SSS CD donations
Dave Smith
Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:54:19 -0700
If you are wondering how you can contribute to the club booth this week,
but you don't want to work at the booth, here's what you can do:
Donate a spindle of CD-Rs to the club. Just drop them off at 1140 TMCB. We
have the capability to burn a LOT of CDs really fast, but we don't have a
fast way to label them. I just got done labeling about 120 CD-Rs with my
sharpie marker. So, please label your CDs like so:
SSS 1.1 x86
uug.clubs.byu.edu
And for you who want to burn Mac CDs:
SSS 1.1 Mac
uug.clubs.byu.edu
Of course, if you don't have time to label them, we welcome un-lableled
CDs as well.
Thanks for everyone's contributions so far. We have burned and labeled
about 150 CDs. We will need much more than that for the booth, and we're
going to need plenty distro CDs as well.
UUG rocks!
--Dave
Re: SSS CD donations
Jacob Albretsen
Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:38:03 -0700
Do you have the SSS 1.1 somewhere where I can download it?
On Tuesday 17 September 2002 12:18 pm, Dave Smith asked of the Jedi Counsel:
> If you are wondering how you can contribute to the club booth this week,
> but you don't want to work at the booth, here's what you can do:
>
> Donate a spindle of CD-Rs to the club. Just drop them off at 1140 TMCB. We
> have the capability to burn a LOT of CDs really fast, but we don't have a
> fast way to label them. I just got done labeling about 120 CD-Rs with my
> sharpie marker. So, please label your CDs like so:
>
> SSS 1.1 x86
> uug.clubs.byu.edu
>
> And for you who want to burn Mac CDs:
>
> SSS 1.1 Mac
> uug.clubs.byu.edu
>
> Of course, if you don't have time to label them, we welcome un-lableled
> CDs as well.
>
> Thanks for everyone's contributions so far. We have burned and labeled
> about 150 CDs. We will need much more than that for the booth, and we're
> going to need plenty distro CDs as well.
>
> UUG rocks!
>
> --Dave
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the BYU UUG discussion mailing list, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the message body
> Visit the BYU UUG website at: http://uug.clubs.byu.edu/
--
Jacob Albretsen
Brigham Young University
Department of Physics and Astronomy
(801) 422-9291 || (801) 422-9272
[EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://astro2.byu.edu/~jake || http://www.xmission.com/~jakea
Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?
--Phil Hughes
Re: SSS CD donations
Frank Sorenson
Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:45:34 -0700
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, some Jacob Albretsen person said:
> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:02:34 -0600
> From: Jacob Albretsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SSS CD donations
>
> Do you have the SSS 1.1 somewhere where I can download it?
ftp://ftp/pub/iso/Software_for_Starving_Students/
> Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?
> --Phil Hughes
Sure. It's just as useful to me.
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Sorenson
CSR Computer Science Department
Brigham Young University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SSS CD donations
Michael Halcrow
Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:46:25 -0700
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 13:10, Frank Sorenson wrote:
> > Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?
> > --Phil Hughes
>
> Sure. It's just as useful to me.
>
> Frank
(sniff... sniff...) Ah! I smell an opportunity to fan the flames...
"Usefulness" is not the only metric by which we should judge the value
of computer software.
If the proverbial "hood" is "welded shut," this implies a number of
things:
- You are completely dependent upon the "dealer" to maintain the
vehicle. The dealerships maintain a proprietary oligopoly over car
maintenance, severely restricting the usefulness of independent
mechanics and driving the costs of maintenance up.
- If your "car" breaks down, no matter how trivial the problem or
extensive your skill, you cannot fix it yourself. You simply don't have
the option. You have to pay through the nose to get the dealer to fix it
for you, or never have it fixed.
- Anyone who wants to learn how to work on (or build) a car by
examining what's under the hood is denied the ability to do so, unless
he works for the car manufacturer.
- Anyone who wants to "hack" his "car" to get it to perform differently
than is was "designed" to perform -- simply can't.
