What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
91 Comments
- blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26And to think, all this time I thought his name was Linus...guess I was wrong.
- mikeroySoft, on 10/19/2009, -6/+26Linux didn't spark a revolution. The GNU project did, they just needed a kernel that didnt suck, and up stepped dear old Linus. He's not a trend setter, he's an oppertunist.
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25Let us not forget the the openness, as well as the low barrier to entry into the Web, is that which facilitates truth. Blog software and hosts, for example, make extensive use of Free software. Everyone gets a voice without having to be wealthy. It hurts corrupt governments and companies and leads to general enlightenment, at the expense of censorship and brainwash.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Wtf... Some of the comments in this thread are disturbing. Truth and reality are not democracies, people.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Let me elaborate. I am a professional software engineer. They pay me to write software. I also write Free Software.
Incidentally, the Free Software work, in my case, has tended to impress potential employers a lot more than my commercial work history.
Commercial: Boring business applications
FreeSoftware: Interesting work with cutting-edge technologies and platforms - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17@schestowitz
I don't understand. Where in your post do you explain how this "low barrier" facilitates truth? It does nothing of the sort. All this does is give us more flavors of lies and stupidity.
The masses are not paragons of wisdom and virtue.
What I really want someone to explain to me is what democracy has to do with knowledge. Democracy is about personal opinions and priorities, it has nothing to do with knowledge.
I'm not saying I object to openness, I just don't want people getting the wrong idea about what it represents. The "little guy" lies too. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@lordmetroid
"No the definition of democracy is 2 wolfs and 1 sheep deciding for what to have for dinner!
Free speech = Unalienable human right"
Excellent example. Democracy is majority rule, nothing more. It says nothing about right or wrong, good or bad, true or false. The majority here probably agrees that Open Source is about democracy but that fact alone doesn't make it true. - Irimi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Also, democratizing perception and moving it closer to the truth, whatever that may be.
- gamerfreak42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Poor Linux, it must have been painful for him to grow up into an operating system, all these people coding him all the time..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10It's Linus Torvalds, NOT Linux Torvalds...
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7People who want to charge a tariff on knowledge and stop humanity sharing it would presumably also stand against the existence of libraries, or the fact that the peasants were ever allowed to learn to read instead of just the priests.
Our universities would be empty, and they would oppose the concept of peer review and scientific collaboration because they wanted their country, their university or whatever to "win". The different countries around the world would have been denied all of that important literature at times when we were awakening to intellectual pursuits.
Under such circumstances, that mindset would have stood in the way of almost every act of scientific or social progress we've made in the last thousand years or so, including stuff like modern computing - and certainly would be responsible for many deaths through disease and/or ignorance.
Such people could certainly be considered the enemies of humanity, not just democracy and freedom. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8'"Impressing potential employers" doesn't pay the landlord at the end of the month.'
Haha, you're joking, right? I pity you if you're really that short-sighted.
Impressing potential employers -> Getting nice job -> Paying the landlord + saving -> Buying a house and not paying a landlord anymore - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I am the average man. I am also a Free Software developer. I'm not the least bit afraid of losing my job.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@naio21: Take a quick look at your digg history, note the overwhelming trend of pro-Microsoft, anti-Linux, anti-Apple articles, and then tell me who the "fanboy" is.
http://digg.com/users/naio21/news/dugg - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"I agree 100 percent. I need money to pay my bills and I won't get that by writing software for free.
Say my kitchen is dirty at the moment, why doesn't someone start up the Free House Cleaning foundation"
Let's say that I know how to read. Should I teach this to someone for free? Won't that kill all the teaching jobs? Will you teach your children about crossing the road and how not to get hit by a car...or will you leave that up to the teachers so that they don't lose their jobs. I think that maybe you can use your skills as a programmer to make money from what your programs can do and not that you made them. Nursing is a booming field these days.
