I know that there’s a number of readers who don’t like it when OSnews covers political topics, I’m one of them. These political upheavals however spell danger for operating system hobbyists and so I dedicate this article to framing the political news within the context of what we are here to read about: operating systems.
Of Brands
What is beautiful about computing in general is that everything is open and free for information to travel until
restrictions are placed in the way. Before a programmer has written a line of code [he] has a blank canvas
of pure openness and it is boundaries that [he] creates to shape and to direct the flow of information.
The operating systems we use therefore are as open or closed as those who choose it to be so. Sony chose to remove
the Other OS feature from the PS3. Carriers chose to prevent rooting of their mobile devices. These restrictions did
not come by default from their hardware and from their software, they had to be actively placed in.
With the Internet, we have been given a network of such a chaotic and naturally open nature that it is impossible to
think how such a thing could have come about in the first place. What company in their right mind would agree to
route the unknown, random, and legally unvetted traffic of everybody else, with no agreement or payment from the
originator?
Any operating system is allowed to participate on this network without first getting an agreement with the network
operator (who would not be interested in anything that didn’t make them money). Would Haiku OS get anywhere if
before it could connect to the Internet it would have to produce a sales pitch to AT&T for them to decide if
this would be a worthwhile product on their network to generate income for their network services?
All this political hoo-hah going on has highlighted that all around the open and chaotic core of the Internet the
fringes are not open, are not chaotic. Large corporations have shown that with little difficulty—and with less
reason—they can effectively cut off websites from operating. Over-reaction seems to be the norm, anything that
falls into a legal “grey area†is safer to remove (citing ToS / T&Cs) than to keep and allow the actual
legality be determined. So panicked are they to protect their brand’s image that the end user does not enter into
consideration.
That means you, hobbyists and tinkers, are perceived as a threat to brand integrity.
You may not install your operating system of choice on a device because that may bring the manufacturer’s brand
into disrepute.
There will not be for sale any material that may bring the manufacturer’s brand into disrepute. The Internet is
not a brand so therefore “little Johnny Dogood got porn from the Internet!†is not a problem, when “little
Johnny Dogood got porn from the Google Android Marketplace!†is.
We are seeing an industry-wide, lateral, fear-induced lock down of user freedoms in the name of brand identity. When
the desktop has faded away and you can no longer purchase any kind of computing device that freely allows you to
install your own operating system (because someone might abuse the wireless network), then alternative
operating systems themselves become the next fear-induced target.
‘Why are people circumventing protection measures put in place to protect the integrity of the network and ensure
the safety of all users against cyber attacks, so as to install their own software, when everything they need is
already provided and anything they want to run is not allowed in the app stores because it’s “illegal†or
unsavoury?’ they will say.
When running your OS of choice is no longer a majority, and when doing so prompts “isn’t that illegal?â€
questions of ignorance then alternative operating systems will become a niche not designed to solve the needs of
everybody, but to solve the wants of the technical elite.
Now I admit that I am fear-mongering myself, but you must understand that the constant pursuit of profits produces a
hive mind effect whose results are not equal to any individual’s input. The individual thinks it’s reasonable
for people to choose music appropriate to their tastes and age. But add money into the equation and the hive mind
says that all music must be sanitised so as to not upset any of the paying customers.
My point here is that it is neither Apple’s or Google’s express intention to create a world where all the good
benefits of alternative operating systems do not exist, but that is what will happen.
When Google create a web app store that only works with Google Chrome they are only looking after their own
interests. The fact that this could eventually prevent others from innovating outside of Google’s influence is not
the intention of the individual Googler; they all love the open, unpredictable and awesome web.
Of WikiLeaks
Getting on to WikiLeaks. The world’s governments and mega corporations have been playing a lot of inside
baseball. The secretary at the front door of Shell might not agree that it’s ethical for Shell to be operating
inside the Nigerian government, but then she doesn’t need to know that and it is still achieved otherwise. The
stock holder’s demand to see not steady profits, but always increasing profits means that morals are not part of
the equation. The only way they can achieve this without damaging the brand identity is through secrecy of
information.
Because our computing hardware and our computing services are wholly dependent upon brand-aware companies, the
necessity to maintain secrecy of information has been filtering down to what is available to us in the shops and
what services we use on the web.
When the device you purchase is closed, and the operating system it comes with is also closed, and the apps you use
on it are closed, that operate with a closed service through a closed API, then at any point in this chain your
choice to pass information on can be vetoed without reason, without justification and without any recourse on your
part. The ability to spread information could be cut off with no more reason than that “we don’t like itâ€.
