12 Apr 2000 sethcohn   » (Master)

schoen wrote:

... or you may be in a similar situation, and if you're in a situation like that, there's only one thing you can do, is walk into the Microsoft regional office wherever you are, just walk in, and say, "If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, Manufacturer and Microsoft Licensing, Inc. ("MS") are unwilling to license the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to you. In such event, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) for a refund." And walk out.

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and ignore it. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both open source 'freaks' and they'll ignore them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in, reciting the EULA, and walking out. Then they'll know they are all open source 'freaks'. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in reciting the EULA and walking out. And friends, they will lock the doors and demand you see the place where you bought your computer instead of them.

Much as I love Arlo, I think that they really don't care. I went to a M$ <cough>brainwash<cough> I mean, event recently, where they did the licensing song and dance, and they actually tried to claim that the W95/98 license was tied to the machine, so that if you scrapped a machine. you had to scrap the license also. I asked if I upgraded the CPU, or motherboard, or the hard drive, or the case, or any other part of that machine, was that ok instead? Yes. But if I just retired the old one and replaced the entire machine, that I needed a new license. Bill must believe in the soul of the machine beause that is the only answer I could find to explain how a new machine was different from a 100% upgraded one.

Wisdom Teeth
Long time ago, my dentist said my x-rays showed I had no buds for them. No wisdom teeth in my future. Course I might never get wise, but hey, pain isn't my thing.

Am I the only one who saw katzj and thought "oh $%!@, Jon Katz is here, look out for a /. story on Advogato, and the hordes to arrive to check it out."?

Is there any point in certifying people like alan if they are core people? Seems the systems trusts them implictly, at least for now, and that baring any abuse, or removing the artificial trust, it's a waste of time to connect back that way. Am I wrong here?

I rather enjoy the metatalk. So do Achilles and the Tortoise, though Egbert isn't crazy about it.

Saw a diary entry earlier, it's off the recent list, and I can't recall who wrote it. Advogato needs some sort of search engine...

Someone [let me know you are, please, so I can credit you]
In their diary, they wondered if the lack of knowledge others had in their field would stop/limit/effect certification of that group. I don't think so, for this reason: Code speaks for itself. If you put your code up on the net, it will get looked it and someone will acknowledge that. It should (from the way I read the metric system) mean that only 2 or 3 people would need to cert 2 or 3 of your small group and all of you would have fairly stable certifications if you certed each other.

[Correction - what I meant by 'stable' was not trusted. Assuming that your group wasn't trolling etc, that would be enough to not worry about flucuating ratings. You'd still 'stoppable' in the trust sense, if the system decided to 'cut the cords' to that set of nodes because of problems, which is how it should be. You'd have to be very close to the center of the community in order to be immune (i.e. supertrusted) from getting cut off.]

So even if you and five (or 25) friends hacked something very obscure, something none of the rest of us used or was very familiar with, it shouldn't be hard for 1 or more of you to get noticed by someone, especially if you are active here in your diary here (and if you aren't active, then who cares?), and someone to say "Yeah, looks like nice code to me, I'll vouch for them."

I think that is one of the major benefits of advogato: it's really focused on the community aspect, not on news, not on of the moment stuff (regardless of the microserf feel to the diaries), but the bigger picture. I can see a time when a mention in a diary will be really useful to find that obscure piece of code that you know exists out there, but you can't find it and you don't want to have to recode it.

As for non-code things, like documentation, or community leadership, both of those generate 'internal' certification. Documentation writers will (if nowhere else) get noticed by the coders who should be certified based on the code itself. Community leadership should generate it's own 'reward', both by the 'locals' and by the greater name recognition.

Speaking of which...

is that really Bruce? Time will tell.

Latest blog entries     Older blog entries

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!