Why must everything we do be for profit? Going for a walk doesnt pay the bills either. Should money be easier to get or are you worried that it won't always be? Maybe end up like everyone else who doens't know how to program? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Haha. "Linux" Torvalds.... priceless. Kids these days.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7There's this cool feature on Digg called "Who Dugg Or Blogged This?"
Might want to check it out sometime. - Homunculiheaded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Open Source is an amazing first step, but Open Access is essential to truly evening the playing field for information. So much scholarly communication and research is absolutely inaccessible to the public and sold back to the institutions that produced the work at ridiculous fees.
Remember that all the writing, editing, peer-reviewing etc for most scholarly journals is done free, but somehow the publisher can make a huge profit from selling that information back. And also realize that a lot of the research funding comes out of your taxes, so why should you have to pay thousands of dollars to access the journals?
If you're interested in reading more here's a link to Cornell's very good page on the topic.
http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/StatementOnCrisis.htm - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Do us a favor, practice what you preach and stop posting on digg since it uses the communist linux OS.
- unsolicited, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The extraordinary aspect is Linus Torvalds altruism as a student in 1991.
- jownz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@naio21
Then you, my friend, are not an IT professional. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"People do get rich off Open source. People in Corporatations do. They use free software, make millions if not billions, without having to pay for the development of the software they use (steal). Young idealistic fools, apparently without mortgages or children to feed do their slave work, and tout open source as the magic bullet!"
Actually, they make money from value-added services, such as support; the software itself is, of course, free of charge. And they often do pay for the development of the software, by hiring developers to maintain the software and add new features that their customers want. Look at IBM, Novell, and RedHat -- they employ quite a lot of FOSS developers.
Most FOSS developers are either paid by their employer to work on FOSS, or work on it on their own time, alongside their day job which pays the bills. Often the day job even involves writing closed-source software, for in-house or specialized applications where the open-source model wouldn't work well. I don't know where you get the idea that anyone who develops FOSS is an unemployed idealistic fool. - zirconx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@ranumm
You sound like the recording industry, crying "We're not making as much money as we used to because there are other options available!" There are lots of ways to make money in IT, either completely aside from open source, or using open source.
You have a point in that some paid development work is lost because free solutions are available. But it also creates other opportunities. In the big picture I think we are 100x better off having open source solutions available. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Wtf... Some of the comments in this thread are disturbing. Truth and reality are not democracies, people."
True...try setting the clock by vote (idea from the movie Manderlay) - masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5...Or rather 'truthiness.'
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"""GNU didn't develop anything, they presented a new copyright license. GNU didn't write code, a person wrote code. GNU didn't invent any technology used today, they enabled sharing of information under a set of moral ideas. GNU is a license period, it didn't invent any new code it simply is a license, and the GNU organization is simply an organization of people who hold the copyright to licenses individuals have turned over to them."""
Well that's weird, because I thought GNU was the "GNU's Not Unix" operating system project with lots of software under its wing, that had been around for donkey's years, and the "GPL" was the license it used.
I also thought there were thousands of GNU software packages, and that I had contributed to some of them personally, which I must be imagining. Weird, eh?
You appear to have misunderstood what GNU is:
The GNU Operating System: http://www.gnu.org/
Official GNU software: http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/
Good reading. :-) - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I stick with Linux and find the GNU/Linux arguments tedious, mundane, and childish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Linux back then was a small, half-working pet project written by a college student, that he wanted some feedback on. It's not like he coded up the 2.6.20 kernel back in 1991 and deigned to dish it out piece-by-piece over the course of fiftteen years knowing that a multi-billion-dollar industry would grow around it.