BitTorrent represents a software, network-level chaotic natured force mimicking the hardware of the Internet. I can
quite easily see BitTorrent like concepts being the backbone of the next tier of the Internet to come, but the next
generation of hobby operating systems — on mobile devices — may not get far at all if AT&T can say that
anybody using an alternative operating system on a mobile device on their network is a threat to “network
stability†and won’t be tolerated.
The chaotic nature of Internet hardware is what allowed WikiLeaks to operate, and to continue to operate despite the
best efforts of governments, but the software is not chaotic enough — anything that which was commercially
provided under contract specifically to WikiLeaks was taken down; that was the extent of the American government’s
power, but they could not just switch off the Internet hardware because there is no contract, no agreement with
WikiLeaks between peering points on the Internet.
With BitTorrent there is no agreement, no contract between the sender and the receiver. BitTorrent cannot just be
switched off. It is necessary if we are to see a free and open web, seen through the vestiges of all kinds of
operating systems, that information cannot simply be “switched off†because one government takes a dislike to
it. We need a DNS system that switching off one website will also see the loss of half of the Internet. We need a
money transfer system that cannot be switched off to prevent donations to one activist organisation without also
killing the revenue flow of big companies.
What WikiLeaks has shown us tech enthusiasts is that governments and large corporations are playing a game of
‘ring-a-round the Internet’. Willingly, or unwillingly tying our very ability to communicate with each other to
a set of Terms of Service and throwing their hands up and denying everything when calls of censorship arise. If
WikiLeaks could not do what it does, then governments could continue unabated in censorship that would, without
doubt, extend eventually to all devices in a way that would easily effect you who—at this moment—have no
interest in WikiLeaks. We’ve seen it with DRM, with the industry’s pressure to secure video transmission from
end to end. In order to watch a Blu-Ray film you now require an encrypted media path from optical drive to graphics
card, to software, to cable, to screen. Crazy, just crazy. Hackers may have beaten this system, but that hasn’t
prevented HDCP graphics cards being common. It hasn’t stopped HDCP being common. It hasn’t stopped what the
consumer buys when they go to the shops requiring this.
At OSNews, we’d very much like to read and write about hobbyist operating system projects for mobile devices. I
myself have stayed clear of smart phones thus far because the interfaces do not suit my requirements and I’d prefer
to design something myself. If I were a C programmer rather than a web author I would already be working on my own
mobile phone OS. Right now, I am severely limited in mobile devices in which I can install my own operating system.
It is no longer the norm.
That should terrify you.
OSNews cannot avoid the political happenings of the world if it means that there won’t be interesting news about
operating systems coming out to discuss in the first place. “Upgrade to commercial OS version n+1! — new
feature: Twitter client†is boring.
Nor do I want to report about the constant cat and mouse game of jailbreaking. That is not news. That’s a
happening that tells us nothing about innovative operating system design except the ability to waste a lot of time
and money on DRM.
I want to hear about the one guy who looked at what was in the market, and said “No, It can be betterâ€. I want
to hear about the guy who made a real difference to people’s lives by clobbering together a solution to a real
problem out of what was available out there (e.g. Ushahidi).
Other engineering disciplines have been around for thousands of years, and computing has only just begun in that
regard. There was political upheaval at the introduction of the printing press. The powers that be feared its
ability to disseminate information and tried to put a stop to it. There is no difference to what we are experiencing
today. Eventually these powers will pass away because they do not serve us.
OSNews will continue to report on political issues that ultimately affect your ability to use whatever hardware and
software you choose to access our content. The editors write and publish stories within their field of knowledge, so
it is likely that wide-ranging topics such as political stories are easier covered by any one of the staff. We ask
that you combat any flood of political stories by using your interest in operating systems to find and submit news
of other more technical happenings out there as described by you.
but that’s the strangest, most rambling piece I’ve ever read on OSnews. I’ve read it twice now and still can’t work out what the overarching point is meant to be.
No, nor I actually. I have too much on my mind, will probably remove this and try again.
Actually, it was quite a enjoyable read. Everything you said about mega-corporations, governments etc. is correct. They all want complete control of information and therefore us, as they can then control what we say, do and think. It is an issue that effects us all no matter which corner of the planet you live in and as such it is an issue not only “worthy” of reporting on, but “demands” it.
As you say, things like this not only effect the political arena but it also spills out all over everything that your average consumer will use including computer software, hardware and the use of the internet. I see no harm in reporting on these issues through OSnews or anywhere else. As already said, it is an issue that effects us all.