My little brother has a hobby of souping up his exhaust system,
reprogramming the parameters for the embedded control system, and
tweaking the sound system. In a like manner, when I wish an application
had some simple feature that would make my life easier (another button
to add functionality, using a different host or port for network
communications, etc.), I'm SOL. We are all a little poorer for it.
Also, when I buy non-free software, I am locked into using it on the
terms of the developer. If they compiled it to run on the x86
architecture, and I decide to get a Motorolla or IBM chip (say, when DRM
is part of every modern Intel and AMD chip), my software becomes
useless. Even though compiling (well-written) software for another
architecture is becoming a trivial task (Gentoo, anyone?), since they
don't give me the source, it's too bad for me, unless they, in their
infinite wisdom and mercy, recompile their code to run on my
architecture. Um... I don't think so. I'll take the source, thank you
very much.
Mike
--
---------------------------------------- | ------------------------
Michael Halcrow | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Research Assistant, Network Security Lab | Dept. of Comp. Science
| Brigham Young University
What's another word for synonym? |
---------------------------------------- | ------------------------
Mid-September Flame-war #1
Frank Sorenson
Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:26:01 -0700
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, some Michael Halcrow person said:
> On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 13:10, Frank Sorenson wrote:
> > > Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?
> > > --Phil Hughes
> >
> > Sure. It's just as useful to me.
> >
> > Frank
>
> (sniff... sniff...) Ah! I smell an opportunity to fan the flames...
Adding scout water to the flames... Some people think that the reason I
don't like these philosophical discussions is because I don't have
opinions. Yes, I suppose I did start this discussion.
> "Usefulness" is not the only metric by which we should judge the value
> of computer software.
>
> If the proverbial "hood" is "welded shut," this implies a number of
> things:
>
> - You are completely dependent upon the "dealer" to maintain the
> vehicle. The dealerships maintain a proprietary oligopoly over car
> maintenance, severely restricting the usefulness of independent
> mechanics and driving the costs of maintenance up.
I can't do the work myself, and it is already the case that
independent mechanics are nearly useless. Many cars come with computers
that can only be deciphered by mechanics with expensive tools, and have
bolts that have shapes that only the manufacturer makes drivers for. In
addition, I purchased an extended warranty from the dealer, and it
actually costs (as in dollars) me less to return for service.
In the computer world, it is true that some things can be fixed or
modified to meet other needs. In general, however, even open-source
software has severe limitations as far as what can be done. For example,
I've submitted several feature patches to various open-source projects,
but nothing has really made it past the maintainer. I suppose maybe my
stuff wasn't that great, but I'm still very limited by the maintainer. I
could start my own stuff, but I don't have the time. I can keep hacking
the software, but if it's never incorporated into the real product, I have
to reinvent the fix every time.
> - If your "car" breaks down, no matter how trivial the problem or
> extensive your skill, you cannot fix it yourself. You simply don't have
> the option. You have to pay through the nose to get the dealer to fix it
> for you, or never have it fixed.
I either need to pay through the nose for the dealer to fix it, or pay
through the nose to receive the knowlege to fix it. Yes, in computers, I
can often fix the problem through my own coding, but I value my time as
well as my money, and economics says that division of labor is a good
idea.
I suppose I shouldn't ever take medication because I don't know everything
about the contents, and I don't have the components necessary to make it.
I could go to school to learn everything, and become a licensed pharmacist
(it doesn't sound too hard, but I'm really not that interested in it), but
I'd rather maintain 150 linux boxes and pay someone else to do the
pharmacy stuff.
> - Anyone who wants to learn how to work on (or build) a car by
> examining what's under the hood is denied the ability to do so, unless
> he works for the car manufacturer.
As it should be. The manufacturer put a lot of work, time, and money into
the car. They should be compensated, and shouldn't have to see everyone
else profit from their work.
> - Anyone who wants to "hack" his "car" to get it to perform differently
> than is was "designed" to perform -- simply can't.