Releasing a program to the public can't really be called "altruism" when you don't really think it has much value in the first place. (It was, however, a good engineering decision.) - PotatoSalad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If knowledge was decided by many of the people that I've met, we'd all be in serious trouble. Democracy's tendency to turn into mob rule (no matter how stupid or wrong that mob is) does always make for a good thing.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ranumm
Redhat gives source code to the OS world(linux kernel, userland apps). Google contributes to the community. People take and they give a litte. With all these people giving a little, big things happen. Andrew Morton, Linus Torvalds, redhat and google employees can all pay their mortgages. You can either whine or get on board. No one is being exploited here. - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11No the definition of democracy is 2 wolfs and 1 sheep deciding for what to have for dinner!
Free speech = Unalienable human right - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"""People who support open-source are short-sighted, just like the communists."""
Pah, let's face it, people making money in the FOSS world are probably ten times the capitalist you will ever be, or you wouldn't be whining about it in this way.
Add to that the concepts of freedom, egalitarianism, competition and democracy that run through the principles and the licenses of open source and you have what I consider to be a pure expression of democracy, not "communism".
If you can't take the heat of competition, get out of the kitchen.
If you hate people sharing their own knowledge and work without your control, get out of the KGB.
PS: If I heard you saying this whiny crap in real life, the temptation to say "STFU and wax my car again *properly* or you don't get your dime" would probably be too strong, even though I'd sound like an ass. ;-P - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Like communism, it might sound good in theory, but it doesn't work in reality. Capitalism (== closed sourced) still rules the world's economy."
You say that as a poor, broke bitter person, meanwhile capitalists from google, digg, mysql, redhat, etc etc get rich off of open source. Or are they really just rich communists who need their wealth confiscated? Or maybe this is a new form of capitalism where money is made from services instead of selling shrinkwrapped products? In any case, it looks like you missed the boat on this one.. again.
Enjoy your poverty and bitterness, I truly pity you. - WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@tdci100
No, free speech is a *necessary component* of democracy, it does not *equal* democracy. A tyrant can allow people to freely express themselves.
Democracy means voting on issues or for representatives. While a free and meaningful democratic process does require the freedom to express our views, free speech is not in fact the central feature of democracy... the vote is. Equating free speech to democracy is just false.
And since when does the sharing of opinions have anything to do with knowledge? Majority opinion neither determines nor reflects truth. In fact, if we stick to the true meaning of the word opinion (as apposed to how it is often used to mean "a belief concerning a potential fact") then an opinion is NEVER a matter of fact... opinions are subjective, facts (which is what true knowledge is composed of) is objective. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5 I see the founders of digg are doing pretty well using open source software(php+linux). Google uses linux and open source, I hear they're doing pretty well too.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4InsaneGeek, you're not making much sense. GNU is a project whose goal is to write a free Unix-like operating system. Most of their software is released under a license which they call the "General Public License", but the GPL is not the entirety of GNU. It's completely wrong to say that "GNU didn't develop anything", and entirely fair to credit the GNU project for writing large parts of what we know as GNU/Linux. Their mistake was in choosing a name that's annoying to pronounce; people call the system "Linux" because that's much easier to say.
Yes, all the GNU software was written by people. Those people are acting as part of the project when they work on the software, so we say the software is written by GNU. Just like we say Windows was written by Microsoft, when it was in fact written by people who just happen to *work* for Microsoft. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@fyre:
Perhaps. Linus didn't step up; he was busy building a better terminal emulator. The Linux Kernel, as it became called, is just a well-written example of what happens when everybody wants to add some functionality. - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Commercial: Boring business applications
FreeSoftware: Interesting work with cutting-edge technologies and platforms"
It is like people who are studying to become teachers and to masters work to teach college courses. Opensource can keep programmers fresh. - kavaliro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Geez, that's a 10-pound buzzphrase in a 5-pound bag. Of course, it came from Redhat's Marketing Director, so what should I have expected?
But I must admit that the point is somewhat valid, if slanted. While it's not Linux specifically that's "democratizing knowledge," it is the ideals upon which Linux was built: the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement. You see the "democratization of knowledge" every day: Wikipedia (the best example, probably), Everything2, Project Gutenberg, Sourceforge, the various p2p networks, and of course, blogs. In fact, you could even argue that democracy's only safe haven lately has been these projects and networks. It's certainly taking a beating from the current Whitehouse Administration.
