ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   08 Mar 2001  18:11:53
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://lwn.net/2001/0308/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    
                                [2]Click Here 
    [LWN.net]
    
    Sections:
     [3]Main page
     [4]Security
     [5]Kernel
     [6]Distributions
     [7]On the Desktop
     [8]Development
     [9]Commerce
     [10]Linux in the news
     [11]Announcements
     [12]Linux History
     Letters
    [13]All in one big page
    
    See also: [14]last week's Letters page.
    
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [15]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    March 8, 2001
    
    
 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 10:40:54 -0500
 From: "Donald J. Barry" <don@astro.cornell.edu>
 To: letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Stallman's position on OGG/VORBIS
 Dear LWN:
 
 I take gentle issue with your ascription to Richard Stallman of an
 a desire for "a more restrictive licensing for libraries."  In doing
 so, you are under the mistaken belief that the GPL is in fact somehow
 less free than the BSD license.
 
 This entirely depends upon your point of view.  To a user, software
 freedom encompasses such issues as, "will this software continue to be
 developed in the public sphere?", "will I find that my hardware is now
 only supported by a proprietary fork?", "will someone else take software
 I have contributed to and commercialize the results?".  In this core
 sense, the GPL is the most free of all the licenses.
 
 I can understand Stallman's decision to tactically endorse a flexible
 strategy in the case of OGG/Vorbis.  But here's to FREE software for
 just about everything else.
 
 Don Barry,
 Cornell University
 
    
 Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:04:52 -0500
 From: Thomas Hood <jdthoodREMOVETHIS@yahoo.co.uk>
 To: letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Stallman on Freedom and the American Way
 
 RMS's latest article comes on the heels of a Microsoft
 executive's insinuation that the free software movement
 is un-American.  Stallman's reaction is to accept the
 presupposition that the American Way is the one true path,
 and to argue that the GPL is faithful to this path because
 it accords with the principles of the American revolution.
 
 Stallman uses Allchin's comments as an opportunity to make
 the point (again) that there is a difference between the
 way the GPL promotes freedom and the way that a BSD-style
 "open source" license grants it.  Whereas a BSD license
 grants the licensee freedom to do whatever he or she likes
 with the licensed code, including the freedom to adapt the
 code and not publish the changes, the GPL restricts the
 licensee's freedom in this respect in order to guarantee
 another freedom---the freedom of other people to see any
 code derived from the licensed code.  It is the fact that
 the GPL promotes freedom in this way that RMS thinks makes
 the GPL truly American.  But this is disingenuous.
 Stallman is not being entirely frank about the ultimate
 goals of the free software movement.
 
 I think we should be frank.  There is no point in fighting
 a war of propaganda.  There is no denying the accusation
 that one of the main aims of the free software movement is
 a socialistic one.  I don't really care that in the U.S.A.,
 calling something "socialist" means that it is soon
 called "communist" and then "Stalinist" and then (worst
 of all!) "un-American".  Sticks and stones.  One of the
 advantages of the free software movement being so international
 as it is, is that it ought to be easier for us to think outside
 the box of American political discourse.
 
 The GPL is socialistic in that it is designed to promote a
 social goal, which is the establishment of a archive of free
 software and a community of developers dedicated to enlarging
 and enhancing it.  Ultimately it may occur that this body of
 software becomes so extensive and attractive that it becomes
 indispensible---that it becomes a public-domain homologue
 for what Microsoft software is now.  The goal is to
 revolutionize the means of production of software and to
 establish a new mode of software distribution: To each
 according to his need; from each according to his ability.
 If the movement is successful---if GPLed software becomes
 "the standard"---then it will be more difficult for software
 companies to make money selling proprietary software.  So
 the free software movement is not only socialistic in its
 goals, but dangerous to a certain form of capitalism too.
 In the case of Microsoft Corporation, the movement is openly
 hostile.
 
 To those who complain that these goals aren't the American Way,
 let us simply say:  Well, if that's true, then so much the
 worse for the American Way.
 
 Thomas Hood
 jdthood_AT_yahoo.co.uk
 
    
 Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 20:48:59 -0500
 From: Luke Seubert <lseubert@radix.net>
 To: letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Will Mozilla 1.1.1 be released in 2001?  Will it even matter?
 