>
> My little brother has a hobby of souping up his exhaust system,
> reprogramming the parameters for the embedded control system, and
> tweaking the sound system. In a like manner, when I wish an application
> had some simple feature that would make my life easier (another button
> to add functionality, using a different host or port for network
> communications, etc.), I'm SOL. We are all a little poorer for it.
Some hacking is wrong, not necessarily because the manufacturer claims it
should be, but because it creates a nuisance noise or causes extra
pollution, for example. That's why there are federal regulations for that
kind of stuff. In the software world, this could be things like messing
with the TCP stack to overload the network, or cause other problems.
> Also, when I buy non-free software, I am locked into using it on the
> terms of the developer. If they compiled it to run on the x86
> architecture, and I decide to get a Motorolla or IBM chip (say, when DRM
> is part of every modern Intel and AMD chip), my software becomes
> useless. Even though compiling (well-written) software for another
> architecture is becoming a trivial task (Gentoo, anyone?), since they
> don't give me the source, it's too bad for me, unless they, in their
> infinite wisdom and mercy, recompile their code to run on my
> architecture. Um... I don't think so. I'll take the source, thank you
> very much.
>
> Mike
I don't agree that developers should be limited to allowing people
(everyone) access. If they see a market for the Motorola chip, it is in
their best interest to make it available, but they should be able to
restrict what platforms their stuff runs on. They have a right to make a
buck, and people don't have a "right" to their stuff. Capitalism is
pretty cool that way.
Open source and free software (there, I separated the two :) are cool, but
not because I have extra "rights" or "freedom" with the stuff. They're
cool for me because I'm a cheapskate, and that I sometimes enjoy hacking
code up. When the software sucks (as I see with many open-source
projects), I prefer to use working programs, whether it costs (as in
money) or not. I prefer free as in "I can do the task I'm trying to do
because it works".
As far as free as in "I'm redefining free to mean freedom", I have been
using Linux since 1994, and computers in general since the late 70's, and
haven't felt that my "freedom" has been compromised until about the last
year. The only limits are due to open-source/"free software" people with
attitudes that limit my choice of software. If I choose software that
costs (as in dollars), that's generally because it's a better product for
my needs.
Moral arguments about the subject are bogus. There's nothing morally
wrong with making money, limiting what people can do with stuff I make, or
the entire concept of Intellectual Property. I'm not morally obligated to
support these concepts.
All that said, I will admit that I very much enjoy the fact that I can get
source code for many programs that I run, and that I'm able to change
things and recompile, etc. I also enjoy writing code that may be useful
to others. I also feel that I've been a relatively helpful supporter of
both the UUG and open source. I've encouraged my employees to open-source
what they do (and I've done similar[1]), because I believe it may be
helpful to other people.
I'd like to believe that I made the right choice when I pushed through a
switch in unix in the CS Department. We were using Solaris x86 and HP-UX,
but I convinced the right people that Linux was a better choice. The
reasons I gave then, I believe, are the same reasons as today. Moving to
Linux means that students can have a better (and cheaper) educational
experience since they can do their work at home. It means that we have a
much larger group of software packages that people can use. The HP-UX
boxes cost nearly $15K, so buying $1500 machines means that we can buy
more, and have lots more seats for students. It is also a lot easier to
maintain a linux box than either a Solaris box or HP-UX (not to mention
maintaining 150 of them). In short Linux is a better tool for the job.
If I'd tried to preach philosophy behind open-source, we'd still have 40
Solaris boxes.
In short, I think that the open-source movement is pretty cool, but I
don't agree with the tactics or philosophy behind it.
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Sorenson
CSR Computer Science Department
Brigham Young University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] When I write things, I usually consider them to be licensed under the
FSPL (Frank's Somewhat Public License or FPL for short). The FPL
basically says that you can't make fun of my coding style[2], or the
editor I used to write it[3] (what can I say, I'm insecure). You can
modify the code (I'd like to incorporate it back into the project if it's
good), but in general you can't redistribute what is mine. If you want to
build something based on it, you can use the code, but you have to retype
it (no copy & paste).
