|
Source availabilitySource availabilityPosted Jan 6, 2006 16:37 UTC (Fri) by Duncan (guest, #6647)In reply to: Source availability by corbet Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's Obviously Incorrect 2006 Predictions
I understand all you've said, and agree to some extent or I wouldn't have
(Log in to post comments)
Source availability Posted Jan 6, 2006 17:44 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] The thing that stands out to me (based on the length of your posts) is that Jon is busy and you're not. Don't you think your time would be better spent working on something yourself, instead of trying to get someone else who is already busy to do something you want done? Get you some perspective, man!
Source availability Posted Jan 6, 2006 18:00 UTC (Fri) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link] > Also know that this inconsistency bothers at least a few of us enough that it will eventually interfere with continued subscriptions,
Please learn to live in a democratic society. Given the poll
I'm damn sure the majority of the LWN subscribers would choose 2). Do you stop paying taxes or even leave the country only because the candidate you voted for didn't get the chair? Yes, as whoever said it (Churchill?) democracy is bad, but there is nothing better.
_I_ personally pay for the superb LWN content, and would object if part of my money goes to cover the burden of releasing the code instead of writing a new "Grumpy" article. There are literally thousands coders out there who are capable of doing the LWN machinery in a very reasonable amount of time, while there are very, very few and far between who can deliver the Linux coverage like the LWN staff does.
Source availability Posted Jan 7, 2006 16:21 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] Get up and stand on your own Duncan, use 'I' instead of 'we'. Fluffing your feathers to make yourself appear bigger is lame. Please don't include me in your "group".
Corbet has a mountain of work behind him that shows his committment to freedom.
P.S. Please put more content and less filler in your posts.
Source availability Posted Jan 9, 2006 22:02 UTC (Mon) by sbishop (subscriber, #33061) [Link] This rubbish made me so mad that I bumped up my subscription level... Corbet doesn't owe us anything!
Seconded Posted Jan 11, 2006 6:13 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] Same here, though I haven't *extended* my subscription just yet(Christmas cc bills...). If only I actually *was* a project leader... that would involve pulling out my own finger. Duncan, your threat of withdrawing your subscription is childish in the extreme. You subscribe to the content of the LWN publication; if you want the site code published that is completely separate work and you should offer Jon professional rates to do the job properly rather than having a tantrum. On the other hand, Jon, Duncan is right to point out that the site code was promised long ago and is still 'coming soon'. Three years ago it might have been cutting-edge and gathered a significant developer community; at this point (while it is still a delightfully clean interface) there are blog servers galore out there which have somewhat stolen the limelight from a developer's perspective. Rather than challenging you to put Duncan's money where his mouth is, I'll simply request that you conduct a straw poll on a timetable for eventual release of the site code. I'll tempt fate by suggesting an initial 'all rights reserved' subscriber-only release to assist in the security audit phase. It will be no surprise if you prefer not to do such a thing. Incidentally, there appears to be no licence granted by Eklektix for copying of LWN content. Is LWN content published on an 'all rights reserved' basis or have I missed a licence somewhere?
Seconded Posted Jan 11, 2006 9:34 UTC (Wed) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > Duncan, your threat of withdrawing your> subscription is childish in the extreme. > [I]f you want the site code published that > is completely separate work and you should > offer Jon professional rates to do the job > properly rather than having a tantrum. That's a reasonable argument, but it doesn't account for personal beliefs, childish or not. OK, I've trimmed this a bit but it's still long. Oh, well... I left MS after a decade for my beliefs in Freedom. I choose to run Linux, not one of BSDs, for those beliefs. I've had exchanges with people who demanded I stop calling proprietaryware slaveryware, for my beliefs in freedom. It came out that the folks requesting that believed in "Open Source" rather than "Free Software", as the argument goes. They said it wasn't worth sacrificing for, it was just a choice. I, OTOH, can't honestly say that I'd be willing to give my life for it as yet, as many of the US founding fathers gave their lives or those of their family and friends, but I equate it with the same principles, and think I /should/ be at that point -- it's FREEDOM at stake, after all, and I'm not at all sure that a life without that freedom to express myself would be worth living. I /have/ actually contemplated the possibility that acting in accordance with my beliefs may one day mean I have to choose between physical freedom, and freedom of mind and spirit. IOW, there may be a time when I'm imprisoned for my belief in Freedom, software or otherwise, and I've faced that possibility That's what I BELIEVE. If it's "childish" or "radical", so be it. However, a good portion of the reason I subscribed to LWN was because I believe in the message and service it does and can present to this community that for myriad personal reasons (not all directly parallel to mine, certainly) has happened to be supporting freedom in their actions, if not always their full beliefs. I've been rather more active onsite this year, but last year, there were several months I didn't get to LWN hardly at all. Still, I considered my subscription worth every penny, despite my not visiting at all that month, because of the message and service LWN provides to the community. Would that I /could/ provide those professional services you mention. I'd donate them in a heartbeat, no charge, because I /believe/ in the message. Meanwhile, LWN isn't presenting the clear clarion call of Freedom that it /could/ be presenting, because while the /words/ are there, the /actions/ have been partially missing for more than two years. If the promise hadn't been made, it would be one thing, but it /was/ made, and two years later, this representative of our community looks like it says one