I enjoyed it. Nice one.
Wouldn’t that be censoring your own content! I’m gonna torrent this out to everyone ASAP if you do that
I disagree with this criticism entirely. I think it’s one of the best pieces I’ve read on here in ages.
If you’d bothered to look at the dates of my post, Kroc’s reply, and the date on the article, you might have realised that I was referring to an earlier version that was pulled for revision.
The new version is much clearer than the initial one.
It makes me want to post something off-topic ;-}.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
1. Anarchy is a component of Liberty;
2. Google don’t need to open their store to others, others need to open their store and not allow Google Apps in.
01. More articles about Ubuntu “point” releases
02. Reasons why the latest Fedora theme blows/rocks
03. Why the BSD license is actually freer, although written by demons
04. Dutch journalist caught with nude pictures of Unicorns
05. EBDIC, more EBDIC
06. Why OSNews is not afraid of Anonymous – bring it on!
07. How Fiona’s personal life impact the computer industry
08. More ways we could customize the moderation system
09. Create a custom Linux distro for your town – e.g. Hobokenux
10. Windows Genuine Advantage – can I get it on this??
But that folder is encry…
Hey look, a pretty butterfly!
Edited 2010-12-10 16:28 UTC
‘Corn Porn!
(‘Corn Porn with a Horn)
Thank you for the morning chuckle!
I learned something new on OSNews! I was taught it was EBCDIC so I was going to correct you, then I googled and found out it is correct both ways (apparently because of the dash).
[article]
Seriously tho’, I see what you are talking about, how it is all intertwined. I think it is a reaching a little but certainly not untrue. I peruse ARS and NeoWin as well and OSNews certainly adds their own flavor and take on current events – so it is worth reading.
Oh my! Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had for a while.
–
Is that a hint that you have to search for the unicorns across the border somewhere just south of Antwerp? I must say I haven’t seen any over there in Hoboken.
I didn’t know you were from New Jersey…
Thanks dude. I needed this after a long week 🙂
I believe Wikileaks is part of the CIA counter intelligence program and that the media is unintentionally playing their game.
The “leaks” are not embarrassing to the US government and could be used to justify attacking Iran, looking like they care about Global warming and other stuff that look very suspicious.
Moreover it looks like every western government and corporation tries to increase wikileaks media exposure. I didn’t care about Wikileaks before they started threatening and acting against it. They arrested Assange with a terrible timing. They can’t be THAT stupid. Even me with my limited intelligence could predict that this would put wikileaks in the front page. And did you ever see any bank refusing to accept cash? Do you really think Visa care about the possibly illegal activities of Wikileaks and would refuse to take cash by the time they investigate? That does not make any sense. They knew it would make Wikileaks massive media exposure and they were looking for it. If the CIA is not behind it then the world has gone freacking stupid.
Edited 2010-12-10 16:31 UTC
The bank account frozen was not with a Swiss bank but with a financial business of some sort which has no bank licensed. There may very well have been some leaning on from the Swiss gov to overcome the finance companies money interest. If money had instead been with a real licensed Swiss bank; money would be happily accepted and “home address” not relevant.
Visa, as an American company may very well not care about the details of the money provided the credits and payments flow the correct directions. I can believe that they would care about US Gov showing up saying “this account is doing illegal stuff, we need you to freeze it”. As a US company, your SOL when someone waving an anti-terrorism document in your face. (Judicially signed warrants and just cause.. those are for suckers..)
If Wikileaks and Assange are really fronts for a CIA information warfare ops then it’s a heck of a job they’ve pulled off. Personally though, I think it fall far closer to the “how do we stop Wikileaks” military document that was leaked a year or more ago. It stated “take out it’s credibility” which, since they can’t discredit the submission system, seems to focus on every other aspect they can brand with doubt.
“I believe Wikileaks is part of the CIA counter intelligence program and that the media is unintentionally playing their game.”
I used to work in this environment. You give them waaaaay too much credit. These security freaks are anything *but* innovative. Never ever give them credit for anything clever.
somewhere i read assange transcript in which he said that wl plan (planned?) to leak files of financial businesses. But even if the business is/was Visa, I don’t think Visa is that *reliably* agile (328th left of 156st foot doesn’t know what the 6370th elbow behind the 964th ventricle is doing).
As critical as many of us are of Thom (speaking for myself, it is because I want OSNews to be as good as possible and not because I dislike the content or have a problem with Thom) the article generated 300 or so comments – for more than the average story, by a considerable margin. So as off-topic as it arguably was, it has struck a chord with the readership and so implicitly have relevance.
