mboost-dp1
unknown
Det var under en time efter hans svar kom (Eric Raymond altså)
"The following, marked up for HTML and with a few typos fixed, is the response I sent back less than an hour later. "
Men anyways, nu har jeg ikke læst hans svar, men hvordan kan han nå at læse de 92 sider, tænke over det, og skrive et svar af den længde på under en time?
Noget kunne tyde på, han ikke har læst bogen.
"The following, marked up for HTML and with a few typos fixed, is the response I sent back less than an hour later. "
Men anyways, nu har jeg ikke læst hans svar, men hvordan kan han nå at læse de 92 sider, tænke over det, og skrive et svar af den længde på under en time?
Noget kunne tyde på, han ikke har læst bogen.
#1 Nu står der faktisk bare at html udgave var klar mindre end en time efter hans svar til ADTI, ikke hvor lang tid han brugte på at læse bogen og skrive svaret. Jeg tror personligt ikke at Raymond ville begå den fejl ikke at læse hvad de har skrevet.
Jeg er nu dybt imponeret over ADTI tilgang vinkel, det virker som om de har skrevet bogen først og så ledt efter beviser bagefter. At de i det hele taget vælger at udgive bogen er uforståeligt. Folk som Tanenbaum ser ikke ud til at finde sig i at blive misbrugt på den måde. Det gør bogen lidt værdiløs når ens kilder står frem og siger at det er løgn det der står i bogen.
Jeg er nu dybt imponeret over ADTI tilgang vinkel, det virker som om de har skrevet bogen først og så ledt efter beviser bagefter. At de i det hele taget vælger at udgive bogen er uforståeligt. Folk som Tanenbaum ser ikke ud til at finde sig i at blive misbrugt på den måde. Det gør bogen lidt værdiløs når ens kilder står frem og siger at det er løgn det der står i bogen.
Det er da rart at set at Eric Raymond formår alle holde en forholdsvis sober tone.
Dog ser han ud til støtte Linus Torvalds' og Andy Tanenbaum´s lidt uheldige udmeldinger, og det er selvføgelig meget ærgeligt.
Man må da sige at den historie efterhånden er skudt helt i sænk. Men hvis alle involveret havde reageret så relativt behersket som hr. Raymond, tror jeg slet ikke der havde været nogen historie.
Dog ser han ud til støtte Linus Torvalds' og Andy Tanenbaum´s lidt uheldige udmeldinger, og det er selvføgelig meget ærgeligt.
Man må da sige at den historie efterhånden er skudt helt i sænk. Men hvis alle involveret havde reageret så relativt behersket som hr. Raymond, tror jeg slet ikke der havde været nogen historie.
Som en hale til historien har Richard Stallman og Peter Salus også ytret sig:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200405291...
Stallman fordi også hans ord bliver misbrugt, og Peter Salus fordi han er en af vores grand old UNIX guru'er.
Faktisk er de begge grand old guru'er, der har været med længe før nogen talte om UNIX.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200405291...
Stallman fordi også hans ord bliver misbrugt, og Peter Salus fordi han er en af vores grand old UNIX guru'er.
Faktisk er de begge grand old guru'er, der har været med længe før nogen talte om UNIX.
Et af de få stykker kode fra Minix der viste sig at ligne noget i Linux er sjovt nok et SCO har påstået de ejer. Forklaringen Linus gav dengang holder selvfølgelig stadigvæk. Når man skal overholde C standarden er disse makroer den nemmeste måde at implementere ctype. Navngivningen er oplagt. Og faktisk er der et punkt hvor Unix og Minix versionerne er ens og Linux er anderledes.
Lige som millioner af andre hackere så er Linus opvokset med Tanenbaum's lærebøger og dermed også den kodestandard som han har forgivet. Der er rigtigt mange linier i både linux og minix det skulle være underligt om ikke var et par stykker som ligner hindanden. Jeg tror det samme vil gøre sig gældende for både Microsoft(dos/windows), Unix, BSD, Mac OS osv.
yeah - tilbage til de gode gamle dage med Microsoft og DR som eneste leverandører - da slap vi i den mindste for den her slags mudderkasteri, og penge som blev spildt på tåbeligheder som hjerneblødningen hos ADTI. DR-DOS og GEM forever!
#2
Som jeg læser "The following, marked up for HTML and with a few typos fixed, is the response I sent back less than an hour later." har han skrevet svaret, smidt lidt HTML koder på og lagt det på nettet, inden for en time efter, han havde modtaget den mail.
For nu at oversætte direkte;
"Det følgende, sat op til HTML og med et par stavefejl rettet, er svaret jeg sendte tilbage under en time senere". Jeg kan ikke forstå det på andre, måder end at han har svaret på mailen, under en time efter han modtog den.
Og al respekt for Eric Raymond, men jeg tror IKKE på, at han kan nå at læse bogen og skrive så langt et svar på under en time.
Edit:
#sKIDROw
Var der ikke noget med at OS-communitiet ikke gik ind for ord som "Intellectual Property"? Eric Raymond skriver, at han går stærkt ind for "IP".. hvilket vel må være Intellectual Property.