But I wouldn't point specifically at Linux and say, "That's where it all came from." I'd look more toward the likes of Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond. Linux just happened to be the first fruit of that democracy. - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5How about communitizing? Oh, but community doesn't have the same negative overtones as communism, so obviously that won't do.
- sirhomer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Is someone hiring naio23 to post on digg?
@naio23
spending 12 hours on digg per day doesn't pay the bills either, but apparently you live in your mom's basement and thus are clueless - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@"True...try setting the clock by vote"
Technically we did: www.time.gov/about.html
"This public service is cooperatively provided by the two time agencies of the United States: a Department of Commerce agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and its military counterpart, the U. S. Naval Observatory (USNO). "
And we still technically vote for people who appoint and hire and pass laws on time governance. So yeah... Technically what time it is is based on democracy. (Or at least my taxes go to pay for their paychecks) - bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Are you implying that one kernel is bloated and the other is not?
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"An architectural blueprint is the knowledge required to create a building."
A blueprint is instructions for assembling a particular building. A carpenter doesn't become an architect or an engineer by looking at blueprints. Such a transition requires "knowledge" that is not found on any blueprint. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ngsayjoe:
"Open-source software kills innovation. Why do you think there's patent law, IP law, copyright law? How do all these laws apply in the open-source world? People who support open-source are short-sighted, just like the communists."
Patents and copyrights exist because some people wouldn't innovate without them. Not because nobody would. They're an incentive; not everyone needs the incentive. Some people just enjoy making computers do nifty new things.
Patents and copyrights apply to open-source software just like they do to all other software. Copyrights, for example, are the reason why nobody can make their own proprietrary, closed-source fork of Linux.
Open-source *encourages* innovation by giving people a free platform on which to innovate. It's a lot easier to try out a unique new idea when you don't have to spend thousands on license fees before you can even get started. Google runs Linux on clusters of thousands of small cheap servers; where would they be now if they couldn't even get off the ground as a startup because they couldn't afford enough Windows Server licenses? - Dmitrik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ngsayjoe
"Stop wearing your clothes, driving your cars, reading your magazines, using your computers, as all contain copyright materials which are manufactured by your so called *evil* companies practicing proprietary business methods."
Material things cost money. Knowledge doesn't.
That was the most ignorant anti-open-source statement I've ever heard. - spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Democratising is democratizing spelling.
- JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Source code is not knowledge. Source code is implementation; it's an engineering product, it's a blueprint for creating software.
Imparting knowledge by example alone is not particularly effective. We don't teach structural engineers just by showing them blueprints for the Eiffel Tower. We don't teach electrical engineers just by showing them schematics for an iPod. And we shouldn't be teaching programmers just by showing them Linux source code.
True "knowledge" is independent of any particular example. Sorry, instead of democratizing knowledge, what Open Source is actually doing is socializing implementations. And in many cases, these implementations are work-alike clones of pre-existing products. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Altruism? Maybe. I'd say that he was simply following in his father's footsteps with regard to social and political ideology.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"""Really?"""
Yes.
"""If I know how to follow and implement a recipe, that makes me a chef?"""
No, it makes you someone who knows (your choice of word) a recipe. Why would it make you a chef?
"""If I know how to implement a color copy of the Mona Lisa, that makes me an artist?"""
No, it makes you someone who knows how to make a colour copy. Why would it make you an artist?
"""If I know how to compile Linux from source, that makes me a programmer?"""
No, it makes you someone who knows how to compile Linux from source. Why would it make you a programmer?
You've invented a distinction that doesn't exist, and you've used the verb "know" in every example above. How you know the things without the involvement of a piece of knowledge somewhere in the process, I don't know. -
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is