[2] Lines are indented 3 spaces, and braces start on the next line.
[3] Usually pico, except I've recently been teaching myself vi (I'm
finding it really kinda sucks). I used emacs for a year or two in the
late 90's, but that sucked too.
Re: Mid-September Philosophical Debate
Michael Halcrow
Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:46:49 -0700
First of all, this isn't a flame war. There is no name-calling or ill
will taking place among those involved. At least not from my side. This
is an academic forum hosted in an institute of higher learning. As such,
it is an appropriate place to discuss important issues at hand.
Flippantly dismissing anything of this sort as a "flame war" trivializes
the important topics that affect us all in our day-to-day lives.
Well, suffice it to say, Frank, that I am 100% polarized with you on
some of the points you make here. But that doesn't mean we can't still
be friends :-)
When it comes right down to it, based on my interpretation of some of
your comments, you're more in the Authoritarian camp, and I'm in the
Libertarian camp. What does this have to do with Unix, anyway? Well, the
GNU guys (without which Linux wouldn't even exist) have brought these
issues directly into the limelight with the GPL, because it threatens a
powerful plutocracy in place today. The result is that the members of
the plutocracy are lobbying for new government legislation to protect
their obsolete business model at the expense of our civil liberties.
Since we are the benefactors of Free Software, I submit that we would be
an ungrateful lot to just shut our eyes to the conflict and to assume a
position of mediocrity. If we do so, it could mean the death of Free
Software as we know it today.
Is anyone else here concerned about the fact that IT IS AGAINST THE LAW
to watch a DVD on your Linux box, under the Digital Millenium Copyright
Act (DMCA) of 1998? That's right. You are "circumventing copy
protection" to watch the DVD that you paid for on your computer, and
that makes you a CRIMINAL. This law has also impeded scientific progress
in the area of cryptography. It has been used to silence researchers,
computer scientists, and critics.
Think about it. This is real, passed and enforced legislation that hurts
the adoption of Free Software and Open Source software in a wide scale.
If a would-be Linux user were to walk up to the SSS booth today and ask
me if he could watch his DVD's in Linux, I would be obliged to respond,
"Um, no, but only because it's against the law."
>From what I see going on around me today (CBDTPA, DRM laws, etc.), it is
only getting worse.
> They have a right to make a
> buck, and people don't have a "right" to their stuff. Capitalism is
> pretty cool that way.
The reason that the DMCA was passed was because the plutocracy made an
appeal to the legislative branch stating, "We have a right to make a
buck!" That's about as far from Capitalism that you can get. They have
no more a "right to make a buck" by developing software than I have a
"right to make a buck" by standing outside and hopping on one leg. Just
because I work hard doesn't mean I should be paid. Capitalism dictates
that you make a buck if you provide a good or service that is in demand.
Period. Whether you have to work hard or not to provide your marketable
good or service is totally irrelavent.
The point where I start taking issue is where the government has to step
in and provide NEW legislation to maintain an obsolete business model.
That's the "Planned Market" approach, which is a cousin to the
Authoritarian political alignment.
And "hacking," in and of itself, is never "wrong." Suppressing a curious
student from exploring a technology by feeding him a skewed moral
argument is what's truly wrong.
If I decide to use my "hacking" disposition to gain unauthorized access
to a computer system, then there's no question that *that's* wrong. If I
cause a public nuisance by intentionally damaging a network, than that
can also be considered wrong. But I am an ethical person, and so I would
never use my knowledge and abilities to harm another person or to break
a moral law. I would be so bold as to suggest the same about my fellow
Honor Code abiding students at Brigham Young University.
If I am fed the philosophy that exploring new and different ways to use
technology in ways that weren't intended is wrong, and if that prevents
me from contributing to the technological advancement of our society,
*then* a true crime can been committed.
Mike
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 17:50, Frank Sorenson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, some Michael Halcrow person said:
> > On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 13:10, Frank Sorenson wrote:
> > > > Would you buy a car with the hood welded shut?