 Once again, the Mozilla project has fallen behind schedule, and the
 release date for Mozilla 1.0 has been pushed back.  Details on the new
 roadmap may be found at: [16]http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html
 
 The new roadmap reveals, among other things, the worst case assumptions
 of Mozilla developers, showing that Mozilla might only reach version
 0.9.6 in late 4Q 2001 if there are a lot of problems.  While we all hope
 this will not be the case, the dreadfully slow pace of Mozilla
 development over these past three years does little to discourage
 pessimism in this regard.
 
 The situation is even worse for those folks who prefer high quality,
 feature complete, bug free software.  Common sense and experience tell
 us to distrust 1.0 or 2.0 releases.  Whether proprietary, open source,
 or free software; x.0 version programs usually have too many flaws.  The
 recent release of KDE 2.1 is a good example of this in that it fulfills
 the promises of KDE 2.0, now that it has a more complete feature set,
 and far fewer bugs.
 
 Mozilla likewise will probably not be truly ready for prime time until
 Mozilla 1.1.1, which under best case assumptions won't happen until late
 3Q 2001.  Frankly, given the endless delays in the Mozilla project, it
 is not reasonable to expect a truly superb and complete browser until 4Q
 2001 at the earliest, and more likely sometime in the first half of 2002
 instead.  This could mean a total of four years for Mozilla to achieve
 the promise made back in 1998 of a high quality, standards compliant,
 free software, cross platform, integrated browser.
 
 But will Mozilla even matter when it achieves true maturity, especially
 in the Linux and *BSD worlds, which is the one place where Mozilla has
 its best chance of success?  Consider that Konqueror, Galeon, and the
 closed source Opera browser are all maturing quite rapidly. Combine
 these browsers with your favorite GUI email client, newsreader, chat
 program, and HTML composer, and you can have all the features and power
 promised by Mozilla - but now, not "someday".
 
 In war, an old axiom states that an imperfect battle plan implemented
 quickly and with vigor will always beat the perfect strategy that is a
 day late in coming.  Mozilla seeks to be the perfect
 browser/composer/email&news&chat client that is all things to all people
 on all platforms, and it may well achieve that goal.  But by the time
 the goal is achieved, the battle may well be long over.
 
 Luke Seubert
 
    
 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 03:32:29 -0600
 From: Saber <fool@elven.org>
 To: letters@lwn.net
 Subject: quit crowing about DeCSS availability!
 
 The last two LWN frontpages have smirkingly (is that a word :o) boasted of
 how easy it is to get a copy of DeCSS even though the Bad Guys have been
 spending a lot of effort to attack individuals spreading DeCSS. So what?
 
 Heck, we can crash a bunch of punks into the courtrooms wearing DeCSS
 t-shirts, but does that mean we're winning? Given: you cannot stop geeks
 from bootlegging bits.  Problem: that's nothing compared to true
 freedom. Will fancy software violating DMCA provisions reach consumers? No.
 Saber Taylor
 [17]http://elven.org/saber/
 
    
 Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 18:29:31 -0500 (EST)
 From: Tom Permutt <tompermutt@home.com>
 To: letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Napster, "the music industry," and free music
 
 I always enjoy your writing, and usually agree with your point of view.  I
 am disturbed, however, by your recent comments on Napster and "the music
 industry."
 
 When you write about software, you carefully distinguish the proprietary
 software industry from the free software community.  Furthermore, you have
 taken pains to distinguish advocates of free software from advocates of
 acquiring proprietary software for free.
 
 The overwhelming majority of musicians belong to something analogous to
 the free software community.  Some create music for love.  Some support
 themselves by providing teaching and other services.  Some have jobs
 related to music where their most creative work is indulged as an adjunct
 to what makes money.
 
 We honor one another's ideas by copying them, disseminating them, adapting
 and improving them.  There are ethical constraints on this borrowing, but
 they have little to do with copyright.  We are pretty free with sources
 because what we respect is the ability to do something with them.  All
 this must be very familiar to you and your readers.
 
 A tiny minority of musicians are associated with what you call "the music
 industry":  the mass-market, recorded, popular music industry.  Most
 musicians have little interest in these products.  Many of us feel they
 are of inferior quality; many of us believe this industry is inimical to
 the advancement of the art; but most of us just don't care about it.  We
 recognize, however, that the products are accessible, successfully
 marketed, and very popular.
 
 The users of Napster, it seems to me, are overwhelmingly people who want
 this kind of music, and want it for free.  I hold no brief for the
 producers whose products they appropriate, any more than I shed tears for
 the members of the Software Publishers Association.  I fail to see,
 however, why advocates of free software should make common cause with
 these nonpaying consumers of proprietary products.
 
