hello everyone,
I am a newbie who is trying his brain at "Touretzky's : Common-LISP a
gentle introduction". i am on chapter-6 and untill now it is marvelous.
I call it a great work of art for newbies to programming. I say so from
my experience with more than dozen of books on introduction to
programming and majority of them used SCHEME which i never liked, some
used PYTHON and much less used PERL, JAVA and C. anyway contrary to all
of the sayings i have heard over last 12 months (during my time here) i
think Common-LISP is a great introduction to programming when
accompained with "Touretzky".
---------------------
my *aim*: i want to start writing software or will join as a
*bug-fixer* in Common-LISP projects (will work with "copyleft"
softwares only). -- i want to start real-life software writing,
bug-fixing or something like it after 10 months.
------------------------
so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
may you provide any of the online & offline resources on this?
please have a look at these 3 points:
1.) i tried "how to design programmes" (HtDP), "Learning to Programme"
by Alan Gauld . these 2 were very *hard* books, not in the technical
sense but because i have a very different *cognitive process* as
compared to majority of newbies. right now SICP is far above my head
but i found it to be extremely different from 2 books which draw its
ideas (they are HtDP and "Concrete Abstrations" ).
2.)PAIP by Peter Norvig is already onto my list. so i can buy only one
more.
3.)Do i need to know CLOS if i want to start with my *aim*? if yes,
then How about CLOS by Sonya Keene, OOP in Common LISP by Stephen
Slade. i do not know anything about them but have heard about them.
i will appreciate any type of help.
;;; oh! sorry, one more question:
i am also after powerfull aprogramming ideas like of SICP. do you think
i will get time to learn them, in these 10 months?
if yes, then besides SICP how about "Knuth's art of programming" and
"Introduction to algorithams by Cormen et al"?
thanks a million.
"arnuld"
"arnuld" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
enjoyed it.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
Patrick May <···@spe.com> writes:
> "arnuld" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> > so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
>
> Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
> enjoyed it.
That's an exceptionally nasty advise to give. He (and c.l.l) might be
in for another un-COSy suprise ...
Mike
--
If you don't breathe, there is no air. DI Michael Wildpaner
If you don't walk, there is no earth. Ph.D. Student
If you don't speak, there is no world.
-- Navajo (Dineh) wisdom
Michael Wildpaner <····@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> > > so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
> >
> > Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
> > enjoyed it.
>
> That's an exceptionally nasty advise to give. He (and c.l.l) might
> be in for another un-COSy suprise ...
It wasn't intended to be nasty. I do hope that no one would take
it as anything other than a facetious suggestion.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
Patrick May schrieb:
> Michael Wildpaner <····@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> > > > so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
> > >
> > > Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
> > > enjoyed it.
> >
> > That's an exceptionally nasty advise to give. He (and c.l.l) might
> > be in for another un-COSy suprise ...
>
> It wasn't intended to be nasty. I do hope that no one would take
> it as anything other than a facetious suggestion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick
His name is David Touretzky and not Touretzkey. I noticed that he posts
a lot on alt.religion.scientology but not as much here. He seems being
more interested in bashing religion, study technology and drug
rehabilitation than posting about the lisp stuff.
Anyway, while I am being here, let me ask you guys a question.
Touretzky is adored by hate mongers on ARS but they don't know really
what he is doing besides hating SCN. I asked his friends numerous
questions about his work but they are unable to answer. Perhaps anybody
of you can.
My question is: why does he need rodents to develop computers? The kind
of robot that I want is one that acts like my assistant or does the
work that I don't want to do. How can a rat robot be attractive for
anybody except a cat to play around with?
Barbara Schwarz
L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
(About Valerie Emanuel, number one "Eru Avatar"-suspect, who says she
is mentally ill. Eru stalks, defames and abuses me.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html
Psychiatric troll olihilyu @ yahoo.com posting from Brockton and
Rowland Massachussetts forges, harasses, defames and stalks me also
with e-mail address BarbSchwarz @yahoo.com and Barbara.Schwarz @
yahoo.com. Scott Goehring is a known forger. Read this:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/goehrings1.html
Other interesting websites:
http://www.cchr.org
http://67.154.46.4/ Free Speech Store
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
> | systems design and implementation.
> ···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> Patrick May schrieb:
>
> > Michael Wildpaner <····@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> > > > > so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
> > > >
> > > > Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
> > > > enjoyed it.
> > >
> > > That's an exceptionally nasty advise to give. He (and c.l.l) might
> > > be in for another un-COSy suprise ...
> >
> > It wasn't intended to be nasty. I do hope that no one would take
> > it as anything other than a facetious suggestion.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Patrick
>
> His name is David Touretzky and not Touretzkey. I noticed that he posts
> a lot on alt.religion.scientology but not as much here. He seems being
> more interested in bashing religion, study technology and drug
> rehabilitation than posting about the lisp stuff.
>
> Anyway, while I am being here, let me ask you guys a question.
> Touretzky is adored by hate mongers on ARS but they don't know really
> what he is doing besides hating SCN. I asked his friends numerous
> questions about his work but they are unable to answer. Perhaps anybody
> of you can.
>
> My question is: why does he need rodents to develop computers? The kind
> of robot that I want is one that acts like my assistant or does the
> work that I don't want to do. How can a rat robot be attractive for
> anybody except a cat to play around with?
>
>
> Barbara Schwarz
> L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
>
>
A rodent brain is still much smarter than the world's most powerful
supercomputers in terms of raw processing power. Of course, rodents
don't use their brains for the kind of things scientists (sic) use
supercomputers. Perhaps David T. still trying to harness that power
and put it to evil use? That would be my guess.
p.s. Poor Tom Cruise. What an incredibly bad lifestyle choice.
well, this thread has got some interesting and technically good
responses.anyway, between all of these Open-Source, FreeSoftware,
Touretzky i am missing the help i need. so i will not talk about these
issue anymore.
i need help and i know CLL has lots of talented and good persons ( as i
can see from this thread) and they can help me. again i am putting my
question a here but i a slightly modified form:
-----------------
my *aim*: i want to start writing software or will join as a
*bug-fixer* in Common-LISP projects (in OpenSource projects) . -- i
want to start real-life software writing, bug-fixing or something like
it after 10 months.
------------------------
1.) PAIP by Peter Norvig is already onto my list. so i can buy only one
more.
2.) Do i need to know CLOS if i want to start with my *aim*?
if yes, then How about
- CLOS by Sonya Keene
- OOP in Common LISP by Stephen Slade
- Art of Metobject Protocal by Gregor Kiczales.
i do not know anything about them but have heard about them. are these
necessary to learn CLOS?
3.) how about learning -algorithms- ? also, i am quite weak at maths.
i will really appreciate any kind of help.
thanks a million.
"arnuld"
> -----------------
> my *aim*: i want to start writing software or will join as a
> *bug-fixer* in Common-LISP projects (in OpenSource projects) . -- i
> want to start real-life software writing, bug-fixing or something like
> it after 10 months.
> ------------------------
Any reason that you want to wait 10 months? I think the best way to
prepare for doing opensource work is to actually do opensource work :-)
Look around? Do any of the projects interest you? One way to start is
to check out the Common Lisp Gardeners.
http://lispniks.com/cl-gardeners/
Or you could look through some of the projects at
http://common-lisp.net/
> PAIP by Peter Norvig is already onto my list.
Excellent book. It is probably a lot more difficult than Touretzky's,
though. Ulrich recommended Practical Common Lisp, and I agree that this
would make a good book to read next. It is also focused more on people
like you who want to go work on a project soon.
> Do i need to know CLOS if i want to start with my *aim*?
Not really, but it would help. Practical Common Lisp should teach you a
fair amount about this. Probably better to focus on getting started
with a project, rather than reading more books. You can always go back
to the books later if you feel lack of CLOS knowledge is holding you
back.
> how about learning -algorithms- ?
PAIP will teach you a lot about algorithms.
> also, i am quite weak at maths.
If you have a hard time with algorithms, don't worry too much about it.
You can do a lot of good work with very little understanding of
algorithms. Algorithms, for me, are the fun part. They don't actually
come up as often as you might expect though. Regarding your aim, of
making a contribution to opensource work, you could even start now by
helping with documentation, or by using someone's software and
reporting bugs. Fixing bugs also will not require much algorithm
knowledge.
10 months is a long time. Are you sure that you want to wait?
"arnuld" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
>
> i need help and i know CLL has lots of talented and good persons ( as i
> can see from this thread) and they can help me. again i am putting my
> question a here but i a slightly modified form:
>
> -----------------
> my *aim*: i want to start writing software or will join as a
> *bug-fixer* in Common-LISP projects (in OpenSource projects) . -- i
> want to start real-life software writing, bug-fixing or something like
> it after 10 months.
> ------------------------
>
> 1.) PAIP by Peter Norvig is already onto my list. so i can buy only one
> more.
>
Why buy any more? Check out Practicle Common Lisp as it will give you
a good overview of how lisp can be used to address a practicle problem
and will give you a good high level overview of what the language can
do.
> 2.) Do i need to know CLOS if i want to start with my *aim*?
>
No, probably not. There are lots of lisp programs which don't use
CLOS, but it is another powerful tool and worth learning in the long
run. You will probably do better with CLOS once you have the basics of
Lisp and programming sorted out. Keep it simple to start with.
> if yes, then How about
>
> - CLOS by Sonya Keene
> - OOP in Common LISP by Stephen Slade
> - Art of Metobject Protocal by Gregor Kiczales.
>
I've not yet read any of them either, but have seen many
recommendations for Keene.
> i do not know anything about them but have heard about them. are these
> necessary to learn CLOS?
>
No, not necessary to learn CLOS, but probably very useful. However, OO
is just another methodology - its not required and its not necessarily
ideal for every problem. It is a good additional tool to have in your
toolbox.
> 3.) how about learning -algorithms- ? also, i am quite weak at maths.
>
Algorithms and data structures are your fundamental building blocks -
you have to be comfortable with these regardless of the language you
program in.
Maths is less critical, unless you want to work on mathematical and
number crunching problems. I believe a solid grasp of 1st year applied
maths is probably very beneficial, but I know quite a few programmers
who are very poor at maths, but still quite good programmers as long
as they only work in domains which don't require extensive maths
background.
If you do want to brush up or learn some basic applied maths, I'd
recommend Donald Knuth's Concrete Maths (or was it Concrete Applied
Maths?). In fact, I'd recommend any of Knuth's books. His Art of
Programming series, while based on an abstract assembly style language
is great.
At some point, you have to give up seeking guidance, stop reading
books and start the hard work. Set yourself some problems to solve -
simple things at first, and just start writing the code. It will
likely be very frustrating and slow at first, but you will learn a
hell of a lot. then go back to the books and come back here with some
concrete lisp questions. This is the point at which your real learning
will start!
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X wrote:
> If you do want to brush up or learn some basic applied maths, I'd
> recommend Donald Knuth's Concrete Maths (or was it Concrete Applied
> Maths?). In fact, I'd recommend any of Knuth's books. His Art of
> Programming series, while based on an abstract assembly style language
> is great.
Concrete Mathematics is a nice book indeed. Arnuld could borrow
it at the library to see whether he likes or not.
Recommending the "Art of Programming" to someone weak at math is
in my view a bit odd though.
--
Jens Axel S�gaard
Jens Axel Søgaard <······@soegaard.net> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>
> > If you do want to brush up or learn some basic applied maths, I'd
> > recommend Donald Knuth's Concrete Maths (or was it Concrete Applied
> > Maths?). In fact, I'd recommend any of Knuth's books. His Art of
> > Programming series, while based on an abstract assembly style language
> > is great.
>
> Concrete Mathematics is a nice book indeed. Arnuld could borrow
> it at the library to see whether he likes or not.
>
> Recommending the "Art of Programming" to someone weak at math is
> in my view a bit odd though.
>
Funny, but I never considered myself particularly good at maths. It
was something I had to work at quite hard and still wouldn't say I was
great, but at least comfortable and not threatened by it. However, I
read the Art of Programming volumes when I was first getting into
computing and for me, it really really clarified in my mind what was
really going on - it was like the glue between the high level
abstraction we tend to work at and what that gets translated into at
the lower level.
Possibly it was just because of Knuth's style, which seems to fit with
my cognitive processes very nicely (as does a lot of Djkstra's stuff).
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> wrote:
>> if yes, then How about
>>
>> - CLOS by Sonya Keene
>> - OOP in Common LISP by Stephen Slade
>> - Art of Metobject Protocal by Gregor Kiczales.
>>
> I've not yet read any of them either, but have seen many
> recommendations for Keene.
I've read Keene recently, and I have to say that I didn't like it very
much. But I guess it depends on your background, and on what you're looking
for. The things I didn't like are:
- it's an introduction to OOP as well as to CLOS itself. So if you're already
familiar with OO concepts, you'll find there's a lot of blabla. On the other
hand I can't comment on its adequation for OO beginners.
- there are also a lot of general software engineering blabla (e.g. chap. 10)
that has almost nothing to do with CLOS. Not that what's said is wrong, but
by experience, I believe most of these things can't be taught. You've got to
discover them by practice, no matter how much you've read them.
- but most of all, I still can't figure out how one can choose concrete
examples so badly. What can possibly be more boring than implementing locks
and streams ? What's even worse, you can't really play with the examples
because they rely on software sublayers that are not part of CL and that are
not given either.
--
Didier Verna, ······@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 ······@xemacs.org
"arnuld" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> 2.) Do i need to know CLOS if i want to start with my *aim*?
It's probably good to know the basics of CLOS.
