Copyright was to encourage artists and preserve art.  Current laws do neither.  Current laws give power wealth and control to companies. 

[E_Look]

See, I think that's unavoidable.  It doesn't matter how good or how noble the intention of a piece of legislation is, for the powerful interests can afford to hire lawyers and other experts to manipulate and alter the laws themselves, most often with the (sometimes unwitting) cooperation of government.

We all as a society will have to decide how we want our copyright laws to go and be prepared to spend a long time to make it that way.  This is another reason why the powerful interests will generally prevail.

No wonder God rails against the rich and powerful (all the time!).

[Nemesis]

See, I think that's unavoidable.  It doesn't matter how good or how noble the intention of a piece of legislation is, for the powerful interests can afford to hire lawyers and other experts to manipulate and alter the laws themselves, most often with the (sometimes unwitting) cooperation of government.

We all as a society will have to decide how we want our copyright laws to go and be prepared to spend a long time to make it that way.  This is another reason why the powerful interests will generally prevail.

No wonder God rails against the rich and powerful (all the time!).

That of course brings us to another topic that would need to be in Hot and Spicey.

Myself I would start with one thing.  All campaign funding must come from registered voters eligible to vote for the candidate that they are donating to.  Since companies can't vote for politicians they wouldn't be able to donate.  Corporate influence goes down hill.  So of course does the influence of other special interests like uninons.

On the same basis to get your tax deduction for contributing you would need to vote and submit a voters reciept along with your receipts for donations to political campaigns.   Naturally I wouldn't let you donate to more than one person running for a given office at the same time.

[E_Look]

Personally, I would nix the receipt and tax deduction idea, at least for now, until somehow we can get a more "mature" electorate.  That is, an electorate that needs little inducement to go out and vote besides the satisfaction of having participated and preserved political freedom another season.  Otherwise, you just might be enticing the more avaricious, selfish, and materialistic to bias the outcome of the election(s).

[Bonk]

In related news:
http://osdir.com/Article6677.phtml