> > > > --Phil Hughes
> > >
> > > Sure. It's just as useful to me.
> > >
> > > Frank
> >
> > (sniff... sniff...) Ah! I smell an opportunity to fan the flames...
>
> Adding scout water to the flames... Some people think that the reason I
> don't like these philosophical discussions is because I don't have
> opinions. Yes, I suppose I did start this discussion.
>
> > "Usefulness" is not the only metric by which we should judge the value
> > of computer software.
> >
> > If the proverbial "hood" is "welded shut," this implies a number of
> > things:
> >
> > - You are completely dependent upon the "dealer" to maintain the
> > vehicle. The dealerships maintain a proprietary oligopoly over car
> > maintenance, severely restricting the usefulness of independent
> > mechanics and driving the costs of maintenance up.
>
> I can't do the work myself, and it is already the case that
> independent mechanics are nearly useless. Many cars come with computers
> that can only be deciphered by mechanics with expensive tools, and have
> bolts that have shapes that only the manufacturer makes drivers for. In
> addition, I purchased an extended warranty from the dealer, and it
> actually costs (as in dollars) me less to return for service.
>
> In the computer world, it is true that some things can be fixed or
> modified to meet other needs. In general, however, even open-source
> software has severe limitations as far as what can be done. For example,
> I've submitted several feature patches to various open-source projects,
> but nothing has really made it past the maintainer. I suppose maybe my
> stuff wasn't that great, but I'm still very limited by the maintainer. I
> could start my own stuff, but I don't have the time. I can keep hacking
> the software, but if it's never incorporated into the real product, I have
> to reinvent the fix every time.
>
> > - If your "car" breaks down, no matter how trivial the problem or
> > extensive your skill, you cannot fix it yourself. You simply don't have
> > the option. You have to pay through the nose to get the dealer to fix it
> > for you, or never have it fixed.
>
> I either need to pay through the nose for the dealer to fix it, or pay
> through the nose to receive the knowlege to fix it. Yes, in computers, I
> can often fix the problem through my own coding, but I value my time as
> well as my money, and economics says that division of labor is a good
> idea.
>
> I suppose I shouldn't ever take medication because I don't know everything
> about the contents, and I don't have the components necessary to make it.
> I could go to school to learn everything, and become a licensed pharmacist
> (it doesn't sound too hard, but I'm really not that interested in it), but
> I'd rather maintain 150 linux boxes and pay someone else to do the
> pharmacy stuff.
>
> > - Anyone who wants to learn how to work on (or build) a car by
> > examining what's under the hood is denied the ability to do so, unless
> > he works for the car manufacturer.
>
> As it should be. The manufacturer put a lot of work, time, and money into
> the car. They should be compensated, and shouldn't have to see everyone
> else profit from their work.
>
> > - Anyone who wants to "hack" his "car" to get it to perform differently
> > than is was "designed" to perform -- simply can't.
> >
> > My little brother has a hobby of souping up his exhaust system,
> > reprogramming the parameters for the embedded control system, and
> > tweaking the sound system. In a like manner, when I wish an application
> > had some simple feature that would make my life easier (another button
> > to add functionality, using a different host or port for network
> > communications, etc.), I'm SOL. We are all a little poorer for it.
>
> Some hacking is wrong, not necessarily because the manufacturer claims it
> should be, but because it creates a nuisance noise or causes extra
> pollution, for example. That's why there are federal regulations for that
> kind of stuff. In the software world, this could be things like messing
> with the TCP stack to overload the network, or cause other problems.
>
> > Also, when I buy non-free software, I am locked into using it on the
> > terms of the developer. If they compiled it to run on the x86
> > architecture, and I decide to get a Motorolla or IBM chip (say, when DRM
> > is part of every modern Intel and AMD chip), my software becomes
> > useless. Even though compiling (well-written) software for another
> > architecture is becoming a trivial task (Gentoo, anyone?), since they
> > don't give me the source, it's too bad for me, unless they, in their
> > infinite wisdom and mercy, recompile their code to run on my
> > architecture. Um... I don't think so. I'll take the source, thank you
> > very much.