> if yes, then How about
> - CLOS by Sonya Keene
This would probably be a good introductory CLOS text. However, I
agree with previous posters that "Practical Common Lisp" also covers
CLOS as well as other aspects of CL.
> - OOP in Common LISP by Stephen Slade
I recall someone saying that this book actually isn't specifically
about CLOS.
> - Art of Metobject Protocal by Gregor Kiczales.
I don't think this book would be suitable for you at this time.
·········@gmail.com schrieb:
> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> > Patrick May schrieb:
> >
> > > Michael Wildpaner <····@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> > > > > > so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
> > > > > enjoyed it.
> > > >
> > > > That's an exceptionally nasty advise to give. He (and c.l.l) might
> > > > be in for another un-COSy suprise ...
> > >
> > > It wasn't intended to be nasty. I do hope that no one would take
> > > it as anything other than a facetious suggestion.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Patrick
> >
> > His name is David Touretzky and not Touretzkey. I noticed that he posts
> > a lot on alt.religion.scientology but not as much here. He seems being
> > more interested in bashing religion, study technology and drug
> > rehabilitation than posting about the lisp stuff.
> >
> > Anyway, while I am being here, let me ask you guys a question.
> > Touretzky is adored by hate mongers on ARS but they don't know really
> > what he is doing besides hating SCN. I asked his friends numerous
> > questions about his work but they are unable to answer. Perhaps anybody
> > of you can.
> >
> > My question is: why does he need rodents to develop computers? The kind
> > of robot that I want is one that acts like my assistant or does the
> > work that I don't want to do. How can a rat robot be attractive for
> > anybody except a cat to play around with?
> >
> >
> > Barbara Schwarz
> > L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
> >
> >
>
>
> A rodent brain is still much smarter than the world's most powerful
> supercomputers in terms of raw processing power.
Oh really? Guess you didn't keep up what kind of smart computers the
Japanese developed without rodents, you little rat.
And what does that have to do with Tom Cruise?
--
Barbara Schwarz
L. Ron Hubbard: "THE CRIMINAL ACCUSES OTHERS OF THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF
IS DOING. THE CRIMINAL MIND RELENTLESSLY SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYONE IT
IMAGINES MIGHT EXPOSE IT. THE CRIMINAL ONLY SEES OTHERS AS HE HIMSELF
IS."
L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
(About Valerie Emanuel, number one "Eru Avatar"-suspect, who says she
is mentally ill. Eru stalks, defames and abuses me.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html
Psychiatric troll olihilyu @ yahoo.com posting from Brockton and
Rowland Massachussetts forges, harasses, defames and stalks me also
with e-mail address BarbSchwarz @yahoo.com and Barbara.Schwarz @
yahoo.com. Scott Goehring is a known forger. Read this:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/goehrings1.html
Other interesting websites:
http://www.cchr.org
http://67.154.46.4/ Free Speech Store
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/
bossel wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com schrieb:
>
> > A rodent brain is still much smarter than the world's most powerful
> > supercomputers in terms of raw processing power.
>
> Oh really? Guess you didn't keep up what kind of smart computers the
> Japanese developed without rodents, you little rat.
I probably shouldn't ask, but why are you calling me a "little rat"?
BTW, is this you:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/barbara_schwarz_files/8d.jpg
> And what does that have to do with Tom Cruise?
You don't like Tom?
Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> Patrick May schrieb:
>
> > Michael Wildpaner <····@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> > > > > so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
> > > >
> > > > Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
> > > > enjoyed it.
> > >
> > > That's an exceptionally nasty advise to give. He (and c.l.l) might
> > > be in for another un-COSy suprise ...
> >
> > It wasn't intended to be nasty. I do hope that no one would take
> > it as anything other than a facetious suggestion.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Patrick
>
> His name is David Touretzky and not Touretzkey. I noticed that he posts
> a lot on alt.religion.scientology but not as much here. He seems being
> more interested in bashing religion, study technology and drug
> rehabilitation than posting about the lisp stuff.
>
> Anyway, while I am being here, let me ask you guys a question.
> Touretzky is adored by hate mongers on ARS but they don't know really
> what he is doing besides hating SCN. I asked his friends numerous
> questions about his work but they are unable to answer. Perhaps anybody
> of you can.
>
> My question is: why does he need rodents to develop computers? The kind
> of robot that I want is one that acts like my assistant or does the
> work that I don't want to do. How can a rat robot be attractive for
> anybody except a cat to play around with?
>
>
> Barbara Schwarz
> L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
>
>
> http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
> (I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
>
>
> http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
> (About Valerie Emanuel, number one "Eru Avatar"-suspect, who says she
> is mentally ill. Eru stalks, defames and abuses me.)
> http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html
> Psychiatric troll olihilyu @ yahoo.com posting from Brockton and
> Rowland Massachussetts forges, harasses, defames and stalks me also
> with e-mail address BarbSchwarz @yahoo.com and Barbara.Schwarz @
> yahoo.com. Scott Goehring is a known forger. Read this:
> http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/goehrings1.html
>
>
> Other interesting websites:
> http://www.cchr.org
> http://67.154.46.4/ Free Speech Store
> http://www.amatterofjustice.org/
>
>
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
> > | systems design and implementation.
> > ···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
Basically I don't know and don't care about David's activities in
religion and drug rehab but he is and will allways be the man who draw
me to really learn lisp with his masterpiece book , and if there's
something like Lisp gods he's definately in the pantheon.
So if you expect support from this group regarding bashing Touretzky
you better learn lisp first, because only lisper could kill another
lisper.
bobi
fireblade wrote:
>
> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
>> Patrick May schrieb:
>>
| systems design and implementation.
>> > ···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
>
> Basically I don't know and don't care about David's activities in
> religion and drug rehab but he is and will allways be the man who draw
> me to really learn lisp with his masterpiece book , and if there's
> something like Lisp gods he's definately in the pantheon.
>
> So if you expect support from this group regarding bashing Touretzky
> you better learn lisp first, because only lisper could kill another
> lisper.
>
> bobi
Do not do that! Do not respond to Barbara f....... Schwarz posts, or we'll
suffer another barrage of idiocy from scientologists.
-- Hrvoje
BH schrieb:
> fireblade wrote:
>
> >
> > Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> >> Patrick May schrieb:
Apparently, HB is afraid of intelligent postings. Oh, I forget to
mention that your beloved Dave Touretzky is also known for making
racial remarks.
Anyway, thanks for telling me that his fans have no idea what he really
does and what he exactly does with his rodents. Seems nobody knows but
him.
--
Barbara Schwarz
L. Ron Hubbard: "THE CRIMINAL ACCUSES OTHERS OF THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF
IS DOING. THE CRIMINAL MIND RELENTLESSLY SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYONE IT
IMAGINES MIGHT EXPOSE IT. THE CRIMINAL ONLY SEES OTHERS AS HE HIMSELF
IS."
L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
(About Valerie Emanuel, number one "Eru Avatar"-suspect, who says she
is mentally ill. Eru stalks, defames and abuses me.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html
Psychiatric troll olihilyu @ yahoo.com posting from Brockton and
Rowland Massachussetts forges, harasses, defames and stalks me also
with e-mail address BarbSchwarz @yahoo.com and Barbara.Schwarz @
yahoo.com. He signs his postings as Jeremy Tucker.
Other interesting websites:
http://www.cchr.org
http://67.154.46.4/ Free Speech Store
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/
fireblade schrieb:
> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> > Patrick May schrieb:
> >
> > > Michael Wildpaner <····@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> > > > > > so what i need to do after "Touretzky's book"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Write to that nice Barbara Schwarz and tell her how much you
> > > > > enjoyed it.
> > > >
> > > > That's an exceptionally nasty advise to give. He (and c.l.l) might
> > > > be in for another un-COSy suprise ...
> > >
> > > It wasn't intended to be nasty. I do hope that no one would take
> > > it as anything other than a facetious suggestion.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Patrick
> >
> > His name is David Touretzky and not Touretzkey. I noticed that he posts
> > a lot on alt.religion.scientology but not as much here. He seems being
> > more interested in bashing religion, study technology and drug
> > rehabilitation than posting about the lisp stuff.
> >
> > Anyway, while I am being here, let me ask you guys a question.
> > Touretzky is adored by hate mongers on ARS but they don't know really
> > what he is doing besides hating SCN. I asked his friends numerous
> > questions about his work but they are unable to answer. Perhaps anybody
> > of you can.
> >
> > My question is: why does he need rodents to develop computers? The kind
> > of robot that I want is one that acts like my assistant or does the
> > work that I don't want to do. How can a rat robot be attractive for
> > anybody except a cat to play around with?
> >
> >
> > Barbara Schwarz
> > L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
> >
> >
> > http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
> > (I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
> >
> >
> > http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
> > (About Valerie Emanuel, number one "Eru Avatar"-suspect, who says she
> > is mentally ill. Eru stalks, defames and abuses me.)
> > http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html
> > Psychiatric troll olihilyu @ yahoo.com posting from Brockton and
> > Rowland Massachussetts forges, harasses, defames and stalks me also
> > with e-mail address BarbSchwarz @yahoo.com and Barbara.Schwarz @
> > yahoo.com. Scott Goehring is a known forger. Read this:
> > http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/goehrings1.html
> >
> >
> > Other interesting websites:
> > http://www.cchr.org
> > http://67.154.46.4/ Free Speech Store
> > http://www.amatterofjustice.org/
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
> > > | systems design and implementation.
> > > ···@spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
>
> Basically I don't know and don't care about David's activities in
> religion and drug rehab
That fits to you. His is anti-religious, he is anti-drug rehab,
anti-study technology and orders porn toys from the CMU and I don't
appreciate it being harassed with a porn letter.
In other words, you can't explain what he does with the governmental
grants that he got either. I should have known. He said himself that he
is overpaid.
--
Barbara Schwarz
L. Ron Hubbard: "THE CRIMINAL ACCUSES OTHERS OF THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF
IS DOING. THE CRIMINAL MIND RELENTLESSLY SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYONE IT
IMAGINES MIGHT EXPOSE IT. THE CRIMINAL ONLY SEES OTHERS AS HE HIMSELF
IS."
L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
(About Valerie Emanuel, number one "Eru Avatar"-suspect, who says she
is mentally ill. Eru stalks, defames and abuses me.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/emanuelv1.html
Psychiatric troll olihilyu @ yahoo.com posting from Brockton and
Rowland Massachussetts forges, harasses, defames and stalks me also
with e-mail address BarbSchwarz @yahoo.com and Barbara.Schwarz @
yahoo.com. He signs his postings as Jeremy Tucker.
Other interesting websites:
http://www.cchr.org
http://67.154.46.4/ Free Speech Store
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/
bossel wrote:
> That fits to you. His is anti-religious, he is anti-drug rehab,
> anti-study technology and orders porn toys from the CMU
CMU is selling porn toys now? The government must have cut their
funding for coming in second in that Darpa race last year.
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> bossel wrote:
>
> > That fits to you. His is anti-religious, he is anti-drug rehab,
> > anti-study technology and orders porn toys from the CMU
>
> CMU is selling porn toys now? The government must have cut their
> funding for coming in second in that Darpa race last year.
Nobody's bashing Touretzky, but he has his well deserved critics.
One of the many fans of the http://www.parishioners.org wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> > bossel wrote:
> >
> > > That fits to you. His is anti-religious, he is anti-drug rehab,
> > > anti-study technology and orders porn toys from the CMU
> >
> > CMU is selling porn toys now? The government must have cut their
> > funding for coming in second in that Darpa race last year.
>
>
> Nobody's bashing Touretzky, but he has his well deserved critics.
How fast can you manufacture a Touretzky critic these days?
It's gonna be hard to do with posts like "Dave Touretzky is Sloppy." I
read that one,
but couldn't find much to distinguish Dave from just about every other
academic in the universe.
Aren't you just obsessed with Dave? Admit it, do you have a crush on
him? Well, find somewhere else to gush about it, this newsgroup's about
Scientology, 'k?
-maggie, human being
Would you guys STOP cross-posting this stuff to comp.robotics.misc
banchukita wrote:
> One of the many fans of the http://www.parishioners.org wrote:
> > ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> > > bossel wrote:
> > >
> > > > That fits to you. His is anti-religious, he is anti-drug rehab,
> > > > anti-study technology and orders porn toys from the CMU
> > >
> > > CMU is selling porn toys now? The government must have cut their
> > > funding for coming in second in that Darpa race last year.
> >
> >
> > Nobody's bashing Touretzky, but he has his well deserved critics.
>
>
> How fast can you manufacture a Touretzky critic these days?
>
> It's gonna be hard to do with posts like "Dave Touretzky is Sloppy." I
> read that one,
> but couldn't find much to distinguish Dave from just about every other
> academic in the universe.
>
> Aren't you just obsessed with Dave? Admit it, do you have a crush on
> him? Well, find somewhere else to gush about it, this newsgroup's about
> Scientology, 'k?
>
>
> -maggie, human being
One of the many fans of the http://www.parishioners.org wrote:
*************************************************
* Dr. Dave Touretzky's website *
*************************************************
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/
The Secrets of Scientology
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
The OT III page. Xenu, BTS volcanos and more.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/
The NOTS scholars page. NOTS and other goofy
Scientology secrets. Weird cult nonsense.
BTS, BT exorcism, quack claims and more.
Letters to Dr. Dave from cult lawyers.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/
Narconon exposed and debunked. News about
Narconon, its claims and its quakery.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/
Books about Scientology, downloadable for free.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/index.html
Plus, much, much, more!