thing, but can't 100% support what it /says/ in actions. When I was last shopping for a mobo, I visited the sites of the front-runners. One had everything in what appeared to be sfx-exe slaveryware format. The docs, exes. The BIOS updates, exes. Everything, exes. They got an email saying exactly why they lost out on the sale, and, I'm told, now at least have the standard format documentation and BIOS update packages, not proprietaryware executables (altho their Linux support still sucks). Maybe my email had a part in that, maybe it didn't, but I sent it. The other (Tyan) not only provided standard PDF docs and zip file bios update packages, but they had Linux FAQ pages for most of their products, and provided lmsensors config files (plus slaveryware Linux drivers for some onboard chips, unfortunately, but you can't win them all). The choice was obvious. Same story with the last hard drives I bought. Of course SATA hard drives are pretty much standardized and "just work" in Linux. Still, one choice listed only MSWormOS releases as supported, the other listed a number of alternatives including Linux. You /know/ which one I ended up buying. When I switched to Linux, I ended up with Mandrake. About a year and a half later, I ended up switching to Gentoo, in part because I could no longer in good conscience support Mandrake with my money OR time and personal investment, because part of my investment would be going to support the slaveryware they licensed for their paid product. Given the above, it should be no surprise that I'm unable to in good conscience continue supporting LWN. Would that it were not so! Stating I can't, however, isn't a threat, it's a statement of fact, of belief, of following thru on that belief, as a man of principle doing his best to be a man of personal integrity. For those who can continue to support LWN and even up their subscriptions, more power too them and good for LWN! The service to the community, mixed message tho it may be, is still there. I'm glad someone can support them in it. Unfortunately, I cannot. For me personally, just as I had to jump ship from MS, just as I now cannot support NVidia, just as I had to switch from Mandrake, I have to, with regrets, pull my support for LWN, until its actions are once again in 100% agreement with the message it's promoting with its speech, a message I 100% believe in. It's not a choice for me. It has become a matter of acting in accordance with MY beliefs. If I were to fail to do so, LWN's actions wouldn't matter to me any more as I'd be the one whose words failed to agree with his actions, a man whose actions betrayed his belief. If being a man of belief, of personal integrity, is childish, then I'll gladly be childish, or radical, or whatever other label you choose. That's external, your choice, something I don't control. It doesn't change my internal beliefs or integrity, nor can it. I don't mean to offend, and in no way am I condemning others for not holding the same principles, as these are mine, others have their own, and I acknowledge that. This is, however, something I must do, or it'll be a failure of my integrity. That, BTW, is why it doesn't much concern me how cleaned up the code is, or what continuing support there may be, altho I agree a security audit is probably necessary for practical reasons. Clean code is good, but available code is better than unavailable code, clean or not. If it's unavailable, there's one person that can clean it. Once it's available, in whatever form, others at least have the /option/ of using it, cleaning it if necessary first, an option not available if the code isn't available. The promise was made, someone in the FLOSS community's word was given. It hasn't been delivered upon, and because that someone is held up as a representative of that community, the failure to deliver on that promise is a failure for the entire community. If I continue to support that representative as a spokesperson and beacon of that community, I too am at fault. It's my integrity called into question as well, the more so due to my continued support. Back to your post, however. I don't have the talent to donate to help the job get done, but that doesn't mean I'm unwilling to help, even tho I don't expect to ever make use of the code myself except as a website visitor. Admittedly, what I can provide is little more than a token amount, but this is something I believe in enough to do so. Jon has my personal contact info available, if he's interested, and I'll throw what I can in to help, meager tho it may be. I'm not asking for the code to appear immediately, as I recognize that's demanding the impossible, but some visible movement this year would be nice, and I think entirely reasonable. Duncan
Passion -- without understanding? Posted Jan 16, 2006 0:18 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] OK, I think everyone 'gets it' that you're passionate about software anddata freedom. But do you 'get it' that the LWN site code does not restrict your freedom in *any* way? If you used the LWN site code on your own machine, it would be perfectly understandable for you to want it to be Free Software. But you don't, the software is unreleased. Before the site code can safely be published it requires a thorough security audit -- anything less and it is not only the site's integrity and the publishers' servers which may be compromised but also (potentially) subscribers' financial details. I don't understand why you seem to think the release of the site software is a 'freedom' issue. It's not. Can you really be so worked up about a vague release timetable not adhered to?
Copying content Posted Jan 11, 2006 15:05 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] "Incidentally, there appears to be no licence granted by Eklektix for copying of LWN content. Is LWN content published on an 'all rights reserved' basis or have I missed a licence somewhere?" Another one of those "on the list" items. What we want to do is to put all non-subscription text under something like the CC attribution license. In this case, it's mostly a matter of sorting out copyright notices with guest author content (which they continue to own), stuff taken from the net, etc. Certainly, in every case where somebody has asked to republish content, we've let them - and we've not bugged those who just did it without asking. If I have my way, we'll be making some moves over the coming months to push some things forward and stop just running in place. Stay tuned.
|
Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Powered by Rackspace Managed Hosting.