Either that or it was good trolling. 😉
Yeah… and I certainly had a substantial conversation with someone about anarchy and learned a few things I didn’t know.
Yup, that was quite interesting. And quite odd as well. But it just goes to show that the OP is quite right.
My more recent knowledge about Anarchist movements was from a historical book of Assassinations so it really didn’t cover much more depth than “government is evil, use bombs to create chaos”.. as was the practice in the past.
Oddly, there is an Anarchist “bible” available for download. I’ve seen it listed in the Maemo repositories though I’m sure the content is elsewhere for anyone interested.
Typical problem. Mention “Anarchy” and everybody thinks “Nihilism”.
There’s a lot more to it.
Isn’t Nihilism the belief in nothing versus Anarchy which simply believes in each for there own and gov meddling go away?
(my limited understanding, hence, why I’m going back to read that discussion)
Not quite. It depends on the form of Nihilism. I was thinking of Political Nihilism. It rejects everything which cannot safely be deducted to be necessary. Depending on the individual in question this could be the State, the Family, religious societies, sport, open source, law enforcement and what not.
People have a tendency to take a look at late 19th century nihilists (like those in Zar Russia) and consider them to be Anarchists, and only them.
The only Nihilist I’ve read/met seemed more like Nihilism as interpreted by a goth kid; “there is no god.. nothing matters.. life is pain.” (“hand me that white makeup please..”)
Just finished reading the previous discussions huge thread on Anarchism though; very interesting and much more than my original understanding.
_[[post?]]
edit: (er, it did. now, no way to del this duplicate)
Edited 2010-12-15 17:03 UTC
Oddly enough, certain goverments do the same thing, but they would say “current ruler is evil, use bombs to create democracy”, or something along those lines.
Funny how that is.
Harming an oppressive leader to free one from oppression seems a little different from state sponsored harm of another to impose oppression. This isn’t a topic I really want to go into deeply though as it’ll very quickly spiral into political retoric.
Governments use bombs to create chaos. Governments also use bombs, posing as anarchists, to create fictional opposition to expand their power and instill fear in the populace and label dissenters as violent.
Well, covering politics is not the problem, and is in fact quite inevitable. After all, many of the stories about FOSS, patents, etc are political by their very nature and can be hot-button topics for some people.
The problem arises when editors here (and on other tech sites too, it seems) decide to use the site as their own political mouthpiece. This is why I stopped reading The Register a long time ago. If you’re covering something of a political nature, why can’t you just simply state the facts, and let readers form their own opinions, instead of shoving yours down their throat? If you want to rattle off your personal viewpoints/opinion/religious beliefs, that’s what the comments are for.
Of course, you can keep doing as you have been doing and continue to ruin OSNews by turning it into a personal, political blog (as I’m sure you will), but your readers don’t have to like it either.
Edited 2010-12-10 19:05 UTC
I know the topic of the discussion is political articles and why they should or shouldn’t be here. I gotta return to a key point though; they accept submissions. If we, the readership, don’t like the less OS related articles but want to see the site “returned to former glory”.. start writing articles more related to OS’. Heck, you probably don’t need more then three to overwhelm the Kroc/Thom volume of articles.
The Ubuntu article a few days back from a name I don’t immediately recognize was a nice example.
Well, my argument isn’t that political articles shouldn’t be here. I’m saying that if they’re going to be here, the authors should at least have enough discipline to stay off the pulpit while writing them. If you just tell me what the story is and exactly what happened from a neutral point-of-view, I think I am intelligent enough to draw my own conclusions without some dyed-in-the-wool liberal trying to spoonfeed it to me.
Note: Don’t take the above comment as a cheap shot against liberals, as I have an equal amount of disdain towards conservatives as well.
Edited 2010-12-10 23:38 UTC
And you somehow magically lose said intelligence to draw your own conclusions once there’s an opinion in the article you don’t agree with?
Curious.
Notice I said from a neutral point of view. Meaning, an article that’s well balanced will have viewpoints from both sides of the political isle.
Thus, if you post an article that simply states your viewpoint about a particular subject and you only add points to back up what you believe, how is a reader supposed to draw any intelligent conclusions about a subject if you’re also not giving them counterpoints?
For example, when it comes to Wikileaks, was there anything in that information that might endanger people’s lives, including those serving in the military? Has it caused anyone to be killed or seriously harmed, or does it have the potential to? If the answer is yes, maybe you think it’s irrelevant, but like I said… just lay the facts out on the table and let readers decide for themselves.