> >
> > Mike
>
> I don't agree that developers should be limited to allowing people
> (everyone) access. If they see a market for the Motorola chip, it is in
> their best interest to make it available, but they should be able to
> restrict what platforms their stuff runs on. They have a right to make a
> buck, and people don't have a "right" to their stuff. Capitalism is
> pretty cool that way.
>
> Open source and free software (there, I separated the two :) are cool, but
> not because I have extra "rights" or "freedom" with the stuff. They're
> cool for me because I'm a cheapskate, and that I sometimes enjoy hacking
> code up. When the software sucks (as I see with many open-source
> projects), I prefer to use working programs, whether it costs (as in
> money) or not. I prefer free as in "I can do the task I'm trying to do
> because it works".
>
> As far as free as in "I'm redefining free to mean freedom", I have been
> using Linux since 1994, and computers in general since the late 70's, and
> haven't felt that my "freedom" has been compromised until about the last
> year. The only limits are due to open-source/"free software" people with
> attitudes that limit my choice of software. If I choose software that
> costs (as in dollars), that's generally because it's a better product for
> my needs.
>
> Moral arguments about the subject are bogus. There's nothing morally
> wrong with making money, limiting what people can do with stuff I make, or
> the entire concept of Intellectual Property. I'm not morally obligated to
> support these concepts.
>
> All that said, I will admit that I very much enjoy the fact that I can get
> source code for many programs that I run, and that I'm able to change
> things and recompile, etc. I also enjoy writing code that may be useful
> to others. I also feel that I've been a relatively helpful supporter of
> both the UUG and open source. I've encouraged my employees to open-source
> what they do (and I've done similar[1]), because I believe it may be
> helpful to other people.
>
> I'd like to believe that I made the right choice when I pushed through a
> switch in unix in the CS Department. We were using Solaris x86 and HP-UX,
> but I convinced the right people that Linux was a better choice. The
> reasons I gave then, I believe, are the same reasons as today. Moving to
> Linux means that students can have a better (and cheaper) educational
> experience since they can do their work at home. It means that we have a
> much larger group of software packages that people can use. The HP-UX
> boxes cost nearly $15K, so buying $1500 machines means that we can buy
> more, and have lots more seats for students. It is also a lot easier to
> maintain a linux box than either a Solaris box or HP-UX (not to mention
> maintaining 150 of them). In short Linux is a better tool for the job.
> If I'd tried to preach philosophy behind open-source, we'd still have 40
> Solaris boxes.
>
> In short, I think that the open-source movement is pretty cool, but I
> don't agree with the tactics or philosophy behind it.
>
> Frank
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Frank Sorenson
> CSR Computer Science Department
> Brigham Young University
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [1] When I write things, I usually consider them to be licensed under the
> FSPL (Frank's Somewhat Public License or FPL for short). The FPL
> basically says that you can't make fun of my coding style[2], or the
> editor I used to write it[3] (what can I say, I'm insecure). You can
> modify the code (I'd like to incorporate it back into the project if it's
> good), but in general you can't redistribute what is mine. If you want to
> build something based on it, you can use the code, but you have to retype
> it (no copy & paste).
>
> [2] Lines are indented 3 spaces, and braces start on the next line.
>
> [3] Usually pico, except I've recently been teaching myself vi (I'm
> finding it really kinda sucks). I used emacs for a year or two in the
> late 90's, but that sucked too.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the BYU UUG discussion mailing list, send email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the message body
> Visit the BYU UUG website at: http://uug.clubs.byu.edu/
--
---------------------------------------- | ------------------------
Michael Halcrow | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Research Assistant, Network Security Lab | Dept. of Comp. Science
| Brigham Young University
"Computers are useless. They can only |
give you answers." |
- Pablo Picasso |
---------------------------------------- | ------------------------