*************************************************
--
"If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
Would you guys STOP cross-posting this stuff to comp.robotics.misc
wbarwell wrote:
> One of the many fans of the http://www.parishioners.org wrote:
>
> *************************************************
> * Dr. Dave Touretzky's website *
> *************************************************
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/
>
> The Secrets of Scientology
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html
>
> The OT III page. Xenu, BTS volcanos and more.
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/
>
> The NOTS scholars page. NOTS and other goofy
> Scientology secrets. Weird cult nonsense.
> BTS, BT exorcism, quack claims and more.
> Letters to Dr. Dave from cult lawyers.
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/
>
> Narconon exposed and debunked. News about
> Narconon, its claims and its quakery.
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Stop-Narconon/
>
> Books about Scientology, downloadable for free.
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/index.html
>
> Plus, much, much, more!
>
> *************************************************
>
> --
>
> "If I saw a man beating a tied up horse, I could
> not prove it was wrong, but I'd know it was wrong."
> - Mark Twain
>
> Cheerful Charlie
Would you guys STOP cross-posting this stuff to comp.robotics.misc
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> bossel wrote:
>
> > That fits to you. His is anti-religious, he is anti-drug rehab,
> > anti-study technology and orders porn toys from the CMU
>
> CMU is selling porn toys now? The government must have cut their
> funding for coming in second in that Darpa race last year.
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> bossel wrote:
>
> > That fits to you. His is anti-religious, he is anti-drug rehab,
> > anti-study technology and orders porn toys from the CMU
>
> CMU is selling porn toys now? The government must have cut their
> funding for coming in second in that Darpa race last year.
Why don't you click on this website below? It says that Dave Touretzky
called a porn shop and ordered porn toys and that I was harassed with a
porn letter in the USPS mail. Nobody said that the CMU sells porn,
although when you think that Dave Touretzky does that on CMU soil....
But it wasn't me who said it but you.
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
--
Barbara Schwarz
L. Ron Hubbard: "THE CRIMINAL ACCUSES OTHERS OF THINGS WHICH HE HIMSELF
IS DOING. THE CRIMINAL MIND RELENTLESSLY SEEKS TO DESTROY ANYONE IT
IMAGINES MIGHT EXPOSE IT. THE CRIMINAL ONLY SEES OTHERS AS HE HIMSELF
IS."
L. Ron Hubbard: "HONEST PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS, TOO."
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
Psychiatric troll olihilyu @ yahoo.com posting from Brockton and
Rowland (Boston) Massachussetts forges, harasses, defames and stalks me
also with e-mail address BarbSchwarz @yahoo.com and Barbara.Schwarz @
yahoo.com. He signed some postings as Jeremy Tucker and is an abusive
Comcast customer.
Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com wrote:
> > bossel wrote:
> >
> > > That fits to you. His is anti-religious, he is anti-drug rehab,
> > > anti-study technology and orders porn toys from the CMU
> >
> > CMU is selling porn toys now? The government must have cut their
> > funding for coming in second in that Darpa race last year.
>
> Why don't you click on this website below? It says that Dave Touretzky
> called a porn shop and ordered porn toys and that I was harassed with a
> porn letter in the USPS mail.
How can you know Dave called the porn shop, unless you either worked
there or wiretapped him illegally?
arnuld wrote:
> hello everyone,
>
> I am a newbie who is trying his brain at "Touretzky's : Common-LISP a
> gentle introduction". i am on chapter-6 and untill now it is marvelous.
> I call it a great work of art for newbies to programming. I say so from
> my experience with more than dozen of books on introduction to
> programming and majority of them used SCHEME which i never liked, some
> used PYTHON and much less used PERL, JAVA and C. anyway contrary to all
> of the sayings i have heard over last 12 months (during my time here) i
> think Common-LISP is a great introduction to programming when
> accompained with "Touretzky".
IIRC Touretzky covers mostly functional-style programming with lots of
emphasis on lists and stuff like that.
For more day-to-day programming, definitely take a look at
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
especially before tackling "real" projects.
> 1.) i tried "how to design programmes" (HtDP), "Learning to Programme"
> by Alan Gauld . these 2 were very *hard* books, not in the technical
> sense but because i have a very different *cognitive process* as
> compared to majority of newbies. right now SICP is far above my head
> but i found it to be extremely different from 2 books which draw its
> ideas (they are HtDP and "Concrete Abstrations" ).
>
> 2.)PAIP by Peter Norvig is already onto my list. so i can buy only one
> more.
>
> 3.)Do i need to know CLOS if i want to start with my *aim*? if yes,
> then How about CLOS by Sonya Keene, OOP in Common LISP by Stephen
> Slade. i do not know anything about them but have heard about them.
I think you can always read the above three books later. But give
Practical Common Lisp a try; it's online for free, or go buy the
dead-tree version.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
arnuld <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| my *aim*: i want to start writing software or will join as a
| *bug-fixer* in Common-LISP projects (will work with "copyleft"
| softwares only). ...
+---------------
Just so you know, many (most?) of the Common Lisp community are not
terribly great fans of "copyleft" [e.g., GPL], but rather prefer to
use -- and write -- open-source software with the less-coercive
BSD/MIT-style licenses (or even sometimes, in those countries
supporting such a legal status, "public domain"). There are many
reasons for this -- technical [due to Lisp's dynamic compiling,
loading, & REPL'ing nature], historical, social, & legal -- so I
thought I'd let you know about it before you bumped into the issue
by accident. You are, of course, completely free to use a GPL-style
license on code you write in Lisp if you wish; I just thought you
should be alerted that doing so might affect its acceptance. At the
very least, you should do a web search on the difference between
the LGPL and the LLGPL and consider using the latter (though some
still have concerns about even that).
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
> I just thought you
> should be alerted that doing so might affect its acceptance. At the
> very least, you should do a web search on the difference between
> the LGPL and the LLGPL and consider using the latter (though some
> still have concerns about even that).
>
> -Rob
i have seen your name many times on C.L.L., well what i know that
nearly all of the hackers use LISP and:
1. majority of hackers created/helped a project named GNOME which is
GPLed.
2. nearly all of the hackers use LINUX which is GPLed.
3. nearlt all of the softwares/tools on LINUX are GPLed.
then what do you mean by the thing "Common-LISP community" will not
accept my software if my software is GPLed.?
does it mean "common-LISP community" is not composed of any Hackers or
hackers @ C.L.L do not like GPL?
i do not think so.
waiting for your reply.........
--arnuld
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: what to do after "Touretzkey's book"?
Date:
Message-ID: <ubqxbecvx.fsf@agharta.de>
On 13 Feb 2006 02:42:43 -0800, "arnuld" <·······@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. majority of hackers created/helped a project named GNOME which is
> GPLed.
Gnome is based on X which is not GPL.
> 2. nearly all of the hackers use LINUX which is GPLed.
Many hackers also use FreeBSD (for example) which is not GPL.
> 3. nearlt all of the softwares/tools on LINUX are GPLed.
Apache is not GPL, Perl isn't, etc. Not even the GNU C library which
is used by almost every C program on Linux is GPL, it's LGPL.
> then what do you mean by the thing "Common-LISP community" will not
> accept my software if my software is GPLed.?
>
> does it mean "common-LISP community" is not composed of any Hackers
There was a time when "Lisp community" was more or less synonymous
with "hackers:"
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0141000511/sr=8-4/qid=1139828473>
> or hackers @ C.L.L do not like GPL?
That's clearly what Rob said (and he spoke for the perceived majority,
not for all of c.l.l.). Have you actually read his posting?
> i do not think so.
That doesn't change it.
> waiting for your reply.........
You didn't really address anything of what Rob said. Did you check
the LLGPL for example?
--
European Common Lisp Meeting 2006: <http://weitz.de/eclm2006/>
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
> Have you actually read his posting?
of course, i read his posting. i also googled for LLGPL and found this
information:
-- The "Lisp Lesser General Public Licence": this is a license like the
LGPL but with a prequel which defines the effect in terms more
typically used in Lisp programs. --
when i looked at what they are calling prequel, it was very-technical
and was a bit over my head.
> That doesn't change it.
ok i agree , i know one thing that hackers community composed of many
parts:
like MIT AI lab community from where RMS emerged, UNIX guys, ESR's part
and then BSD part which comed from University of California.
also i know that the word "Free Software" is not able to change the
software production system and persons like me were forced to use
"windows" in his entire graduation. after graduation i started using
FedoraCore, and it was available to me because of "OpenSource
revolution" which hackers and i think many of CLL people admire of, it
is good, in the sense it clears the ambiguity and ESR's CatB was a way
to change the system which was based on -- not to fight with results of
a system (like GNU) but remove the cause of that bad system -- and this
is only way to do the impossible.
i wrote so because i want to know and say the truth. i do not want to
blind myself by holding onto unchaged and conventional beliefes. and
one thing in the end: people who like GPL are the people who love
freedom, that's sure and majority of OpenSource people do not want to
talk about freedom, they want technical competence, even if it costs
lives of people like me (it happened with me that is why i am writing
this reply). the only exception i have met with is ESR - president of
OpenSource Initiative. I have read his essays and found him to be a
good man at heart.
GNU people are good and like "Open Source" people they want to change
the system but they were doing it in the wrong way, they were dealing
with the *effects* , only OpenSource dealt with the *cause*. this is
the whole point of success. In the end OpenSource is rising towards a
great future and i am sure about it. what i fear is that life of RMS
will be like of Charles Darwin who for all of his life kept on saying
that his *theories of evolution* are practically the right ones and
every scientist and every person on this planet refused his *theories*.
100 years after his death scientists came to know through their
experiments and all other stuff they do that Charles Darwin was right
and today every education system on this Earth teaches his theories and
nearly every scientist's work is based on the Charles Darwin's concepts
of evolution. talk with someone from the field of biology on "Theory of
Natural Selections" and you will hear nothing but praises for Charles
Darwin and he did not invent these theories for himself just like RMS.
I fear that RMS will be the Charles Darwin of software world.
I respect him a lot and he is only person who told me (through his
articles) that my performance was poor in my college not because i have
a poor mind but because i use poor things called proprietary softwares
and hence has a poor effect in return, use tools which give you freedom
to change things. i did so and it had a tremendous effect on my
understanding and maturity of my personal, financial and family life
ina positive way. OpenSource people say this: use this because it is
technically better, and that's it. from my experience, softwares put a
lot of effect on a person's understanding of life and his maturity on a
mental-level and GNU philosophy is better at making talented and
socially aware humans rather than creating great robots.
thanks Edi , it all just emerged when i read your replies.
"arnuld"
"arnuld" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> that's sure and majority of OpenSource people do not want to
> talk about freedom, they want technical competence, even if it costs
> lives of people like me (it happened with me that is why i am writing
> this reply).
You were killed by Open Source? And now you've come back? So, what
you're saying is that you're a Free Software zombie. Oh my god, are
we about to embark on a really nerdy version of From Dusk Til Dawn?!?!
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
arnuld wrote:
> i wrote so because i want to know and say the truth. i do not want to
> blind myself by holding onto unchaged and conventional beliefes. and
> one thing in the end: people who like GPL are the people who love
> freedom, that's sure and majority of OpenSource people do not want to
> talk about freedom, they want technical competence, even if it costs
> lives of people like me (it happened with me that is why i am writing
> this reply). the only exception i have met with is ESR - president of
> OpenSource Initiative. I have read his essays and found him to be a
> good man at heart.
GPL's fans and BSD's fans have different concepts of freedom. GPL
ensures that the software stays free, i.e. in the public domain. All
changes to GPLed software that are published to the public have to be
published in source also. So it's about the freedom of the software.
The BSD (or MIT) license have a different emphasis: you can take BSD
code and do with it whatever you like, including publishing it
commercially, without source code. This is about *your* freedom.
Some people want to publish source code only if it will stay open; thus
GPL. Some people want their code to be available freely for every kind
of project out there, including commercial closed-source ones: BSD license.
The Lisp community is rather small, and contains some freelancers, so
they have a lot to gain by sharing code BSD-style, so that everybody can
use it commercially, without any restrictions. The *culture*
surrounding this code is still very open, like in GPL circles (I'd say);
only the license is different.
LPGL is a reduced GPL that means that modifications of a library have to
stay free, but an application can still use the library without problems
(even if the app is closed source).
The clause in the LGPL that determines what you have to publish and what
not is about linking. If you link your code with LGPLed code via a
library mechanism, you're good. Otherwise it's called "extending", and
you have to open your code too. In Lisp all code lives in the same
place (basically), so GPL and LGPL are almost the same. So there's the
LLGPL for people who prefer LGPL-style software.
> GNU people are good and like "Open Source" people they want to change
> the system but they were doing it in the wrong way, they were dealing
> with the *effects* , only OpenSource dealt with the *cause*. this is
> the whole point of success. In the end OpenSource is rising towards a
> great future and i am sure about it. what i fear is that life of RMS
Well, open source is about sharing effort to cut costs. Some companies
try to sell services around GPL software, so they like GPL because it
prohibits closed-source use. Other companies prefer BSD-style, because
this only means they share development costs of the code, but can
develop commercial extensions to the code and sell those. Apache is one
such example, built by lots of big companies, with a very free license.
> will be like of Charles Darwin who for all of his life kept on saying
> that his *theories of evolution* are practically the right ones and
> every scientist and every person on this planet refused his *theories*.
I think RMS is quite socialist at heart. He says that ALL software
should be free, so there's the GPL to ensure that more and more software
has to be open-source.
Make your own judgement about that...
> I fear that RMS will be the Charles Darwin of software world.
Only software is something created by people, and people need food.