 I am mystified by these words:  "Piracy is not the issue.  It is, instead,
 a dishonest smokescreen put up by those who feel that a lucrative business
 is threatened by new technologies."  Unlike free software, the threat is
 not from new products, but from new, unauthorized methods of disseminating
 proprietary products.  If there is such a thing as "piracy," what else can
 it be?
 
 Tom Permutt
 tompermutt@home.com
 
    
 Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:09:53 -0500 (EST)
 From: "Ken D'Ambrosio" <kend@flyingtoasters.net>
 To: <cdreward@riaa.com>
 Subject: An open letter to the RIAA:
 
 Jack Valenti meets Obi-Wan Kenobi
 
 It really is interesting, in the grand scheme of things: the Recording
 Industry Associationg of America (RIAA) is desperately fighting a battle
 in the judicial system to shut down sites such as Napster.  It even
 appears as if they are winning.  The ironic, and, truthfully, sad part,
 however, is that they Just Don't Get It: instead of fighting Napster, and
 trying to hold back technology (neo-Luddites of the world, untie!), they
 should be seeing this as a grand opportunity to expand their horizons.
 However, the RIAA is interested in one thing, really: money.  Sure, they
 dress their fight up as if they were fighting for the poor, starving
 artists, but it's the record labels that they really care about, because
 that's where Mr. Valenti finds his paychecks coming from.  And so, in an
 attempt to keep their money, the are, instead, about to throw it away.  It
 is likely in the extreme that Napster will be shut down in the very near
 future -- it's virtually impossible for them to keep copyrighted music
 off "their" service, since the music is really on the PCs of people
 scattered across the country.  While they can certainly cut out names of
 songs that are copyrighted, schemes (such as putting them into pig
 Latin) are already in the works to circumvent this, and it's unlikely the
 courts will care.  Therefore, I believe that Napster will, eventually, go
 away.
 
 So where does Ben Kenobi come into the picture?  If you think back to Star
 Wars, when Ben Kenobi is fighting Darth Vader, he says, "Strike me down,
 and I will come back more powerful than you can imagine."  This is clearly
 the case with the RIAA -- they obviously have no idea that they are
 currently digging their own grave.  Instead of working with a centralized
 "authority" such as Napster, to provide clients with easy, paid, access to
 copyrighted material, they are going to squash the centralized authority...
 and decentralized MP3 (etc.) sites will instead crop up to fill the
 void.  Instead of having one tangible "foe," they will now have thousands,
 if not millions, of sites, scattered throughout the world, in different
 jurisdictions, running different software, all distributing (unpaid!)
 copyrighted material.  If it's done right, it will even be untraceable.
 There are probably just a few days left wherein the RIAA could actually
 use Pandora's box for synergy; after they shut down Napster, however, they
 will have won the battle, which will make their losing the war a virtual
 certainty.  Instead of helping bring their artists into a more accessible
 form of distribution, they will have slammed the lid shut on a what could
 have been an unparalleled form of legal IP propagation, and will have
 ensured that piracy, in heretofore unseen amounts, occurs.
 
 Bottom line: the RIAA is the artist's (and studio's) own worst enemy.  The
 Internet is here, but, instead of taking advantage of the single largest
 peacetime economic engine ever, they're trying to fight it, and are now
 doomed to fail -- hurting the very people they purport to represent.
 
 It's really just sad; sad, and pathetic.  If I were a member of the RIAA,
 I would certainly be calling for Jack Valenti's resignation right about
 now, because it's 100% clear that he doesn't understand the forces at
 work, and is causing infinitely more damage for both his clients, and the
 users of the material, than would someone who understood, and *utilized*,
 technology.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Ken D'Ambrosio
 
    
 Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 07:56:20 +0800
 From: Leon Brooks <leon@brooks.fdns.net>
 To: bkproffitt@home.com
 Subject: wrong planet
 
 You wrote here [18]http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3064/1/ that
 :
 
  > I started laughing very loudly when I saw the latest IBM ad for
 
 Linux. [...]
 
  > Linux is hardly at its best these days, now is it?
 
 It's never been better, and will always be better.
 
 IBM's ad shows that they have learned something from Microsoft's
 upending of the chessboard halfway through the passionfingering of OS/2.
 Many people are not aware that Microsoft VMS, derived from Digital's
 Mica project and better known as Windows NT, was originally called
 ``OS/2 NT'' (the name was changed when Windows 3 sold well).
 