Looks like to me you didn’t need that at all – as you demonstrate with your comment, you’re perfectly able to come up with that info without my help.
OSNews is not an island – don’t treat it as such. We’re part of the web, and you’ve most certainly read countless pieces on WikiLeaks that differ from mine.
So, you actually get it.
See, we’re not here to please everyone. As a great mind once said, if you try to please too many you’ll deliver a mediocre experience for all (Ben ‘Yahtzee’ Croshaw). Two years ago we CLEARLY explained we were going into a different direction, and that said direction may not be to everyone’s liking. We’re *fine* if some people decide to read a different side or can no longer identify with OSNews. That’s the beauty of the web- there are dozens other sites out there for you to read.
Because we’re not in it for the money, we don’t have to worry about ZOMG WE LOST A READER, QUICK PUBLISH SOMETHING HE LIKES. If we believe an issue to be important, we will publish about it on – let me remind you – our site, even if said opinion is unpopular.
And, as we’ve said a gazilion times – you’re always free to submit articles. Curiously enough, few like you ever do
.
Edited 2010-12-10 19:23 UTC
You’re right that when this crops up it’s problematic. The problem is that when someone feels strongly about something, and you have a mouthpiece, it’s a big temptation to use it. We’ll do our best to reign in that impulse. The other thing we’d like to do is expand the range of opinions so when the do squeak out, there’s some diversity, so we’d like to recruit some new editors.
Apparently “WorknMan” doesn’t have the ability to “turn the channel” and “watch” something he finds more pleasing.
I have no problems with the article. I only have problems with people that don’t have the ability to not only change the channel but also don’t have the ability to stop themselves from ranting when the problem is themselves.
For everyone. If you don’t like an article, go out of it and go onto something else.
If you consistently don’t like someone’s articles, don’t read them anymore.
If you are too stupid to follow the first two things, maybe you shouldn’t be at this site or maybe you shouldn’t have a keyboard.
I would have to, reluctantly, agree that some discussion of politics is inevitable. However, Thom has pretty much taken to an extreme. I have no issue with wikileaks in general. I do not think there is a case for wikileaks being connected to operating systems. I also think its irresponsible, and down right juvenile, to encourage DDOS attacks.
If you’re not afraid of the system, of corporations driven by greed, and of governments driven by those organisations, you’re already asleep. (That’s bad). Picture the movie the Matrix.
It makes my father roll his eyes when I say this, but jailbreaking, being able to load your own operating system, even being able to open the case, much less play with what’s inside is a necessary right that we all currently have, but which is being eroded. Once it’s completely gone, it’s gone.
You’ll be living in a world where companies can complain to governments, and have websites (any pretty much anything else) shut down just because, and without any due process. Think that’s not a big deal? Piss someone at Coka-cola off, and if you’re still around we’ll have a chat about it.
If you’re not paranoid, you’re in trouble. If you are paranoid about it, you’re not paranoid enough.
Democracy is not a defence, as we keep voting the same pro-corporate crooks back into office.
Give it another 5-10 years, and governments will be taking away the right to bear arms.
10-20 years after that? Read the worst parts of 1984.
-Ken
P.S. You can have my tin-foil hat when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Until then, make your own.
There is a large part of the OSNews readership that lives in places where there is no need to have ‘The right to bear arms’.
They all get along just fine.
That is not to say there there are places on this planet where this right is needed, right now, today.
Equally, some of the places that don’t have this right(?) once did and their society evolved into one that no longer needed it so they gave it away. Is there something so fundamentally wrong with that? IMHO, is no there is not.
If you put your self back in time to when that Ammendment to the US Constitution was passed then the US had no standing army. So the ability to raise a militia from the population was essential.
Do those conditions still hold sway today?
This is all part of evolution. Sometimes evolution takes a wrong turning and ends up in a dead end. (Madagascan Lemurs for example, have very primitive body temperature control. Other primates don’t have this problem). Nature corrects itself. It is so wrong for a society to admit that they ‘got it wrong’ and make efforts to put it right?
After Dunkirk, the UK was critically short of small arms. America’s NRA asked it’s members to donate weapons to be sent to the UK for defense. Over 120,000 weapons were sent.
That was in time of war and those weapons were not distributed to the public. They went to the Army (who left most of their’s behind in France) and the Home Guard (aka Local Militia)
This is not 1940. This is 2010. There is no movement to get laws enacted to give us the right to bear arms. The general public do not feel the need for them.
90% of Police Officers also go about their daily business unarmed.
My one brush with the law in Rural MA, the officer who stopped me for speeding wrote me a ticket had initially approached me with his gun drawn. I later found out that was SOP for that particular Police Dept.