Some companies have reasons to publish commercial software, and some
people have not the time to read source code, but the money to buy
excellent commercial software.
I don't think Free Software is the One Absolute Greatness, the solution
for all problems.
> I respect him a lot and he is only person who told me (through his
> articles) that my performance was poor in my college not because i have
> a poor mind but because i use poor things called proprietary softwares
> and hence has a poor effect in return, use tools which give you freedom
Sorry, but you can't blame your performance on your software's openness.
Sure, reading source code can help a lot, but you can for instance run
Windows or Mac OS, but still read GPL code (like GNOME or Linux), or BSD
code (like NetBSD). Choose the software that helps you work with your
machine. Read code that is well written, that will help you learn. In
my experience writing code teaches you much more than reading badly
written, badly documented open-source stuff, but take your own choice.
> to change things. i did so and it had a tremendous effect on my
> understanding and maturity of my personal, financial and family life
> ina positive way. OpenSource people say this: use this because it is
Good for you.
> technically better, and that's it. from my experience, softwares put a
> lot of effect on a person's understanding of life and his maturity on a
> mental-level and GNU philosophy is better at making talented and
> socially aware humans rather than creating great robots.
The social world is also important, but it's not directly linked with
the software world. I like open software, but sometimes there's
commercial software that I find technically better, and then I choose that.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> arnuld wrote:
> > will be like of Charles Darwin who for all of his life kept on saying
> > that his *theories of evolution* are practically the right ones and
> > every scientist and every person on this planet refused his *theories*.
>
> I think RMS is quite socialist at heart. He says that ALL software
> should be free, so there's the GPL to ensure that more and more software
> has to be open-source.
I would like to clarify, as Stallman can't respond. I've discussed the
matter with him, and he's emphatically pro-capitalism. Both in public
and private correspondence. (In fact, it appears the GPL respects free
markets far more than modern copyright.)
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> arnuld wrote:
>>> will be like of Charles Darwin who for all of his life kept on saying
>>> that his *theories of evolution* are practically the right ones and
>>> every scientist and every person on this planet refused his *theories*.
>> I think RMS is quite socialist at heart. He says that ALL software
>> should be free, so there's the GPL to ensure that more and more software
>> has to be open-source.
>
> I would like to clarify, as Stallman can't respond. I've discussed the
> matter with him, and he's emphatically pro-capitalism. Both in public
> and private correspondence. (In fact, it appears the GPL respects free
> markets far more than modern copyright.)
Interesting! I'll accept it, even though it's against my understanding
of business and software.
I don't believe you can earn money with great software if it's open
source, just because great software will install and run itself.
There's no manual, no configuration, no consulting involved. This is
why I gladly paid for my Mac, and why I don't run NetBSD and Linux anymore.
RMS said that all software should be free, which I can only understand
as that all programmers have to *somehow* be paid for writing new
open-source stuff, or for services.
Of course the dominant language C also has something to do with both
open-source quality (usability, but also security holes etc.), and with
the abundance of improvements that could be made and how much time
they'd take. :)
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
From: drewc
Subject: Re: what to do after "Touretzkey's book"?
Date:
Message-ID: <87lkwcj28v.fsf@rift.com>
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
[snippy snippy]
>
> I don't believe you can earn money with great software if it's open
> source, just because great software will install and run
> itself. There's no manual, no configuration, no consulting involved.
> This is why I gladly paid for my Mac, and why I don't run NetBSD and
> Linux anymore.
I make my living writing software that, for at least 80% of my
projects, i license to my clients under GPL. The vast majority of
software is in-house stuff, not OTS, and is _never_ installed by end
users.
My clients are happy when i tell them 'you get the source code under a
Free Software license', as usually their past developers have left
them with a binary, or some restrictive license.
While i'm not one to say it's 'great software', it does run businesses
and help people make their living. That is great enough for me.
> RMS said that all software should be free, which I can only understand
> as that all programmers have to *somehow* be paid for writing new
> open-source stuff, or for services.
While i don't agree with everything RMS says, i still get paid to
write Free Software, and provide services based around it. In fact, i
make significantly more now then i did while writing proprietary
software, though my choice of license has little to do with that
(choice of language moreso).
And of course, RedHat, IBM, Google and others are making millions
(partially) from Free Software, and in turn paying programmers to
contribute.
I'm not advocating the GPL specifically, as i only use it because it
_restricts_ the freedom of clients to do what they want with the code
(i retain copyright, and could give them a less restrictive/commercial
license if i so desired). BSD/sans-advertising or MIT is a better
choice for Lisp code IMO.
--
drewc at tech dot coop
drewc wrote:
> And of course, RedHat, IBM, Google and others are making millions
> (partially) from Free Software, and in turn paying programmers to
> contribute.
I don't count those. IBM has some Linux hackers, but Linux isn't
strictly necessary anyway (there's BSD and proprietary Unices). RedHat
produced IMHO the crappiest piece of software ever (yes, worse than
Windows 98), even though it ended up as the most-used Linux distro;
tastes differ. Google wrote ... what? I only know their online-stuff;
I use the search engine, by which I only increase their profits I think.
The rest is, well, out there. I'm not sure these three are increasing
the amount of free, useful software out there.
ALmost all the open-source I've used that's useful was written by
volunteers: Thunderbird (this one partly by paid hackers), TeX, gcc,
openmcl, Emacs, X11... the rest is proprietary.
But if works for you, that's good. The world is big enough for
different models of software.
> I'm not advocating the GPL specifically, as i only use it because it
> _restricts_ the freedom of clients to do what they want with the code
> (i retain copyright, and could give them a less restrictive/commercial
> license if i so desired). BSD/sans-advertising or MIT is a better
> choice for Lisp code IMO.
Interesting. In that area I can see why GPL makes some sense :D
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
well, a BIG ... THANKS A LOT to everyone on this mailing list. it
helped me lot in choosing books but also in clarifying my objectives.
i have decided that right now i will go with Peter Siebel's book (as i
want to contribute in only one way: in writing code) and then will go
on for some real-life software writing.
special thanks to :
*Ulrich Hobelmann* : he was the 1st to respond and 1st to give me the
*idea* of Gigamonkeys.
*Eric Lavigne* & *Tim X* : for sharing their special knowledge and
taking time to write a long but well written and focussed answer to my
question.
*drewc* : for he cleared the *fog* i had onto my brain regarding
whether it is possible to make money using GPLed softwares.
i just got the help i needed. thanks again.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Google wrote ... what [free software]? I only know their
http://code.google.com/
See also Summer of Code.
From: Edi Weitz
Subject: Re: what to do after "Touretzkey's book"?
Date:
Message-ID: <uk6bwzu21.fsf@agharta.de>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:33:06 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> ALmost all the open-source I've used that's useful was written by
> volunteers: Thunderbird (this one partly by paid hackers), TeX, gcc,
> openmcl, Emacs, X11... the rest is proprietary.
Knuth was paid by his university when he wrote TeX, AFAIK Gary Byers
was paid for OpenMCL, Stallman worked on the original Emacs while he
was paid by the MIT.
--
European Common Lisp Meeting 2006: <http://weitz.de/eclm2006/>
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> drewc wrote:
> > And of course, RedHat, IBM, Google and others are making millions
> > (partially) from Free Software, and in turn paying programmers to
> > contribute.
>
> I don't count those. IBM has some Linux hackers, but Linux isn't
> strictly necessary anyway (there's BSD and proprietary Unices).
What do you mean? This doesn't (to me) make sense - I don't mean the
statement is silly or worng, it just doesn't make sense i.e. I can't
see what your point is and how you discount IBM's open source contributions.
> RedHat produced IMHO the crappiest piece of software ever (yes, worse
> than Windows 98), even though it ended up as the most-used Linux
> distro; tastes differ.
Can't follow you here either? Which bit of Red Hat's very meagre
software contributions are you referring to? Its not loke they are a
software development company. To say that Red hat is worse than windows 98 is a
pretty radical call - especially as Red Hat's version of Linux is only
marginally different to any other version and most of those diffeences
are pretty well cosmetic. In what specific ways was any distribution
of Red Hat worse than Windows 98? (Note that I don't personally like
Red hat as a distribution, preferring Debian, but I would certainly
find it interesting to see how you can justify such a claim with any
actual facts.
I bet you only ever used the basic or free distribution and never one
of the enterprise ones either.
> Google wrote ... what? I only know their
> online-stuff; I use the search engine, by which I only increase their
> profits I think. The rest is, well, out there. I'm not sure these
> three are increasing the amount of free, useful software out there.
>
I'd say the growth of Linux in corporate environments is very much
down to at least Red Hat and IBM (plus others like SUSE/Novell). These
companies have made significant contributions in areas such as
clustering and clustered file systems (though some of that technology
they purchased from other developers initially), significant kernel
improvements, such as in the areas of SMP, major architecture porting
contributions to allow Linux to run on other platforms etc. In fact,
many of the larger software companies are now joining/contributing to
open source - even Sun has now released an open source version of
Solaris.
The point I think a lot of people who feel threatened by open source
miss and one which I think drew aluded to is that the market is
rapidly moving away from a situation in which you can write a bit of
software and then earn lots from selling licensed closed source
copies to a model where the emphasis is on long term on-going service.
The actual code is less important.
Interestingly, I think this will continue even more as software
development moves to more "economical" labor markets, like asia. While
you can certainly send development off shoure, its harder to do the
same with more service oreinted activities (though advances in
telecommunications and cheaper rates may change that to some degree).
What businesses want more than just a bit of software is to know that
if they have problems or need changes/enhancements etc, they can get
someone to come to their offices and help them resolve problems,
enhance business process and/or assist them in providing a better/more
competitive service.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> drewc wrote:
>>> And of course, RedHat, IBM, Google and others are making millions
>>> (partially) from Free Software, and in turn paying programmers to
>>> contribute.
>> I don't count those. IBM has some Linux hackers, but Linux isn't
>> strictly necessary anyway (there's BSD and proprietary Unices).
>
> What do you mean? This doesn't (to me) make sense - I don't mean the
> statement is silly or worng, it just doesn't make sense i.e. I can't
> see what your point is and how you discount IBM's open source contributions.
No, it's definitely good that IBM has some employed hackers, but it
doesn't make a huge difference for most people. And most open-source
hackers aren't really employed I think. I wouldn't know how to get a
job in that area, even if I were to spend the next two years hacking
some cool desktop GUI, or some kernel device driver...
>> RedHat produced IMHO the crappiest piece of software ever (yes, worse
>> than Windows 98), even though it ended up as the most-used Linux
>> distro; tastes differ.
>
> Can't follow you here either? Which bit of Red Hat's very meagre
> software contributions are you referring to? Its not loke they are a
> software development company. To say that Red hat is worse than windows 98 is a
> pretty radical call - especially as Red Hat's version of Linux is only
> marginally different to any other version and most of those diffeences
> are pretty well cosmetic. In what specific ways was any distribution
That's what I thought when I bought BadRat 6.2. I had spent a few weeks
or months with my first Linux (Debian 2.1, which was counter most
people's claims very easy to get running), and spent maybe 40� on
BadRat. Well, it didn't bother to boot the graphical installer on my
laptop (i.e. my computer back then), and when I booted into the "expert
installer (text mode)" it simply hang. When I installed it on another
computer later, the system sucked - it was DOG slow, and I couldn't see
any advantage over Debian. This was simply the worst system ever, and
while RedHat didn't write it themselves, they put it all together in a
big, slow, expensive distro, and they deserve lots of credit for that.
I was totally angry when two weeks later Debian 2.2 was released, and I
could buy it for much less - maybe �25. Debian 2.2 rocked; the package
manager (dselect) was much slower than in Debian 2.1, but it had all the
new packages and worked just as perfectly.
Later I tried some Mandrake (Redhat derivative), and it couldn't connect
to the 'net. I found out that it ran WVDial, but unlike my Debian where
I did the same, it didn't work.
Much later, when 9.0 was just out, I decided to see if things changed
for the better. It was still dog slow, it didn't have any switch to
move the picture on my screen to the left, unlike other Linuxes or BSDs
(CRT; if you have a high frequency the picture in X11 tends to move
right, don't ask me why). I didn't have a modem anymore, and at least
IIRC it worked more or less in general. But with my screen picture
totally moved to the right, it wasn't exactly what I'd call usable or
user-friendly.
> of Red Hat worse than Windows 98? (Note that I don't personally like
> Red hat as a distribution, preferring Debian, but I would certainly
> find it interesting to see how you can justify such a claim with any
> actual facts.
The interesting thing is that back then everybody described Debian as
some monster from hell that would scare newbies away, when in reality
RedHat was that monster (and far worse than I could have imagined!), and
Debian was really easy to install, even for someone like me who got his
first PC (with Win98, which annoyed the hell out of me, so that I
decided to try that "Linux" thing a year later) in 1999! I guess the
Debian catch is that you have to be able to read, and hit return
sometimes. ;)
> I bet you only ever used the basic or free distribution and never one
> of the enterprise ones either.
No, I paid lots of money for it, as much as for two Debians combined.
Actually later the free versions, RedHat 9.0 and Fedora Core 1 were a
lot better than their ugly ancestors, but still not really optimal,
unless you want your computer to start about 500 different servers and
daemons and take five minutes to start up.
> I'd say the growth of Linux in corporate environments is very much
> down to at least Red Hat and IBM (plus others like SUSE/Novell). These
> companies have made significant contributions in areas such as
> clustering and clustered file systems (though some of that technology
> they purchased from other developers initially), significant kernel
> improvements, such as in the areas of SMP, major architecture porting
> contributions to allow Linux to run on other platforms etc. In fact,
> many of the larger software companies are now joining/contributing to
> open source - even Sun has now released an open source version of
> Solaris.