Som jeg læser "The following, marked up for HTML and with a few typos fixed, is the response I sent back less than an hour later." har han skrevet svaret, smidt lidt HTML koder på og lagt det på nettet, inden for en time efter, han havde modtaget den mail.
For nu at oversætte direkte;
"Det følgende, sat op til HTML og med et par stavefejl rettet, er svaret jeg sendte tilbage under en time senere". Jeg kan ikke forstå det på andre, måder end at han har svaret på mailen, under en time efter han modtog den.
Og al respekt for Eric Raymond, men jeg tror IKKE på, at han kan nå at læse bogen og skrive så langt et svar på under en time.
Edit:
#sKIDROw
Var der ikke noget med at OS-communitiet ikke gik ind for ord som "Intellectual Property"? Eric Raymond skriver, at han går stærkt ind for "IP".. hvilket vel må være Intellectual Property.
Som jeg husker det så skriver han da også at han kun omtaler et "excerpt" = uddrag af bogen. I sin konklusion sagde han da vist også noget i stil med at hvis uddraget var repræsentativt så var bogen langt fra udgivelses-værdig
#12 XorpiZ
[Var der ikke noget med at OS-communitiet ikke gik ind for ord som "Intellectual Property"? Eric Raymond skriver, at han går stærkt ind for "IP".. hvilket vel må være Intellectual Property.]
Det er så der opensource og fri software miljøerne skilles.
Opensource miljøet forsøger at kommunikere med en retorik de fleste almindelige folk og erhvervslivet bruger og forstår.
Fri software miljøet har deres holdninger, som de mener er vigtige nok til at kæmpe for.
FSF og RMS har ikke noget imod IP, det er ordet de ser problemmer med.
Nemlig at du ikke kan have en klar diskussion, hvis du klumper ting sammen under et ord som har ufatteligt lidt tilfælles.
Richard Stallman har formuleret sin egen liste, over ord man bør undgå.
Og hvor nogle pointer selvfølgelig bærer hans ideologiske præg, så har andre pointer klart en berettigelse.
I det her tilfælde vil jeg gerne bruge et eksempel:
[Citat]
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''
The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)
If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.
``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.
Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.
According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US.
The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make WIPO embarassed.
[Var der ikke noget med at OS-communitiet ikke gik ind for ord som "Intellectual Property"? Eric Raymond skriver, at han går stærkt ind for "IP".. hvilket vel må være Intellectual Property.]
Det er så der opensource og fri software miljøerne skilles.
Opensource miljøet forsøger at kommunikere med en retorik de fleste almindelige folk og erhvervslivet bruger og forstår.
Fri software miljøet har deres holdninger, som de mener er vigtige nok til at kæmpe for.
FSF og RMS har ikke noget imod IP, det er ordet de ser problemmer med.
Nemlig at du ikke kan have en klar diskussion, hvis du klumper ting sammen under et ord som har ufatteligt lidt tilfælles.
Richard Stallman har formuleret sin egen liste, over ord man bør undgå.
Og hvor nogle pointer selvfølgelig bærer hans ideologiske præg, så har andre pointer klart en berettigelse.
I det her tilfælde vil jeg gerne bruge et eksempel:
[Citat]
Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about ``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''
The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be. Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference. (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like physical object property rights.)
If you don't want to limit yourself to this way of thinking, it is best to avoid using the term ``intellectual property'' in your words and thoughts.
``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization. The term is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.
Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.
According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad, arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks, and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor useful free software packages in the US.
The hypocrisy of calling these powers "rights" is starting to make WIPO embarassed.
#16 XorpiZ
Opensource miljøet er rent praktisk orienteret.
Hvor FSF er enige i alle de praktisk argumenter, så mener de at der er mere på spil.
Nemlig et generelt bedre samfund, hvor folk deler med deres nabo og samarbejder.
At programmøre som andre videnskabsfolk, bør samarbejde istedet for at modarbejde hinanden.
[The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.
We in the open source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see the source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits.
Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world.]
FSF forklarer her forskellen mellem de to:
[While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas.
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term ``open source software'' instead of ``free software'' to describe what they do. The term ``open source'' quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work together on some practical projects.
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.]
Opensource miljøet er rent praktisk orienteret.
Hvor FSF er enige i alle de praktisk argumenter, så mener de at der er mere på spil.
Nemlig et generelt bedre samfund, hvor folk deler med deres nabo og samarbejder.
At programmøre som andre videnskabsfolk, bør samarbejde istedet for at modarbejde hinanden.
[The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.
We in the open source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see the source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits.
Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial world.]
FSF forklarer her forskellen mellem de to:
[While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas.
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the term ``open source software'' instead of ``free software'' to describe what they do. The term ``open source'' quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are today separate movements with different views and goals, although we can and do work together on some practical projects.
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, ``Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'' For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.]
Opret dig som bruger i dag
Det er gratis, og du binder dig ikke til noget.
Når du er oprettet som bruger, får du adgang til en lang række af sidens andre muligheder, såsom at udforme siden efter eget ønske og deltage i diskussionerne.
- Forside
- ⟨
- Forum
- ⟨
- Nyheder
Gå til bund