Guess where I feel safer?
I am not anti gun. I used to shoot .22’s competitively when I was younger and my partner was an accomplished Biathlete in her youth. We both used guns in appropriate places.
We don’t feel the need to drive around with a rack of rifles/shotguns behing the driver. Sorry but we just don’t.
Ah, you misunderstand. I mentioned “taking guns” because to many US citizens having guns is a symbol of our ability to fight against oppressive governmental control and over-regulation.
If you live in a country where the right to bear arms is not a symbol of your ability to fight and rail against government, (and you’re happy with that), then wonderful. Let’s hope you always feel that way, because you’ve precious little choice.
My post was to say that corporate-driven big government is intruding more and more on people’s lives. China, Iran and Iraq have had a reputation for being restrictive. Venezuela just announced that they will close down ‘net access to their country. It’s got to be just around the corner for most countries in the world as governments struggle to get control of things.
This will end in tears, as the nature of the internet is to allow free and open discourse across borders. In some countries, I’d be disappeared for writing this email. Should I, a US citizen, be disappeared because this post is illegal in China?
As a US citizen, I’ve always felt (rightly or wrongly) that my country’s political system was superior because it was the will of the people, run by the people.
After observing the actions of the US, I can no longer feel that way, as the US is becoming more and more a crazy country of radical factions vying for control of the government. Tea party? Moral Majority? Blech.
That’s bad enough, but the worst part, perhaps, is that the country is schizophrenic enough not to see what it’s becoming, and still claims to be “open”, and representing the “voice of freedom”. http://its.ec/jmt
Now to your question: does the need exist today for US citizens to be able to raise militias to fight governmental oppression? Well, that depends entirely on your point of view.
Me? I feel that government has become strictly a tool of the mega corporations, willing to whore itself out to the highest bidder. Perhaps I’d feel differently were I that bidder.
Finally: is it wrong for a society to admit they ‘got it wrong’? Absolutely not. That organic growth is a critical part of a functioning country. In fact, I fully expect that what I see as this governmental over-regulation and corporate greed machine will in the end be seen to be ‘wrong’.
Historically though, governments are not good at admitting they ‘got it wrong’, and are even worse at removing unnecessary parts of themselves to get it right. They reorganise, making themselves bigger, and more expensive until they’re simply too top-heavy to maintain.
That’s where the right to change the government comes in. To a US citizen, that’s represented by the right to bear arms.
Did that make it more clear? I wasn’t calling for violence, just keying on a symbol to communicate more effectively.
-Ken
The Norwegian government has already taken that right.
Bear hunting is illegal.
As an OS developer and a follower of the OS market for some time, I can tell something for sure : OS development is a very, very slow process. If you want to have weekly news on that subject, there are only two ways of achieving that goal :
* Doing many posts on cool ideas for the future rather than technology which actually gets implemented in the present
* Talking about each single new feature you painfully managed to implement
Weekly news are already a fairly low publishing rate. And if OSnews wanted to keep it constant, they would have to make an article on every subject OS designers’ blogs are talking about. And that means more articles like “Linux 2.6.36 brings 37.3 security fixes and zero other noticeable improvement”, “Rumor : Microsoft to implement PulseAudio in Windows 8 as an attempt to reach anti-stability”, “New patches to the MenuetOS scheduler bring an 1% responsiveness improvement under heavy load”.
I prefer to see OSnews talk about web technologies and politics with a good publishing rate rather than hearing about each minor updates coming to each hobby kernel everyday. Websites like OSnews are here to filter that kind of information and only publish the part which matters the most, I think.
Edited 2010-12-10 20:49 UTC
Agree totally
Rather post more articles than less, and skip what you don’t find interesting.
Croc thanks for this piece.
I have to say that your blog is stunning, and I have tried, and failed, to bring your excellent posts to OSnews but I lacked the knowledge and the right news-writing skills to write anything meaningful for pg.1 stuff. Please consider either publishing on OSnews, or submitting brief synopses that we could publish to get your fine articles some more attention and discussion.
Happy to learn that you enjoyed your stay in there
Anyway, you raise a question that I asked myself some times, and here’s the answers I came up with so far :
Publishing on OSnews
First, please note that I couldn’t publish all the news which currently go through my blog on OSnews instead for a number of reasons, most noticeably because I need some small media under my control for official announcements and because of the fact that most of my blog posts are made of exactly the stuff I’d hate to see on OSnews : small progresses on some obscure hobby OS.