Yes, they did. So effectively they do just what IBM and Sun used to do:
employ people to build server systems and sell hardware+software to
companies.
That doesn't mean that open source in general is a great business case.
How many hackers that developed good, useful, open source projects are
employed for that now? I bet, maybe 20%. The rest found a "normal"
software job, if they're lucky/good.
> The point I think a lot of people who feel threatened by open source
> miss and one which I think drew aluded to is that the market is
> rapidly moving away from a situation in which you can write a bit of
> software and then earn lots from selling licensed closed source
> copies to a model where the emphasis is on long term on-going service.
> The actual code is less important.
I don't feel threatened by open source. I like it, or used to, back
when not all popular software was crappy (KDE and Gnome were crappy, but
they weren't THAT popular yet). Today it's all just cloning Windows
software, so I'm not interested anymore.
I simply don't feel that open source is a scalable business case (i.e.
for all programmers), like ESR and RMS claim. As I mentioned, really
GREAT software doesn't need servicing, or very little of it, and most
open source isn't really great in terms of usability.
For me the difference used to be that you had to be a wizard to be able
to configure Windows so everything worked; but it didn't even, reliably.
With Linux you had to be a wizard too, but at least it worked reliably.
Now I have a Mac where I don't have to be a wizard. It's interesting,
because I used to be a little Linux zealot in 2000-01, but now I fully
appreciate that paying money can well be worth the time, and nerves, saved.
> Interestingly, I think this will continue even more as software
> development moves to more "economical" labor markets, like asia. While
> you can certainly send development off shoure, its harder to do the
> same with more service oreinted activities (though advances in
> telecommunications and cheaper rates may change that to some degree).
> What businesses want more than just a bit of software is to know that
> if they have problems or need changes/enhancements etc, they can get
> someone to come to their offices and help them resolve problems,
> enhance business process and/or assist them in providing a better/more
> competitive service.
Exactly, and the current situation, where you have to buy
super-expensive consultants who end up developing some EJB architecture
for you, isn't really solving problems for businesses, because I don't
see where most problems would ask for EJB and high consulting and
implementation fees. This is evidenced by the fact that many small and
medium businesses don't really have good IT investments, because they
only software+services that there are, are too expensive for them and so
don't really bring a financial *benefit* for the company (which is
usually the point of investments).
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
From: drewc
Subject: Re: what to do after "Touretzkey's book"?
Date:
Message-ID: <87hd6zij4o.fsf@rift.com>
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>>
>>> drewc wrote:
>>>> And of course, RedHat, IBM, Google and others are making millions
>>>> (partially) from Free Software, and in turn paying programmers to
>>>> contribute.
>>> I don't count those. IBM has some Linux hackers, but Linux isn't
>>> strictly necessary anyway (there's BSD and proprietary Unices).
>> What do you mean? This doesn't (to me) make sense - I don't mean the
>> statement is silly or worng, it just doesn't make sense i.e. I can't
>> see what your point is and how you discount IBM's open source contributions.
>
> No, it's definitely good that IBM has some employed hackers, but it
> doesn't make a huge difference for most people.
There is some truth to that statement, as most people couldn't care
less about who IBM employs, but i fail to see the point you are trying
to make.
If you are saying the the open-source software IBM has contributed has
not made a difference, you couldn't be more wrong. I, for example, use
IBMs JFS filesystem on all my servers. I bet that you visit some sites
we host quite often. If these sites lost their data due to a bad FS it
would make a _huge_ difference to you
> And most open-source
> hackers aren't really employed I think.
How do they eat?
From my personal experience, 90% of the open source hackers i know are
employed. In the group of hackers who i see in the flesh on a regular
basis, i know a number of people who are paid to work on
open-source. Hell, _i_ pay people to work in open source.
> I wouldn't know how to get a
> job in that area, even if I were to spend the next two years hacking
> some cool desktop GUI, or some kernel device driver...
Same way you get a job in any area... apply for it. If you spend the
next two years hacking on open source, it will look pretty good to the
person doing the hiring. If you are waiting for someone to pop of the
aether and offer you a job, best of luck, but that's not a very good
reason to hack.
Of course, free software hackers are a great hire, as these crazy folk
code for _fun_, and would code even if you didn't pay them for it.
[snipped rant about redhat]
> That doesn't mean that open source in general is a great business
> case. How many hackers that developed good, useful, open source
> projects are employed for that now? I bet, maybe 20%. The rest found
> a "normal" software job, if they're lucky/good.
Software is not a great business case in general. How many software
companies do you know that developed a good, useful, successful
product and were able to sell that and make a decent profit? I bet
it's less than 20% of software startups.
Hackers don't write open source software to get jobs, they write it
because they write it. If 20% of those hackers got jobs working on the
software they developed, that is a remarkable success rather than a
failure of the open source model.
> I don't feel threatened by open source. I like it, or used to, back
> when not all popular software was crappy (KDE and Gnome were crappy,
> but they weren't THAT popular yet). Today it's all just cloning
> Windows software, so I'm not interested anymore.
Linux Desktop Software (which is all you seem to be talking about), is
a small portion of available open source software. And, although it
gathers a lot of hype, the desktop has a significantly lower market
penetration than on the server.
Can you honestly claim that SSH, Apache, Bind, PostgreSQL, and GCC are
just cloning windows software? Are they better/worse than their
windows/proprietary counter-parts?
Oh, and FireFox just added Tabs because everybody liked them in IE, right?
> I simply don't feel that open source is a scalable business case
> (i.e. for all programmers), like ESR and RMS claim. As I mentioned,
> really GREAT software doesn't need servicing, or very little of it,
> and most open source isn't really great in terms of usability.
Regardless of the viability of the open-source business model (if such
a thing can be said to exist, which i would dispute), Free Software
has lowered the barrier of entry for a programmer, making it much
easier to get work and experience. 15-20 years ago, when proprietary
software ruled the day, you would have had to buy compilers and tools
for programming, rather than downloading them as you do now.
Lets say my business is to find work programming. By learning
open-source languages and hacking on them, i may get a contract
working in (or on) those languages that i would not have landed if i did not
know those languages. Buying commercial compilers and environments for
5 languages could get quite expensive, and i might not be able to afford
them. So open source is essential in this business model.
Is this a successul business model? We'll, it's making money because
of open-source software, so i'd say yes.
Not all business cases require working in 100% open source to be
deemed a success, but one cannot deny the the very existance of OSS
opens up entirely new markets and possibilities.
>Tim X:
>> Interestingly, I think this will continue even more as software
>> development moves to more "economical" labor markets, like asia. While
>> you can certainly send development off shoure, its harder to do the
>> same with more service oreinted activities (though advances in
>> telecommunications and cheaper rates may change that to some degree).
>> What businesses want more than just a bit of software is to know that
>> if they have problems or need changes/enhancements etc, they can get
>> someone to come to their offices and help them resolve problems,
>> enhance business process and/or assist them in providing a better/more
>> competitive service.
> Exactly, and the current situation, where you have to buy
> super-expensive consultants who end up developing some EJB
> architecture for you, isn't really solving problems for businesses,
> because I don't see where most problems would ask for EJB and high
> consulting and implementation fees. This is evidenced by the fact
> that many small and medium businesses don't really have good IT
> investments, because they only software+services that there are, are
> too expensive for them and so don't really bring a financial *benefit*
> for the company (which is usually the point of investments).
Sounds like you've got a great business case for open source right
there. 'Open Source' and 'Free Software' are not business cases ,they
are software copyrights. If OSS alone is your business plan, you are
pretty much doomed. You actually need a product, or a service, that
people will want to purchase. There's a pretty good business case for
building that using open source tools, and in return
contributing to OSS.
Regardless, your thoughts on the matter don't seem to be grounded in
fact, or experience, so i'm curious as to the source of your data. I
can name a fair number of open-source based startups that have done
pretty well. I suppose it all hinges of your definition of 'success',
but for me that simply means being happy while providing for myself
and my family.
Then again, the folks at RedHat and VA made millions, which is
business success by almost any definition.
>
> --
> Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
--
drewc at tech dot coop
drewc wrote:
> If you are saying the the open-source software IBM has contributed has
> not made a difference, you couldn't be more wrong. I, for example, use
> IBMs JFS filesystem on all my servers. I bet that you visit some sites
> we host quite often. If these sites lost their data due to a bad FS it
> would make a _huge_ difference to you
Sure, but it's not as if there wasn't ReiserFS, or Ext3 or other systems
too. JFS sounds really cool, so it's nice to have, but I don't know how
many developers could feed on it.
>> And most open-source
>> hackers aren't really employed I think.
>
> How do they eat?
>
> From my personal experience, 90% of the open source hackers i know are
> employed. In the group of hackers who i see in the flesh on a regular
> basis, i know a number of people who are paid to work on
> open-source. Hell, _i_ pay people to work in open source.
No, OF COURSE most of them are employed, but just in a regular job. I
suppose only very few get to work and maintain open source as their job,
just because most companies don't make money on OSS.
>> I wouldn't know how to get a
>> job in that area, even if I were to spend the next two years hacking
>> some cool desktop GUI, or some kernel device driver...
>
> Same way you get a job in any area... apply for it. If you spend the
> next two years hacking on open source, it will look pretty good to the
> person doing the hiring. If you are waiting for someone to pop of the
> aether and offer you a job, best of luck, but that's not a very good
> reason to hack.
I can only apply for jobs that are out there. I haven't seen any job
posting in years that seemed to involve hacking of OSS (or of software
that would be available as OSS).
> Of course, free software hackers are a great hire, as these crazy folk
> code for _fun_, and would code even if you didn't pay them for it.
That's true.
> Software is not a great business case in general. How many software
> companies do you know that developed a good, useful, successful
> product and were able to sell that and make a decent profit? I bet
> it's less than 20% of software startups.
Also true I guess.
> Hackers don't write open source software to get jobs, they write it
> because they write it. If 20% of those hackers got jobs working on the
> software they developed, that is a remarkable success rather than a
> failure of the open source model.
But for me it means that I spend my time studying (for my degree) or
learning what I consider useful technologies, rather than working on
some window manager that's really cool, but isn't really anybody's
interest anyway.
I'd love to, but I don't have the time to.
>> I don't feel threatened by open source. I like it, or used to, back
>> when not all popular software was crappy (KDE and Gnome were crappy,
>> but they weren't THAT popular yet). Today it's all just cloning
>> Windows software, so I'm not interested anymore.
>
> Linux Desktop Software (which is all you seem to be talking about), is
> a small portion of available open source software. And, although it
> gathers a lot of hype, the desktop has a significantly lower market
> penetration than on the server.
>
> Can you honestly claim that SSH, Apache, Bind, PostgreSQL, and GCC are
> just cloning windows software? Are they better/worse than their
> windows/proprietary counter-parts?
No, those are great projects, but I think Apache, Bind and Postgres
aren't really hobby projects, and SSH and GCC are lucky to have lots of
people behind them. Most other OSS usually starts from some developer's
need, scratching the itch. You could say that of web servers like
thttpd or Boa, but not of Apache ;)
I can't imagine someone hacking such a beast for fun, only for profit.
> Regardless of the viability of the open-source business model (if such
> a thing can be said to exist, which i would dispute), Free Software
> has lowered the barrier of entry for a programmer, making it much
> easier to get work and experience. 15-20 years ago, when proprietary
> software ruled the day, you would have had to buy compilers and tools
> for programming, rather than downloading them as you do now.
Back then you could apply for an internship and afterwards people *knew*
that you worked with that tool, because there was only professional
experience, not personal tinkering. Now if I say I'm fluent in C etc.
everybody asks where the Apache monster is that I wrote as a hobby.
Well, I didn't write anything big and useful like that, mostly due to
time constraints (OSS doesn't "pay", a degree does I hope), but I'm good
nonetheless.
> Lets say my business is to find work programming. By learning
> open-source languages and hacking on them, i may get a contract
> working in (or on) those languages that i would not have landed if i did not
> know those languages. Buying commercial compilers and environments for
> 5 languages could get quite expensive, and i might not be able to afford
> them. So open source is essential in this business model.
Maybe. But to how many people working on OSS did that happen?
> Is this a successul business model? We'll, it's making money because
> of open-source software, so i'd say yes.
>
> Not all business cases require working in 100% open source to be
> deemed a success, but one cannot deny the the very existance of OSS
> opens up entirely new markets and possibilities.
Ok.
> Sounds like you've got a great business case for open source right
> there. 'Open Source' and 'Free Software' are not business cases ,they
> are software copyrights. If OSS alone is your business plan, you are
> pretty much doomed. You actually need a product, or a service, that
> people will want to purchase. There's a pretty good business case for
> building that using open source tools, and in return
> contributing to OSS.
I'm sure there are models, but I don't see for me personally or for
countless other programmers any chance to do the same right now.
Personally, as I said, I'm more interested in self-maintaining software
than in services around products that *need* those services.
I agree with what you said, but what I wanted to say was rather that the
RMS assumption that *ALL* software should be free is rubbish. It
doesn't work for *everybody*.
> Regardless, your thoughts on the matter don't seem to be grounded in
> fact, or experience, so i'm curious as to the source of your data. I
> can name a fair number of open-source based startups that have done
> pretty well. I suppose it all hinges of your definition of 'success',
> but for me that simply means being happy while providing for myself
> and my family.
I simply don't see where I could make a living on OSS right now, either
by spending two years hacking something cool, or by selling any service.