 IBM have an exceptionally clear understanding, pounded home by bitter
 experience, that if Microsoft get control of the basic protocols that
 run the Internet, everyone else is dead meat. They are doing with Linux
 as Sun are doing with StarOffice: starving Microsoft of opportunities
 for unfair leverage.
 
 Regardless of how well they (or others) do in the marketplace, IBM
 understand that uless they adopt and push an Open (Libre) platform, they
 and everyone else will eventually become a Microsoft-controlled zombie,
 absorbed into what many people half-joking call The Borg, a corporate
 Microserf. You may not think that's so bad (and many people would
 agree), but the survival rate of corporate Microserfs is not an
 encouraging one.
 
 Peace, Love and Linux is entirely appropriate. IBM are no angels, but
 they (and everyone else) need a certain amount of freedom (not unlike
 the freedoms espoused in the Sixties) to survive, and they know it, and
 unlike most of the dazed, confused IT corporations out there, are doing
 something about it.
 
 Time will tell, but I suspect that IBM will come out of this as a
 butterfly from a chrysalis, clear of vision and strong of purpose as in
 the Sixties, but having lost a lot of the bully from its character. Even
 if they don't, their support for Open internet infrastructure is a
 worthy cause, and needs your support, not your scorn.
 
 --
 It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there
 when it happens. -- Woody Allen
 
    
 To: letters@lwn.net
 From: sharkey@superk.physics.sunysb.edu
 Subject: Another take on Jim Allchin's statements
 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 15:41:31 -0500
 There's be a lot of hullabaloo lately regarding Jim Allchin's statements
 cautioning against the government getting involved in the development
 of works to be licensed under the GPL.
 
 (See [19]http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010220/tc/microsoft_clarifies_exec_s
 _open-source_concerns_1.html)
 
 I've read very many broad interpretations of these remarks, but,
 in this case I think it's better to give Mr. Allchin the benefit of the
 doubt and interpret his remarks more narrowly.  What he is cautioning
 against is the use of the GPL for "taxpayer-funded software development".
 
 What people seem to forget is that the history of copyright law seems
 to support Mr. Allchin's position.  You have to remember that the whole
 purpose of intellectual property law is to increase creativity and
 innovation among private citizens, not from within the government itself.
 Because of this, government works are not eligible for copyright
 protection.
 
 (See [20]http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#piu)
 
 Government works are put into the public domain immediately.  That's
 how we ended up with copies of the Starr Report on bookshelves across
 the country seemingly within minutes of its release.  Anyone can print
 copies of government works and do just about whatever they like with them.
 
 Now, I don't necessarily think this is a good thing.  I'd love to see
 the U.S. government start to fund software development much the way
 science is funded now, but copyright law, as it is now, wouldn't seem
 to allow this to be done using a license as restrictive as the GPL,
 and without copyright, the GPL has no teeth.
 
 Copyright law is always in a state of flux and you can certainly imagine
 that the amount of congressional activity needed to establish a
 National Software Foundation would be large compared to the relatively
 small addendum to copyright law that would be needed to control
 federally funded software with copyright, but Mr. Allchin is taking
 the conservative view that copyright restrictions should continue to be
 a right of the public alone.
 
 You can agree or disagree with this position, but I don't really see
 Jim Allchin expressing this point of view being Microsoft's attempt
 "to create a cloud around the GPL" or "create a split in the free
 source community" or any other such nonsense.  It's just a conservative
 statement from a conservative person who works for a conservative
 company.  No real surprises there.
 
 Eric Sharkey
 sharkey@superk.physics.sunysb.edu
 
    
 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 21:30:22 +0000
 From: Thomas Sippel - Dau <t.sippel-dau@ic.ac.uk>
 To: letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Three cheers for Jim Allchin and Microsoft's Freedom to Innovate
 
 Hello,
 
 reading again after two weeks what Jim Allchin said about Open Source
 software destroying innovation, I think he has a point, and is
 quite right to be worried. He is also right to be worried that
 legislators should understand this. The state has the power to force
 people to do some things in a particular way. Take driving. The state
 forces me (in Britain) to drive on the left hand side of the road,
 in America, on the right.
 
 This stifles innovation. A manufacturer trying to build a killer product
 round driving on the "other" side will simply get nowhere. The state can
 also decide  between two competing products, both for its own use, and
 for forcing people to use it. Often it tries to be scrupulously neutral
 between competitors. But if there is a with-cost and a cost-free choice,
 choosing the with-cost one, and asking people to fork out for that is
 very difficult.
 