About publishing some originals about OS theory and my OS’ design on OSnews, I have done that once in the past and it certainly was a good experience overall. However, I have a problem with the number of hours in an average week it takes to do that right now.
* At the end of an average workday, I’m generally unable to do anything which requires a lot of concentration.
* This only leaves me my week-ends. Experience shows that I can only do two big things properly in an average week-end.
At the time I wrote my article on touchscreens and cloud computing, I had not yet started writing code, so I had a lot of spare time. Now, my week-ends tend to be split between writing code and writing blog posts (I would like to reach a permanent 1 post/week publishing rate).
I’m sure that you’ll understand that when I have a big and juicy article at hand, I tend to favor my few blog readers first. The poor guys already get the “progress in random part x of the OS” posts the other weeks, it would be unfair to leave them with only the gory implementation details and keep the nice theoretical stuff for OSnews ^^
Submitting synopses
Well, why not, if you really think it’s worth it
Then, what part of my content do you think I should publish on OSnews ?
* Computer history and case studies
Being the first posts I’ve ever written, they are so full of personal opinion that I think publishing them would be the best way to get a flame war in the comments. Moreover, they get a bit lacking and incomplete near the end, as I started to get tired of this. Some images I’ve put are now gone. In short, I think that a rewrite would be required before publishing.
Beginning at : http://theosperiment.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/case-study-0-human-ma…
* Scope statement
Well, I’ve rewritten this part recently when I put it on the project’s Trac as part of opening the source and writing doc. Is it really worth publishing on OSnews apart for an introductory “hello, I’m there !” article, though ? For writing such an article, my thought is that I should better wait until I’ve really got some impressive implemented stuff to show, but if you think otherwise please feel free to discuss that !
Latest version : https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/theosperiment/wiki/Goals
* Low-level (kernel and a bit above) design
I’ve done a lot in the past (starting at http://theosperiment.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/system-design-1-core-… ), and I’ve done some more recently (http://theosperiment.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/an-aside-about-proces…, http://theosperiment.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/back-on-the-hot-topic…, http://theosperiment.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/desktop-oss-and-the-p…). Maybe the thing which qualifies the most for publication on OSnews, in my opinion.
* Collections of short long-term thoughts on higher-level design
They are post-specific, so here are examples :
–http://theosperiment.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/the-big-holiday-updat…
–http://theosperiment.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/some-thoughts-on-targ…
–http://theosperiment.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/how-about-developers-…
Maybe not constructed enough ?
So feel free to discuss what you’d like to see on OSnews among that
Edited 2010-12-12 10:05 UTC
First of all, thanks to all contributors to this site.
It is not what it used to be, but it is what it should be, since the times have changed.
The article and the subjects it touches on, to me, boils down to this: we are being held back.
We are restricted by many means, for many reasons, by many entities and in many areas.
The means to restrict us include
– using the law, such as software patents
– using technology, such as software stores
– using both in combination, such as DRM
The resons include
– legal and mostly agreed upon, such as copyright
– legal and disagreed upon, such as DMCA and sw patents
– political, such as with Wikileaks
– arbitrary, such as appropriateness, taste and function
The entities restricting us include
– governments
– corporations in general, such as paypal wrt Wikileaks
– tech corporations, such as MS, Apple and Google
The areas we are restricted in include
– freedom of speech, such as for Wikileaks
– fair use, such as with DRM
– operating systems, such as on mobile phones
I think it’s good OSNews has decided to talk about the bigger picture here and include freedom of speech, fair use and the other issues and not just talk about operating systems. The situation is to entangled and to complex to make it just about Operating Systems any more. I whish it wasn’t and we could just discuss what we love and what we like instead of the problems, but that would be ignoring the times we live in.
It’s up to you to form your own opinion about all this, I haven’t quite figured out mine just yet, but I really welcome the discussion around these subjects.
Succinctly put. Now if only I could be that concise.
Then people would say that your article is too short to deserve the OSnews original title, I think
Unlike most everyone else, I’d like to discuss the substance of the essay, rather than engage in self-gratification on site policy.
This passage in particular stuck out:
I’m reasonably sure that you’re onto something, but you’re pretty badly confused on specifics.
(1) Telephone companies have been routing “unknown, random, and legally unvetted traffic of others” for how long now? It’s called a phone call. Before the internet, we had BBS’s, many of them owned and operated by individuals on their personal computers. Arguably, a world of BBS’s would be much harder for governments to control than the internet: decentralized, in the hands of private individuals, etc. On the other hand, decentralization also makes it harder to engage in the sort of large-scale organizing that you see with things like WikiLeaks, Anonymous, etc.
And long before BBS’s, phone companies were routinely routing unknown, random, and legally unvetted conversations.
(2) In any case, the originator is paying. In this case, the “originator” is whoever owns the internet account you’re using to access the internet. If you personally aren’t paying for your point of access, the analogy is still bad, since lots of people use phones & their networks without paying for them.
You refer to an operating system as if it were an originator and participant, but it’s not. The operating system is merely a tool for the user, comparable to the hardware inside a phone.
Also, I don’t think many route “unknown, random,..” traffic.
You have 2 types of relationships when doing internet routing:
– peering
– transit
Usually when you buy transit, you pay your upstream provider for getting all the routing information needed to route your traffic out to the whole world and your routing information will also be send all other the world. Thus any traffic coming your network could pass through the transit network and any traffic destined for your network could also pass through your network.
When you are doing peering, you are only exchanging the routing information of the 2 networks involved (and their customers). Usually this is not paid.
So in both cases you are exchanging traffic to/from your network (or your customers). That is hardly unknown or random.
News… do imply a broad perspective.
Like the forged backdoors in Windows proved, OSs and whatever are related. People are the common link between OSs.
There is a link, despite what one might say.
And a relevant one.
This is a quick summary of the article:
The commercialization of the Internet is having a very large effect on what once was a virtual wild west. The big players are pulling the network itself towards tiered levels (voice, VPN, video, audio, text, email, IM) and towards only approved content accessed only by approved players. If they win, the Internet will balkanize into a walled-gardens, a shadow of its former self.
In this possible scenario, those speaking out against those in charge would not be tolerated. As soon as a site like wikileaks uploaded unapproved content, it would be permanently shut down. Everyone involved with, or who had viewed the site, would quietly be arrested, charged, denied bail and sent to prison or to re-education.
This affects us (operating system enthusiasts) because the only approved players will be available on locked down DRM-enabled devices or OSes. Reverse engineering or distribution of any unapproved software will be illegal around the world because it could circumvent their DRM.
The question is, what do we do to avoid this scenario?
Very nice description of the situation, congratulations !!!
As to what we could do, well, I suppose the same methods as for fighting against authoritarian states do apply.
The first task would be to inform. Tell people around you about what’s going on, and why it’s bad. Spread the word as far as you can. Try to create some organized network of people who share your ideas on that matter : no matter what’s happening next, we would need it.
Next, when the group has grown big enough, we should first try to solve the problem the legal way. Contact political parties, show them what the issue is, and show in some way that we are many to share this idea. Do our best to convince them, and if it fails, create our own parties (something like the Piratpartei), but it’s dangerous.
If democracy fails and it seems like the aforementioned tendencies are not changing, then it’s time to prepare for fighting. Buy as much easily-crackable CDs and DVDs as we can, and copy those we can’t buy. Start massive distribution of those in the neighborhood. Teach people how to use free software, and have them teach others. In short, grow the mass of people using open technologies to the point where the media industry can’t easily say “today, we switch to a DRM-only world” without a riot occurring.
Can’t think of anything else right now.
Edited 2010-12-13 08:30 UTC
“I don’t necessarily think it’s a counter-culture.
I think it’s part of culture.
I believe in socially responsible hacking.
Technology in the deployment of technology is a great force that is
affecting the daily lives of everybody in our society today, more and
more everyday as technology speeds forward.
The employment of this technology in our daily lives brings up real
issues, issues that pertain to those basic human rights we hold,
those basic human rights of communication.
Now on the one hand the development of the laws, the acceptable societal
norms which control that technology is driven largely by commercial interest.
The hackers largely are the people’s voice that can be raised up to have
an effect on the development of those rules those laws which govern the
deployment of the technology, for the people not for the commercial interest.”
Eugene E.Kashpureff, New York City Hackers – Documentary
I know that many people would consider RMS a loon, but nevertheless his point made below is on-topic for this thread:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/new-us-cybersecurity-bill-could-…
Essentially, RMS points out that:
Oh dear, dear, dear… The HADOPI monitoring software madness is spreading in other parts of the world…
The sole thing I’ve got to say is good luck, US citizens. In France, we have failed to get rid of an anticonstitutional law including similar clauses (among other creepy things). It was blown up by the constitutional council once, but then they slightly reworded it and somehow managed to get it through without changing anything at the core the second time.
One of these countless wonderful things which the Sarkozy government brought in this country… But hell, the majority of guys who voted for him or didn’t vote deserved it as a lesson.
Edited 2010-12-13 07:46 UTC