Well, I could go into ISPing or stuff like that, but that's too risky,
and I certainly didn't waste years of my life studying, for that.
> Then again, the folks at RedHat and VA made millions, which is
> business success by almost any definition.
True, but they're not everybody.
MS and Apple are much bigger, as are other non-OSS companies. That
hardly qualifies that All Software Should Be Free and that programmers
would all have jobs nonetheless.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
> > Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> >
> >> drewc wrote:
> >>> And of course, RedHat, IBM, Google and others are making millions
> >>> (partially) from Free Software, and in turn paying programmers to
> >>> contribute.
> >> I don't count those. IBM has some Linux hackers, but Linux isn't
> >> strictly necessary anyway (there's BSD and proprietary Unices).
> > What do you mean? This doesn't (to me) make sense - I don't mean the
> > statement is silly or worng, it just doesn't make sense i.e. I can't
> > see what your point is and how you discount IBM's open source contributions.
>
> No, it's definitely good that IBM has some employed hackers, but it
> doesn't make a huge difference for most people. And most open-source
> hackers aren't really employed I think. I wouldn't know how to get a
> job in that area, even if I were to spend the next two years hacking
> some cool desktop GUI, or some kernel device driver...
>
While there is a lot of open source which is done by people in their
own time and for which they are not paid, there is alot which is
generated by people who are paid to do the hacking. For example, if
you have a look at a lot of the specialised drivers for things like
network cards and even som eof the inner kernal features you will find
a lot of it was written by people who were getting paid to write the
source. Many applications which are open source have had substantial
parts contributed by people who were paid to develop the
contributions.
As pointed out by others, the majority of software writing is not done
by people developing commercial applications for sale. In fact, most
programmers are employed "in-house" and the software they develop is
rarely packaged for sale as a commercial product. In these
environments, programmers are regularly required to enhance existing
systems or fix problems with these systems. A growing number of both
public and private companies are taking advantage of open source
aplications because they get the source code and often there is a very
active community backing up the development of the software. In these
situations, when a company improves or fixes something in the
software, they generally contribute it back to the open source
community.
My own experience has been along these lines. I've been programming
for nearly 20 years and I'd estimate 80% of the code I've written has
been released under either a GPl or BSD/MIT type license. Only a small
part of the code I contributed to has been closed source and even a
smaller part has been sold commercially. Most of my employers have
been quite happy to release code which they have paid the development
costs on because this isn't how they make their money. The code was
developed to support their business and as long as it does what they
want and they have the source, they don't really care who else gets
some benefit from it.
> >> RedHat produced IMHO the crappiest piece of software ever (yes, worse
> >> than Windows 98), even though it ended up as the most-used Linux
> >> distro; tastes differ.
> > Can't follow you here either? Which bit of Red Hat's very meagre
> > software contributions are you referring to? Its not loke they are a
> > software development company. To say that Red hat is worse than windows 98 is a
> > pretty radical call - especially as Red Hat's version of Linux is only
> > marginally different to any other version and most of those diffeences
> > are pretty well cosmetic. In what specific ways was any distribution
>
> That's what I thought when I bought BadRat 6.2. I had spent a few
> weeks or months with my first Linux (Debian 2.1, which was counter
> most people's claims very easy to get running), and spent maybe 40
> on BadRat. Well, it didn't bother to boot the graphical installer on
> my laptop (i.e. my computer back then), and when I booted into the
> "expert installer (text mode)" it simply hang. When I installed it on
> another computer later, the system sucked - it was DOG slow, and I
> couldn't see any advantage over Debian. This was simply the worst
> system ever, and while RedHat didn't write it themselves, they put it
> all together in a big, slow, expensive distro, and they deserve lots
> of credit for that.
>
I'm sorry, but to me, this just doesn't add up. The most critical part
to any OS is the kernel. Now, if your comparing apples to apples,
debian to Red Hat, etc, I would assume you are comparing systems with
the same kernel version. Now, there are very minor differences between
distro kernels of the same version - for example, Debian removes some
driver modules which Red Hat includes by default (this is because
Debian has a much stricter policy on licenses than Red hat and
therefore remove some drivers with licenses which don't comply with
their policy). As only the modules which are needed are loaded, I
don't see how you would see a major difference in performance between
the two.
If you believe it was because Red hat had a lot more daemons running,
then if you don't need them, why have them running. If you are
comparing a minimal Debian distribution with only a few daemons
running to a full Red hat distribution with every possible daemon
running you could have, well thats not a very fair comparison and a
rather unjustified condemnation of Red Hat isn't it?
I have lost count of the number of Linux distributions I've installed
over the past 14 years. However, my experience without fail has been
that performance under Linux compared to Windows has always been
better regardless of whether it was Red hat, Debian, SuSe, Slackware
or Mandrake. The most striking improvement I ever saw was with a sparc
station when I replaced solaris with Red Hat's version of Linux for
the sparc - that difference was amazing. A sparc server which I
thought was really slow and had blamed on the hardware suddenly became
a rock solid reliable and fast server with Linux compared to solaris.
In all the years I've run Linux, there has only been three occasions I
had problems getting the software to install. My first Linux
installation was a pain because it consisted of around 25 floppy disks
and I had quite a few disks with faulty sectors. I had problems with a
mandrake install, but that was because I was using a cheap clone video
card which claimed to be 100% compatible with a well known brand, but
of course wasn't and I had problems with my first Debian install due
to the fact the network card I had was brand new and not supported by
the stable distribution kernel (but was supported with the testing
kernel). I'd also have to admint the sparc station install was tricky,
but that was more due to my lack of low level knowledge of sparc
hardware more than anything else.
This isn't to say Linux doesn't have problems with some hardware.
There is no doubt that Linux does not support the range of hardware
Windows supports - but thats no shock. Lots of hardware vendors have a
very proprietary view and in the past more than now, were unprepared
to provide the necessary information to assist device driver
development for their hardware. Things have really improved over the
last 5 years or so, but anyone who doesn't first verify their hardware
is supported by the distribution they plan to install is asking for
trouble.
> I was totally angry when two weeks later Debian 2.2 was released, and
> I could buy it for much less - maybe 25. Debian 2.2 rocked; the
> package manager (dselect) was much slower than in Debian 2.1, but it
> had all the new packages and worked just as perfectly.
>
> Later I tried some Mandrake (Redhat derivative), and it couldn't
> connect to the 'net. I found out that it ran WVDial, but unlike my
> Debian where I did the same, it didn't work.
>
You cannot assume all Linux based distributions are the same - this is
how they get their market difrerentiation. They all follow different
philosophies and I would have to say I find it a great shame that many
of the distributions are trying to win the battle by attempting to
mimic the point and click installation of windows.
Is the fact that wvdial was configured differently under madrake than
debian and didn't work the same as on debian mean that madrake was not
good or that you were caught out by making assumptions that turned out
not to be justified. If you had never run Debian and started with
Mandrake, you wouldn't have assumed how the modem dialing worked,
would have read the instructions and it would likely have worked out
of the box. It seems to me you place the blame for things not working
in the wrong place.
> Much later, when 9.0 was just out, I decided to see if things changed
> for the better. It was still dog slow, it didn't have any switch to
> move the picture on my screen to the left, unlike other Linuxes or
> BSDs (CRT; if you have a high frequency the picture in X11 tends to
> move right, don't ask me why). I didn't have a modem anymore, and at
> least IIRC it worked more or less in general. But with my screen
> picture totally moved to the right, it wasn't exactly what I'd call
> usable or user-friendly.
>
There is a big difference between useable and user friendly. I find it
incredible how people often make the criticism of linux along the
lines that it isn't user friendly like Windows, but totally over look
they fact they are comparing a commercial product which sells for
considerable money with a free product (yes, I realise you probably
paid something for it, but in reality what you paid for was mainly the
packaging and CD as you could just download it and burn your own CD
for nothing). I'm also quite surprised that Red hat didn't have a tool
you could use to tune your video timings - while its been some time
since I ran Red Hat on a desktop with X, my recollection was that it
came with a couple of tools for this process. I've also found that if
you provide the correct details regarding the refresh rates supported
by your hardware, the screen is usually pretty spot on and if its out,
it is easily adjusted with the monitor's controls. If you find the
screen moves right by a full half a screen, then this is an indication
you definitely have things misconfigured and have either provided the
wrong values when configuring X or the hardware is unrecognised and
the installer was not able to auto detect the correct settings.
However, it is interesting to see how quickly we become accustomed to
simple idiot proof configuration. When I first started running X on a
PC, you had to calculate all the timing and modeline settings by hand
- it was difficult and you could easily damage your hardware. However
at the time it was definitely worth the effort as MS was still stuck
back with Windows 3.11 and compared to X, it was a joke (and lets not
even consider network support).
> > of Red Hat worse than Windows 98? (Note that I don't personally like
> > Red hat as a distribution, preferring Debian, but I would certainly
> > find it interesting to see how you can justify such a claim with any
> > actual facts.
>
Its obvious your experiences with Linux were not great. There is a
saying that its not that Linux isn't user friendly, its just fussy
about who its friends are. There is no argument its not the right
OS for everyone and if asked by someone what OS to run, I certainly
don't just automatically say Linux because it depends so much on the
individual and what their expectations are and the type of use they
are looking for. I'd say I've probably recommended Windows and Mac far
more often than Linux. However, for some users, particularly those who
have an interest in understanding and possibly development rather than
just surfing and e-mailing, I think its often a good choice. However,
you do have to recognise and be prepared for a complete paradigm
shift. If your after a windows clone, you will likely be disapointed.
> The interesting thing is that back then everybody described Debian as
> some monster from hell that would scare newbies away, when in reality
> RedHat was that monster (and far worse than I could have imagined!),
> and Debian was really easy to install, even for someone like me who
> got his first PC (with Win98, which annoyed the hell out of me, so
> that I decided to try that "Linux" thing a year later) in 1999! I
> guess the Debian catch is that you have to be able to read, and hit
> return sometimes. ;)
>
I suspect if Red hat had been your first exposure to Linux, your
opinion would likely be exactly the reverse. Its like debates
concerning editors - most people find the first editor they ever
remains their favorite regardless of features etc. Its very much what
you get accustomed to that sets your expectations and what you look
for and value.
> > I bet you only ever used the basic or free distribution and never one
> > of the enterprise ones either.
>
> No, I paid lots of money for it, as much as for two Debians combined.
> Actually later the free versions, RedHat 9.0 and Fedora Core 1 were a
> lot better than their ugly ancestors, but still not really optimal,
> unless you want your computer to start about 500 different servers and
> daemons and take five minutes to start up.
Not a very valid criticism IMO - all of that is configurable and
depends largely on what choices you make in the initial installation.
BTW, I was also referring to the enterprise version of Red Hat
(desktop), which is comparable in price to Windows and which has been
made very user friendly. Not my cup of tea but .....
>
> > I'd say the growth of Linux in corporate environments is very much
> > down to at least Red Hat and IBM (plus others like SUSE/Novell). These
> > companies have made significant contributions in areas such as
> > clustering and clustered file systems (though some of that technology
> > they purchased from other developers initially), significant kernel
> > improvements, such as in the areas of SMP, major architecture porting
> > contributions to allow Linux to run on other platforms etc. In fact,
> > many of the larger software companies are now joining/contributing to
> > open source - even Sun has now released an open source version of
> > Solaris.
>
> Yes, they did. So effectively they do just what IBM and Sun used to
> do: employ people to build server systems and sell hardware+software
> to companies.
>
> That doesn't mean that open source in general is a great business
> case. How many hackers that developed good, useful, open source
> projects are employed for that now? I bet, maybe 20%. The rest found
> a "normal" software job, if they're lucky/good.
Even after their recent cutbacks, Novell employs a lot more than 20
developers working on open source software. I suspect Red hat probably
does as well. However, you have missed the point. The business case
for open source is not about the software development - its about the
service. this is what companies like Red hat are doing to create a
business based on open source.
>
> > The point I think a lot of people who feel threatened by open source
> > miss and one which I think drew aluded to is that the market is
> > rapidly moving away from a situation in which you can write a bit of
> > software and then earn lots from selling licensed closed source
> > copies to a model where the emphasis is on long term on-going service.
> > The actual code is less important.
>
> I don't feel threatened by open source. I like it, or used to, back
> when not all popular software was crappy (KDE and Gnome were crappy,
> but they weren't THAT popular yet). Today it's all just cloning
> Windows software, so I'm not interested anymore.
>
but how is that got anything to do with it being open source. The fact
people have had their imaginations limited by what they have been
exposed to has nothing to do with whether the code is open source or
not. It isn't like your seeing anything any better out of the closed
source proprietary world.
> I simply don't feel that open source is a scalable business case (i.e.
> for all programmers), like ESR and RMS claim. As I mentioned, really
> GREAT software doesn't need servicing, or very little of it, and most
> open source isn't really great in terms of usability.
>
I have never and would never argue that open source is what everyone
should be doing. Thats totally up to the individual and what they
want/expect from what they do. All software needs considerable amount
of servicing and maintenance. I know nothing about your situation and
experience, but from comments like that, I am almost certain you have
had no or little commercial programming experience. If you are lucky
enough to get to the point where you have developed some software you
are able to sell and make a living out of, I think you will be very
surprised at how much of your time ends up being taken in supporting
and maintaining that software.
One of the reasons it is very very difficult to be successful in
software development as a small developer is that businesses simply
are not prepared to gamble their future on software which may not have
a future. From a business perspective, you have a lot of investment
tied up in your IT. Being forced to change a critical part of your IT
infrastructure because your vendor has gone out of business or is no
longer maintaining the software etc is often extremely expensive. You
have to find an alternative, find some way to transfer data which
often is not cmpatible or has been stored in some proprietary format
and more than likely you will need to change your business processes
to fit with the new infrastructure, which can be very expensive
because people generally don't like change. Consequently, we find
business is vary wary of small operators without a long track record,
even if they do have a superior product.
The irony is that if you are lucky enough to have some software which
you wrote and can build a market for (often its in some very
specialist field where competition is limited etc), if your
successful, you will need to employ more people to keep things ticking
over, provide support, maintenance and upgrades. Suddenly you look
around one day and find out that your now managing a company, worrying
about marketing, advertising, staff, tax, liability and all the other
hassles associated with running a business and no longer get to do
what it is that got it all started - being creative, writing good code
and creating interesting new products.
> For me the difference used to be that you had to be a wizard to be
> able to configure Windows so everything worked; but it didn't even,
> reliably. With Linux you had to be a wizard too, but at least it
> worked reliably.
Thats funny. I've always said the reason I got into Linux was because
it was simple, straight-forward and logical and I don't do Windows
because I'm just not smart enough to get it to work reliably!
>
> Now I have a Mac where I don't have to be a wizard. It's interesting,
> because I used to be a little Linux zealot in 2000-01, but now I fully
> appreciate that paying money can well be worth the time, and nerves,
> saved.
Well I agree to a point. I've always believed that generally you get
what you pay for. However, open source isn't about free software.
People often get confused about this. Open source is about access to
knowledge and information - freedom rather than free. The fact its
free is really just a side benefit. In fact, there is no reason you
couldn't sell your software and make it open source.
However, I do have to say that I find your above comment at best
ironic or at worst contridictory given your earlier statement that you
can't see how open source has really benefited many peole. The new Mac
is the first real challenge MS has had at the desktop level. Even
apple have been surprised at the numbers who have switched from
Windows to the new Mac OS. However, wouldn't it seem to you that since
OSX is based on BSD and BSD was open source that you and many others
have benefited from open source?
>
> > Interestingly, I think this will continue even more as software
> > development moves to more "economical" labor markets, like asia. While
> > you can certainly send development off shoure, its harder to do the
> > same with more service oreinted activities (though advances in
> > telecommunications and cheaper rates may change that to some degree).
> > What businesses want more than just a bit of software is to know that
> > if they have problems or need changes/enhancements etc, they can get
> > someone to come to their offices and help them resolve problems,
> > enhance business process and/or assist them in providing a better/more
> > competitive service.
>
> Exactly, and the current situation, where you have to buy
> super-expensive consultants who end up developing some EJB
> architecture for you, isn't really solving problems for businesses,
> because I don't see where most problems would ask for EJB and high
> consulting and implementation fees. This is evidenced by the fact
> that many small and medium businesses don't really have good IT
> investments, because they only software+services that there are, are
> too expensive for them and so don't really bring a financial *benefit*
> for the company (which is usually the point of investments).
>
My earlier comments address this a bit. I think you need to broaden
your view a little. for business, the IT infrastructure is about a lot
more than just a piece of software being purchased and installed. A
lot of small and medium businesses use consultants precisely because
they cannot afford to employ permanent IT experts. they don't have any
"in-house" expertise and therefore must bring it in when required. You
cannot sum up all consultants in the same way and nor can you assume
any consultant or software company is going to create some EJB monster
to solve a simple problem. these are all wild exagerations without any
real foundation. Sure, Java has been the flavor of the month for the
past few years, before that it was C++ and before that C. Next month
it may be python, ruby or whatever. Its really what the market will
support and at the moment, java is it until something else looks
better. However for something to look better, it takes a lot more than
a powerful language. We might not like this and we may feel its
inefficient or wrong, but its reality. We can work to change it, but
to do so, we need to recognise what the realities of business are and
realise that its not just about the technology. While it may seem
insane to many of us, technology is less critical to success than any
of us would like to admit. We can run around shouting til we are blue
in the face that Lisp (or any other technology) is the better choice
and it won't do any good unless we can prove that what we are arguing
for is able to address the fears and concerns the prospective customer
has, even if most of the resistance is based on FUD.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Tim X wrote:
> While there is a lot of open source which is done by people in their
> own time and for which they are not paid, there is alot which is
> generated by people who are paid to do the hacking. For example, if
> you have a look at a lot of the specialised drivers for things like
> network cards and even som eof the inner kernal features you will find
> a lot of it was written by people who were getting paid to write the
> source. Many applications which are open source have had substantial
> parts contributed by people who were paid to develop the
> contributions.
[...]
I know and I agree, but imagine that all software would be free. I
think many programmers would go unemployed. It's not an absolute (which
I'm sure most people take for a given).
If it works for you, that's great. I'm not sure I could do it like
that. Maybe if I had spend the past few years hacking cool stuff
instead of drudging through college, but I chose what everybody
considers the "safe path", getting an education first, so I can see in
the next few decades where I'll actually spend my work life.
>> That's what I thought when I bought BadRat 6.2. I had spent a few
>> weeks or months with my first Linux (Debian 2.1, which was counter
>> most people's claims very easy to get running), and spent maybe 40
>> on BadRat. Well, it didn't bother to boot the graphical installer on
>> my laptop (i.e. my computer back then), and when I booted into the
>> "expert installer (text mode)" it simply hang. When I installed it on
>> another computer later, the system sucked - it was DOG slow, and I
>> couldn't see any advantage over Debian. This was simply the worst
>> system ever, and while RedHat didn't write it themselves, they put it
>> all together in a big, slow, expensive distro, and they deserve lots
>> of credit for that.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but to me, this just doesn't add up. The most critical part
> to any OS is the kernel. Now, if your comparing apples to apples,
> debian to Red Hat, etc, I would assume you are comparing systems with
> the same kernel version. Now, there are very minor differences between
> distro kernels of the same version - for example, Debian removes some
> driver modules which Red Hat includes by default (this is because
> Debian has a much stricter policy on licenses than Red hat and
> therefore remove some drivers with licenses which don't comply with
> their policy). As only the modules which are needed are loaded, I
> don't see how you would see a major difference in performance between
> the two.
No, RedHat are alone responsible for the distribution they package and
sell for lots of money (used to, that is). They had the same source
available as Debian and others, but on my machines they usually borked
up. I consider not being able to install, or not being able to access
the internet (even when I can see that WVDial has dialed and has a
working connection that costs me money!) quite heavy crimes in terms of
usability. The systems were practically useless. It didn't have
anything to do with drivers; I can't imagine. My laptop was really bad,
but it was totally standard. Even BSD installed nicely back then.
> If you believe it was because Red hat had a lot more daemons running,
> then if you don't need them, why have them running. If you are
> comparing a minimal Debian distribution with only a few daemons
> running to a full Red hat distribution with every possible daemon
> running you could have, well thats not a very fair comparison and a
> rather unjustified condemnation of Red Hat isn't it?
I'm only wondering why RedHat would have many useless daemons running in
what they sold as a consumer distro... I compared Debian to RedHat. I
think that's fair, as nobody asked RedHat to run all that stuff on my
system. When I want to run a sendmail or an apache, I want a GUI where
I can check those boxes, but I certainly don't want huge boot times and
lots of open network ports by default.
> I have lost count of the number of Linux distributions I've installed
> over the past 14 years. However, my experience without fail has been
> that performance under Linux compared to Windows has always been
> better regardless of whether it was Red hat, Debian, SuSe, Slackware
> or Mandrake. The most striking improvement I ever saw was with a sparc
Not at all. For several years I had computers with very little memory
(32 and 64MB, but most people didn't have much more...), and Windows and
Debian ran fine. Ok, part of that was Gnome's fault or whatever RedHat
used, but I was wondering then as today, why Gnome and KDE can take *SO*
much more memory for doing the same stuff as Windows 95, basically.
But even without Gnome, RedHat felt sluggish in general, and I've heard
that many times from users of various other distros.
> station when I replaced solaris with Red Hat's version of Linux for
> the sparc - that difference was amazing. A sparc server which I
> thought was really slow and had blamed on the hardware suddenly became
> a rock solid reliable and fast server with Linux compared to solaris.
Slowlaris I think they called it... ;)
> In all the years I've run Linux, there has only been three occasions I
> had problems getting the software to install. My first Linux
> installation was a pain because it consisted of around 25 floppy disks
> and I had quite a few disks with faulty sectors. I had problems with a
> mandrake install, but that was because I was using a cheap clone video
> card which claimed to be 100% compatible with a well known brand, but
> of course wasn't and I had problems with my first Debian install due
> to the fact the network card I had was brand new and not supported by
> the stable distribution kernel (but was supported with the testing
> kernel). I'd also have to admint the sparc station install was tricky,
> but that was more due to my lack of low level knowledge of sparc
> hardware more than anything else.
I haven't ever had trouble installing any Linux or BSD, except for:
RedHat 6.2, some Slackware when my burned CD was faulty, and more
recently Debian 3.0-testing which had a bug, so the machine didn't want
to boot.
Even my first Linux installation with the dreaded Debian went painless,
so I don't think it was me. ;)
> This isn't to say Linux doesn't have problems with some hardware.
> There is no doubt that Linux does not support the range of hardware
> Windows supports - but thats no shock. Lots of hardware vendors have a
> very proprietary view and in the past more than now, were unprepared
> to provide the necessary information to assist device driver
> development for their hardware. Things have really improved over the
> last 5 years or so, but anyone who doesn't first verify their hardware
> is supported by the distribution they plan to install is asking for
> trouble.
Yes, but even the Linux laptop sites don't have a lot of information.
It's more like "hm, maybe this works, haven't tried." or "hm, when I
installed this and that manually, the WLAN worked". Nothing I would
want to do. That's why I ended up with an iBook in winter 03.
>> Later I tried some Mandrake (Redhat derivative), and it couldn't
>> connect to the 'net. I found out that it ran WVDial, but unlike my
>> Debian where I did the same, it didn't work.
>>
> You cannot assume all Linux based distributions are the same - this is
> how they get their market difrerentiation. They all follow different
> philosophies and I would have to say I find it a great shame that many
> of the distributions are trying to win the battle by attempting to
> mimic the point and click installation of windows.
Yes, but every time I tried, the RedHat based ones were really bad,
IMHO. By comparison, Debian-based ones usually seem to work quite well.
But that's just my experience, no need to argue about that now. ;)
> Is the fact that wvdial was configured differently under madrake than
> debian and didn't work the same as on debian mean that madrake was not
> good or that you were caught out by making assumptions that turned out
> not to be justified. If you had never run Debian and started with
IIRC they even had a GUI like on Windows, where I would put the number
to dial, and username and password. In Debian that was a simple text
file. Still, it only worked on Debian, so I have to blame the Mandrakers.
> Mandrake, you wouldn't have assumed how the modem dialing worked,
> would have read the instructions and it would likely have worked out
> of the box. It seems to me you place the blame for things not working
> in the wrong place.
There were no instructions on the topic that I hadn't read. I was
following orders (of the modem config wizard they provided). It DID NOT
WORK. Top showed me that in fact there was a wvdial running (and I
noticed the modem go to work), but the browser didn't find anything.
If that's not your experience, fine. But don't blame me for doing
something wrong several years ago. You weren't there.
> There is a big difference between useable and user friendly. I find it
> incredible how people often make the criticism of linux along the
> lines that it isn't user friendly like Windows, but totally over look
> they fact they are comparing a commercial product which sells for
> considerable money with a free product (yes, I realise you probably
> paid something for it, but in reality what you paid for was mainly the
> packaging and CD as you could just download it and burn your own CD
> for nothing). I'm also quite surprised that Red hat didn't have a tool
Linux and the GNU tools are free. But RedHat wasn't free. It was a
commercial software distribution that came with support (well, I didn't
get any support, but that's another story that has to do with their
website back then that tried to divert users, instead of helping them)
and a booklet.
Now only because they package up free software and sell it, doesn't mean
that I can't complain about their shoddy end product.
> you could use to tune your video timings - while its been some time
> since I ran Red Hat on a desktop with X, my recollection was that it
> came with a couple of tools for this process. I've also found that if
Don't know. On Debian and others I usually ran something right at the
end of the XFree setup. It asked me to do that. On Redhat either the
tool wasn't there, or I could run it, but on the next boot it forgot all
my settings. :(
> you provide the correct details regarding the refresh rates supported
> by your hardware, the screen is usually pretty spot on and if its out,
> it is easily adjusted with the monitor's controls. If you find the
> screen moves right by a full half a screen, then this is an indication
> you definitely have things misconfigured and have either provided the
> wrong values when configuring X or the hardware is unrecognised and
> the installer was not able to auto detect the correct settings.
No, that was because my screen had quite high frequencies. At 60 or
70Hz it looked fine, but flickery. At 100Hz the picture moved. Windows
offset that automatically, but on XFree I had to do that myself. RedHat
obviously thought that nobody would ever need to adjust anything after
putting in the frequency values from the monitor's manual.
> However, it is interesting to see how quickly we become accustomed to
> simple idiot proof configuration. When I first started running X on a
Well, I expect either idiot-proof (like Windows or Mac), or some
settings I can set myself. It's insulting when a system doesn't solve a
problem itself, but denies you the means to do it yourself. BTW, that's
also why I switched from Windows to free software. It at least gives
you the means, even if it means tinkering.
> PC, you had to calculate all the timing and modeline settings by hand
> - it was difficult and you could easily damage your hardware. However
> at the time it was definitely worth the effort as MS was still stuck
> back with Windows 3.11 and compared to X, it was a joke (and lets not
> even consider network support).
Lucky me, modelines were calculated automatically in '00. :)
>>> of Red Hat worse than Windows 98? (Note that I don't personally like
>>> Red hat as a distribution, preferring Debian, but I would certainly
>>> find it interesting to see how you can justify such a claim with any
>>> actual facts.
> Its obvious your experiences with Linux were not great. There is a
> saying that its not that Linux isn't user friendly, its just fussy
> about who its friends are. There is no argument its not the right
No, they were great. RedHat blew chunks, but I ran that Debian 2.2 for
more than two years very happily (after which I tried out Free- and
NetBSD out of curiosity, and ended up using NetBSD for another year (and
a short trial of Win XP) before getting my Mac).
> OS for everyone and if asked by someone what OS to run, I certainly
> don't just automatically say Linux because it depends so much on the
> individual and what their expectations are and the type of use they
> are looking for. I'd say I've probably recommended Windows and Mac far
Well, I depend on that the software will *work* without big glaring
bugs. Therefore I was very satisfied with Debian, with NetBSD, with my
Mac, even with Win XP (though I don't love the UI).
> more often than Linux. However, for some users, particularly those who
> have an interest in understanding and possibly development rather than
> just surfing and e-mailing, I think its often a good choice. However,
> you do have to recognise and be prepared for a complete paradigm
> shift. If your after a windows clone, you will likely be disapointed.
I've seen too many people burnt by totally unpredictable Windows
problems, and my Win 98 machine used to crash daily (well, Netscape 4.7
crashed five times a day on it...). So even though Linux isn't easy to
install for computer illiterates, until XP it was THE solution to
anybody who wanted to use a computer, IMHO. Today it isn't, because the
range of hardware got much bigger, and too many things don't work 100%
with Linux (WLAN, ACPI, maybe TV-out, haven't tried). If you want to
sell something, you need 100%.
> I suspect if Red hat had been your first exposure to Linux, your
> opinion would likely be exactly the reverse. Its like debates
> concerning editors - most people find the first editor they ever
> remains their favorite regardless of features etc. Its very much what
> you get accustomed to that sets your expectations and what you look
> for and value.
Well, after a while with Debian 2.1 I tried RedHat and it didn't even
install on that one machine. Debian 2.2 came weeks later and I loved it.
With editors I tried and liked VI and used it for years. Only for
Scheme did I use Emacs, but also sometimes VI. When I switched to
Dvorak a year ago, I abandoned VI (though I still use it for quick
command-line editing).
I can't see why people always stick to the first thing they know, when
there are alternatives. It's like saying your soccer team is the best,
just because you were born in that city. People have tastes, which is
fine, but too many people make judgements before ever having
tried/looked at all the alternatives. I demand of myself to try to be
free from that superficiality.
>>> I bet you only ever used the basic or free distribution and never one
>>> of the enterprise ones either.
>> No, I paid lots of money for it, as much as for two Debians combined.
>> Actually later the free versions, RedHat 9.0 and Fedora Core 1 were a
>> lot better than their ugly ancestors, but still not really optimal,
>> unless you want your computer to start about 500 different servers and
>> daemons and take five minutes to start up.
>
> Not a very valid criticism IMO - all of that is configurable and
> depends largely on what choices you make in the initial installation.
> BTW, I was also referring to the enterprise version of Red Hat
> (desktop), which is comparable in price to Windows and which has been
> made very user friendly. Not my cup of tea but .....
That's what they said about RedHat, and that's why I tried it.
>> I don't feel threatened by open source. I like it, or used to, back
>> when not all popular software was crappy (KDE and Gnome were crappy,
>> but they weren't THAT popular yet). Today it's all just cloning
>> Windows software, so I'm not interested anymore.
>>
> but how is that got anything to do with it being open source. The fact
> people have had their imaginations limited by what they have been
> exposed to has nothing to do with whether the code is open source or
> not. It isn't like your seeing anything any better out of the closed
> source proprietary world.
Well, the Mac is different, even though not as cool as BeOS or NeXTStep
used to be. Windows got a lot better, too, as did Gnome and KDE. Still
I think there could be different GUIs (with a desktop) than those two.
There have always been people who were more creative, but sadly in OSS
it's a consensus culture (much like other parts of daily culture), so
the Windows clones ended up attracting manpower. It's like everybody
uses Java, XML, and Apache. It's consensus that you don't dare mention
anything else to not piss off those in charge.
>> I simply don't feel that open source is a scalable business case (i.e.
>> for all programmers), like ESR and RMS claim. As I mentioned, really
>> GREAT software doesn't need servicing, or very little of it, and most
>> open source isn't really great in terms of usability.
>>
> I have never and would never argue that open source is what everyone
> should be doing. Thats totally up to the individual and what they
Exactly.
> want/expect from what they do. All software needs considerable amount
> of servicing and maintenance. I know nothing about your situation and
> experience, but from comments like that, I am almost certain you have
> had no or little commercial programming experience. If you are lucky
> enough to get to the point where you have developed some software you
> are able to sell and make a living out of, I think you will be very
> surprised at how much of your time ends up being taken in supporting
> and maintaining that software.
Yes, but that's voluntarily (as free service to clients; they expect a
bug-free product). In order to sell the software you have to improve
it. Or you don't, because the use case is limited, and already
perfected. I'm not sure of the virtues of expanding a piece of software
until it can read mail and browse the web in different tabs...
> One of the reasons it is very very difficult to be successful in
> software development as a small developer is that businesses simply
> are not prepared to gamble their future on software which may not have
> a future. From a business perspective, you have a lot of investment
> tied up in your IT. Being forced to change a critical part of your IT
> infrastructure because your vendor has gone out of business or is no
> longer maintaining the software etc is often extremely expensive. You
> have to find an alternative, find some way to transfer data which
> often is not cmpatible or has been stored in some proprietary format
> and more than likely you will need to change your business processes
> to fit with the new infrastructure, which can be very expensive
> because people generally don't like change. Consequently, we find
> business is vary wary of small operators without a long track record,
> even if they do have a superior product.
That's where OSS can help, but I think most companies won't even trust
small developers (without much experience), but from a risk view that's
understandable.
> Thats funny. I've always said the reason I got into Linux was because
> it was simple, straight-forward and logical and I don't do Windows
> because I'm just not smart enough to get it to work reliably!
That's what I'm saying. Recent Windowses are better though, I think, if
you don't need a fancy network setup.
> However, I do have to say that I find your above comment at best
> ironic or at worst contridictory given your earlier statement that you
> can't see how open source has really benefited many peole. The new Mac
> is the first real challenge MS has had at the desktop level. Even
> apple have been surprised at the numbers who have switched from
> Windows to the new Mac OS. However, wouldn't it seem to you that since
> OSX is based on BSD and BSD was open source that you and many others
> have benefited from open source?
I'm not surprised. With Pather, Apple did Unix - right.
> My earlier comments address this a bit. I think you need to broaden
> your view a little. for business, the IT infrastructure is about a lot
> more than just a piece of software being purchased and installed. A
> lot of small and medium businesses use consultants precisely because
> they cannot afford to employ permanent IT experts. they don't have any
> "in-house" expertise and therefore must bring it in when required. You
The same is true for big enterprises. They don't have in-house
expertise (despite lots of employees) and need external consulting to
fix it. As with any rule, there are many exceptions, I'm sure. Those
are the small companies with high revenues.
> cannot sum up all consultants in the same way and nor can you assume
> any consultant or software company is going to create some EJB monster
> to solve a simple problem. these are all wild exagerations without any
> real foundation. Sure, Java has been the flavor of the month for the
Sure. It's hard to speak about anything in general, when companies
differ very widely, and corp culture is very dependent on the actual
people and their attitudes, not on what they learned or where they've been.
> past few years, before that it was C++ and before that C. Next month
> it may be python, ruby or whatever. Its really what the market will
> support and at the moment, java is it until something else looks
> better. However for something to look better, it takes a lot more than
> a powerful language. We might not like this and we may feel its
> inefficient or wrong, but its reality. We can work to change it, but
> to do so, we need to recognise what the realities of business are and
> realise that its not just about the technology. While it may seem
> insane to many of us, technology is less critical to success than any
> of us would like to admit. We can run around shouting til we are blue
> in the face that Lisp (or any other technology) is the better choice
> and it won't do any good unless we can prove that what we are arguing
> for is able to address the fears and concerns the prospective customer
> has, even if most of the resistance is based on FUD.
Technology is critical. Companies who mess it up have huge costs and no
benefits. Companies who do things right have manageable costs and high
benefits over a few years. In as much as technological means influence
marketing and product management, they can influence if a company will
rise or fall.
Technology only isn't about some small piece of software, it's about
organizational management, about supporting the whole range of what a
company does and is. Probably some software is good at this, but most
isn't really and rather gets in the way (or forces you to adapt to the
software, such as I heard about SAP). So it's not about CS, but about
business. But you need someone who knows marketing, someone who knows
CS, and someone who knows accounting and management. This combination
can be hard to get right.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> I think RMS is quite socialist at heart. He says that ALL software
> should be free, so there's the GPL to ensure that more and more software
> has to be open-source.
RMS grounds his philosophy in the distinction between
rivalrous goods and non-rivalrous goods. He uses a sandwich
as an example of a rivalrous. We cannot both eat it, if I
give you my sandwich I go hungry. Emacs is the obvious
example of a non-rivalrous good - RMS gives it away but is
still able to use it himself.
Socialism does not use this distinction. Its creed includes
"From each according to his ability, to each according to
his need." If your need is greater than mine then you get
the sandwich. If my ability is greater than yours then I am
obliged to make it for you.
When people say that RMS is some kind of socialist they are
glossing over the distinction between rivalrous and
non-rivalrous goods.
This distinction is a basic distinction of orthodox economic
theory. The starting point for discussions of software
economics is to note that for private goods - those that are
rivalrous and excludable - the economically efficient price
is the marginal cost of production. Free markets have a
tendency, roughly, more or less, to price goods at their
marginal cost of production. This leads to all the
traditional debates of free-market capitalism versus
socialism about the right way to organise the production of
private goods. Should the means of production be owned
privately or held in common?
If you go down the free market route you hit a nasty problem
with non-rivalrous goods. The economically efficient cost is
zero, and in the absence of excludablility, the free market
drives the price down to zero.
If you don't have copyright right law the price fails to
cover the non-recurring costs of writing software, and you
have under-production of software, which is economically
inefficient.
If you do have copyright law, that keeps the price up, but
now it is above the economically efficient level, leading to
under-consumption of software.
Your economy is going to be inefficient which ever way you
organise it. Having decided on free market capitalism as the
right way way to organise the world of atoms, the
non-rivalrous world of bits throws you a curve ball, and
hits you with a knotty conundrum.
Now that I've filled in the intellectual background, you are
at the point at which the arguments about copyright and the
GPL begin. I suggest having them in a different forum, not
comp.lang.lisp.
The point that I actually want to make is that if you go
round saying the "RMS is quite socialist at heart" every-one
who has reached the starting point in this debate, which
ever side they favour, will think ill of you. Your
intellectual reputation will be ruined.
Alan Crowe
Edinburgh
Scotland
Alan Crowe wrote:
> When people say that RMS is some kind of socialist they are
> glossing over the distinction between rivalrous and
> non-rivalrous goods.
I didn't at all mean to imply that. What I mean is that RMS seems to
say that nobody should sell closed-source software, because all software
should be free.
But if software is open-source, it's obviously hard to sell it. You
could sell add-on modules, but then - why not open-source them too?
Exceptions might be game engines which are free, but the content is
closed and has to be paid for. But then - why should software be free,
and not all other content?
Basically this goes into the direction that you can't sell anything
non-material (or digital), because it should be free.
Of course you can sell services around software - but is that good? Is
it really hurting users when they buy some super-great software at a low
price vs getting some crappy free stuff that somebody else can modify
for high hourly payments?
I'm not sure that all software should be free; BECAUSE I believe in
selling software like in selling other products too. That software
isn't a rivalrous good is unimportant in this context.
RMS's opinion that all software should be open is in my view a
declaration of war against all capitalist software makers that aim to
produce excellent software (that doesn't require consulting or added
services).
> The point that I actually want to make is that if you go
> round saying the "RMS is quite socialist at heart" every-one
> who has reached the starting point in this debate, which
> ever side they favour, will think ill of you. Your
> intellectual reputation will be ruined.
I'm not saying anybody should share my above opinion, but as evidenced
by the existence of vendors such as Apple, Sun, and Microsoft, some do.
I'm not afraid that having an opinion would ruin my intellectual
reputation. There are goods that can be shared to some degree by
everybody (such as software, roads, or air), but that doesn't mean they
have to be.
I do apologize for my claim about RMS, which seems to be unfounded. But
I hope I gave understandable reasons why I had this misconception.
--
Suffering from Gates-induced brain leakage...
"arnuld" <·······@gmail.com> writes:
> GNU people are good and like "Open Source" people they want to change
> the system but they were doing it in the wrong way, they were dealing
> with the *effects* , only OpenSource dealt with the *cause*. this is
> the whole point of success. In the end OpenSource is rising towards a
> great future and i am sure about it.
Hey pal! We are programmers!
We don't _need_ Open Source, we can rewrite it ourself if we want!
What we need, to avoid to rewrite everything from scratch everytime,
is _Free_ software, and _Free_ hardware (ie. hardware with full
documentation), so we can modify and improve it for our customers.
Remember, what launched RMS was actually bad proprietary Xerox printer
_firmware_.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
"You can tell the Lisp programmers. They have pockets full of punch
cards with close parentheses on them." --> http://tinyurl.com/8ubpf