 For the last eight years or so Microsoft had a two pronged marketing
 strategy. One side was build around "making it easier". Microsoft
 claimed to make computer use feasible for all those who can claim
 "I don't understand all this technology stuff". Having on your side
 the people who cheerfully claim to be too stupid to understand is a
 powerful weapon. It is almost impossible to argue against, because
 those who claim to be too stupid to understand will give you about
 two minutes to coonvince them otherwise, and then walk away because
 they can't understand your arguments.
 
 This a wonderful strategy to employ when marketing to schools, for
 example. Yes, the software is not free, but it costs little and is
 so easy to use, and the little ones are not technically versed enough
 to use the somewhat uncouth cheaper or free software. But if the free
 software works well enough, this argument no longer holds. Software
 does not need to be brilliant - the Microsoft offerings are a splendid
 case in point. Good enough software at a low cost or free (as in free
 beer) is an explosive mixture.
 
 The second prong of Microsoft's marketing strategy was "innovation",
 under this motto it has for some time waged war on its customers, and
 against all the rules it has been getting away with it. It has been
 doing this by ensnaring people, and in particular organisations, into
 the upgrade treadmill. Similar practices are common in many industries,
 fashion, for example, or cars, where buying last years model is not
 really the done thing.
 
 With computers, due to the fact that there is still rapid technical
 development, people would of course like to have a newer, faster computer.
 Just as they would like to have a newer car, or a new carpet in their
 office. Organisations have long been able to deal with that. But with
 software innovation, especially if done the Microsoft way, this is not
 the case. If a few people in an organization get a newer version of
 Office, and those on last years cannot read the documents they any more,
 then the organisation cannot just ignore that.
 
 Of course, it could tell people with the shiny new boxes to shape up
 and save their documents in last year's format, or a compatible one
 like html. But hey, "I am too stupid to understand all this technical
 stuff, I just click the 'Save' button, and it saves it. And I got this
 new computer setup with these easy to use features, and now you tell
 I should use it as if the stone age had never ended".
 
 Explaining why people should use compatible file formats costs time,
 at least two hours for every hour of explanation (one person to do
 the exxplaining, the other the listening). And all that because the
 employer is too mean to give everybody halfways decent kit. Why not
 save this time and spend a few cents on software - the others will
 have to upgrade eventually anyway.
 
 As far as innovation marketing goes, Microsoft's software upgrade
 strategy seems to me a lot closer to that of a glazier that pays
 thugs to smash windows than to that of a fashion designer or motor
 company that makes last years model obsolete.
 
 If there is free software available, than such a strategy does not
 work any more, its impossible to undercut the price of the free
 (as in beer) software, and where new features are actually wanted
 people will build them into free (as in GNU) software. And if there
 is a cost conscious Big User (like the state) going to use free
 software, then Microsoft's strategy is in tatters.
 
 About two years ago there was an initiative in Austria and Germany
 to ensure that public procurements consider an Open Source or free
 alternatve. I guess Jim Allchin wanted to remind us that the free
 software is now good enough for those who "do not understand all that
 technical stuff", and who "just want to get their work done".
 
 I, for one, would like to thank him for that.
 
                                 Thomas
 
 *   Why not use metric units and get it right first time, every time ?
 *
 *   email: cmaae47 @ imperial.ac.uk
 *   voice: +4420-7594-6912 (day)
 *   fax:   +4420-7594-6958
 *   snail: Thomas Sippel - Dau
 *          Linux Services Manager
 *          Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
 *          The Center for Computing Services
 *          Exhibition Road
 *          Kensington SW7 2BX
 *          Great Britain
 
    
    
                                                                          
    
    [21]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2001 [22]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/pageid=pageid=132-000-001-001
    3. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/
    4. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/security.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/kernel.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/dists.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/desktop.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/devel.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/commerce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/press.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/announce.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/history.php3
   13. http://lwn.net/2001/0308/bigpage.php3
   14. http://lwn.net/2001/0301/letters.php3
   15. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   16. http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html
   17. http://elven.org/saber/
   18. http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3064/1/
   19.
 http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010220/tc/microsoft_clarifies_exec_s_open-sour
 ce_concerns_1.html
   20. http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html#piu
   21. http://www.eklektix.com/
   22. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор